Blog Archives

GRACE ROAD and FDB Loans: FDB chairman SAUD MINAM says bank will co-operate with any investigation into the South Korean cult but he is refusing to inform if he qualified for Fiji citizenship from Aiyaz Khaiyum

28/2/2023

Saud Minam, FDB CEO

ROLLING OVER to assist PIO TIKODUADUA and MANOA KAMIKAMICA into any investigation into the Grace Road Church but for three years he has refused to respond to Fijileaks if he obtained his Fiji CITIZENSHIP illegally. Maybe, Tikoduadua should re-open Minam's citizenship file.
In 2021, the then Shadow Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Aseri Radrodro (now Education Minister in the Coalition government) had slammed the appointment of Mr Saud Minam to the position of Chief Executive Office of Fiji Development Bank. Radrodro claimed the appointment of the "Pakistani turned Fijian passport holder, is another slap in the face for hard working Fijian people born and bred in Fiji, to pursue career paths in their country of birth".*

He arrived at ANZ Fiji in 2013, and in February 2017 was appointed the bank's CEO, and in April 2021 he departed the bank. Was he on WORK PERMIT? If so, when did he acquire Fiji citizenship? On what grounds was he granted CITIZENSHIP by the FFP government? He was in Fiji for a total of 8 years when requirement for eligibility for Fiji citizenship is 10 years before the application is made, and he had to be present in Fiji for a total of five years.

It is obvious from his Linkedin CV that he could only apply to become a naturalised Fiji citizen in 2023. There are persistent rumours that many high ranking Fijian military officers got huge loans from the ANZ Fiji bank on very favourable terms and conditions?
It is nearly three years, and he is refusing to respond to Fijileaks:

Finally, after THREE WEEKS, 'Mr Diaper Dayal' replaced as Chair, FRCA. The Finance Minister Biman Prasad must RESIGN. Three weeks ago we threatened to reveal Savendra Dayal's alleged $3million doddy tax deal

27/2/2023

Naiyaga

"I have all the docs on Dayal and I am willing to reveal he only allegedly paid up his outstanding $3million so he can be appointed Chair, FRCA.
How can bloody businessmen be chairs of State bodies?
I knew the chor[s] - [crooks, butakos] and chamars [low castes, kaisi bokola botobotos] in NFP and PAP, and that is why I had refused to endorse the PAP-NFP Coalition."
Fijileaks to Finance Minister Biman Prasad, 1 February 2023; copied to Sitiveni Rabuka, Pio Tikoduadua, Lenora Qereqeretabua, Manoa Kamikamica and others in PAP Coalition government.
In 2008, we had informed the Coupist Bainimarama and his master puppeteer Aiyaz Khaiyum that their Interim Finance Minister, Minister for Sugar and National Infrastructure, and line manager of FRCA, MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY was hiding $2million in Australia. Instead of sacking Chaudhry, the interim regime abducted, tortured, deported and banned Fiji Sun publisher RUSSELL HUNTER after our Editor revealed the tax details in the Fiji Sun. Hunter died in exile, in Brisbane, Australia.

From Fijileaks Archive, 1 February 2023

What was Savendra Dayal's role, if any, along with FSC chair Vishnu Mohan, in the salary scandal?
Dayal, referred to as 'Mr Diaper' for his association with Johnson and Johnson Fiji, Australia and New Zealand, the sellers of 'baby powder, diapers, and other products', is also founder and director of Healthcare Products International, and other statutory bodies, including as a director on the Fijian Holdings Ltd Board
*Fijileaks: Prasad must SACK Dayal as Chair of FRCA, for the Coalition government is launching an investigation into the Fiji Sugar Corporation.
We had also questioned the rumoured appointment of Damend Gounder.

ANOTHER ACTING KAI VATA APPOINTMENT: As we revealed yesterday, and objected to Filipo Tarakinikini's rumoured appointment, he has been appointed acting Fiji representative to the UN. Of course, the position will be advertised and a selection made - it will be Tarakinikini.
For SIXTEEN YEARS, we NEVER heard a word from him against the Dictatorship in Fiji?
As one asked Fijileaks: "Where was this man for 16 years?"

