The Judiciary of Seychelles hosted its annual symposium on Tuesday 17 June 2025 to critically examine and strengthen the institutional framework underpinning judicial independence in Seychelles. Held at the Palais de Justice in honor of Constitution Day, the full-day conference brought together Justices, Judges, Magistrates, and court administrators for frank internal discussions on challenges, achievements, and proposed reforms essential to safeguarding the integrity of the judicial branch.
The Chief Justice, Hon. Rony Govinden, opened the session by reaffirming the vital role of judicial independence in maintaining democracy, good governance, and the rule of law, stating that “independence is not a privilege of judges, but a right of the people.
Delivering the keynote address, Hon. Anthony Fernando, President of the Court of Appeal, gave a wide-ranging and candid speech addressing not only the legal framework but also the practical and political pressures placed on the Judiciary.
He highlighted difficult cases such as those involving illegal drugs and serious offences, where governmental eagerness to curb crime sometimes resulted in prosecution lapses, requiring the courts to rigorously uphold standards of proof.
“It is these types of cases,” he noted, “especially in a small jurisdiction like ours, which put the Judiciary under severe social pressure and to its utmost test in maintaining its impartiality and independence. We must act in accordance with the law, not public sentiment.”
Citing examples from the Court of Appeal’s jurisprudence, Justice Fernando referenced the 2014 and 2018 sexual offence and homicide decisions, and more recently, a 2024 appeal in a high-profile homicide case, where the Court upheld the Supreme Court’s conviction despite public sympathy for the accused, affirming due process and evidentiary sufficiency over popular opinion.
One of the landmark legal developments referenced was the 2009 Court of Appeal ruling rejecting the blanket requirement for corroboration in sexual offence cases. The court held that this outdated standard “perpetuated misogynistic stereotypes and insulted the dignity of victims,” declaring that such testimony should be assessed on credibility, not gendered suspicion. The court’s evolving jurisprudence in 2021 and 2025 further affirmed that delays in reporting sexual offences must be considered in context and do not automatically weaken a case.
Discussions also tackled budgetary dependence on the Executive and Legislature. Justice Fernando strongly criticized the Judiciary’s lack of financial autonomy:
“The Judiciary cannot be seen to be going with the begging bowl to the Ministry of Finance or seek the indulgence of the National Assembly to approve its budget. This undermines justice delivery and erodes public trust. Judges are not ordinary public officers. They operate under unique professional and social restrictions to preserve impartiality.”
Debates on separation of powers focused on how the appointment of judges by the Constitutional Appointments Authority, with presidential sign-off, risks creating perceptions of political influence. The need for procedural reforms and legislative adjustments to protect judicial impartiality was a recurring theme throughout the day.
The conference also reviewed internal mechanisms related to accountability, operational independence, judicial appointments, and ethical conduct, culminating in a working session to consolidate practical recommendations.
In closing, judges and senior management agreed that such internal platforms for honest discussion are essential and must be institutionalized. They stressed that reform recommendations should ideally come from within the Judiciary, which understands the unique challenges faced by the justice system, rather than being imposed by external bodies.
A key recommendation emerging from the conference is the future inclusion of National Assembly members and Executive officials in similar symposia to improve inter-institutional communication, mutual respect, and a shared understanding of the Judiciary’s constitutional role.