Reform Minutes Exposed The Inability of Fake Opposition Leadership For Reform and Exposes Atorney General

ELECTORAL REFORM FORUM

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 20^TH FEBRUARY 2013 AT 9.00 AM AT NATIONAL HOUSE, VICTORIA, MAHE

PRESENT

Electoral Commission	Seychelles National Party – (SNP)
Mr. H. Gappy - Chairman	Mr. W. Ramkalawan – Party Leader
Mr. G. Lafortune - Member	Mr. A.  Derjacques – Representative
Mrs. M. T. Purvis - Member
Ms. J. Adrienne - Secretary	Parti Lepep – (PL)
Popular Democratic Party (PDM)	Mr. R. Agrippine – Consultant
Mrs. J. Carpin – Representative
New Democratic Party (NDP)
Mr. R. Volcere – Party Leader
	Citizen Democracy Watch (Seychelles)
Working Team	Mr. M. Padayachy
Mrs. Vasunthera – Consultant Legislative Drafter/ CFTC Expert	Mrs. E. Moses
Ms. S. Aglae Consultant Local Legislative Draftsperson	Seychelles Media Commission – (SMC)
Mrs. Marie-May Bastienne – P R. Officer	Mr. I. Afif
ABSENT
Mr. S. Gill Mr. W. Herminie Mr. D. Pierre – (with appolgies) Mr. B. Hoarau – (with apologies)
Mr. P. Boulle – (with apologies)
Mr. C. Gill
Mr. J.P. Isaac Ms. J. Simeon – (with appologies)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Meeting was chaired by Mr. H. Gappy, who welcomed members to the meeting.

1.1       At the start of the meeting, Mr. Volcere raised a point regarding the role of the AG’s Chambers in the Forum.

1.2       The Chair called on Mrs Nada to respond.

1.3       Mrs Nada stated that at the commencement of the Forum when she asked the same question, she did not get a proper answer.

1.4       She added that when she went to clarify the matter with the Attorney General, the latter told her that she has to be present at the Forum but not to do any drafting, just to guide them.

1.5       She added further that the Commonwealth also instructed her not to stop her presence at the Forum and to report back on everything that goes on in the Forum.

1.5       Mr. Volcere stated that he is of the view that the role of the Electoral Commission was clearly defined as to make recommendations to amend POA and the Electoral Act.

1.6       The Chair proposed to discuss Point 3 on the Agenda before presentations by members of the Forum.

1.7       The Chair pointed out that there was a communiqué from the AG’s office and the EC deliberated on that letter and issued a press communiqué as well which was circulated to all the members of the Forum.

1.8       The Chair added that the AG suggested in his letter that a copy of the draft bill be forwarded to EC for comments and that they will have a chance to respond.

1.9       Mr. Ramkalawan stated that the issue that arises from all that is happening is again the mandate of this Forum.

1.10     He questioned the Attorney General’s representatives’ presence at the Forum meetings. How can the Attorney General then after the Forum has done the work, agreed on what is to be presented,  then turn round five months later showing total disrespect for the Forum.

1.10     He added that we have to know clearly where the Forum stand vis-à-vis the Attorney General, not his office. Furthermore, he claimed that the roadmap is no longer relevant.

1.11     Mr. Lafortune queried from Mrs. Nada as to whether the mandate issued by the AG with regards to her work  involves giving feedback to the Forum of the views of the Attorney General in helping the process forward.

1.12     In reply to the query, Mrs. Nada stated that when the Attorney General  introduced her to the Forum and asked her to continue with the work, she reported back to him every day after the Forum meeting of what is happening and in addition, she submits reports to the Commonwealth as a Commonwealth consultant and the Commonwealth is very well informed of what is happening in the forum.

1.13     She added further that with regards to the statement that came out on the POA, she does not know anything as nothing was discussed with her  at the time of making the statement.

1.14     Mr. Derjacques stated that the function of the Attorney General is to act as legal adviser to the government, hence cannot have political views. he advised the Electoral Commission to talk to the government since it could be that the Attorney General is a ‘red herring.”

1.15     The Chair informed the Forum that the EC will be looking at this issue and will respond back at the next meeting. 

