Seychelles Government Needs to Review The Laws And Citizenship Act Which Permits Legislative And Corrupt Practices With Individuals To Threaten The Safety Of The People And The Republic Of Seychelles.

These are the only wanted Marek's on interpole watch list online in slovakia

The Government of Seychelles has failed; Corruption Prevailed.

After watching the Seychelles News Extra Aired by the Local and Sole Visual Media SBC the Minister for Home affairs Joel Morgan has shown clearly that the whole operation of the 
Deportation of Marek Trajter was a fiasco to prevent the real questions from every making it to the light of day.

Questions are:

Since the minister was able to quote an exact figure and amount of bullets allegedl;y used or caused to be used by Marek Trajer in slovakia. Why was it that when MR. Trajter claimed that he was coming to invest in Seychelles the paper trail of his money did not led to an interpole alert? Since FIU ensures that all amount invested in Seychelles are legally owned equity?

Another is the definition of deportation used by both the Minister and the PS. Why was there no dialogue between both Seychelles and slovakia prior to any direct actions taken towards MR. Trajter and also once that the revoke of trajter's citizenship came into play why did the Ministry of Foreign affairs remained silent rather than take an interest in the matter?

Why is it that in the interest of transparency these government officials on SBC news extra could not tell the people what exactly went wrong that led to Trajter being bestowed our citizenship and confirm the culprits responsible? Whether the legislation individuals were acting in good faith and trust the law is clear and is not judged in good faith but rather through evidence that leads to justice and rights!

Why did the Minister use the term very dangerous and went as far as to claim the protection of the individuals involved in the deportation of Marek as to safegaurd their lives of possible threat from the individual when there has not been any convictions against Marek yet? Is the law not clear when it says innocent till proven guilty for Seychelles?

Note that such a fiasco has now served as a lesson for Seychelles and requires more clarification overall. This is why Seychelles needs to become more Democratic in drafting and putting together laws, and the dissipation of information's  Rather than just printing names in newspapers in a citizenship application pictures with persons description should be included as most papers are printed in black and white in Seychelles.

There is also a bigger need to review the actions or laws that deals with corrupt practices in government especially one of this magnitude. This should also be done through democratic form and with public and independent bodies assistance and invitation. A general need for an information act is once and for all required as proven by executive, legislative and judiciary that they cannot run properly causing grave situtation for Seychelles and the people of Seychelles  As er the description of Minister Joel Morgan to the news reporters and general public audience viewing the program on sbc.

A review of every citizenship given in house is now required by the state as facts have proven that government is not always right to judge in good faith but rather by facts.

It is not this blogs duty to pass judgement on MR. Marek Trajter before he face trial in his country based on charges that may be brought against him nor is it the blogs duty to convict Marek Before he is judged, but it is this blog's duty to tell government that running this country is only done for the people of seychelles as a nation not personal individuals or for any other country; recognition of foreign individuals and their rights is important but priority is reality and accountability.

What will happen if Marek is trialed and aquitted of charges if brought against him? What would happen if he is found guilty and his assets put into question or seized? Will the government of seychelles have to give back the money he spent on seychelles confirmed by joel morgan on sbc? Acoording to allegation he gave money to individuals as well as foundations and parties for favors and support; will this mean that seychelles has a tendency to lure and entrapped corrupt individuals take their money and then send them to the gallows they came to avoid?

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES

Miscellaneous Cause No. 19 of 2013

Marek Trajter Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Police Respondent

Counsel: Frank Elizabeth for the Applicant

Ronny Govinden, Attorney General, for the Respondent

Heard: 7 May 2013

Ruling: 7 May 2013

RULING

Egonda-Ntende, CJ.

1. The applicant, Mr. Marek Trajter, has come before this Court under Article 18 sub-article 8 of the Constitution of Seychelles. Initially he sought to be produced before this Court so that this Court can investigate the lawfulness of his detention. Yesterday I made an order requiring the Commissioner of Police to produce the applicant before me this afternoon.

