OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
PRESS RELEASE
05.09.2011
Dr. Satyabhooshun Gupt DOMAH reappointed as Justice of Appeal
Dr. Satyabhooshun Gupt DOMAH, a Justice of Appeal in the Seychelles Court of Appeal, has been sworn into office this morning at State House, following his re-appointed for a second five-year term beginning 4th October 2011.
The ceremony which was presided by President James Michel, was also assisted by the Vice-President- Danny Faure, the Speaker of the National Assembly-Dr. Patrick Herminie, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr Frederick Egonda-Ntende, the President of the Court of Appeal, Mr Francis MacGregor, the Attorney General- Ronny Govinden, Justice of Appeal Mr Anthony Fernando and other senior officials in the Office of the President.
The re-appointment of Judge Domah is in accordance with Article 131(4) of the Constitution which provides for the appointment of a non-citizen as a Judge for a second term of not more than seven years, in exceptional circumstances, and upon the recommendation of the Constitutional Appointments Authority.
In recommending Judge Domah’s appointment for a second term, the Constitutional Appointments Authority noted Judge Domah’s significant contribution to the good performance of the Seychelles Court of Appeal. Apart from his extensive qualifications and experience, he was among very few judges familiar with the French civil law / Code Napoleon, which largely serves as the basis of the Seychelles Civil Code.
Judge Domah was also expected to play an instrumental role in capacity-building within the Seychelles Judiciary.
Furthermore, following the recent resignation of Justice of Appeal Mr Jacques Hodoul, it was important for the Court of Appeal to retain the services of such a well qualified and experienced judge familiar with the Seychelles legal and judiciary system.
Dr. Satyabhooshun Gupt Domah is also a Supreme Court Judge in Mauritius, and an Associate Professor at the University of Mauritius. He was first appointed Justice of Appeal in the Seychelles Court of Appeal on 4th October 2006.
President Michel expressed his congratulations to Justice Domah after the latter had been sworn in.
In a press interview, Dr Domah said: “I am very thankful… I shall discharge my duties according to the oath I have taken, as I always have… my priority in my second mandate is to enhance the rule of law, to modernize the system, the ethics at all level to deal with the real issues of the modern society.”
Justice of Appeal Domah has a Doctorate in Comparative Continental and Common Law from Aix- Marseille University- France. He has also published books and articles based on the Mauritian Legal System.
35 comments:
The judiciary is a discredited institution anyway. It is funny to hear the judges in the Court of Appeal asking lawyers to show respect to them. The judges can start the ball rolling by showing some self-respect and independence of mind. They will start earning respect. They should show they are better than the greedy and corrupt politicians whose activities lately have disgraced politics.
I suppose the Constitutional Court judges today ruled in favour of the government in all 3 cases because they were too scared the Court of Appeal would overturn their decisions. It is hard to understand the reasons for their decisions, in particular in Jane Carpin's case.
The judges are the biggest losers in the upheaval caused by Hermini, Carpin and Gappy. They come out of it with their reputation further damaged.
If the Court of Appeal judges (only one of them worked as judge/magistrate before) are telling us the Supreme Court judges are ignorant of the law and incompetent, how can we be sure we are getting justice in the Supreme Court even in civil cases where the government is not directly involved ?
I bet Domah knows he can't mess about with the law in his own country, Mauritius.
Herminie does not know the law, or his legal adviser does not. Constitutional Court judges say it does not matter because we got the gist of what he meant.
Court of Appeal judges say Constitutional Court judges do not know the law.
Court of Appeal judges say Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges do not know the law.
All appointed by James Michel and a Constitutional Appointments Authority (dominated by PL) that gives Michel what it thinks he wants to appoint.
The judgements on human rights coming from this court is simply shameful and pathetic.
You would think a BUTCHER writes the opinions.
Seselwa Unite!
Sesel Pou Seselwa!
Christopher Gill
I never could understand why the "opposition" i.e. the SNP & the NDP, SFP had this obsession to take matters to court when it is patently clear that the Judiciary are "govt men" to use the words of SPPF Deputy Speaker of the Nat Assembly Shelton Jolicoeur not only in the appointment (Mc Gregor was until apptment a member of the Executive of SPPF and Dodin we all know hisrecord)? For any form of boycott to be meaningful it must also be a boycott of all instittuions which are clearly partial to SPPF i.e. the Judiciary/courts and the Police. We are not in a country with the rule of law so i do not see why we should be paying lip service to this principle.