LEGAL NUMBSKULL? Aiyaz Khaiyum granted permission to open Trust account for new law firm in West. His successor A-G Siromi, 'Khaiyum ticked right boxes'. Yet, couldn't interpret his own law - COC membership

26/2/2023

Fijileaks: What client in his or her right thinking mind would want to engage a lawyer who not only failed to correctly interpret his own law in the 2013 Constitution on COC membership but grievously betrayed the TRUST of over 22,000 voters who had reposed their TRUST in him to represent them in the new Parliament. He ran away.

*He should RESIGN as general secretary of the FijiFirst Party, and his Leader must be stripped of role as the Leader of the Opposition, now Bainimarama has been suspended for three years

From Fijileaks, 3 January 2023

From Fijileaks Archive, 30 October 2015

COALITION, 'Don't put the cart before the Horse'. During poll campaign Rabuka said an Inquiry will be conducted into COUPS, including Speight Coup. Now, RFMF chief negotiator with Speight to "represent Fiji at UN"

26/2/2023

MAJOR FILIPO TARAKINIKINI was allegedly the one who facilitated the release of guns/weapons from the RFMF to the CRW unit in Parliament in 2000 Coup on orders of RFMF commander Bainimarama from Norway.
Perhaps Rabuka should first set up the Commissions of Inquiry into the 1987, 2000 and 2006 coups which he promised in his election campaign before he starts appointing ex-RFMF soldiers, who might have been involved in these coups, back into the country’s Public Service.
We also hear that the former Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka, whose own role in the aftermath of the 2000 bloody mutiny is being disputed, is being considered by the Coalition government for a diplomatic posting.
Fijileaks* to Colonel Pio Tikoduadua: 'We will NOT leave RFMF Alone."

Fijileaks SPEAKS OUT:
It was Major Tarakinikini at RFMF who was assigned by Bainimarama to be his intermediary with George Speight (and the Ligairi-led CRW unit under him in Parliament) while he took off to Norway during George Speight’s coup in 2000.
He was apparently the one who facilitated the release of guns/weapons from the RFMF to the CRW unit in Parliament on orders of Bainimarama from Norway.
Bainimarama had taken off to Norway after the Military Council refused to support his coup plan that Friday.
Remember that the current Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka went to the President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara that Friday morning to ask that he be appointed as Commander (in the absence of Bainimarama in Norway) but the President pointed out to him that he had received allegations that the CRW Unit (who were with George Speight in Parliament) were training at his Valavala estate and until he had investigated those allegations, he could not agree to his request.
The President then suggested to Rabuka that if he really wanted to help then he should go down to Parliament to tell George Speight that the President was willing to talk to Speight’s group provided he first released all the hostages.
Some hostages had told our Founding Editor-in-Chief that they actually saw him from their prison in the Parliamentary Chambers when Rabuka walked past the Parliament’s corridors on his way to see George Speight.
But apparently George Speight refused to see him then when he also tried to meet with his old man from 1987, Ligairi, he similarly refused to meet him.
We have been informed from PAP sources that Matt Mataitini (Vice President) was first offered the PRUN post but declined. Mataitini served with the Department of UN Peacekeeping until he retired (he left the RFMF after the 1987 coup).
He then recommended Tarakinikini who joined him at the UNDPKO after the 2000 coup.
Perhaps Rabuka should first set up the Commissions of Inquiry into the 1987, 2000 and 2006 coups which he promised in his election campaign before he starts appointing ex-RFMF soldiers, who might have been involved in these coups, back into the country’s Public Service.

From Fijileaks Archive, 4 September 2014

ARCHANGELS, NOT REALLY. We are heartened to receive e-mails from many whose persecution we had exposed or the evidence we had kept on us because of draconian Media Decree imposed by 'KING Khaiyum'

25/2/2023

UPDATE: "Bula si a Victor – I am so happy that you responded so quickly. During that period, __from FTIB was with me and was concerned as an investor . Drove me to the police dept. and discovered that the police report I made was erased, crossed out or never taken. I personally saw the handwritten report. _and I went to the Labasa hospital and the same thing occurred . . . The folder for Kyoko Yamanouchi-Bandy was missing and remained missing. The doctor who saw me the day it happened told me I was not the only one abused by Inia but she disappeared too. The management at the Grand Eastern Hotel were told not to speak and they saw “nothing”. The chief was a friend and he was the one who told me that he couldn’t talk about it. I had a 5pm appointment with Bainimarama before I was thrown out by their security guards."
KYOKO BANDY, victim whom INIA SERUIRATU had knocked to the ground

