ICT infrastructure

The IT infrastructure is a critical component of course delivery and administrative functionality at USP. The uniqueness of USP, its success regionally, and its mandate and commitment to serve the region is inherently and intrinsically linked to its ICT infrastructure. Most of this infrastructure, especially the satellite systems, have components that are decades old with no plan or money to replace them. Any IT audit at USP will show you that a failure of a couple of components can bring the entire system down in a heartbeat, thus bringing USPs functionality regionally to a screeching halt.

With all due respect to the VCP, even though he considers himself an IT expert, he should be listening to people who know what they are talking about instead of imposing his will. It is an absolute failure of USP management to not have sequentially replaced the IT infrastructure every year so that USP could have avoided the predicament it finds itself in currently. Generous donors established USPNET backbone decades ago, yet USP management did not find it an absolute necessity to put money aside each year to replace this system. It will take at least $10-15M FJD to replace the absolutely critical components of USPNET that are already way past their expected lifespan.

Does the VCP not think that the potential of failure of the twenty year old satellite delivery dishes that can bring the entire USPNET to a grinding halt is something he should have been keeping money aside for each year he has been the VCP? Even experts from JICA have established that these dishes can fail anytime and that there are no spare parts available for them since they are of such old technology and vintage.

The fiber based capacity of USP at Suva is exceeding capacity currently and cannot be increased without extraordinary measures. Yet the VCP keeps on insisting on more online access. He does not miss a chance to show his displeasure with ITS regarding bandwidth complaints, even though ITS cannot expand the bandwidth to meet the ever expanding needs of USP staff and students under given current constraints. Instead of relying on his own expertise, he should listen to and rely upon the advice of experts as to what are the real problems and bottlenecks and what can and cannot be done. This is a critical area that requires intervention and cannot wait two more years for a different approach. There should be a direct correlation between bandwidth availability, affordability and the decision to expand online material content, functionality and accessibility.

The number of students has been steadily growing. The number of sites is growing. The number of courses and other activities being offered over USPNET has been steadily growing. Yet, both the number of ITS positions and ITS budget have been decreasing in both real numbers and real money value. USP management needs to take a reality check in this area. With all due respect to the VCP and the Director of ITS, they have regional knowledge and contacts with ICT people in the Pacific, but neither one of them has the complex technical expertise or the experience that could get them hired as a Chief Information Officer (CIO) or the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of a multinational organization. Both lack real technical nuts and bolts knowledge and expertise. Given that the VCP has positioned himself as the ultimate knowledge authority on ICT matters at USP and even regionally, there is no one who dares take stock and relay the real state of IT affairs and plan to address the same at USP. If there is a singular point of failure that can impact all of USP and its very existence, it is ICT/ITS.

ICT Infrastructure Recommendations:

 Allow technical staff to make relevant decisions. Have the VCP focus on his legacy in ITS regionally, but leave the ITS operations to someone who understands the nuts and bolts of IT and has the required technical knowledge and expertise to create plans for USP ITS for the future.

 Hire CTO/CIO with relevant experience. The Director of ITS has great people management skills and is excellent at keeping ITS staff together. However, his limited technical knowledge of modern systems greatly curtails his effectiveness. This is further hampered by his desire to appease the VCP at all costs and not standing up for right technical decisions. Leave people management to him but also hire a CIO or CTO with the relevant experience and technical expertise. Give the CIO/CTO enough power, responsibility and accountability to run ITS as a backbone of a modern multinational organization.

 Find Funding to Replace USPNET infrastructure.  Beg, borrow or transfer monies to start addressing the very real and very critical need of replacing the dying core USPNET infrastructure. This is a risk USP cannot afford to take or play around with. This was broached with the NZ government for support. 

 Plan for the future. Stop the management’s blame games and deal with ITS capabilities, capacity and planning in a systematic and realistic way. ICT in the Pacific is a challenge because of cost and availability constraints, including expertise. USP should acknowledge the limitations and management should take into consideration when planning for expansion of online services, including academic offerings, and not blame ITS after the fact for accessibility constraints.

Research and Teaching

USP has gone through a number of workload and reward models, formally and informally, in the last three-four years. These models change arbitrarily at the whims of certain people without robust discussions or feedback from staff concerned. Following are some examples of actual decisions made recently that show weakness of leadership: 

 VCP unilaterally declaring that USP will no longer support Print mode. No discussions were held, no consequences determined, and no strategies developed. How are staff and students, especially students in the region, supposed to adjust to this overnight? And, then within six months the direction was changed again.

 Paying people to publish papers. A lot of money has been given away to staff to publish papers as a mark of research excellence and output. Even a cursory research on the topic will show that it has been established the world over that paying staff to publish papers does not build a research infrastructure at a university and definitely does not help the students. 

 Absurd and/or non-existent criteria for performance evaluation. Forcing all academic staff to be evaluated on teaching, research and administration is useless. People should be evaluated on functions assigned to them. Rather than refining the system for staff review, it has been changed multiple times, leading to confusion amongst staff. Suddenly everything current is dropped and the criteria changed.

 Promotion of staff. Have someone external look at the recent staff promotions, especially to full and Associate Professor levels, and see if it makes any sense. Staff evaluation criteria are changed to favor some people in getting promotions and rewards, and then the criteria are changed again.

 Excellence. This is a word that has no real meaning at USP and is used to push agendas. There is no university in the world that is excellent at every topic. Instead of showing leadership in determining two or three areas of excellence where money and focus can be put to make USP world renowned, false claims of expertise and recognition are made, money spent without any plans and no infrastructure created that generates and perpetuates excellence in specific topics. If the amount of money and effort that is being spent on PTAFE, which by the way will not make USP world renowned, were to be spent on Climate Change studies or Economics or Marine Sciences, USP would be known the world over for excellence in that area. USP is an anchor university in the Pacific, yet it is not even known in the world for Pacific Studies.  

Administration will tout getting accreditation in certain areas as a mark of excellence – Wrong! Accreditation means you meet the bare minimum standards of quality acceptable to the professional community. Accreditation does not mean you have established your mark in the world in that area of academics. The most touted program at USP, the MBA program, has AMBA accreditation, which means the credentials given out by the program are accepted by professional bodies. Would you say that for all other factors being equal, given the choice between Harvard Business School and USP MBA program a student would choose USP over Harvard because the USP MBA is considered “excellent”? 