Vox
Vox-
The reason why SFP and MSR goes to court is to expose the bias, expose the fault lines in the democracy, convincingly, beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not need the courts to rule in our favour to help us do our work. A defeat is not a defeat to us, it is a victory.
SNP is always looking to PL for validation. You see it in Bernard Georges press interviews, and Ramkalawan's comments, over and over again and again.
You cannot be validated by a communist regime. When you do, you become a fake opposition like David Pierre and the ZEEDA PARTY.
Where we differ in strategy with SNP, is we do not bury the judgments in Regar for one week with circulation of 1200 then forget about it.
We push the envelope to Centre of Civil and Political Rights in Geneve, UN Committee on Human Rights, and we push the envelope to the Commonwealth, and work make analysis of their views, and bring it back to the PL Communist table, make a round robin of it, tie them up, like they are now, under SANCTION for filing no HUMAN RIGHTS Country report, because of our work primarily ( 3 MSR cases of 5 cases brought on the SANCTION).
We blog it for the world to see the fault lines. We work it on Facebook. We co-ordinate the exposure with international journalist. Example AFP Mike Planz is already been tipped on the BOYCOTT and subsequent fall out with a fake opposition party being fielded by Michel and company.
The time to get involved and be part of the solution is now. Failing to do so will leave Seychelles to the likes of ZEEDA PARTY.
Seselwa Unite!
Sesel Pou Seselwa!
Christopher Gill
The judges ruled that Carpin was still an SNP MNA even after she ceased being a member of SNP. People will find it hard to accept this ruling. Even Parti Lepep's supporters, I dare say.
All this says one thing. Our judges know as much as the law as Troukler ever did. Or they know the law but deliberately rule in favour of the Parti Lepep government.
I agree we should continue taking cases to the courts. It is the only way to expose them and have concrete proof that it is a disgraced judiciary.
This country has lost its moral compass under Parti Lepep. Victory for Seychelles, no doubt it will be claimed.
Guys,
I understand it's hard to swallow the pill that the courts has just served you with, but I must say this time SNP FUCKED UP and they did so titanically and now sit back on their arse with eggs in their face.
Once again they failed and did so grossly by not doing their homework and asking for legal advise from their own experts within. Now if they had planned to fire Carpin they should have done so by following the procedures that are set and are to be followed by all.
You see guys, this is why PL keeps on winning and leaves you lot whining as they are well organized. SNP is NOT and this case has just proved that.
I urge SFP to learn from SNP's mistakes so that it may grow to be a worthy fraction of the opposition. Else you may as well keep blogging here on a new site every fortnight.
DG
Mr Gill and somebody else mentioned that by going to court they show PL's sham. I disagree. By going to court one automatically submits one self to the jurisdiction and the the rules of the judiciary/court system. A few times (rare) the opposition won a few minor victories. Recently the case of dissolution and Viral Dhanjee case and the opposition touted these as victories. For lack of a better word i would say this strategy is misguided and not beneficial at all to the cause of a democratic Seychelles. The greates obstacle to democracy to Seychelles is manifestly corrupt and biased judiciary. At the cost of repeating myself, the judiciary should be subject of the boycott as much as the legislative and the executive branch of govt. Whlist it clear that in dealing with a biased executive and legislature in the hands of the PL, it should be abundently clear to all the the Judiciary is also in the hands of the PL. Once we get this clear and realise that the battle and the war will be won on the altar of public opinion the better we will be off. For Gods sake: i have seen on this blog (and whilst the attention of the SNP Executive has been distracted by going up and down the court steps) hope that you may get joy from the courts, are you crazy guys?
I say if there is to a meaningful boycott it shld be a total boycott of all instituions of the state. Who is going to take us seriously now. After claiming victory a few weeks ago, now claims of a biased judiciary when it is against you.
Vox
How do you know SNP did not follow procedures, apart from what you have read and what the judges are saying ?
From what I can see SNP followed procedures. It informed the speaker that Carpin had been sacked and the next day informed the speaker of the replacement. The judges chose to ignore the fact that a replacement had been named. That is the only way they could say SNP had not followed the procedures.
If anything, the judges are saying that the Speaker did not follow "procedures" by issuing Carpin the certificate on the first day and not after SNP had named a replacement. If the judges say Carpin remained an MNA all the time, they must then blame the Speaker. Of course they will not do that because they will not rule against the government and have the elections postponed.