Kyoko Bandy

Do you recall the heartbreaking story from 2017 of cancer victim Kyoko Bandy whom the thug INIA SERUIRATU had knocked to the ground. Now, the couple have summoned courage and want the new Coalition government to re-open their files. Their e-mail to us reinforces our deep-seated conviction that we were correct to found Fijileaks in 2011, to serve as an outlet for the victims of Bainimarama-Khaiyum dictatorship. We will also hold the current Coalition government to account, without fear or favour. The IMMUNITY in 2013 Constitution is the SATAN IN-WAITING

WE WILL NOT LEAVE RFMF ALONE, PIO.

Since the 2006 coup, many former military personnel re-emerged as politicians and administrators in the FFP government, and now in the Coalition led government, including NFP president PIO TIKODUADUA. Many are back in Fiji, vying for appointments to the UN (Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini) or as ambassadors under new Rabuka government. They did nothing for the VICTIMS in the last 16 years.

DON’T stick your nose into the affairs and business of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF). This is Home Affairs Minister Pio Tikoduadua’s message to politicians.

We will continue to stick our nose (and our boot) into the affairs of RFMF, including your own role in propping up the Bainimarama regime. Soon we will re-publish the contents of the 2004 Defence White Paper Review on the RFMF. We challenge TIKODUADUA to release the Regimental Fund Accounts hidden from us for several years, despite Fiji Supreme Court ruling.
*As our story below reveals, it was the bloody Colonels and Crooks from the RFMF who for sixteen years benefitted from the coups, and even the Father of the Coups Sitiveni Rabuka, is now Prime Minister.

Hope for the Fijian People (Jim/Kyoko Bandy), 24 February 2023, CC to Fijileaks

Ni sa bula si a Rabuka,

Congratulations !!! There is hope for the people of Fiji and for Fiji
to prosper once again.

I write to you about the hardships and consequences Jim & Kyoko and
the company, ALSO Island Limited, have persevered in the last 20 years.
There are many obstructions and examples but most important are two:

1) Fiji Leaks by Victor Lal about Kyoko Yamanouchi-Bandy 'back slapped' to the ground by FFP Minister Inia Seruiratu The police report was erased and the folder for Kyoko at the Labasa Hospital was never found.

2) Case No. HBC 049 OF 2016, Jim & Kyoko Bandy, Plaintiffs vs Aiyaz Kaiyum and the Commissioner of Police, defendants with Magistrate, Kamal Kumar presiding . . . a 4-year investigation and two years of court hearing with John Pickering representing Kaiyum and Jim Bandy representing himself (without Lawyer) concluded in 2018.

The Case was heard in Labasa by Kamal Kumar, the same Kumar that is now “Chief Justice
Kumar”.

The case should have been judged won as the defendants defaulted. The defendants did not respond to the final summary (not even to this day) (Summary that quoted directly from police records that showed all kinds of inaccuracies, lack of following proper procedures, failures and dereliction of duty. Then certain Police files went missing. It took 4 years and many requests for Judgment before “Chief Justice Kumar” finally in November of 2022 rendered: “claim be dismissed and struck out on grounds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendants acted negligently”.

THEY LOST THE FILES, FAILED TO FOLLOW POLICE DEFINED PROCEDURES AND FAILED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS INFORMED OF INVESTIGATIONS AND COURT APPEARANCES. The case reeked of failures, improprieties, derelictionof duties and cover-up. Crimes were committed; JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED and a complete cover-up was employed to protect the dereliction of duty, wrong doing and or people.

Fijileaks: We have edited out other highly confidential contents to the current A-G for the re-opening of the Bandy's files

36-year-old Ratu Meli Bainimarama who is facing 17 counts in Australia has had some bail variations at the Parramatta Court where his passport has to be surrendered to Javid Faiz Solicitor and is not to leave the custody of Faiz at any time today and to be returned by close of business tomorrow.

The court has decided that 1 acceptable person or persons deposit the sum of $20,000 in cash, and enter into a bail security agreement or agreement(s), to forfeit the amount(s) if the accused fails to comply with the bail acknowledgement.