By the way, the FNU MBA program is also AMBA accredited. The USP Administration got very upset at the remarks of the Minister of Education on the MBA program at USP. Logically thinking, the Honorable Minister does have a very strong point – the MBA program is essentially a retail  shop where people are temporarily hired to teach classes. It does not have an established infrastructure of full-time permanent professors who not only provide their expertise in the classroom, but also help students develop professionally by mentoring them and bring research into the program to build pathways for the future of the program. It would be one thing to have a program with established professors running it and distinguished guests brought in to lecture students (e.g. a Nobel laureate) occasionally, but running it almost entirely through ad-hoc temporary appointments is not how an excellent program such as one at an Ivy League school would be run. The MBA program is also used to reward certain people by offering them teaching assignments for extra money.

 Online technologies and pedagogies. Credit should be given to USP for quite effectively using Moodle in course content delivery. However, claiming USP is world renowned or a world leader in Moodle or even online pedagogies would be disingenuous to say the least. Proof is in that despite spending lots of money in these areas, universities of the world are not requesting any technologies developed by USP for their use. Self-aggrandizing claims don’t change the world reality. The money being spent on CFL and through FSTE on text messaging being promoted as m-learning has produced no tangible results affecting student outcomes or recognition of USP in the world in the area of online pedagogies. 

USP and its students would be much better served in actually letting faculties decide and develop pedagogies effective in their disciplines. These technologies should be driven by the needs of teaching and research in specific areas, and persistent development, rather than arbitrary allocation of monies to favorite departments. CFL should be building what faculties need, not telling them what to use.

 Classroom technologies are archaic. Without putting money aside every year to update the classrooms, any claims USP administration makes in terms of being world class in classroom technologies or pedagogies are very suspect. USP students are aiming to be competitive in the world markets. They should be given tools and resources to at least be competitive in the technology based world. Computer labs that have computers that don’t work half the time, classrooms with a projector as the embodiment of classroom technologies, and connectivity limited to being on campus is hardly the mark of a world leading or excellent University technologies.

Research and Teaching Recommendations:

 Create a relevant committee of stakeholders with decision making authority. Have a standing committee comprising of staff from each faculty, regional campus representation, IT representation (including CIO/CTO), DVC LTSS, and at least two external experts to guide USP in developing a consistent approach to pedagogical development, including deciding on a strategy for the next couple of years on online content and delivery. Let the faculty decide what pedagogical tools need to be developed or supported. Let faculty and campus representatives decide what is most useful, effective and in demand as far as the delivery modes are concerned. This should be based on analytics and not dictums. CFL should be a support body offering regular trainings and assistance with content. Let faculty experiment with whatever they want to instead of two people getting  the resources and travel. 

 Identify 3-4 areas of excellence to invest in. Instead of paying people to publish, the University should have a strategic initiative of developing maximum 3-4 areas as areas of Prioritize investment in research and teaching excellence and the money should be spent in hiring top notch professors, building infrastructure to support research and linking research to industry and undergraduate and graduate studies. Instead of giving monetary rewards, give internal pilot grants for getting external grants to support research. Number of publications is not a good measure of excellence for research – external research grant funding is a better measure of how your capabilities, capacities and reputation is acknowledged the world over. Trying to be all things to all people, currently defined as excellence, leads to expertise in none. It should be the DVC RII’s responsibility to develop and implement a long term success strategy in research, not the VCP’s. Changing strategy every two years is recipe for failure, not success.

 Use clear assessment criteria established and communicated well in advance. Ask just about anybody at USP what they think of iPerform, the Performance assessment system, and they will give you an earful. Performance management is all about managing expectations and achieving institutional and personal goals. It definitely is not about changing measurement criteria every six months and rewarding favorites. iPerform should be scrapped. Staff should be given clear criteria on which they will be evaluated at least one year in advance, if not same for every year, and it should not be so formulated that it has no bearing on the actual job requirements of individuals. There is nothing wrong with evaluating administrators, teachers and researchers differently so long as the criteria are clearly established, communicated and applied consistently.

The VCP should have the least amount of say in who is promoted in staff. Heads of School, Deans, and perhaps inter-faculty representatives are best positioned to know who deserves to be promoted, both from a strategic and a practical stand point. Currently every staff promotion, for all practical purposes, is controlled by one person and one person alone.

 Empower stakeholders in the staff promotion process. The VCP should have the least amount of say in who is promoted in staff. Heads of School, Deans, and perhaps inter-faculty representatives are best positioned to know who deserves to be promoted, both from a strategic and a practical stand point. Currently every staff promotion, for all practical purposes, is controlled by one person and one person alone. This essentially removes all confidence, power and stability from the faculties, especially HoSs and Deans. The VCP should have an overt, open transparent veto power, but not behind the scenes maneuvering power as to who is going up and who is going out. Empower the HoSs.

 Empower stakeholders to implement USP’s strategic plan.  Strategically the VCP, in consultation with faculty, should declare 3-4, or less, areas of excellence for the entire university. After this, he should empower the HoSs of those areas to plan and realize how they will achieve excellence in those areas. VCP’s job is to provide HoSs with resources, including money, canvass in international forums in support of their efforts, and leave them alone to do their job. It should be the HoSs responsibility to structure for excellence, to choose and entice the right candidates for Professorships and build systemic stability in their programs. The VCP can have veto power and executive privilege over matters, but that is a far cry from interfering even at the TA level. Empowering the HoSs and faculty is the only way to build excellence at any university. If the HoS chooses for a staff to teach only one course and instead write grant proposals, then so be it. It should not be hampered by the VCP, the staff review criteria or some formula based workload model. HoSs can be held responsible, that is what KPIs are for, but they have to have power and flexibility. 

 Incorporate Transparency. Most importantly build transparency in systems, whether it is rewards, performance management, or promotion. Reduce interference and empower HoSs. How can replacing HoSs frequently be good for developing a stable, progressive academic environment?  Empower Heads of Schools

 Invest in classroom infrastructure. Since classroom technologies and research infrastructure are the backbone of a good teaching and research university, mandatorily reserve monies in each budget for bolstering the research infrastructure, such as labs and instrumentation, and for improving classroom technology infrastructure every year. 

 Implement an internal grant program. Instead of paying faculties to publish, which has very limited value in developing research programs, perhaps the administration can looking at an internal grants program.  Researchers at any level, regardless of rank, could write competitive internal proposals for funding of research pilots. If funded, the desired outcome would be to bring the research to a level that could attract significant external grants. It would develop a grant proposal writing culture, engage students, self –analyze USP capabilities and build an infrastructure progressively for the future. Much more value going forward then paying people to publish. Again, though leadership for something of this sort should be provided by the DVC RII and the staff in faculties, rather than be VCP’s responsibility.

