Blog Archives

DICTATOR'S lLLEGAL ENFORCERS: Salesi TEMO and John RABUKU jumped to become magistrates after Bainimarama abrogated the 1997 Constitution in 2009. The TWO snaked their way up the judicial ladder

31/3/2024

On 20 April 2009, eight magistrates and Chief Magistrate (Ajmal Khan) were sworn in by the then President Ratu Josefa Iloilo following the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji.
Salesi Temo, John Rabuku and Anare Tuilevuka were among the magistrates sworn-in to prop up the illegal Bainimarama dictatorship.
On 11 June 2009 Temo was sworn-in as acting puisne judge, alongside a former arbitrator William Calachini who became a puisne judge
Now, he is acting Chief Justice and we have no doubt he is acting the judicial tough guy in the hope of being appointed Chief Justice.
*His then side-kick magistrate John Rabuku is playing the same game.

DIAL A 'KAIVITI' FOR A LEGAL JOB. It is obvious even to 'Blind Freddy' that most of the judicial appointments are being made on the basis of 'kila vata' connections. Basically, 'hei, where are you, come, take up a job in the judiciary'. We are witnessing the total i-taukeinization of the judiciary, just like shortly after the 1987 Rabuka coups.
*The next Chief Justice must be DANIEL GOUNDAR and not TEMO.

TWO of Sitiveni Rabuka's 1987 RACIST enforcers are back as JUDGES.
It was the NFP, and its leader and MPs, who clothed them in the sulu of immunity for the rape, murder, torture and beatings of Indo-Fijians.

Hiding behind IMMUNITY that Rabuka extracted at the point of the gun, we saw Indo-Fijian academics at USP abducted and beaten up; one even whacked for hours in a military cell for writing a negative review of the Coupist's book, No Other Way,* in which he had justified his two racially motivated coups.
He appointed a military lackey ISIKELI MATAITOGA as his DPP who later travelled to London to extradite the gun runner Mohammed Rafiq Kahan and other members of the Movement for Democracy in Fiji.
Mataitoga failed in his bid to extradite the pro-democracy activists.
*Later, he resurfaced as Coupist Bainimarama's ambassador to Japan and other countries, and lately we saw him back as a Judge in the Fiji Court of Appeal

TEARS and Cheers for Richard Naidu on receiving Absolute Discharge Without Conviction but JEERS and HOWLING Abuse against Magistrate Seini Puamau for using 'Naidu precedent' to discharge BAINIMARAMA

28/3/2024

Puamau

FAST TRACK APPEAL. Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo has fast-tracked DPP's appeal against magistrate Seini Puamau's judgment, to be heard in five days time - next Wednesday.

Temo

Temo MUST recuse himself from the case on the grounds of the perception of BIAS, the 'fair-minded and informed observer' test. Since he directed that the original acquittals be over-turned, and a guilty verdict entered against Bainimarama and Qiliho, Temo must recuse himself from hearing the case.
In 2001, we had forced Temo to quit hearing the case against one of George Speight's co-conspirators, who was related to the then chief magistrate Salesi Temo.
Further, on 26 July 2001, Fiji's High Court had overturned magistrate Temo's decision that would have allowed George Speight to contest a seat in the country's general election in August 2001.
Justice Peter Surman had ruled that Temo did not have the jurisdiction to allow Speight and fellow coup plotter Ratu Timoci Silatolu (released lately from prison) to lodge nomination forms as political candidates for the 2001 general election.
* In 2003, Justice Nazhat Shameem had ordered that Speight be sent back before magistrate Temo to be re-tried for breaches of the Foreign Exchange Act. Temo had discharged Speight without conviction in 2002 after Speight had pleaded guilty.

There were widespread allegations in 2000 that Salesi Temo, with his pro-George Speight rulings, was a Speight sympathizer, a charge he reportedly dismissed.

On 20 September 2000, the Fiji High Court had intervened and had ordered magistrate Temo not to rule on treason charges against coup leader Speight and 11 other detainees, preventing their release.
Chief Magistrate Temo was due to rule in a preliminary hearing on Speight's case on September 4 but that morning High Court Justice Peter Surman wrote to Temo, ordering him not to proceed.