The Parramatta Court says other bail conditions are that Ratu Meli Bainimarama has to report to Granville Police Station, once daily, to surrender his passport to the Registrar of the Local Court if the passport is not already in police custody/possession and not to apply for another passport.

The court has also said in any event, the passport is to be surrendered within 24 hours of release from custody.
He is not to travel outside the State of New South Wales and not to enter any international airport or other point of departure from Australia.

Bainimarama also has to live only with his partner or on his own, not to enter the suburb of Riverstone NSW for any purpose whatsoever and not to go near, or contact or try to go near or contact the victim or any prosecution witness (except through a legal representative).

Ratu Meli Bainimarama is accused of common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, stalking and intentionally choking a person without consent, destroying or damaging property and intentionally distributing an intimate image without consent.

Both Bainimarama and NSW Police, Prosecuting Authority did not appear in court today.

He had earlier pleaded not guilty to all counts.

The matter is listed for hearing on 23rd June 2023.

By the Rivers of Babylon and the Tyrant King Nebuchadnezzar. We can't escape remembering Psalm 137 as late Brij Lal's ashes to be scattered in River Tabia and TYRANT Khaiyum as the former 'KING Nebuchadnezzar'

24/2/2023

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, we also wept, when we remembered Zion. We hung our lyres on the willows in its midst. For there, those who carried us away captive required of us a song; and those who tormented us required of us mirth, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion.’ How shall we sing God’s song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember you, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." (Psalms 137:1-6)

From the late Professor Brij Lal, 10 November 2016
We will never bow before the bandits.
Their victory is pyrrhic:
Dear Victor
"I wish I knew [who was behind my banning]. What happened was this. I was taken to the QEB and was interrogated, slapped and spat upon by Sitiveni Qiliho. I remember asking him when I could return to Fiji to resume my research after he told me to take the first plane out. He said something non-committal, like 'we'll see.'
There was no paper, no interview, no due process.

After the elections in 2014, I wrote to Immigration Minister [Timoci] Natuva, who was initially quite positive. I was asked to pay some $300 to have the paper work done. When nothing happened, I asked again and was told by the Immigration Department fellows that the hiccup was at the PM's end. He refused to lift the ban.

Much later --and this is confidential -- (we have withheld the name of the political leader) raised the issue with Natuva who told him that it was No. 2 (Khaiyum) who was was blocking me.
He is the vindictive one. I believe that.

Quite bizarriely, I was told by someone that some of ASK's close Muslim supporters leaned on him not to allow me back into the country because, they said, I was the one on the Reeves Commission who had objected to the Muslim demand for separate seats.
That is completely untrue.
The issue was never raised in our deliberations simply because no one wanted more division in an already divided society.

I believe now that it is Khaiyum who is the one who is blocking us from returning to Fiji, with the support of his Muslim cohorts.
I never imagined this sort of zealous bigotry possible in a place like Fiji.

So sad, so short-sighted, but we will never bow before the bandits.

I wanted to write to you earlier to offer commiseration on the hacking of your blogsite.
I admire your courage and resilience. Their victory is pyrrhic."

Best, Brij

Petition to the Parliament of Fiji: Brij and Padma Lal

I wish to bring to the attention of the elected representatives of the people of Fiji the matter of life ban
imposed on us, myself and my wife Padma, from returning to Fiji, the country of our birth. Life ban is the
severest sanction a state can apply to any individual, and it is usually imposed for the most heinous of
crimes against humanity. We have at all times been law abiding citizens with an unblemished record
wherever we have lived. On the contrary, we both have been honoured in Fiji and the wider Pacific for
our contributions to society, including to our respective fields of academia and public service. We would
like the Parliament of Fiji to revoke the ban.

I (Brij V Lal) was deported from Fiji on 5 November 2009 and told to take the next available plane out of
the country. I was not told then or subsequently the reason for the deportation and the imposition of
the life ban on me. My wife, Padma, was refused entry into Fiji in January 2010 and similarly not
informed why this treatment was meted out to her.

I have been a principled critic of all the coups in Fiji, including the 2006 military coup. I stood up for the
values of representative democracy, the sanctity of the ballot box, the rule of law and unfettered free
speech. I believe that democracy dies without the oxygen of free speech, and that dissent and debate
are an integral part of a healthy democratic society. Nothing less would have been expected of me as a
former member of the Fiji Constitution Review Commission, headed by Sir Paul Reeves, whose report
formed the basis of Fiji’s once admired but now revoked 1997 Constitution. At all times, I dissented
within the prescribed parameters of Fijian laws.