Asus Computers

For many years it has been proclaimed by Procurement, EDF and the VCP that the reason why everybody at the University is required to buy ASUS, and only ASUS computers is because USP has a dealership contract with ASUS and thus makes significant amounts of money. Staff have complained and complained about the quality of the ASUS computers, they have pointed out how other technically comparable computers are cheaper, and regional campuses have gone months without computers because of the turnaround time on ASUS warranty work. FIC has been shown numbers on how the University Computer Shop is making money by selling ASUS computers, hence, the University Procurement exercises a no-tender/tender waiver policy when it comes to buying computers. Following is the reality around ASUS computers:

 Procurement has not been able to show or produce any documentation that shows the University is an ASUS dealership. In fact, for the past many years USP has been buying ASUS computers from a reseller in Australia, not from the ASUS factory in Malaysia or elsewhere

 Procurement has admitted that there has been no procedure to even compare the bulk purchase pricing the University has been paying on-demand to this reseller in Australia with other bulk pricing offers or even retail pricing in Suva

 Procurement has admitted that there have not been any official negotiations followed in the past to determine the bulk purchase of computers from this reseller

 Procurement has admitted that it has not followed any process to compare the price of  technically similar computers from ASUS, DELL and HP

 Finance claims the University makes money off of repairs of ASUS, yet tens of thousands of dollars are written off by the computer shop. Reason provided: they used new computers for parts to repair under-warranty old computers

 Finance claims it makes money off the ASUS computers. However, even a cursory glance at the accounts will show some creative accounting. The University loses money because the computers being bought are actually more expensive than retail computers from local vendors, and the profit shown is from the higher cost of selling to internal departments. So, the university is claiming to make money by forcing its own departments to buy these computers at higher prices from its own computer shop, instead of buying cheaper and better computers from the open market. Are there any real benefits to USP buying exclusively ASUS?  

Why is it then the University insists on choosing to buy lower quality computers (ask ITS or any staff about the quality) in bulk at a price possibly higher than retail, with tender waivers when the conditions for a tender waiver are not met in this case? The VCP, EDF, Procurement Manager, the Computer Shop manager, and the computer shop Accountant/Finance Officer were all made aware of this and asked for price comparisons and reasons USP insists on buying these computers without competitive bidding. No information or answers were provided by them. The VPA put a halt to this practice till some answers were provided. He was reprimanded for delaying the purchase of these computers and the overriding authority to go ahead with the purchase was exercised directly by the VCP. USP has recently bought a container full of ASUS computers without going through a tender process.

ASUS Computers Recommendations

 Audit the last 5 years. This matter should be audited for at least the last five years by external auditors.

 Investigate write offs. The auditors should also look into why the Computer shop is being allowed by Finance to write off tens of thousands of dollars each year. The role of the Computer Shop Manager, the Accountant and the Procurement Manager in Finance should be carefully scrutinized. 

 Follow computer life cycle. The auditors should also look into where the old computers go and what process is being followed there. Where is the accountability? 

 Transparent tender process. The University very well knows how many computers it needs to purchase for all the campuses each year. These purchases should be made through a transparent tendering process only.

 Buy local. Further, it may be prudent and profitable to buy computers from local dealers at USP regional campus locations. Currently computers are bought at and delivered to Suva, and then reshipped to regional campuses, thus adding considerable cost. Similarly, computers are shipped off island from regional campuses for repairs and then have to be shipped back, adding to cost and time. Local retailers could compete quite well under the circumstances. More importantly, it would cut the time people are without computers awaiting repairs.

 Support member countries’ economies. Buying computers at competitive prices locally in member countries would also contribute to local economies, provide jobs and project USP as a responsible citizen organization contributing to the sustainability and resilience efforts for local markets. Paying a reseller in Australia and shipping companies achieves none of this and takes money and business away from the island nations.

Procurement contracts

The University obviously has policies and limits around purchasing authorities and requirements

To be continued

Section I: Examples of some specific issues
 
1. Leadership

Leadership at every renowned university, every excellent university, is entrenched in sharing of ideas, academic freedom and established best practices. Even charismatic leaders surround themselves with thought leaders in various specialties and listen to their voices. If a single leaders’ voice were the only thing that matters in all decisions, at all levels, then why bother hiring senior managers?

Why not save money and just accept the voice of one person as the only voice that matters? If you look at how USP is run, there is very little power distribution, hence accountability across the spectrum. The University should espouse an environment and protocols that prevent any person, including the person in the VCP position, from assuming and exerting absolute control.

A student does not like the grades he/she gets, they go straight to the VCP and the VCP may intervene in certain cases and not others. Who gets hired as a HoS in any faculty and how long he/she stays has a direct correlation with what the VCP desires. It is not common at SMT meetings to see open acceptance of diversity of thought. Most often it is a place where the Senior Managers are either told what VCP wants them to do or reprimanded for not doing the bidding of the VCP. 

There is a huge difference between difference of opinion and insubordination. Diversity of views is not detrimental to the institutional health, it is necessary for a healthy system.  Power and decision making rights (appropriate for each level) should be distributed and respected at all levels.  A unilateral decision making structure is not an efficient organizational structure, irrespective of who the leader is at the helm of the institution. It also generates a culture of fear. USP clearly is cloaked in a culture of fear and silence because influence trumps process at USP. Some examples of why this particular type of leadership is risky for the University:

 At a strategic level – A very profound decision was made somewhere and by someone that the University will focus heavily on developing vocational studies and training as a strategy, rather than concentrating on developing advanced tertiary education and research programs. No open debates were held on the topic, no faculty discussions, not even a committee of stakeholders and experts to lend a voice. One step led to another, one decision to another, and the ensuing result is that now PTAFE is nearly the largest department/faculty on campus. The number of professors in the faculties is steadily declining, the research infrastructure is not growing, the number of teaching hours is dropping, PhD staff in faculties are getting paid less than people without postgraduate qualifications in PTAFE . Programs in faculties are being slashed, while programs in PTAFE are growing exponentially. Development of PTAFE could be good as it generates money USP desperately needs. However, PTAFE income is not being used to bolster the academic areas. PTAFE keeps its money. So the question arises, in another few years what will USP be known for – cooking classes or climate change research, and more importantly is that a decision that has been collectively made for the future of USP? 

 At an operational level – The University has a well-defined organizational structure. But is this structure functional? The University has policies and procedures, but they are trumped by personalities and positions quite often. Executives use privilege to circumvent, adapt or selectively apply policy and procedure to get results they desire, rather than as an extraordinary intervention for which they can be held responsible.

Examples include:  HR disciplinary actions are heavily dependent on dictums rather than process. There is a committee that decides on staff development matters, however, for the well connected you can travel the world without ever having to compete for those staff development funds. You compete for a budget allocation and get it, but then never see the money or the EDF can remove it without informing you or your line SMT because the EDF claims VCP decided to use it elsewhere.  Your departmental plans can suddenly cease to matter, but you still will be held responsible for the outputs. Effective leadership is not the word that comes to mind when describing these situations at USP. Interventions such as these weaken existing institutional processes, make people jaded, which in turn weakens the institution.