2.REACTION/COMMENTS ON PRESENTATION ON POLITICAL PARTY ACT

2.1       Mr. Ramkalawan made the following points –

Registration of political parties

2.2  He stated that the present law states that in order to register a political party, a hundred signatures is needed. He suggested that the EC should consider increasing the number of supporters.

Presentation of account

2.3       The registrar of political parties need to have a say, need to be able to look at the accounts of political parties.

Funding of political parties from state funds

2.4       He stated that if there is funding from state funds, then there needs to be specific headings as to how this money can be used.

Auditing of Accounts

2.5       The auditing of the money that political parties will receive from the State should be something done by the office of the Auditor General.

Formation of political alliances

2.6       It is important that in the law covering registration of political parties that there is the possibility for political parties to be able to form an alliance before an election without having to form a new political party with a new name.

2.7       In the present system of election there is the first past the post and proportional representation. The 10%   needed for a proportional seat to be re-looked into.

2.8       Democracy should cater for small parties to come to the Assembly for them to have a voice.

Financing of political parties

2.9       The present system is believed to be  totally unfair giving money only to parties that are represented in the National Assembly. He suggested that a minimum amount should be given to all registered political parties to ensure they can fulfil their responsibilities.

2.10     He also suggested that  SR6.5 million  be the bench mark for political parties, subject to  increase based on inflation.

Documents presented by political parties for registration

2.11     Before a political party is actually registered, these documents should be made public so that people may object or comment on.

2.12     Mr. Derjacques suggested that political parties should not be allowed to take part in an election  less than one year after registration. Within six months of an election, no registration of political parties.

Membership Age

2.13     He suggested a review of the age to register as a member of a political party and proposed the age of 15 years.

2.14     He further suggested that under section 7(1)(b)(iii) -  The word ‘provocative’ is so wide and vague and that it should be re-looked.

Section 8(1) - appeals against a registration and against  striking off a political party

2.15     He suggested that it should be appealable to the Supreme Court and then the law will follow that it can be further appealed to the Court of Appeal. It should not be restricted to the Supreme Court.

Annual accounts under Section 4(1)

2.16     That it be opened to inspection and the source of funding is clear to ensure that there is no underhand of criminal funding of political parties. 

2.17     Mr. Agrippine agreed with  the concept of a minimum funding for operations of political parties should be equal to all parties in addition to the SR6.5 million.

2.18     Mr. Agrippine concurred with the suggestion regarding the review of the minimum age to become a member of a political party.

2.19     He also concurred with regards to the highest remain for a seat as it is one of the mechanism which will prevent a constitutional crisis or gridlock.

2.20     Mr. Agrippine agreed to the concept of subjecting the account of a party to the Auditor General’s office to be audited by the Auditor General.

2.21     Mr. Afif talked on the formation of a political party and the time span for the election, which he suggested  should be left open.

2.22     He added that the whole process to register a political party in his view one should look for 500 members or perhaps 1000 members.

2.23     Mr. Lafortune whilst appreciating the comments made by Mr. Afif, questioned the fact as to whether the latter is in the capacity to make comments as any other members of the forum and whether that is in line with EC’s procedures.

2.24     Mr. Agrippine did not agree that civil servants above the rank of director should not be a member of a political party executive committee.

2.25     Because the Forum had raised the question of the AG’s representative to be present in this Forum, Mrs. Nada sought clarification of the position as to whether they are going to continue as observers or whether they are going to continue with anything.

2.26     Mr. Lafortune stated that have to revert to the AG because their presence was requested to assist us in the work which would involve listening, contributing and advising and so on.

2.27     He suggested that since the mandate of Mrs. Nada is now changed, the Commission have to go back to the Attorney General to ask for clarifications and again reiterate the request that members of his office are here to participate, help and guide the process and then  see what the reaction is.

2.28     Mrs. Nada reiterated that her specific instructions were  not to draft for the Forum and she is not supposed to help the EC’s legal consultant also.

2.29     The Chair stated that he will take up the matter with the AG’s office and report back to the forum.

2.30     Since there was no more presentation, the Chair proposed that PL and PDM submit written presentation to be circulated to members of the forum before next Wednesday’s meeting.

The meeting is adjourned to 27^th February, 2013 at 9.00 am for presentations by PL and PDM on the Political Parties Registration Act.