Padma has always been the consummate professional, widely respected throughout the Pacific region
for her expertise in climate change, disaster risk management and more resource and environmental
economics more generally. She has never once publicly expressed opinions on politics in Fiji or
elsewhere, whatever her individual views may have been. We believe that she being victimized simply
for being married to me.

We have both been recognized for our public service to Fiji and the Pacific region. Marking its 70 th
anniversary, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) selected Padma as one of 70 most Inspiring
Women of the Pacific. Among numerous other awards, I have been honoured with an Officer of the
Order of Fiji, and Member of the Order of Australia as well as Australia’s Centenary Medal. Significantly,
I was chosen by the Fiji Millennium Committee as one of 75 people who helped shape Fiji’s 20 th century
history.

We would like the Parliament of Fiji to review and, if possible, revoke the life ban on us. Failing that, we
would at least like to know precisely why this severest of sanctions has been applied to us. Contrary to
the government’s assertion to the Fiji Parliament, we are not, and never have been, a danger to the
peace and security of Fiji and its people. We deeply regret the global opprobrium the ban has brought
on Fiji, and hope that this taint on Fiji’s reputation will be removed in due course.

Brij Vilash Lal, AM, BA (USP) MA (Brit. Col), PhD (ANU), FAHA
Padma Narsey Lal BSc, MSc (USP), MREnSc (ANU), PhD (Hawaii)

INDIANS could lease land and plant sugarcane: Sugar Minister Charan Jeath Singh tells India her citizens could come to Fiji and fill shortage of labour gap because sugarcane farmers children moving away from farms

23/2/2023

"Our target is to increase the production by 200,000 tonnes every year until we achieve our target of three million tonnes. But the buggest hurdle is the shortage of labour. As farmers children get educated they are moving into white collar jobs. So they don't want to work on farms. That's why we want to look at the way India is able to continue its large scale production, the minister (Charan Jeat Singh) said. The minister also said that Fiji could be open to hiring labour from other countries, including India, or leasing land in Fiji for sugar cane farming to address the shortage of workers in his country. We also looking at the possibilities of bring[ing] people from overseas, probably India to work in Fiji. Even for that matter, if they want to come and lease the land in Fiji for planting sugarcane, it could also be an option. If there are genuine people who want to come and lease the land, I am sure, why not," he said.

Charan Jeath Singh: 'Fiji is also looking for the Indian assistance for building the new modern sugar mill and expects write off of an existing loan extended to Fiji through EXIM Bank about 20 years back. Some 20 years back, we had received $50million from Indian government through the Exim Bank of India. Unfortunately, that money was supposed to be used to buy machinery from the Indian suppliers. But that loan was not properly used because of middlemen, who got us equipment that had second grade materials.'

From Fijileaks Archive, 12 February 2017
Whatever happened to the Interim Fiji Government's claim in 2012 that it was conducting an investigation into circumstances surrounding the use of $86million loaned from EXIM Bank of India to the Fiji Sugar Corporation [FSC]. The money was for the restructuring of Fiji's sugar industry. The then Permanent Secretary for Ministry of Sugar Lieutenant-Colonel Manasa Vaniqi had claimed that the matter had already been referred to FICAC. Its five years, and where is the "Report"?

Meanwhile, Victor Lal's opinion column in The Fiji Sun (2005) re the then Prime Minister Laisenai Qarase's press statement and Chaudhry and Singh's injunction bid before the High Court.

*The late Prime Minister Qarase had leaked all the e-mail correspondence on the matter to our Editor-in-Chief in 2005.

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.

Anand Singh to Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief, 17 September 2011

18 September 2011: A year ago John Prasad made public some of the facts about the JJ Bhagat contract. It was terminated by FSC when Prasad was running FSC. Prasad claimed that FSC would be getting expertise from another Indian company JP Mukherji and Associates. He didn’t say what recourse FSC had against the JJ Bhagat company. Since then, Prasad was sacked (no explanation of course) and we’ve heard no more about JP Mukherji. Also, last year Joeli Cawaki the military Commissioner Western said that there should have been a performance bond which would pay for the work to be fixed up, but no more on that either. Now Abdul Khan claims to know nothing about JJ Bhagat’s contract or how it was awarded. The only conclusion we can draw is that Bainimarama is protecting someone. Just who and why we need to know. Did he take money from JJ Bhagat for the award of the contract?