Successful and excellent organizations do not allow personal power to subvert the power of organizational policies, procedures and ethics.

 At a personal level – The administrative culture at USP is who you know, are in favor with, and not what you know. A senior administrator can be fired in complete violation of policy, law and ethical standards for personal friendships and sharing his non-confidential performance report. Yet, a staff member can come to work drunk, harass people, utter obscenities on a microphone at a public meeting in presence of the VCP, another can have a litany of sexual harassment reports with HR by different people, and nothing happens. What is common in the outcome of all these cases? Simply, influence peddling by someone powerful. Successful and excellent organizations do not allow personal power to subvert the power of organizational policies, procedures and ethics. Consistent processes and fair practices are the bedrock of stability at any organization, not personal generosity or personal vendettas.

 Ramifications. Excellent universities do not get sued at the rate USP does. There must be a reason why USP gets sued so much. One of the reasons lies in the simple fact that organizational policies and procedures are trumped with impunity.

It is to USP’s benefit to break the wall of silence

Leadership Recommendations:

 Open communications channels. Every organization has a gap between Governance and Operations/Administration. USP has deliberately constructed an impermeable wall of silence. All communications to and with the Council are strictly controlled and manipulated by the VCP office and the Marketing office. The only picture that Council gets is what the VCP wants Council to get. Senior administrators are emphatically discouraged, if not directly disallowed, from direct communications with the Council. Remove this artificial barrier. Simple solution, allow DVCs, VPs and Deans to have direct sessions with Council members.

 Council should have certain standing committees that are not chaired by the VCP. The VCP gets to establish his story line with the Council by being in direct contact with them and by controlling all communications with the Council. The Council, like any responsible body, should also have alternate sources of information that are not based on hearsay. Having standing committees where the VCP is not a member presents the opportunity for Governance to verify the Administration’s story and claims, whether they come from the VCP or from other members of Administration.

 Establish fair policies and procedures that are applicable to all. Council has shifted the power base towards the VCP position to an extent that it is at the brink of becoming absolute. Examples include not entertaining any anonymous complaints against the VCP, yet the VCP entertains anonymous complaints against staff at his pleasure, even circumventing established procedures: Result is absolute power with the VCP. USP does not have a whistleblower policy. Council members are not easily accessible. Common people cannot even get a contact list of Council members for this public institution. Grievance procedures either do not exist or are very weak and easily ignored. So where does that leave an ordinary member of staff when they genuinely have an issue?  Either VCP should be banned from entertaining anonymous complaints against staff members or Council should also entertain anonymous complaints against the VCP. Fairness should be obvious at all levels and not only at some levels.

 Open Sessions. Have an open session during Council meetings where any staff member can come and present issues, both good and bad, that they wish to share with the Council. Universities are not supposed to be these closed, secretive, punitive places. The very essence of a university is based in openness, discovery and sharing of ideas. An open session would provide a link between Governance and staff, thus presenting an opportunity for a stronger relationship of sharing, common good, and accountability between Governance, Administration and the university community (staff and students). Right now, administration controls all access and every word that is presented to Council, good or bad.

 Strengthen governance and oversight. Council should strengthen the collective control over the future direction of the University. It is entirely too risky to allow one person to determine the future of the University. The VCP as the Chief Operating Officer is in charge of making sure that the future of the University is secure and that the processes and personnel will get it there. The COO is not the sole determining officer when it comes to deciding the future of the University.  The VCP has open forums that are useful in sharing his views with the staff and students and listening to them. Governance, as the ultimate body responsible for the future of the University should also hold open forums with Staff, students and stakeholders to hear their views on current status and the future of the University.

To be continued

The confounding Tebbutt Poll

An overall approval rating of 78% for Prime Minister Bainimarama in a poll conducted last week by Tebbutt, contrasts sharply with recent snap polls conducted by the social media which show the FF Party doing pretty badly.

In one such poll, out of 800 respondents, 62% believed SODELPA would win the next elections and just 37% thought FF would win.

Social media and radio talk-back show feedbacks from the grassroots show growing disillusionment with the FF government. Its utter failure to provide quick and effective rehabilitation relief to victims of Cyclone Winston despite all the promises, its ineffective approach to problems facing the sugar industry and cane farmers in particular, the escalating cost of living and government’s refusal to give workers a just and living wage in line with inflation- have all made it very unpopular with the people.

One wonders how much significance should be given to a national poll based on just 1001 people conducted through the telephone. In Fiji, there is a remarkable difference in opinion between people: in the rural and urban areas, the educated and elite vs the poor and ordinary worker etc etc. The Fiji Times report on the results of the poll does not indicate what percentage of those polled were from the rural sector or different social classes.

Certainly, it is difficult to believe that a prime minister who spends three-quarters of his time trotting the globe overseas and the rest cutting ribbons and distributing hand outs, can get a 78% rating as doing a good job.

To put things in the proper perspective: the Tebbutt-Times poll on the popularity ratings of our politicians can be likened to making some sense out of nonsense, if you read things in the reverse. Source: FLP website

The Sugar Spider!

Prime Minister rebuffed NFP’s call for a bipartisan standing committee on Sugar to assist with the recovery of the industry which has seen a 50% decline in the last 8 years.

Bainimarama took over as Sugar minister in late 2008 and has since taken the industry closer to its grave. It is today struggling for survival and at risk is the livelihood of almost 20% of our people.

NFP’s Prem Singh put a motion to Parliament last Friday ( 10 February) for the formation of a bipartisan Sugar Select Committee.

Bainimarama’s response was that the industry needed a “commercial answer” and not a “political answer to this sugar cane industry that every one is talking about.” And he claimed that his government was providing this so-called “commercial answer”.

Let’s look at this “commercial answer” that he was providing through his crony Abdul Khan for the past 6 years.
Khan as executive chairman bled the FSC to fill his own pocket. and that of his private company AJYNK Ltd. Huge sums were expropriated from the FSC and when the scam was exposed by the NFU before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Economic Affairs, Khan was removed as chairman and appointed CEO for a short period before being allowed to tender his resignation for “personal reasons”.

Bainimarama as Sugar Minister was blissfully unaware of Khan’s raids on the FSC coffers as he was kept busy travelling to the various sugar meetings all over the world, reading out prepared speeches but gathering very little, if any, knowledge of what was happening behind “his back” and even less about providing the “commercial answer” which he boasts of today.

This brings us to the contribution of the Agriculture Minister Seruiratu during the same debate. His “sterling” contribution to the motion was that the industry had a lot of cobwebs around it and while the FF government had removed the cobwebs the spider emanating from these cobwebs was still alive and well.