“Magistrates' courts in Fiji are hereby directed to refrain from making any further orders relating to the purported immunity of persons from prosecution in connection with the immunity decree,” Surman stated.
Speight's lawyers had originally sought a ruling from the High Court as to whether the decree applied to the charges of treason but Temo had declared that he had the power to make the decision.
The government could appeal if it disagreed, he stated, indicating that he would free Speight.
* Speight's case had to wait for a High Court ruling on the immunity decree. He and his jailed associates were challenging their detention on the grounds that the military granted them an amnesty under the July 9 Maunikau Accord signed between Speight and armed forces chief Frank Bainimarama, which ended the 56-day parliamentary hostage crisis.
If Temo had ruled that the defendants were covered by the immunity decree they would have faced only minor charges and could have been freed on bail that day.
Speight and his co-defendants were so confident of their release from Nukulau prison island that they had come to the court with their suitcases.
* Temo had also dismissed a case against a Speight supporter charged with shooting two soldiers and a British photographer in a melee, on grounds which Speight was also seeking to have applied: an amnesty agreed with the RFMF.
*Our Founding Editor-in-Chief who had written on the validity of the Muanikau Accord that was later used as a template by the DPP against Speight and his group before the Fiji High Court had (and continues to) suppress the identity of the Fiji High Court judge below:

Fijileaks: As we had argued previously, we had felt that what was done by the new Attorney-General Siromi Turaga was wrong. If Richard Naidu was unhappy with the Fiji High Court judgment that found him guilty of scandilizing the court, he should have appealed the same.
That was his lawful right. We were surprised that the application was dismissed but then conviction which had already been entered by the High Court was then set aside.
In our opinion, it is not proper for one new Office Holder (A-G Turaga) to show weakness of character by criticising his predecessor and then deposing that he was in Richard Naidu’s camp, and he would not have filed the contempt proceedings or that the institution of the proceedings was wrongful.
*Contempt is a matter for the Court. If you bring it to the Court’s attention, it is then up to the Court to deal with it.
Here, the Court had already dealt with it.

People’s Alliance Leader, Sitiveni Rabuka and National Federation Party Leader Professor Biman Prasad says they are undaunted by the result of prominent lawyer, Richard Naidu’s case outcome after being found guilty for contempt scandalising the court.

Speaking outside the courthouse after the ruling this afternoon, Rabuka says in a way this is a relief as they have been waiting, anticipating, thinking this or that and just have to respect the decision of the court.

The People’s Alliance Leader says even though they will be without Naidu as a candidate, the People’s Alliance and NFP will continue to campaign for the general elections.

Rabuka adds that they promise to canvas support within the law and make sure they tell their supporters and candidates what can happen to a prominent lawyer and a prominent citizen, and to be careful.

Meanwhile Professor Prasad says that Naidu is a man of integrity.

Professor Prasad adds that he was looking forward to having Naidu in the NFP team however he knows that Naidu is with them.

The NFP Leader says they are focused on winning the general election and forming government. Fijivillage

SOAP Opera continues outside Puamau's Magistrates Court

BEFORE THE 2022 ELECTION: Shailendra Raju to Jone Kalouniwai.
We understand he is back in Fiji, lapping up to Coalition government

JUDGMENT

Background

[1] The respondent is a legal practitioner and a partner in the law firm, Munro Leys. On 22 November 2022, Nanayakkara J found him guilty of contempt scandalizing the court in proceedings brought under Order 52 of the High Court Rules by the former Attorney-General of Fiji. After pronouncing the judgment, Nanayakkara J adjourned the case for mitigation and sentence to a later date.

[2] While the mitigation and sentence were pending, a new government came into power and a new Attorney-General was appointed. After the change of government, Nanayakkara J resigned from his post as a judge and left the jurisdiction without concluding the proceedings against the respondent.

[3] The case was assigned to me. The parties had no objection to me taking over the case after the resignation of the trial judge.