Did JJ Bhagat sign his own cheques?
Fiji Sugar Corporation is gradually releasing information about the failed mill refit, but it’s still holding back on what we need to know. Who signed off on all the substandard work and equipment? Who authorised the transfer of money from EXIM Bank to the contractors? What contracts were involved? Did FSc have one contract with JJ Bhagat and other contracts with equipment providers and installers or just one contract? This is what cane farmers demand to know. They want to see the contracts. Bainimarama must hold an inquiry.

The late BRIJ LAL: Shamima Ali says no Fiji CITIZEN should go through what Lal family went in 2009, where basic human right to nationality and citizenship is denied. Brij Lal had renounced his Fiji citizenship in 1993

23/2/2023

Fijileaks: We must never shy away from asking whether those who had (the late Brij Lal), and others who have voluntarily renounced their Fiji citizenship, and don't hold dual citizenship, have the automatic right to be buried, cremated, or their ashes scattered into the sea or the rivers of Fiji. The Coalition government must spell out its policy regarding former citizens who die abroad - whether friends or foes of political parties. In the late Brij Lal's case, he was an Australian-American citizen, and NOT a Fiji citizen. He became an American citizen in 1993, and an Australian citizen in 1995.
The treatment meted out to him was no different to that meted out to the two Australian publishers of the Fiji Sun* and Fiji Times respectively. In Russell Hunter's case, like Brij Lal, he died in exile, in Brisbane, Australia. Still, all three Australian citizens should NOT have been subjected to deportations because of their views and actions.
Luckily, for the late Brij Lal, his career nor his academic research suffered after the 1987 coups because he somehow remained in the good books of the Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka, and also because of his close links to the NFP, and its leadership.
Even after the 2006 coup, he was left alone. It was not until 2009, when Aiyaz Khaiyum took control, that the late Brij Lal ran foul of the regime.

Fijileaks: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief had been a friend of the late Brij Lal (RIP), an academic colleague, and later a leading campaigner to bring suspended Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho to justice for assaulting and deporting the late Brij Lal out of Fiji, leading to him being banned from returning, and later his wife PADMA LAL.
Setting aside sentiment, friendship, and hatred for FFP's 16 year long dictatorship, we must never shy away from asking whether those who had (the late Brij Lal), and others who have voluntarily renounced their citizenship, have the automatic right to be buried, cremated, or their ashes scattered into the sea or the rivers of Fiji.
It is in this context that we must debate whether FFP was right or wrong to act against a former Fiji Citizen?
We were surprised to learn that despite not being a Fiji citizen, the late Jai Ram Reddy had nominated the late Brij Lal to be a nominee of the NFP in drafting the 1997 Constitution of Fiji.
The Coalition government must spell out its policy regarding former citizens who die abroad - whether friends or foes of political parties.
*The late Brij Lal's former student ASHWIN RAJ had revealed that his former academic supervisor at ANU had long given up Fiji citizenship.

From Fijileaks Archive, 29 December 2021

Amnesty International to Fijileaks Editor, 28 July 2020

"I've checked with a colleague. If he did arrive in the UK, the UK provides universal jurisdiction for torture, which means UK police would need to investigate allegations of torture if a complaint were made.

I'm sure you know of the accusations as well as I do, but I'd be interested to know if you think any witnesses might come forward?

Is there any other evidence (written statements etc) that you've received for your blog that could also be used to support such claims? It might be the only shot at accountability.".