He did not go as far as to name anyone but we understood him to mean Abdul Khan as the cobweb that had been removed and Bainimarama as the spider that was still around taking the industry closer to its grave by the day.

We couldn’t agree with you more, Mr Seruiratu!

PS: No investigations have been ordered on Khan’s raid – seems he has got-off scot free!

That’s what we call #crony-#care’.

PEOPLE IN THE PULIC EYE

‘If there were another side to their image it was in the public interest that this should be made known’: Lord Denning on pop stars and injunctions
 
Justice Anthony Gates must be applauded for rejecting Chaudhry’s restraining order. The American litigation culture must not pervade our courts.

By VICTOR LAL
 
IT MUST HAVE COME as a great sigh of relief to the champions of free and open press when High Court judge, Justice Anthony Gates, dismissed an application by the Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry to restrain the media from airing public statements made by the Prime Minister at a press conference on 9 December regarding the bittersweet ‘sugargate’ saga. I had already pointed out in a previous column of mine that there were no legal grounds for the restraining order.

In his ruling Justice Gates highlighted that Chaudhry had failed to satisfy the court that the Prime Minister in relation to the alleged sugar restructure deal made false statements. Chaudhry has been ordered to pay $750 as court costs to the Prime Minister and to Fiji TV by the 9 of January 2006. Justice Gates also highlighted that the courts are slow to grant such applications due to the freedom of speech, an issue that I had already addressed at length this week.

He said the burden was on the plaintiff [Chaudhry] to prove that false statements had been uttered. Justice Gates said they must provide credible evidence of the untruthfulness of the words before the court could consider ordering a restraining order. With regards to the application of defamation of character, Justice Gates has ruled that there was no evidence of untruthfulness of the statement by the Prime Minister [Qarase], and it was still premature to consider the defamatory nature of the statement.

Chaudhry’s son and newly graduated lawyer Rajendra Chaudhry, and senator-cum-lawyer Anand Singh, who is also embroiled in the ‘sugargate’ saga, had brought the restraining order on behalf of the Opposition leader. Chaudhry junior, speaking after the ruling, said the media was free to report on the Prime Minister’s comments. However, he said [he] has been instructed by his client (his father) that any comment seen as defamatory should be challenged in court. 

People in Public Eye

Public interest may give a defence for matters concerning people in the public eye. In 1977 the legendary Welsh singer Tom Jones and other well-known singers tried unsuccessfully to get an injunction to prevent publication in the English tabloid newspaper the Daily Mirror of articles in which their former press agent gave details of their private lives.

The court held that the pop singers, who had sought and welcomed publicity of every kind, were not entitled to an injunction pending the trial of a court action. The late and great Lord Denning, who incidentally arbitrated the famous ‘Denning Sugar Award’ for us, said that if there were another side to the pop singers image it was in the public interest that this should be made known. A court applied the same principle in 1993 when the Daily Mirror published material from the book The Downing Street Years, memoirs of Lady Margaret Thatcher, the former British Conservative Prime Minister. The Sunday Times of London, which had bought exclusive rights to the book, was planning to run lengthy extracts but the Daily Mirror obtained a leaked copy and published first, leading on the story three days running. The Sunday Times tried to obtain an injunction. The Conservative Party conference was in progress when the Mirror published its first splash ‘What she said about him’ (referring to John Major, her successor). ‘Intellectually he drifted with the tide.’ On the following day the paper’s headline was ‘What she says about them’ (leading members of the Party.) ‘Thatcher sticks the knife in Major’s men.’

The judge rejected the application for an injunction. He said that because the Conservative Party was making a public show of unity in Blackpool, the publication of the Mirror’s claims could be in the public interest. The British Court of Appeal agreed with the judge’s ruling. In 2000, a judge refused an injunction sought by Lord Levy, a British Labour Party peer, against Times Newspapers of London. The story was about his tax affairs, and was clearly obtained in breach of confidence. The judge said that Lord Levy was a prominent supporter of the British Labour Party, which had a manifesto commitment to closing tax loopholes, and his own tax affairs would shed light on the integrity of that position, which was in the public interest. In 2000, the supermodel Naomi Campbell sued the Daily Mirror for a story about her receiving therapy from Narcotics Anonymous for her drug addiction. In its defence, the paper argued that it published the story in the public interest because the model had previously gone out of her way to tell the media that, in contrast to other models, she did not take drugs, and this was untrue. Lord Phillips, Master of the Rolls, said the Court of Appeal did not believe that because an individual had achieved fame, that meant that his private life could be laid bare by the media: ‘We do not see why it should necessarily be in the public interest that an individual who has been adopted as a role model, without seeking this distinction, should be demonstrated to have feet of clay.’

But he said the Human Rights Act in Great Britain, which gave a right of respect for family and private life, must be balanced against freedom of expression in the media. He continued: ‘Where a public figure chooses to make untrue pronouncements about his, or her, private life, the press will normally be entitled to put the record straight.’ The House of Lords, in 2004, agreed that in the circumstances it was in the public interest to report the fact of Ms Campbell’s drug addiction and that she was receiving treatment for that addiction, but there was no justification for reporting the fact that she was receiving treatment at Narcotics Anonymous, or giving details of the treatment and her reaction to it, or surreptitiously obtaining photographs of her emerging from a treatment session.

Chaudhry’s version of events

Applying the ‘Margaret Thatcher test’, it is legitimate to ask further questions regarding Mahendra Pal Chaudhry’s version of events. We are not suggesting that Chaudhry’s version is true or false. Neither have we endorsed Qarase’s version as truth. I had already written this piece before Justice Gates threw out the restraining order, and have therefore made minor changes, especially the introduction in regard to the Gates ruling. Although I was certain that Mahendra Chaudhry stood no chance in silencing the media, I thought that if for some strange quirk of reasoning the judgment went in his favour, I could still circumvent Justice Gates gagging order by calling upon Chaudhry to explain his own version of events, which he put out on the official FLP website for the consumption of the whole world.

Legally, Chaudhry was planning to obtain an injunction restraining the media from airing the public statements made by the Prime Minister at the press conference on 9 December against him. He had applied for the restraining order on the grounds that the information could not be aired publicly anymore as the matter was now before the courts. But he and his lawyers had completely forgotten or were not aware, that Chaudhry had posted his own version of the ‘sugargate’ saga on the Fiji Labour Party’s official website, www.flp.org.fj, on 10 December 2005 under the heading ‘Chaudhry rubbishes Prime Minister’s “proof” as laughable’.