[4] The new Attorney-General, Mr Siromi Turaga has taken a different position regarding the proceedings against the respondent which he has expressed in an affidavit filed in support of Summons to dismiss the proceedings. He states:

I am of the view that these proceedings should never have been instituted against the Respondent in the first place. As a result, I have conveyed to the Respondent that I am of the view that the Decision of 22 November 2022 ought to be set aside and the proceedings dismissed. For his part, the Respondent has confirmed to me that he will not seek to recover any of the costs he has incurred in defending the proceedings if this Honourable Court makes orders setting aside the Decision and dismissing the proceedings.
Accordingly, the parties have agreed to compromise the proceedings by seeking that this Honourable Court make, by consent of the parties, the orders sought in the Summons filed herein.

[5] The orders sought by the Attorney-General pursuant to Order 32 of the High Court Rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court are as follows:

That the reasons for the decisions entitled “Judgment” delivered by Honourable Justice Judge Nanayakkara on 22nd November 2022 be wholly set aside.
That the proceedings brought by Notice of Motion filed on 28 June 2022 be dismissed.
That each party bear its own costs of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction to Set Aside Judgment

[6] The High Court Rules provide various avenues for litigants to set aside an order or a judgment of the court, depending on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the order or judgment, that is, whether it was obtained ex parte or in default or whether the order or judgment is interim or final.

[7] On the question of jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the judgment of 22 November 2022, the power granted by Order 32 of the High Court Rules is not applicable. Order 32 concerns applications and proceedings in Chambers and Rule 6 of Order 32 states that “the Court may set aside an order made ex parte’’.

[8] The judgment of 22 November 2022 was not obtained ex parte. The judgment was pronounced in open court after a hearing in which the respondent was present and represented by counsel. Order 32, r 6 does not give the court power to set aside a judgment pronounced after a trial.

[9] Counsel for the respondent submits that while the judgment of 22 November 2022 purported to set out a number of orders, none of those orders were drawn up and entered in accordance with Order 42, r 6. Counsel submits that those orders can be varied, set aside or withdrawn if they have not been drawn and entered in accordance with Order 42, r 6 of the High Court Rules.

[10] Order 42, r 6 of the High Court Rules states:

(1) Every judgment given in a cause or matter and every order required to be drawn up shall be settled by or under the direction of the Registrar before being entered or drawn up.
(2) The party seeking to enter a judgment or to have an order drawn up may and shall if so required by the Registrar prepare a draft of the judgment or order and present the draft to the Registrar.
(3) If the party in whose favour a judgment is given or an order is made does not prepare it, have it settled and enter it within 21 days after it is given or made any other party affected by the judgment or order may prepare it, have it settled and entered.
(4) Every judgment when entered shall be endorsed with the date of entry.
[11] Order 42 r 6 of the High Court Rules does not expressly provide for any power to set aside a judgment that had not been drawn up and entered. The entry of a judgment is a purely ministerial act with which the judge is not required to be concerned at all (Re Harrison’s Settlement [1955] Ch 260, 274).

[12] Nevertheless, it is well settled that until an order made by a judge has been perfected, by being passed and entered, there is no final order, and the court may, at any time until the order is so perfected, vary or alter the order which the court intended to make (In re Suffield & Watt; Ex parte Brown (I) [1888] UKLawRpKQB 43; 20 Q.B.D 693). Such power is inherent in the court (Millersted v Grosvenor House (Park Lane) Ltd [1937] KB 717, 725). The power is not appellate in its nature, but exists because the jurisdiction which the parties invoked is still continuing. If the order is unambiguous and the intention of the judge is clearly manifested in the order, the power must be exercised judicially and not capriciously (Re Harrison’s Settlement [1955] Ch 260).

[13] In Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) [1993] HCA 6; (1993) 176 CLR 300 at 302, 310, 317, 322 the High Court of Australia while recognizing the existence of a court’s inherent jurisdiction to re-open a judgment which has not been entered, held that the power is to be exercised “with great caution” in view of the public interest in the finality of legal proceedings. Such power is available not only to perfect an imperfect judgment but to re-open an imperfect judgment that had been drawn and entered but in the latter the scope is much more restricted (Giedo Van Der Garde BV v Sauber Motorsport AG (No. 2) [2015] VSC 109).