I agree that the constitution says a sacked MNA remains an MNA if they appeal to the constitutional court. I have made that point on STAR. It is an unfair situation but it is what the constitution says. I do not understand why Bernard Georges chose to challenge this in the name of Ramkalawan. The judges are unlikely to interpret the consitutition to remove unfairness if it means SNP winning and the government losing. SNP should not take cases to court simply to clarify the law. This allows the judges to interpret the law in a way that suits Parti Lepep. SNP should take cases to court where the law is clearly on its side. If judges rule against SNP, they will then be exposed as crooks.
I hope the administrator can get a copy of the judgments and post them here.
For the Prea case, the judges seem to accept the the dissolution motion was badly worded but once the bad words are removed the motion is OK. On the other hand, Dhanjee lost his case because some national identity numbers of his sponsors were wrong, and the judges said it was not the job of Gappy to tell Dhanjee to provide correct identity nmbers. One rule for the government and a different rule for anyone challenging the government.
Despite ruling in favour of the government, the judges say:
Herminie was wrong to issue a certificate of dismissal to Carpin on the day that he did, because he was notified of Carpin's replacement the following day. That incompetence matters and Carpin remains an MNA
Potter and Parti Lepep badly worded the motion to dissolve the national assembly. The judges say that incompetence does not matter anyway and the national assembly is dissolved.
Cases should be taken to court to serve political reasons -- to embarrass the Parti Lepep government and expose a corrupt judiciary. Cases should not be taken to court to obtain justice, as this is impossible.
The test should be -- will the outcome whichever it goes serve political purposes ?
Bernard Georges may be approaching these cases more as a lawyer than a politician.
Who was claiming victory a few weeks ago ?
I was enjoying the embarrassment of Parti Lepep and the humiliation of its Speaker. The ruling was totally unexpected and must have come as a shock to all of them. All the more so as it was inflicted on them by their own people in wigs. But it was back to business as usual yesterday for them.
Vox-
A total BOYCOTT will come in due course if necessary.
Right now, we are doing a BOYCOTT of the National Assembly elections.
If you recall, recently, I called for a BOYCOTT of Presidential elections and no one running heard me.
It takes time, but it will come.
we will BOYCOTT SPTC, call drivers to check into health centers;
we can BOYCOTT the Courts, by asking the clerks to see a doctor and get 30 days sick leave with pay;
we will get to it.
However, it is important that a BOYCOTT is coordinated with our realities.
Right now, it is looking soon to be ripe a BOYCOTT of the court system.
Will the lawyers have the courage to do so?
Let see.
Additionally,the politicians have to record for the world the realities of Seychelles, so the opposition always remains sensible and not living in never, never land. The World needs to know the charades of democracy in Seychelles are coming to an end. This will put pressure on tyranny.
For this, every bad judgement is a victory for the opposition if used properly to expose a one party state culture.
Though these verdicts were against the SNP, it is a victory, because the rational was so disgraceful, that even a BUTCHER could have written a better decision.
Seselwa Unite!
Sesel Pou Seselwa!
Christopher Gill
As an old fellow I know says:
"In bez mwan, in bez mwan, in bez mwan!"
Guys, it doesn't matter when thenotice of Carpin's replacement was made. THe point is that it was not according to procedure. PL knew that and their lawyers made sure it was used for every penny's worth to their own advantage. Do you really think that in a case like this PL was going to let an opportunity like that go and let you guys win?
As I've said so many times before over and over again:
You can only win over PL by beating them at their own game. Still you insist on playing by your own rules.
I few weeks ago I said that the case was a victory for Seychelles and I still stand by that. Although I was hoping for a victory for the opposition I am glad that they got a slap in the face that they'll hopefully learn something from the same way Gill learned that a manifesto had to be written so that it would not be unconstitutional.
Next time do your homework and research.
DG
Since the return of multi party politics the'opposition parties' have been in and out of the courts, can somebody enlighten me as to what benefits the 'cause' (i.e. by cause i mean the establishment of a democratic system of govt)we have gained from that? My observation is that whenever the SNP takes matters to court we end with a situation worse than before. A simple example: on the issue of removal of a nominated member of the Assembly, the constituion (without the so called interpretation of the court) at best ambiguous.