Consequently, since his own version was not going to be subject to a court injunction, nor had the Prime Minister filed a counter-injunction to prevent Chaudhry from repeating his defence, and the fact that the statement had not been removed when the injunction was filed, I was (and still am) free to discuss the statement with him and the Fiji Labour Party, which has hosted his reply on its official server, and is in the local and international domain. In fact, I accessed it from thousands of miles away, in England, from the www.flp.org.fj website. Since the FLP has allowed the statement to remain on its official server, it follows that we are invited to read, digest, comment, criticise, and question the contents.

We publish Chaudhry’s reply in the whole as it has appeared on the FLP’s official website, and presumably with the authority of its leader. It reads as follows: Opposition Leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry labled [labelled] as “laughable” the so-called evidence the Prime Minister tendered as proof that Chaudhry had tried to obtain a commission from the India loan for the sugar reform project. The Prime Minister who failed to meet a 72-hour deadline to tender an apology to Chaudhry or provide proof of his claims in and out of Parliament that the Opposition Leader had attempted to get a commission, yesterday furnished a letter written by Chaudhry two years ago as proof. In the letter to Charles Walker on 25 September 203, Chaudhry puts in an expression of interest on behalf of the National Farmers Union to acquire government shares in FSC following Walker’s advice that farmers should take the equity since government wanted to divest itself of FSC shares. Chaudhry contemptuously suggests Qarase is now scraping the barrel in order to establish a link between his allegation and the 2003 letter to Charles Walker.

The FLP website continues, the full content of Chaudhry’s letter is as follows: “The Prime Minister’s so-called proof is laughable. He has still not provided any tangible evidence to substantiate his claim that I attempted to obtain a commission from the $86 million loan to FSC from the Exim Bank of India. It is clear that having made wild baseless allegations, the Prime Minister is now desperately clutching at straws to try and validate his claims. This is not going to save him from litigation. It shows why having made the allegations, he was so reluctant to furnish the so-called ‘evidence’ until I forced him to come up with “this”.’ The Prime Minister claimed in Parliament and on TV that, and I (Chaudhry) quote: “The Hon Leader should confirm or deny that he and some of his colleagues have been attempting to get a share of the $86 million loan from the Exim Bank in the form of commission. Now, anyone with the slightest discernment will notice that there is nothing in the Prime Minister’s very lengthy statement that even remotely connects me to the $86 million loan from the Exim Bank. There is absolutely no connection between the loan and a letter that I wrote to Charles walker as chairman of the Prime Minister’s steering committee on sugar industry reforms that Mr Qarase released to the media as his ‘proof’ that I tried to get a commission from the loan. My (Chaudhry) letter to Charles Walker was written on 25 September 2003. The Prime Minister himself admits that he wrote to the Government of India, almost a year later, on 30 August 2004 seeking an $86 million loan to finance the sugar reform programme. Where is the connection, Mr Prime Minister between this letter and your allegations? Aren’t you scraping the barrel somewhat to try and establish a link? Since the Prime Minister has released this innocuous letter written some 16 months before even the Sugar Technology Mission from India began its work here, let me provide some background to the letter. I have nothing to hide. This letter was actually written at the suggestion of Charles Walker himself after a long discussion with me about FSC shares. He said government was wanting to divest itself of its shares in FSC- they will be given away gratis. He himself suggested that farmers should have an interest in FSC and advised that I write to submit an expression of interest on behalf of the NFU. The Prime Minister cannot now turn this around and use it as evidence of any thing underhand on my part. As the largest union representing can farmers, the NFU was naturally very concerned about the declining state of the sugar industry and FSC’s state of bankruptcy. I have regularly aired my extreme anxiety about the deteriorating plight of the sugar industry both in Parliament and in the media, because of its adverse impact on cane farmers. This letter articulates that concern. If the NFU were to take over shareholding in the FSC, then naturally we would explore every option of returning the Corporation to viability. I have always believed that FSC can be returned to profitability provided we have a professional management and operations team. To strengthen the Union’s bid for a government shares, I then mentioned the possibility of employing an overseas company to takeover management of the FSC over a period of time to return it to profitability and to ensure it is run along commercial lines. This was indeed what I had planned in 1999 as Prime Minister when FSC made a profit after two consecutive years of losses. This is in view of the fact that the major problem in FSC was that it had been highly politicised since 1987 and appointments to top positions were made on political considerations rather that merit. As major shareholders we wanted this stopped. Also, FSC had projected a staggering $200 million for capital works to upgrade its mills. As I stated in the letter, the NFU could not allow the farmers, already crippled by heavy debts and high costs of production, to be lumped with such a part of this huge debt burden as well. We knew from information available to us that the upgrading could be done at much less and from within internal sources. Hence, the suggestion that the work be undertaken by an overseas company “with impeccable records and state of the art technology”. But I made it clear to Walker that a comprehensive proposal would only be submitted if government agreed to NFU’s purchases of shares, because of the huge cost outlays involved in such a project. As it happened NFU’s bid for equity in FSC was refused, and that’s where the matter rested as far as the Union was concerned. Mr Anand Singh was asked to evaluate the proposal and assist with its implementation. But this was not needed following government’s refusal to sell its shares to NFU. This refusal was conveyed to us in a letter dated 6 November 2003. Now, I see nothing underhand or controversial in any of this. It was a sound and completely legitimate business proposal on behalf of NFU, if it were to succeed in its bid to takeover government shares in the Corporations.”

What is the truth, Charles Walker?  As I have already stated that since Chaudhry’s statement was not subject to any injunction, there is nothing that should stop Charles Walker from replying to claims made by the FLP leader on the party’s official website. Ideally, one would have expected Chaudhry, as Qarase did after the libel writ, to state that ‘since the matter is now before the court, I decline to offer any comments or statements. I will be presenting my evidence to the court in support of my libel writ’. But since he has decided to go public, the matter is now of great public interest.

Secondly, were the farmers, who belong to the National Farmers Union, ever consulted or informed of the Union’s intention to purchase shares in the FSC? If so, when, how, and by whom?

Thirdly, was Anand Singh ever authorised to secure the loan with the Sugar Technical Mission, with or without the consent of Chaudhry?.

Was the Leader of the Fiji Labour Party aware that his own nominated senator, who is the official legal counsel for the party for a very long time, had been embroiled in a long running feud to get fees from the sugar industry structure?

Singh says that although Chaudhry knew what he was doing in India, the Opposition leader had no role or direct involvement.

Was Senator Singh and United Consultancy of Auckland representing Chaudhry and the NFU? Is United Consultancy Singh’s company? Was Singh carrying out the consultancy while simultaneously claiming salary as a senator?

Were the farmers aware of Singh’s role in the whole negotiations? Has Singh been sending ‘obnoxious mails’ to Jeevan Jyoti Bhagat, the head of the Indian Technical Mission ? Did Singh help to negotiate the $86 million sugar deal?