[14] The circumstances in which a judgment may be re-open may vary from case to case. The power may be exercised where, through no fault on the applicant’s part, the applicant has not been heard on a matter decided by the court (Autodesk, per Gaudron J). The jurisdiction also extends to cases where a court has good reason to consider it has proceeded on a misapprehension as to the facts or the law such as a failure to recognize that a line of authority relied upon in the determination had been overruled or a mistaken assumption that certain evidence had not been given at an earlier hearing (Autodesk, per Mason CJ).

Finding of Guilt of Contempt

[15] In the present case, the court made a finding that the respondent is guilty of contempt scandalizing the court in proceedings initiated by the former Attorney-General (the applicant) under Order 52 of the High Court Rules.

[16] The hearing proceeded after the applicant obtained leave from the Court and then filed an application for an order of committal. The respondent was present in the hearing and participated through counsel. Before the hearing he made a number of interlocutory applications but the trial judge rejected those applications. He then sought leave to appeal and leave had been granted by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No ABU0070 & ABU0071 of 2022.

[17] While the appeal against the interlocutory decisions was pending in the Court of Appeal, the trial judge proceeded to make a determination whether the respondent was guilty of contempt scandalizing the court. On 22 November 2022, the trial judge found the respondent guilty in a written judgment pronounced in open court and in the presence of the respondent.

[18] But the proceedings did not conclude with the determination of the respondent’s guilt. The proceedings are continuing as the court is yet to decide on a punishment for the respondent. No order of committal has been pronounced by the court yet.

[19] The Attorney-General plays an important function as the guardian of public interest in contempt proceedings which allege conduct scandalizing the court.

[20] The position of the Attorney-General has shifted. The present Attorney-General is not seeking an order of committal against the respondent. He does not support the finding that the respondent is guilty of contempt scandalizing the court. He says that there is no contempt and that his predecessor should not have initiated the contempt proceedings in the first place. It is not being suggested that the present Attorney-General is acting unfairly as the representative of public interest in consenting to an order setting aside the judgment of 22 November 2022.

[21] There is a line of authority that the court has jurisdiction to set aside a regular judgment if the parties to the judgment consent provided the rights of third parties are not affected by the order sought (Permanent Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd v Stocks & Holdings (Canberra) Pty Ltd (1976) ACTR 45, Giedo Van Der Garde BV v Sauber Motorsport AG (No. 2) [2015] VSC 109).

[22] Contempt scandalizing the court is quasi-criminal in nature (Li Shengwu v Attorney General [2019] SGCA 20). When a charge of contempt scandalizing the court is made, the applicant carries the burden to establish the defendant’s guilt to the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and once guilt is established, the court has to determine an appropriate punishment which may include criminal sanctions such as a fine or an imprisonment (In re Parmanandam [1972] FJSC 3; No 90 of 1972 (29 May 1972), State v Nicholas, ex parte Attorney General [2013] FJHC 29; HBC364.2011 (8 February 2013), Chaudhry, Re [2019] FJHC 306; HBC313.2018 (4 April 2019)).

[23] The judgment of 22 November 2022 determined the respondent’s guilt. The judgment did not result from settlement or consent of the parties. The judgment is a result of judicial determination made after a hearing. The finding of guilt is a judicial determination not subject of consent of the parties. The judgment binds the parties. The correct forum to set aside a binding judgment that has reached finality after judicial determination of guilt is the appellate court and not the trial court. This Court lacks power to intervene to set aside the judgment of 22 November 2022 either under the High Court Rules or the inherent jurisdiction even when the parties consent.

Determination of Sentence

[24] The only matter remaining for judicial determination is the question of punishment or sentence. Sentencing is a judicial function. Consent of the parties are not required for the courts to perform this judicial function. Sentencing can take place even when the judge who made the determination of guilt is no longer available. What is important is that the contemnor is heard or accorded an opportunity to mitigate the offence before any sentence is passed.

