Article 55 (2) of
the Constitution states that “where the President ceases to hold office under
article 110(3), the Vice President shall discharge the functions of the
President until a person is elected under article 51 to the office of
President”
Article 55 (3)
“Where the Vice President discharges the functions of the President under
clause (2) or article 56 (dealing with discharging the functions of President
during illness and absence), the Vice President shall not have power to:
 |
| Michel inauguration in 2004 |
(a) revoke the
appointment of a Minister
(b) Invoke article 110
(Dissolution of Assembly by President)”
Then in Act 14 of
1996 there was a 4th Constitutional Amendment the relevant section
is under PART IV (2) “On the resignation of the President- (which
is what happened in 2004 when President Rene resigned)
(a)
the
person who becomes Vice President as a result of the operation of subsection
(1) shall not assume the office of President under article 55 (1);
(b)
the
functions of the office of the President shall be discharged by the incumbent
President until the election of the
President but the incumbent President shall not have power to revoke the
appointment of a Minister or invoke article 110”
And to make sure
that there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of the above section a “note”
to the amendment says “Act 14 of 1996 further provides that if the incumbent
President resigns, the incumbent President shall
continue to discharge the functions of President until the holding of the
Presidential election but the incumbent President shall not be able to
revoke the appointment of a Minister or invoke article 110: the Vice President
above-referred does not assume the office of President as Vice
President would ordinarily do under article 55(1).”
Unless a different
interpretation can be attributed to a plain reading of the above sections what does all mean? Firstly the
constitution expressly forbids the assumption of Presidential functions by “Pas
baton” upon resignation there should be a Presidential Election.
Secondly
and of greater importance is the fact that the first two years of Mr. Michel’s “Presidency”
was a constitutional nullity or put another way it was a “constitutional fraud” perpetrated on the people of
Seychelles with the participation of the Head of the Judiciary at the time,
Chief Justice Vivekanand Alleear, who administered the Presidential
Oath, and the Oath of Allegiance during the swearing in ceremony.
Again
I repeat unless there is a different interpretation to the above sections then
it follows that all laws enacted and assented to, by Mr. Michel during those
two years would be null and void or “no laws” at all. All treaties entered into
will equally be a nullity as he was not legally and constitutionally a
President.
I am
attaching a document which I would like to be reproduced as part of my letter.
To all those on facebook at “Lari Bazar” who wants to know why do I want to be
President, “am I not the one releasing all those criminals and drug dealers”? I
say this. I am a defence Attorney and the only person who can “release” or
acquit a criminal or drug dealer is a judge. I will continue to defend
criminals and drug dealers until there is one of those Constitutional
amendments that Parti LePep is so famous for, that says that criminals and drug
dealers do not have a right to be defended by a lawyer of their choice or on
legal Aid. I also say this “What was the profession of Presidents Mancham and
Albert before they became Presidents? As defence lawyers did they defend
criminals or saints?
And if
the people of Seychelles decide at the ballot box, to elect me as President
they will see that in my hands I only have the tools of my profession. “a piece
of paper and a pen”. Based on the content of my letter and the attached
document I would like to ask Mr. Michel whether what I have said together with
the content of the attached document can be termed “corruption or the
perception of corruption?”
Thank
you
Alexia
G. Amesbury
Seychelles
Party for Social Justice and Democracy. (SPSD)