I hold no brief for Prime Minister Qarase but I do air these questions also on behalf of some of my family members, who are sugar cane farmers? It seems there are two separate issues – a personal libel writ claim against the Prime Minister, and the controversial role of Senator Anand Singh, who surely at one point or another spoke or would have spoken on the recently defeated bills to alter ALTA-NLTA?

The Prime Minister and Catch 22 scenario

Parliamentary privilege is that part of the law that defines the powers and immunities applying to the House of Representatives and those who participate in its work – members, officers, advisers, witnesses and petitioners. The ‘privilege’, especially in an egalitarian age, confers on the parliamentarians the ability to speak on the floor of the House without fear of legal liability arising from their speeches or disclosures.

When Qarase made the statement in Parliament, he was shielding behind parliamentary privilege. In response, Chaudhry goaded him to provide evidence. The Prime Minister was in a Catch 22 situation. If he had provided the evidence on the floor of the House, the media at large would still have been scared to report the allegations, fearing that Chaudhry might slam a libel writ against them. To the Prime Minister’s credit, he risked it all and went public with his version of events. The end result is a libel writ from Chaudhry before the High Court, followed by a failed injunction, which wanted the media not to repeat Qarase’s allegations. As I have already noted, the media was wrong to withhold letters and documents that the Prime Minister produced at the press conference.

Injunctions: A Double-edged Sword

I recently noted that politicians resort to injunctions after slinging each other under the rubric of parliamentary privilege. The general public is expected to merely gossip or speculate what really is the ‘Gandhian’ truth. However, injunctions are not always foolproof in many cases. Justice Gates judgment confirms the statement of fact. In an English case of Martha Greene v Associated Newspapers (2004), the Court of Appeal (CoA) confirmed the old rule that injunctions will not be granted in libel actions unless the claimant can show a defence of justification is bound to fail at trial.

The CoA gave a fresh boost to press freedom by rejecting an attempt to argue that the Human Rights Act in Great Britain meant that it should be easier for would-be claimants to obtain temporary injunctions to stop publication of material they say is defamatory. The story started when Martha Greene, a friend of Cherie Blair, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s wife, made an emergency application to the duty judge, Justice Fulford, on the afternoon of Saturday October 16, 2004. She wanted the order to stop the Mail on Sunday publishing allegations about her, which she said were libellous. Ms Greene had hit the headlines earlier in October after it emerged that she had helped Tony Blair and his wife to buy a £3.6 million house in London.

Bonnard rule ‘superseded

It was argued for Mrs Greene that the enactment of section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 meant that the rule against prior restraint in libel actions – the rule in Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269] – was no longer good law. The rule states that interim injunctions will not be granted to prevent publication of a libel that the defendant claims is true unless the claimant can demonstrate that a plea of justification is bound to fail at trial. It was also argued that, on its face, section 12 governed prior restraint against freedom of expression, and that this was also the case following the decision by the House of Lords in the Cream Holdings case two days previously.
 
But lawyers for the newspaper argued that the judge was bound by the rule in Bonnard v Perryman. The decision in the Cream Holdings case did not affect the rule and the injunction should be refused. Justice Fulford refused to issue an injunction on those grounds, and awarded costs to the newspaper. But he also gave Ms Greene permission to appeal on the point of law in relation to the effect of section 12 on interim relief in defamation cases, and granted a temporary injunction pending an expedited appeal.

At the appeal, which was heard on 21 October by Lords Justice Brooke, May and Dyson, the newspaper argued that the rule in Bonnard v Perryman was still good law, and that it was compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. It was argued, in particular, that the lower threshold for interim injunctions in privacy cases – a likelihood of success at trial, as required by section 12 (3) of the Human Rights Act – was not a threshold which could be applied to libel injunctions. The reasons were given on 5 November. In Cream Holdings Ltd & Ors v Banjerjee & Ors (2004), the House of Lords ruled as follows: ‘There can be no single, rigid standard governing all applications for interim restraint order.’ 

The Liverpool Echo newspaper had won a landmark judgment when the House of Lords lifted an injunction, which had stopped it from publishing information it obtained from the former financial controller of events organiser Cream Holdings. Chumki Banjernee, a qualified accountant, had worked as Cream’s financial controller of the Cream group. When directors ignored Ms Banjeree’s pleas to correct irregular financial practices, including taking cash from undeclared tills, she provided information to the Liverpool Daily Post and Echo about her allegations of financial irregularities by Cream.  

In conclusion, I repeat that the only way to clear the fog over sugargate is a Commission of Inquiry, to be presided over by a retired judge of standing. To recall the former NFP general secretary, Karam Ramrakha’s letter to Chaudhry in a libel case against him, ‘Distasteful as it will be to sue you as a current leader of the community when Fiji is passing through a difficult period, I can assure you that I shall take action if you do not respond with an apology and offer of amends’. On 16 June 2004 Chaudhry, in his capacity as the general secretary of the National Farmers Union, replied to Ramrakha on the union’s letterhead (a copy of which is in my possession) that Ramrakha betrayed Siddiq Koya from becoming Prime Minister in 1977. Ramrakha recently lost the libel writ against Chaudhry in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Sydney, Australia. Ramrakha has filed an appeal.  

We am not suing nor seeking an apology from Mahendra Pal Chaudhry.

All we want is a Commission of Inquiry into the whole controversial affair. 

Moreover, in a democracy, those professing to be democrats, would have voluntarily stepped down from their political positions until the controversy surrounding such serious allegations were thoroughly dealt with.

In this case, it is up to the Fiji Labour Party to make the first move to re-establish authority and credibility in the eyes of the general electorate.

Remember the words of a British judge, who while refusing an injunction, said that Lord Levy was a prominent supporter of the British Labour Party, which had a manifesto commitment to closing tax loopholes, and his own tax affairs would shed light on the integrity of that position, which was in the public interest.

It was not long ago that the FLP defeated the bills to amend ALTA-NLTA, claiming that it represented the farmers and the tenant sugarcane community. There will bound to be unwarranted and unjustified whispers of all sorts, especially around the ‘kava bowls’ and ‘curry pots’ throughout Fiji.

Both Mahendra Chaudhry and Anand Singh still have a lot of explaining to do over ‘sugargate’. The issue is of great public interest.

And the best arena to do that is in a public court of law.

Guide book for a gagged parliament?

It makes amusing reading to note that a guide book has been published by the UNDP to assist our MPs find their feet in Parliament.

In a picture story on the front page of today’s Fiji Times, the Speaker is seen showing the guide book to the PM, the Opposition Leader and NFP Leader. All three are wearing gleeful smiles on their faces.

The Speaker in her launch speech is reported to have said, “I am quite passionate about opening Parliament by creating the enabling environment and opportunities for citizens to understand this institution, how it works and how they engage in the work of parliament.”