After the SNPs taking things to court we are now with a situation where the party nominating the member has barely any rights in its removal (at least when it comes to exercising right of removal when it really matters as in the Carpin situation).
I agree with the blogger above the 'monte desann lo peron lakour' has just been a minor source of embarassement for the govt on a rare occasion, other than that unless a blogger proves otherwise it has not been beneficial(minus the damages given to Ramkaalwan and SNP officers for the 3 Oct event) and has been a source of aggravation more than anythign else.
I beleive we shld reasses this strategy, by submitting to the courts we letimize what is already a clearly partial judiciary. Boycotting the Judiciary should be part and parcel of the Boycott strategy.
Vox
Apologies, my comment above seems to have crossed path with DG and C Gills. I still stand by it and wish to add that a boycott of the Judiciary shld be by the opposition political parties (shld the general population wish to participate in that boycott all the better), this is what i will term a passive revolution.
Ghandi managed to put the British on its knees by simply walking to the sea and making his salt. I am not asking for anyone to risk his/her life, all i am asking is that opposition leaders to sit and think about this: what have been achieved by giving legitimacy of a judiciary which is manifestly partial to the PL? Can one really count on the Judiciary to preserve the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution? Can we count on the Judiciary to protect us from the abuse of the Executive and the Legislature?
Vox
I think the judges will like it if the opposition were to boycott them. It will make their lives a lot easier and they will never be put on the spot. Parti Lepep will never have to be seen to be manipulating the judges. Remember that the 'rationale' for their decisions is documented for all to see and ridicule.
DG, grow up !
I am not sure who bothers with the rationale of Judges. The man on the street sees the following:
Opposition Parties goes to court, wins sometimes and loses other times. Conclussion, the court it independent and impartial. Question: is it really?
Opposition Parties participated in elections. They say they were going to win the elections of 2011. Lost elections. Conclussion: Opposition is a sore loser.
The International Community cares shit about us. Do you think they wld have reacted the same way if the sharks had eaten enn ti mazanbik?
Vox
It is good if every now and then, the people get a reminder that the country is in chaos under Michel and that the judiciary is corrupt. It undermines Michel's attempts that he is competent and that everything is fine and dandy since the dreadful Rene left.
The PL voters don't care as long as they get their bribe. It is Michel who is trying to pretend he is what he is not.
I read in Nation that Marston St Ange decided not to run for the presidency in May because of the amount of beer he would have had to buy. Too many people were asking for R100 to buy beer. Wonder whether David Pierre has any problems with buying beer with his money-no-problem party.
That's a bit unfair on the man on the street.
It was the international community, i.e. election observers and reaction to their report by some countries, that forced Michel to appoint an election commission. It is an improvement on the one-man Gappy show.
If Parti Lepep government cannot hold credible elections with credible opposition for the national assembly, then it should know that it does not have any legitimacy.
Vox has a valid point(one of many) and DG seems to have hit a sore point too as he/she was asked to grow up without being given any reason as to why.
Wether or not one can boycott the courts or not is up for debate, but I do see Vox's point. After all, when dragged to court one cannot exactly say "sorry, I'm boycotting it". What one can do however is to stop wasting the nation's resources and get on with it as the Brits would say. Yes, the opposition are bad losers and have made themselves a laughing stock again with their case by not doing their homework properly(as usual). One does not meet up fot an exam unprepared does one now?
Vox is also right in saying that nobody would give a shit if a local ended up in the stomach of shark be it a Tiger, Great White or Hammerhead. recently the skull of a Korean expat was found and since then not aword has been uttered about it. Just a batar sinwa I guess right?
It shows you the British care about the safety of their citizens abroad and the Parti Lepep had better realise that. They kick up a stink when tinpot dictatorships show blatant disregard for the safety of British tourists in their country. They look after their own interests. I can't understand why anyone should expect the British to look after the interests of Chinese or Africans. It shows a lack of understanding of foreign affairs and how foreign governments work. Foreign governments act in their own interests abroad. Morality (right or wrong) does not necessarily come into it.
If there is another shark attack in Seychelles, it will get coverage in UK because of the interest generated by the previous shark attack. Whether it will get the same coverage, i.e. same number of UK reporters descending in Seychelles, depends on whether the victim is British. British press like to report on foreign news if there is some British element to it.
