Abstract

Unlike the Constitutions of South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe which expressly provide for circumstances in which evidence obtained through human rights violations may be admitted, the Constitution of Seychelles is silent on this issue. However, courts in Seychelles have had to decide whether or not to admit evidence obtained through human rights violations. Courts have used both the constitutional provision on the rights of arrested and detained persons and the Judges Rules in these cases. In this article the author discusses cases in which Seychellois courts have dealt with the issue of evidence obtained through human rights violations and in violation of the Judges Rules. Relying on jurisprudence from South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe, it is argued that there may be a need to amend the Constitution of Seychelles to include an express provision regulating the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. Alternatively, the Seychelles Court of Appeal would have to lay down the criteria that courts should use in determining whether to admit evidence obtained through human rights violations. The author also relies on case law from Seychelles and from some African countries such as Mauritius, Kenya and Namibia to highlight the weaknesses of the Judges Rules. These weaknesses bolster the argument for the need for a constitutional provision on the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations in Seychelles.