Well Madam Speaker the people generally understand the institution of parliament to be a chamber where:

• The Opposition is muted by a bullying government ably assisted by a helpful speaker
• A chamber where Ministers do not give honest answers to straight questions and where the Opposition MPs get the boot if they speak their mind – currently the number of booted out MPs stands at 3
• It is also known as the chamber where MPs approve for themselves huge increases in pay and travel allowances while half the nation starves

In her speech, the Speaker warned that the Guide Book does not replace the Standing Orders which she says is “the definitive rule for the way the Parliament operated”.

Well, there is nothing definitive about the Standing Orders as far as we know because these can be amended anytime the FF government feels it needs more control over the parliamentary process. A case in point: when the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee was taken away from the Opposition.

Despite all this, there must have been something really funny for the Opposition Leader and her NFP colleague to put on such delightful faces.

An Iranian refugee who fled Australia's offshore detention regime in Papua New Guinea is being treated in hospital while he awaits court.

Loghman Sawari was deported from Fiji on February 3, after spending 10 days in that country. His lawyer had said he intended to seek asylum in Fiji, but Sawari was arrested while on his way to a meeting with immigration officials, taken to the airport and sent back to PNG.

PNG police charged him with giving false information in his application for a PNG passport. The 20-year-old was being kept at a Port Moresby police station but is now in hospital. He was brought to court in Port Moresby to apply for bail, but there was a problem with the lodgement of his bail application and the matter was deferred. Sawari was visibly upset and shaking while he waited to apply for bail.

"I am not a criminal, I am a refugee, do you understand what that is?" he said.

He showed journalists apparent self-harm injuries on his arm and said he had developed serious mental health problems from his detention and deportation.

UNHCR 'profoundly concerned' for SawariThe United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed concern about the treatment of Sawari, saying the agency was "profoundly concerned for his welfare". "UNHCR has long called for refugees and asylum-seekers currently in Papua New Guinea to be moved to humane conditions outside of the country, equally, UNHCR has urged that no refugees or asylum-seekers should be returned there," the UNHCR said in a statement.

"We urge the Government of Papua New Guinea to ensure that Mr Sawari is treated in accordance with international human rights law and standards."

Fiji's Government has defended its decision to deport Sawari, saying he did not comply with international law because he did not immediately apply for asylum upon arrival. It also noted that he had been recognised as a refugee by Papua New Guinea and was a lawful resident there. Sawari was one of the first refugees to leave Australia's detention centre on Manus Island, to take up a job in the country's second-biggest city, Lae. He left his job after a dispute with co-workers and was sleeping rough on the streets before going back to Manus Island.

PNG Immigration Minister Rimbink Pato has acknowledged Sawari is a vulnerable person, noting his "mental health issues", but said he was concerned about the alleged breach of PNG law. Source: ABC News, Australia, 9/2/2017

3 February 2017

UNHCR is gravely concerned by the forced return of an Iranian refugee from Fiji to Papua New Guinea today.

The UN Refugee Agency had sought assurances from the Government of Fiji this week that he would have access to Fiji’s national asylum procedures, given his stated intention to seek asylum.

All asylum-seekers are entitled to have their claims for refugee status considered fairly and in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Fiji is signatory.

UNHCR deeply regrets that interventions to prevent the refugee’s forced return were not successful, and is profoundly concerned for his welfare. Further information is being sought from the Governments of both Fiji and Papua New Guinea at this time.

UNHCR has long called for refugees and asylum-seekers currently in Papua New Guinea to be moved to humane conditions outside of the country. Equally, UNHCR has urged that no refugees or asylum-seekers should be returned there.

We urge the Government of Papua New Guinea to ensure that the refugee is treated in accordance with international human rights law and standards.

STATEMENT FROM THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AIYAZ SAYED KHAIYUM
2/3/2017

Loghman Sawari was deported from Fiji to Papua New Guinea today after entering Fiji on a Papua New Guinean passport.

He is claiming to be a refugee but did not present himself as a refugee seeking asylum to immigration officials on arrival in Fiji. Nor, after ten days, did he lodge an application for asylum, personally or through his lawyer.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has advised Fiji that Sawari is not recognised as a refugee under the UNHCR mandate. It has further advised that he is a refugee recognised by Papua New Guinea under its national procedures. So Fiji has merely returned Sawari to his rightful place of residence.

Sawari eluded the authorities during his ten days in Fiji while posting photographs of himself on social media at various locations.

Under international law, anyone who is seeking political asylum is required to lodge an application without delay. In the case of Sawari, this did not happen. And his lawyer - who has been publicly advocating his position through the media - failed to facilitate a prompt application as required under international conventions pertaining to applications for refugee status.

The authorities in Fiji have been informed by their Papua New Guinean counterparts that Sawari’s Papua New Guinea passport was obtained by fraudulent means.

On this basis, Sawari was also in breach of Fijian law which states that “a person who knowingly misleads or attempts to mislead any immigration officer in relation to any matter material to the performance or exercise by any immigration officer of any duty, function, power or discretion...commits an offence.”

The Government notes that Sawari is claiming that he feared for his life. This begs the question as to why for ten days he failed to file an application for asylum. Despite several attempts by the Immigration Department to engage with Sawari, these attempts were ignored.

Fiji remains fully committed to the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, but we cannot tolerate a situation in which a person who is not an asylum seeker and who has already been granted refugee status in another country flagrantly violates the law.

2016 Amnesty International Report on Fiji is legally biased - AG

Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum says the 2016 Amnesty International Report on Fiji is legally biased, factually flawed and lacks intellectual integrity.

Sayed-Khaiyum made this clear in parliament today after Opposition MP, Niko Nawaikula asked Sayed-Khaiyum to advise parliament on what steps had been taken by the government in the implementation of the Amnesty International Report  recommendations.

Sayed-Khaiyum says the Prime Minister has already made it clear that there is no state sanctioned policy on torture in Fiji unlike in other countries.

He says even the US has a state sanctioned policy on water boarding.

The Attorney General says Fiji just has groups of people taking the law into their own hands however the Fijian constitution clearly prohibits torture in the Bill of Rights.

He highlighted that there is a recommendation in the Amnesty International Report to “remove legal barriers to the prosecution of torture and other ill-treatment”.

Sayed-Khaiyum questions what sort of barriers as all prosecutions continue without any barriers.

He says the report also recommends that the Prisons Act be amended however the act was repealed 8 years ago.

Nawaikula again asked Sayed-Khaiyum whether the government will implement the recommendations.
Sayed-Khaiyum says how can this be done when the recommendations are wrong. Source: Fijivillage,
9 February 2017