Human Rights Watch (HRW) is calling on the Seychelles authorities to ensure fair and unbiased proceedings in an ongoing high profile corruption case. Accused parties include former presidential advisor Mukesh Valabhji and other individuals facing charges on alleged money laundering, embezzlement, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and unlawful firearm possession dating back to November 2021. The allegations came to light through the Pandora Papers investigation, which exposed the financial activities of various wealthy and influential personalities worldwide, including Valabhji.
The accused parties find their roots entangled in the misappropriation and money laundering of foreign aid donations from the UAE in 2002, in which both Valabhji and his spouse were implicated.
The deputy director of the Africa division at HRW, Ashwanee Budoo-Scholtz, has indicated that the judicial proceedings must align with the Seychelles constitution and internationally accepted human rights laws. Budoo-Scholtz warns that enforcement of anticorruption and arms control laws must not veer into the lane of abusive and partial application, as this threatens to undermine the rule of law they are intended to uphold.
On the positive side, transparency advocates have celebrated the arrest and subsequent legal action against the accused parties, praising the anti-corruption commission’s work. These series of events, say many, represent a commitment to combating corruption within the Seychelles.
Yet, certain anomalies and delays in the proceedings have raised concerns. One such instance was when the application of the accused to have Chief Justice Rony recuse himself from the case got denied by the Supreme Court. The court stated that the couple’s allegations of bias linked to their personal relationship with Justice Rony held no bearing in this particular case.
Counsel representing the accused parties told the HRW that they are petitioning the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, alleging that the proceedings thus far have violated their rights to a fair trial and exposed them to abusive treatment. They point to the prosecution’s failure to disclose relevant documents and information, together with the rushed introduction of new witnesses, as key grievances.