Fijileaks: We had agreed, without disclosing personal reasons, that I was at liberty to reveal the late Professor Brij Lal's collaboration in our pursuit to arrest Sitiveni Qiliho in London

20 July 2020
To Whom It May Concern

Bhai, I plan to move against him.
Looks like this Academy has turned a blind eye but the coward kept everything in utter secrecy
I need a proper statement on a separate document as an attachment from you to pass it to Amnesty and others, explaining your background involvement in Fiji Constitution, arrival in Fiji, arrest, beating and spitting at barrack etc
And explain why you are coming forward now
Maybe state you were still busy with academic stuff
Also mention how Australia denied him visa etc
Look forward to your cooperation
He can’t get away just like this
I will be approaching my constituency MP to write to the Home Secretary Priti Patel and Foreign Secretary and also Defence Minister now he is definitely arriving in London
Regards

22 April 2021

Bula Brij

I m having a zoom meeting with the lawyers on Friday and they have sent me a few questions. There are some I can fill in but others are for you.
Loloma

Witness evidence
2.1 Brij Vilash Lal:
• How long was Brij in detention and subjected to this treatment?
• Were there any injuries sustained as a result of the slapping? If so:
(a) were any photos taken?
(b) is there any medical evidence available from this time?
• What is Brij’s immigration history? Did he claim asylum in Australia? If so, are the papers relating to this claim/decision available?
• Can we be provided with a copy of the account given to the UNHRC. What was the outcome of this submission?
• Does Brij have any previous convictions?

Brij Lal, 23 April 2021

Bula,
Have been under the weather a bit with winter approaching. To your questions:
Interrogation lasted 3-4 hours.
Slapping and spitting in my face, breaking my glasses in the provess.
No photos taken though I have my broken glasses.
I am an Australian citizen and had proper visa to do research in Fiji
I have no previous convictions anywhere.
I wrote to UNHRC both to Nazhat Shameem Khan as well as to the Australian ambassador to Geneva but did not receive even an acknowledgement of my letters.

After a series of further e-mails, he sent to us his "Torture Affidavit".
"Here it is. It will be great if Qiliho is prevented from returning to Fiji and becoming commander RFMF."

Dear Victor

"By separate email from my computer, I will send you something I have cobbled together. I am not used to this sort of writing so please make any changes to it you see fit. There may be some extraneous matter in it that may have to go. I am very grateful to you for your interest in this case and for bringing this fellow's vile and vicious behaviour into the public domain. But I also have a deep sense of foreboding that other concerns might drown out our call for justice. I have had a few enquiries from friends from Fiji, but a feeling of fatigue is palpable there, the spirit to fight injustice quashed...Thanks.

I had not seen this news item [Qiliho going up to the Royal Defence Academy in London]. It is shocking. When he was slated to come to Australia, I wrote to Julie Bishop and he was refuseed a visa to study here. Qiliho was a Bainimarama protege who was groomed to succeed him. He was his chief enforcer, assisted by Ben Naliva and Asaeri [Aseri] Rokoura, both viciious thugs.Qiliho interrogated me at QEB. He covered my face with his spitting and slapped me around to the point of breaking my glasses, He told me that if I did not leave by the first flight the next day, my family would have to fetch my body from the morgue.

He led a group of arsonists to burn down Justice Gordon Ward's Deuba villa. There are stories around of him stomping on the bodies of women taken to the camp for their various protests. It is deeply saddening to see him being welcomed in London. After the Canberra hiccup, he will now realize his ambition. Such are the ways of the world. Keep safe in these strange times, my friend."

APOLOGY, What Apology: As required, suspended Bainimarama posts on FFP Facebook a terse apology but as convicted lawyer Richard Naidu, who scandalized the Judiciary points out, Bainimarama is still the LOP

20/2/2023

RESIGNATION: The Coalition members on the Privileges Committee should have RESIGNED from the Committee after their boss Rabuka, wrapping himself under the bogus sulu of forgiveness, broke ranks and was begging that his fellow COUPIST be suspended only for 18 months, or better still, if the Speaker and the President, as High Chiefs, forgave Opposition leader FRANK BAINIMARAMA, citing his own IMMUNITY.

