RULING
M Burhan J, B Adeline J and D Esparon J concurring
[1] We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel Ms Ria Alcindor on behalf of the 1st to 6th and 8th Respondents, as well as the submissions made by learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent, Ms Michelle Nelson, on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Commission Seychelles in respect of whether the petition could proceed following the Petitioner’s failure to amend the petition. We have further considered the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner filed just before delivery of this Ruling.
[2] We observe that some of the reliefs prayed for in the petition are based on the contents of a charge sheet in CR114/2021 that has been subsequently amended. However, on consideration of the existing petition, we find that there are other reliefs sought in prayers, which are based on other factual issues which have no connection to the amended charge sheet. We refer to the following contraventions alleged by the petitioner that:
a) The arrest of the Petitioner was unlawful and contravenes Article 18 of the Charter;
b) The 7th Respondent has no jurisdiction to prosecute the Petitioner and the powers to prosecute contravene Article 19 of the Charter and Article 76 of the Constitution;
c) The powers of the 7th Respondent to investigate and prosecute is inconsistent and contrary to Article 76 of the Constitution;
d) The Order dated 19 November 2021 in XP21/2021 SCSC 776 contravenes Article 19 of the Charter;
e) The 7th Respondent had no jurisdiction to charge the Petitioner on the 17 December 2021 acted ultra vires and contravened Article 19 of the Charter;
f) The continuous remand and non-withdrawal of charges against the Petitioner pending the presentation of the amendment to the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2016, namely Bill 3 of 2021 to the National Assembly New Act 58 of 2021 and Bill 8 of 2022 and now Act 9 of 1922, contravened Article 19 and 27 of the Constitution;
g) The prejudicial statements made by the 2nd, 3rd and 7th Respondents and the representative of the 1st Respondent contravenes Article 19 and 27 of the Charter;
h) The actions of the members of the 8th Respondent to force a confession from the Petitioner contravenes Article 19 and 27 of the Charter; and
i) The Petitioner will not have a fair hearing in Case CR114 of 2021, as the Court proceedings, amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act, 2016 and procedural contraventions, the prejudicial statements and intimidation by members of the 8th Respondent, contravenes Article 19 and 27 of the Charter.
[3] As these alleged contraventions are not connected to the amended charge sheet in CR114/2021, all these issues will have to be ruled on by this Court. The Petitioner in his belated submissions also refers to same. Therefore, dismissing the petition in its entirety at this stage with all these issues pending as suggested by learned Counsel for the Attorney General, would be a travesty of justice.
[4] However, the contention of learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent, Ms Michelle Nelson, that if the Court rejects the 7th Respondent’s primary submission, it should proceed to determine the preliminary objections forthwith by immediately dismissing any prayers within the petition, which can no longer be sustained or determined in view of the amendment to the charges in CR114/2021, is somewhat persuasive. Nevertheless, in the view of this Court, it is premature, as this matter would be best decided when ruling on the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents. Matters raised in the Petitioner’s submissions in relation to existing and amended charges as per the Chief Justice’s ruling of 22nd April will also be considered at the stage of ruling on preliminary objections.
[5] For these reasons the Respondents’ application to dismiss the petition at this stage is dismissed, and the case is fixed for ruling on the preliminary objections.
Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on the 25th March 2025.
____________
Burhan J (Presiding) B Adeline J D Esparon J