[25] In this case, the Attorney-General’s position is that the respondent should not be punished because he is not morally culpable. If this concession is made before the Court of Appeal in the event of an appeal against the judgment of 22 November 2022, then the prospect of the appeal succeeding is high. The prejudice to the respondent may be irreparable if I proceed to sentence him knowing the Attorney-General’s position has shifted and is not in support of the finding of guilt.

[26] The power to punish contempt of court scandalizing the court arises under the common law. Whether or not to punish a contemnor is a matter of discretion for the court.

[27] The nature of the charge against the respondent arose from a Facebook post in which he allegedly posted a portion of a judgment of the High Court containing a spelling mistake with a comment. The post attracted some humorous or negative comments from the public. The trial judge concluded that the respondent had ridiculed the judiciary and was guilty of the offence of contempt scandalizing the court. The position of the present Attorney-General casts doubt on that finding now.

[28] There is no question that the respondent is of impeccable character and any conviction will have a disproportionate impact on his economic or social well-being and on his employment as a legal practitioner of good standing. It is not necessary for me to call upon the respondent to present a mitigation.

[29] After having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I have decided not to record a conviction and dismiss the charge of contempt scandalizing the court against the respondent. The power to make an order to dismiss the charge without recording a conviction is expressly provided by section 15 (1) (j) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act. The order does not affect the respondent’s right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in any manner whatsoever, if he decides to appeal (s 16 (3) (b) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act).

[30] Orders
The orders of the Court are:
(i) Summons to set aside the judgment of 22 November 2022 by consent is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(ii) No Conviction is recorded against the respondent.
(iii) The charge of contempt scandalizing the court against the respondent is dismissed.
(iv) Parties to bear their own costs.
.............................................................
Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar

DISGRACEFUL outburst from Assistant DPP LOSALINI Tabuakoro. She must be charged with Contempt of Court by TEMO. All right-thinking i-taukei must condemn her for refusing to join in late Toganivalu tribute

28/3/2024

Frank Bainimarama gets Absolute Discharge and Sitiveni Qiliho fined $1,500. No CONVICTIONS recorded against Bainimarama and Qiliho

The late David Toganivalu was the prosecutor in the case. On instructions from acting DPP John Rabuku, Tabuakoro left the Suva Magistrates Court, without partaking in a minute's silence for Toganivalu

Disrespectful Tabuakoro

Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, John Rabuku, has filed an appeal against the sentence of the former Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended Commissioner of Police, Sitiveni Qiliho in the High Court.

Bainimarama has been granted absolute discharge in the University of the South Pacific case by Magistrate Seini Puamau while Qiliho has been fined $1,500 and this has to be paid within 30 days and failure to do that will result in 30 days imprisonment.

Magistrate Puamau announced that both their convictions would not be registered.

Rabuku says the sentence delivered by Magistrate Puamau is unsatisfactory, is wrong both in fact and in law and does not reflect the considerations and tariff of cases or matters of similar nature.

The State has filed four grounds of appeal.

These are that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate against Bainimarama and Qiliho are manifestly lenient and in breach of sentencing principles, case laws and the tariff set in other similar matters and offences.

They say Magistrate Puamau erred in law and in fact when she made a finding that there were no aggravating factors against both of them.

The Acting DPP says the Magistrate erred in law and in fact in considering irrelevant factors in sentencing and that Magistrate Puamau erred in law and in fact when she made a finding that there was no victim and that the offending was a technical breach by Bainimarama and Qiliho. The Notice of Appeal against the sentence was filed in the High Court this afternoon. Source: Fijivillage News

Fijileaks: More on the sentencing later

NO HANKY PANKY IN MY COURT, Salesi Temo told Mrs Taniguchi's legal team. But why didn't the acting Chief Justice send BIMAN Prasad back to Magistrates Court to stand trial. Legal brief casts doubt on DPP decision

27/3/2024

Nolle Prosequi: Legal Opinion dated 16 January 2023 argues that the suspended DPP Christopher Pryde should not have withdrawn the charges against NFP leader and Finance Minister Biman Prasad but let the Magistrates Court deal with the charges involving Prasad and Mrs Ari Taniguchi
It was at this stage that Pryde could have tendered Nolle Prosequi,* for Court to accept or reject it