This is the demonstration of what Michel calls the New Seychelles.For Michel the new Seychelles is the continuation of illegal allowing foreigners to control our institutions.Michel has again proved that he is anti-Seychellois thus Unpatriotic.I am sure Michel could have found highly qualified Seychellois somewhere there in Australia on his recent visit but becuase he is anti-Seychellois he did not bought to meet,encourage Seychellois to return to the country to participate in the country's development and so forth.May be he is afraid that these Seychelois would ask for their rights of vote which would mean Pp grave.
Sesel Pou Seselwa!
Jeanne DÀrc
We can agree and disagree on whether the Brits would have react the same way if it would have been a mazanbik.which i think they would have not react the same way because if it was amazanbik the issue would have been a local issue.Wheter we agree or disagree with the Brits' position the fact is this incident have had gobal consequences on our tourism industry and we should rather be looking of how to fix the shit becuas , react consequently to those critics and movement forward in order to restore the good image our countryit deserve.
Itmust be noted though,if Pp would have taken the apropriate action after the first attack our country would be having these bad publicity it is having now.It is a consequence of Pp regime to act.
Jeanne D'Arc
Interesting report yesterday on ITV news about Libya assisting britain in Torture of terror suspects. Footage showed a document with destinations such as libay , Diego Garcia and Seychelles listed. Did flights with terror suspects go through Seychelles ???
Good questionthat needs to be put to the butcherand which we expect clarification from Michel.The people wants to know Pp.
jeanne D'Arc
The British authorities would have reacted to the shark attack, even if had been a black person with a British passport on holiday. There may not have been the same intensive coverage in the British tabloid press (they report what they think will capture the interests of their own readers who would be overwhelmingly white) but the official authorities would have reacted. St Ange got a lesson in how the competitive, free UK tabloid press work. Unfortunately, the tabloids have millions of readers and potential tourists.
I like to think that I am one of the men in the street, if that refers to ordinary citizens.
Or the man on the Clapham omnibus.
What I see is a judiciary made up of judges of suspect legal background, constantly looking over their shoulders for government thugs sent to keep them in line and more interested in keeping their contracts and privileges than administering justice.
Do TATA buses still go to Clapham ? They certainly don't come my way.
chanel handbags, gucci handbags, tiffany jewelry, jordan shoes, polo ralph lauren, christian louboutin shoes, christian louboutin outlet, oakley sunglasses, kate spade handbags, oakley vault, prada outlet, nike free, louis vuitton outlet, coach purses, coach outlet, kate spade outlet online, louboutin shoes, coach outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, coach outlet store online, nike shoes, michael kors outlet, louis vuitton, longchamp handbags, michael kors outlet online, michael kors outlet store, longchamp outlet, michael kors outlet online, louis vuitton outlet online, tiffany and co jewelry, burberry outlet online, nike air max, prada handbags, louis vuitton handbags, michael kors outlet online, longchamp outlet online, cheap oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, michael kors outlet online, tory burch outlet, burberry outlet online, red bottom shoes, nike air max, louis vuitton outlet, ray ban outlet
asics shoes, rolex watches, ugg outlet, new balance outlet, north face jackets, mac cosmeticas, valentino shoes, jimmy choo shoes, bottega veneta, barbour, nike roshe, birkin bag, p90x workout, nike trainers, celine handbags, roshe run, ferragamo shoes, hollister, beats headphones, nike huarache, reebok shoes, soccer shoes, ugg soldes, instyler ionic styler, insanity workout, north face outlet, marc jacobs outlet, soccer jerseys, uggs on sale, giuseppe zanotti, abercrombie and fitch, longchamp, mcm handbags, vans outlet, ugg, lululemon outlet, nfl jerseys, abercrombie and fitch, wedding dresses, uggs outlet, chi flat iron, mont blanc pens, babyliss pro, ghd, herve leger
baseball bats, supra shoes, canada goose outlet, montre femme, juicy couture outlet, canada goose, louboutin, gucci, canada goose pas cher, timberland shoes, replica watches, wedding dress, canada goose outlet, vans, ugg, moncler, iphone 6 case, lancel, air max, moncler, ray ban, uggs canada, karen millen, juicy couture outlet, moncler, moncler, converse, moncler, coach outlet, converse shoes, canada goose outlet, nike air max, hollister, canada goose uk, moncler, ugg boots, oakley, moncler outlet, hollister canada, louis vuitton canada, hollister clothing, canada goose, ralph lauren, canada goose, parajumpers outlet, toms outlet
Post a Comment