The National Assembly Tuesday November 11 voted against the first Bill ever to be presented by a private member since the institution was created under the Third Republic.

Members of the ruling party turned down the Bill which sought to amend the Public Officers (Protection) Act so as to allow members of the public more time to bring legal action against the government. The Bill was brought forward by Les Mamelles MNA Hon. Bernard Georges.

When presenting the Bill Hon. Georges said amending section 3 of the Act would allow members of the public a period of 5 years to take legal action against the government, instead of the current six months stipulated by the law.

Hon. Georges argued that the present law, which dated back to colonial times, provided too short a period of time for members of the public to make a claim against the government and was in violation of Article 27 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection of the law. 

Hon. Georges pointed out that the present law was discriminatory because while claims against government should be made within a six-month period, claims between individual parties could be made within a period of five years.

Hence, he said, the amendment was also in accordance with the Article 2227 of the Civil Code of Seychelles which provided for the Republic to be bound by the same rules of prescription as private individuals.

Delays experienced when seeking legal aid, the need to carry out certain preliminary investigations and the length of time it might take for a damage caused by a government action, such as an action concerning the health of a person, to become obvious, were all good reasons to extend the six-month limitation period, Hon. Georges said.

Speaking against the proposed amendment, Hon. Rukaiya Jumaye said the six-month limitation period provided ample time for a plaintiff to bring legal action against the government.

She argued that approving the amendment would mean that the whole government system would have to be blocked for five years, while the public officer would be in a nerve-wracking situation thinking about whether or not he is going to be prosecuted for a certain action or decision taken. 

The longer it takes for a case to be filed, Hon. Jumaye explained, the higher are the risks for it to lose its credibility and for the evidence to become stale.

Moreover, she said, the current limitation period of six months was not unconstitutional as Article 27 did make provision for classification of individuals as long as it was not arbitrary.

She pointed out that the court did have equitable power to extend a case beyond the six-month period if the plaintiff had good causes for delay.

The word protection in the act, she added, should also not be interpreted as immunity or that government could escape liability.

Hon. Jumaye said the Constitutional Court, where petitions could be filed within a 30-day period, and the Judicial Review which offered a limitation period of three months, provided other avenues for members of the public to bring cases against the government.

Hon. Wavel Ramkalawan also spoke in favour of the amendment while Hon. William Herminie spoke against.

LINKS