FATAL ATTRACTION: Behind his wife's back, Prasad followed Mrs Taniguchi. He allegedly refused to hand over to Police his mobile phone, so they had to retrieve the text messages from Mrs Taniguchi's phone, hence the characters are in English and Japanese in the exchanges.
HANKING, PANKING with wife of his former provisional NFP candidate

KAI VITI? Country of Birth, FIJI. A close inspection of documents sent to FEO against Lynda Tabuya and her hubby Robert Peter Semaan reveal that SEEMAN stated that he was born in Fiji. He was born in AUSTRALIA

27/3/2024

Fijileaks: We are holding Lynda Tabuya to account NOT because she is a WOMAN but as Sitiveni Rabuka's Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection in the Coalition government.
*In the process, her husband Robert Peter Semaan's own financial activities has come under scrutiny

Room 233. Sadly, in the confines of Room 233 at Windsor Hotel, Rob was eerily present (in thought) as the two love rat cheats - Lynda Tabuya and Aseri Radrodro - indulged in 'brutal sex' that she could barely walk the next day

Sulu clad Kai Viti - Born in Fiji?

OLD PHOTOS making the rounds on her different Facebook pages

60 MINUTES of Howler Ends in a Whimper. Allegations against owner of Yue Lai restaurant, Zhao Fugang, that he is a Chinese Agent in Fiji and Drug Kingpin leaves us scratching our heads about Aussie Intel spooks

25/3/2024

Fijileaks: How come Aussie Intelligence Slueths failed to 'smell' Rabuka's Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection' LYNDA TABUYA smoking 'weed' in Room 233 at Windsor Hotel, Melbourne. How did she manage to get 'weed' into her room.
Who are the Drug Kingpins who supplied the weed to her?
Home Affairs Minister PIO TIKODUADUA, who attended the same Whips Conference in Melbourne, claims evidence obtained (meaning by Fijileaks*) was baseless because it was obtained illegally.
What about the Aussie Intel spooks? How did they get the alleged evidence on Zhao Fugang, TIKODUADUA? Legally or Illegally?

In 1987, Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka was happy to welcome Chinese farmers and businessmen into Fiji to replace the Indo-Fijians. They were to come from mainland China and Hong Kong. '
'The Chinese would be the best substitute. They are hard workers and have no political ambitions,' he said.
What about the Indo-Fijians?
'As far as I am concerned Indians (Indo-Fijians) are welcome to stay and make as much money as they like.'

Minister for Home Affairs, Pio Tikoduadua says the allegations raised by Australia's 60 Minutes Television Show last night in relation to Suva’s Yue Lai Hotel owner is not new, as this matter has been the subject of investigations by the Fiji Financial Intelligence Unit for a long time.

While making a statement regarding allegations against Yue Lai Hotel owner, Zhao Fugang, Home Affairs Minister Tikoduadua reiterates what he told the 60 Minutes Television that if anyone has any evidence about these allegations, this should be reported to the Fiji Police Force to investigate.

The report also highlighted the 77 Chinese nationals taken back to China from Fiji in 2017 with no legal processes involved and no court cases.

In August 2017, a joint statement by the Fiji Police Force and the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China said the 77 Chinese nationals who were sent back to China from Fiji weree suspected to be involved in more than 50 telecom and online fraud cases targeting Chinese citizens in China amounting to about $US900,000.

The joint statement said that a joint operation between Fijian and Chinese law enforcement agencies under an existing Memorandum of Understanding of police cooperation resulted in the removal of the 77 Chinese nationals who were found to be in breach of their visa conditions.

They say a request for assistance was extended to the Fiji Police Force from the People’s Republic of China’s Ministry of Public Security regarding the group’s alleged involvement in certain illegal activities which were in breach of their visa conditions.

However according to Australia intelligence reports, this is one of the ways the Chinese Communist Party is exerting power and influence in the Pacific.

Although the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project reports that Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies suspect Zhao is one of the leaders of organized crime, he has not been charged with any crime.

