In a recent development, the Supreme Court has set conditions for Board of Inquiry regarding the importation of firearms.
Chief Justice Rony Govinden has ordered a stay of criminal proceedings against businessman Mukesh Valabhji and four co-accused, pending the completion of a government Board of Inquiry into the importation of firearms.
The ruling was delivered on Tuesday 20 January 2026 in the case The Republic v Valabhji & Others.
The application for a stay was brought by the first and second accused, Mukesh and Laura Valabjhi. They asked the court to suspend the trial until the Board of Inquiry submits its final report to the President. At the time of the application, the case had reached the defence stage, and Mr Valabhji had already begun calling witnesses.
The prosecution did not object to the request. Lawyers for the remaining accused left the matter to the discretion of the court.
In his ruling, the Chief Justice noted that the Board of Inquiry was established under the Defence (Board of Inquiry on Importation of Firearms) Regulations, 2025, and is mandated to examine the circumstances surrounding the importation and storage of firearms and ammunition.
He said the scope of the inquiry overlaps substantially with the issues before the court. Some matters have already been determined during the trial, while others remain unresolved. He said allowing both processes to run at the same time could create duplication and procedural complications.
Submissions were also heard from the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles, which intervened in the proceedings. The Commission warned that running a criminal trial alongside an inquisitorial inquiry could undermine the judicial process. It also raised concerns about the legality and constitutionality of the Board.
The Chief Justice said the court has inherent jurisdiction to control its own proceedings and may grant a stay where it serves the interests of justice and causes no prejudice. He noted that the prosecution had indicated it was not ready to proceed with the trial at this stage.
“In the circumstances,” he said, “the court has no other option but to grant the stay of proceedings.”
However, the court imposed strict conditions on the Board of Inquiry to safeguard the integrity of the criminal process.
The Board is prohibited from determining criminal liability or expressing any opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Its final report must clearly state that it does not determine criminal responsibility.
The Board is also barred from expressing views on intent, unlawfulness, or the credibility of evidence already produced in court. Any evidence admitted during the criminal trial must not be placed before the inquiry.In addition, any statement or document provided to the Board cannot be used in the criminal proceedings unless it is separately produced and admitted in court in accordance with the law.
The court further ordered that the Board must notify it when the inquiry begins and when it concludes.
The criminal proceedings will remain stayed until the Board of Inquiry submits its final report to the President. The ruling will be served on the Chairperson of the Board of Inquiry and all parties to the case.