2. I note with satisfaction that the Commissioner of Police has complied with that order and applicant has been produced before this Court. The Attorney General acting both for the Commissioner and I presume the Government of Seychelles filed an application with a supporting affidavit explaining the detention of the applicant in this matter. It now falls upon me to examine the material before me and determine whether Mr. Trajter is lawfully held or not.

3. The applicant, from what I can gather in the affidavit filed by Mr. Bastienne the Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, was until the 02nd May 2013 a citizen of Seychelles. Being a citizen of this country as of the 02nd May 2013 he was entitled to certain rights under the Law that had to be observed. Mr. Bastienne has stated on oath that the citizenship was revoked by the Minister for Home Affairs on the 02nd May 2013. And that after revocation of such citizenship the applicant became a prohibited immigrant in terms of Section 19(1) sub-section H of the Immigration Decree who was liable to deportation from the Republic of Seychelles.

4. It has been contended for the Government that in light of the revocation of the citizenship of the applicant the Minister had the power and authority to detain and deport the applicant from this jurisdiction. On the other hand Mr. Elizabeth, counsel for the applicant, has stated that the Minister in purporting to revoke the citizenship of the accused did not comply with the Law.

5. It is imperative at this stage that we examine the lawfulness of the actions of the Minister in order to determine whether the power as exercised has been rightly exercised or not and whether ultimately the applicant is lawfully held or not.

6. I will start by setting out in its entirety Section 11 of the Citizenship Act Cap 30, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It reads and I quote

“(1) The Minister may subject to the provisions of this Section by order deprive a citizen by registration or naturalisation of the citizenship of Seychelles if the Minister is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact.

(2) Before making an order under this Section the Minister shall give the person against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing the person the ground on which it is proposed to be made and of the right of the person to have the case referred for enquiry under sub-section 3.

(3) If a person notified under sub-section 2 applies for an enquiry within such time and in such manner as maybe prescribed the Minister shall refer the case for enquiry and report to a Commissioner appointed by the Minister for the purpose. 3

(4) The powers rights and privileges of a Commissioner appointed under sub-section 3 shall be the same as those conferred on a Commissioner by the Commissions of Enquiry Act and the provisions of that action, mutatis mutandis, apply in relation to an enquiry under this Section and to a person summon to give evidence or giving evidence at the enquiry.

(5) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Commissioner under sub-section 3 unless the person is or has been a Judge of the Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court”.

7. It is clear from the forgoing statutory scheme that a Minister cannot exercise the powers under section 11(1) of the Act before he has complied with section 11(2), 11(3) and 4 and 5 of the Act. The affidavit of Mr. Bastienne is quiet on whether the Minister complied with section 11(2) of the Act. During the hearing I did ask the Honourable Attorney General to inform me whether the Minister did comply with section 11(2) of the Act but I have received no direct answer to that question.

8. The applicant has stated in his application that he is a citizen of this country and his declaration of citizenship and registration was registered on the 09th April 2013. He has not stated that he received a notice of revocation or a notice of intention of revocation. Neither has Mr. Bastienne affirmed whether the Law was complied with. But when you take into account the fact that these events have happened over a very short period of time I can only reach one conclusion that the Minister did not comply with section 11(2) of the Act. For had he done so this would have been disclosed on the affidavit of Mr. Bastienne.

9. The lawfulness or otherwise of the detention of the applicant hinges on the actions of the Minister and it is clear that they fall short. The Minister has not complied with section 11(2) of the Act and as a result trigger, [or] give an opportunity to the applicant to opt for an enquiry to be made or not to be made. The rights contained in the laws of Seychelles and in the Constitution cannot be regarded as cosmetic. They are real. And Public officials that administer these laws must comply with both the letter and spirit of the law. Having found that the Minister has fallen short in this regard I can only conclude that any actions based on this foundation continue to be unlawful. If the Minister has not acted according to law to deprive the applicant of his citizenship the applicant cannot then be treated under the Immigration Decree as a prohibited immigrant.

10. I therefore find that the applicant, on this line advanced by the state, is being held unlawfully. He should be released forthwith unless the state has some other lawful reason to continue detaining him. I so order.

Signed, dated and delivered at Victoria this 7th day of May 2013

F.M.S EGONDA-NTENDE

CHIEF JUSTICE