It has been revealed that Australian law enforcement officials have shared intelligence on Zhao with Fiji in an effort to get local authorities to move against him.

Fiji’s Home Affairs Minister, Pio Tikoduadua confirms that Australian authorities had shared intelligence with him that raised serious concerns about Zhao.

Tikoduadua says Fijian law enforcement may act on something that has been raised with them by foreign intelligence, but adds that the allegation must have some basis in fact and in law for them to be able to respond to it.

Zhao has denied any involvement in criminality.

Asked if he worked on behalf of the Chinese government, he gave a one word answer: “Yes.”

fijivillage News tried to contact Zhao for further comments. He is out of the country.

When we contacted the Fiji Police Force, Assistant Commissioner of Police Crime, Mesake Waqa said they will not comment at this stage.

Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has said in an interview that he was unaware of Australian claims that Zhao is involved in organized crime.

Rabuka’s government announced in mid-March that it was restarting the policing agreement with China that it had suspended last year. But the prime minister nonetheless said he had concerns that China’s government may have links to organized crime groups active in Fiji.

Rabuka said he does not want to… open the door to someone that could turn out to be not a friend.

He said he feels stuck because he does not understand China’s agenda.

Rabuka said the threat to our security is when we get so low and weak in our economy that they can buy our favour.

He adds this includes anybody that comes in and loads us up with goodies.

We have sent questions to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China.

Hotel Windsor, Melbourne

1987 Bombings. In bombshell twist, Malanis have filed a Police complaint against Sitiveni Rabuka, accusing him of not helping them against Aiyaz Khaiyum. Rabuka accused of perverting cause of justice in BOMB case

22/3/2024

From Fijileaks Archive, 25 February 2022

* Let us not forget that Sitiveni Rabuka ruled as Prime Minister from 1992 to 1999 under a racially lop-sided 1990 Constitution that was motivated by the desire to exclude permanently any possibility of Indo-Fijian parties forming a government.

Later, echoing Rabuka's desire, the NFP told us that Fiji was NOT ready for an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, setting in motion the overthrow of the People's Coalition government and the imprisonment of Mahendra Chaudhry as Prime Minister.
* In June 1990 the Great Council of Chiefs agreed to a Constitution which provided for a House of Representatives with 70 seats, 37 held by i-Taukei Fijians, 27 by Indo-Fijians, 5 by other races of General Electors and 1 by a representative of Rotuma.
* As well as the racial bias in the Constitution, the regional boundaries of seats were weighted to reinforce traditional patterns of influence. While Indo-Fijian seats had an average of 5500 voters against 4159 for Fijian seats, there was an even greater weighting given to provincial versus urban Fijian seats - 3457 to 8655 respectively.
* Urban Fijian voters totalled 13.7 per cent of the voting population but received only 7.1 per cent of seats. In addition, provincial areas which were traditionally most supportive of chiefly candidates received greater representation.
* Voters per seat in the various provinces ranged from 950 to 5700.
* The position of the Great Council of Chiefs was further reinforced through its nomination of 24 of the 34 Senate members.
The 1990 Constitution had also legislated that the President and Prime Minister MUST only be i-Taukei Fijians. So, from 1992 to 1999, the racist was Prime Minister of Fiji. As soon as Fijians of all races got the opportunity in 1999 election to vote under the 1997 Constitution, they consigned Sitiveni Rabuka and his side-kick Jai Ram Reddy to the dustbin of history. Rabuka is now back as PAP leader.
*The 1990 Constitution also led to arrests, beatings, and tortures when a group of Indo-Fijians, led by Dr Anirudh Singh, set fire to the 1990 Constitution in public as a mark of protest.
Among the protestors was
the young Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, later FFP Attorney-General and
Minister for Justice.

While demanding evidence of Rape and Sexual Violence against Indo-Fijian women and girls during the racially motivated 1987 Rabuka coups, here she is CRYING with the women victims of Rwandan genocide

CONDOM RAPIST SAVENACA SERUVATU. The former army officer jailed for raping a sex worker after removing his condom in Wellington brothel is the former son-in-law of Frank Bainimarama, ex husband of LITIANA

21/3/2024

*New Zealand legalised prostitution in brothels in 2003 and the capital city Wellington has made hay whilst the sun shines, currently offering several bordellos where you can pay for sex.