Fijileaks: If the convicted Suva lawyer and NFP supporter RICHARD NAIDU is sent to prison, he won't be able to run Munro Leys from his prison cell but here is a Coupist, whom his fellow Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka, only wanted to be forgiven and slapped with an 18 month suspension, can keep his job as Opposition leader, remain a voting member of the Constitutional Offices Commission, keep getting his salary, nominate a new President of Fiji* and remain an MP.
And, continue to rent at market rate, Government quarters (near to Naidu's residence on Domain Rd), courtesy of Bainimarama's fellow COUPIST Sitiveni Rabuka.
Many were shocked when Rabuka broke ranks with his Coalition partners, including those in his own PAP baying for Bainimarama's blood. Rabuka sided with his fellow coupist, under the sulu of forgiveness, because following the 14 May 1987 coup, Rabuka had brought Bainimarama from the Navy and had appointed him (Bainimarama) as head of Joint Command Centre at the Togotogo Police Station, to coordinate Police/Army/Navy, and to fathom the racist and autocratic coup objectives.
While asking for forgiveness on Bainimarama's behalf, Rabuka also mentioned his own immunity, and reminded Parliament (without naming them) that were others in the Parliament who were with him that day, on 14 May 1987 when he overthrew the Bavadra Government
Rabuka was referring to Brigadier-General Iowane Naivalurua, who was one of the ten hooded gunmen who had stormed Parliament with Rabuka, that set Fiji on the road to DICTATORSHIP.
We may recall that just before Bainimarama was suspended, Rabuka had agreed to meet FFP MPs, his nephew Mosese Bulitavu, Naivalurua and Viliame Naupoto in private.
Richard Naidu, on the other hand, was the best friend of the alleged bomber Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, during the 1987 coup crisis. After the 2006 coup, Khaiyum had used his connections with the military to get Naidu released from the camp where he had been taken for criticizing the then President Ratu Josefa Iloilo. Politics Make Strange Bedfellows.
CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY

TWO CONTRASTING PUBLIC APOLOGIES: Bainimarama and Naiqama

FijiFirst leader Voreqe Bainimarama remains as Leader of the Opposition despite his suspension from Parliament on Friday for breach of privilege.

This is the view of Suva lawyer Richard Naidu, who says he believes that Mr Bainimarama is entitled to retain the salary and other rights that go with the job – although “there might be a legal argument” about that.

Mr Naidu said that the Leader of the Opposition was different from other MPs who had previously been suspended.

“He is not an ordinary MP. His position is established under the Constitution. Under Section 78, he is elected from among the Opposition members,” he said.

“Under Section 78 of the Constitution, he keeps his job even after the dissolution of Parliament.”

Mr Naidu said the Opposition Leader had other constitutional roles outside Parliament, including being a member of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC).

“He is also one of the people who may nominate a new President for Parliament to vote on under Section 84.

“It seems that he can continue to do these jobs – and to keep his salary, which Section 80 of the Constitution says “must not be varied to his disadvantage”.

“Other suspended MPs have had their salary payments suspended while out of Parliament.

“So there might be a legal argument about that.

“But other suspended MPs did not hold a substantive office as Mr Bainimarama does.”

Mr Naidu said that despite the suspension, Mr Bainimarama remained an MP – however, he could not attend Parliament for three years.

“While he is suspended, he is not replaced in Parliament. This means the voting strength of the FijiFirst Party drops to 25 while he is suspended.

“It is for the Opposition MPs to work out how they will operate in Parliament while Mr Bainimarama isn’t there. But while he continues to hold the post, a new Leader of the Opposition cannot be appointed.

“Under the Constitution, if a majority of Opposition members want Mr Bainimarama out, they could vote him out.
“He could resign as Leader of the Opposition only and keep his seat as an MP. Or he could resign both as Leader of the Opposition and as an MP.

“If he resigned as an MP, a new FijiFirst Parliamentarian would come in; the next one on the list of candidates who missed out in the 2022 election.”

$200,000 LIU MURI TO SODELPA: PAP-NFP Coalition had promised to write off SODELPA's $200,000 Campaign Debt. Now, the two parties claim it was just a VERBAL promise, so SODELPA can take a running JUMP

19/2/2023

Fijileaks: We have seen the SODELPA Management Board minutes of December 2022 and PAP-NFP seem to have promised to fork out $200,000. Typically, it was a form of bribe to keep SODELPA in the two parties camp. Now, they are claiming the verbal agreement is NOT in the final signed coalition agreement.
Sorry, a verbal agreement of that magnitude is legally binding on Rabuka-Prasad coalition. SODELPA should demand $200,000 and if the two parties refuse to cough up the promised money, well, they know what they can do - just bring down the Coalition government.
We are seeing a continuation of Duna Rabuka's lasulasu* politics

The Fijian Teachers Association, the owners of the building occupied by SODELPA as its headquarters, wants party OUT, for most of FTA top brass are now PAP and Rabuka stooges, including FTA's lawyer

<<Previous