Both, the Fiji and overseas media, have not revealed the rapist's link to Frank Bainimarama. We may recall that there was a plan to arrest Bainimarama in New Zealand shortly before his 5 December 2006 coup when he flew into Wellington for his granddaughter's christening. More on that arrest story by Victor Lal and Russell Hunter (below) that was published in the New Zealand Herald, which has also run the rape story.

A former Army officer has been sentenced to four years in prison after raping a sex worker in Wellington. Savenaca Seruvatu was convicted of sexual violation by rape in the Wellington District Court in February, after removing a condom without consent during sexual intercourse in an adult entertainment club in Lower Hutt in September 2020. Seruvatu appeared in Wellington District Court, where Judge Ian Mill recounted the facts of the offending.

Seravatu had made a booking at TK’s Parlour to meet with a sex worker. “[He] made enquiries about having sex without a condom and we heard evidence both from the receptionist and also from [the victim] about that,” the court was told.

Judge Mill said Seruvatu offered the victim - a Wellington resident - $200 and a food grant to have sex without protection.

“She declined and explained to [Seruvatu] that there could not be penetrative sex without a condom, and, in fact, it is illegal for her to do so.”

The victim - who RNZ is calling Holly - said on trial that, during the sexual act, she "became aware that something was not right".

"She put a hand down and felt the condom had been removed," the judge said.

"Then she tensed herself and told [Seruvatu] several times to stop, but [he] continued to penetrate her for several minutes."

In his defence during trial, Seruvatu said the condom must have come off accidentally. However, the jury did not accept that, with Holly later finding the condom under the pillow on the bed where they had been having sex.

Judge Mill said the Court of Appeal referred to what had happened as a "deliberate, even cynical, breach of the parties' understanding of the basis on which consent was given". "So, there was a certain amount of premeditation in that case and in this case, Mr Seruvatu. You made enquiries. You were several times told what the rules were.

"You tried to offer incentives and, therefore, you were wanting to have unprotected sex, and, in the end, you decided to go ahead with that. So, there was some planning and premeditation," the judge said in court.
The judge said the impact on the victim was very significant and debilitating for her.

"Then there are the risks of unprotected sex. She was essentially having sexual intercourse with a stranger and the risks are obvious and those are the things, of course, that have made it so traumatic for her." During the trial, Seruvatu's defence said he did not use force during the time that the condom was off and stopped when requested by the victim.

Judge Mill disagreed.

"The evidence of Holly was that when she became aware, she tensed her body in a way that would make it difficult for you to have intercourse with her and she told you to stop.

"Not once, but several times, and that you continued and, of course, some force was needed to do that."
This was not a case of withdrawn consent, the judge said.

"It was a case that there never was consent to the act that constituted the rape.

"I also take into account the aggravating features of mental health to the victim and also exposing her to the risks associated with unprotected sex."

Starting again - victim In 2009,

Savenaca Seruvatu, then an army officer, was found guilty of sending a series of lewd texts to a woman captain at a military trial at Wellington's Trentham Army Base.

This time, his sentencing was reduced by 30 percent due to his service in the Fijian and the New Zealand Army, as well as his "distinguished contribution in the public health system".

Judge Mill said: "I think you are entitled to what I consider a generous discount for your previous good character, and then again for your contribution to society, both in the armed forces and outside of that."

Holly said the discount in the sentencing was discouraging.

"For him to get a discount for his military time kind of made me sick to my stomach."

She said the sentencing helped sent a message to other sex workers going through the same.

"It's a huge win for the [sex workers] community.

"For [the case] to actually go through court and for then to be a guilty verdict and then the sentence, I feel like it's actually really important. More sex workers should realise things like that shouldn't be a normality for us.

Holly said the process has taken a toll on her mental health.

"For the victim it doesn't really get any better, even after the sentencing, there's still quite a long journey for me to go and I am getting counselling, so hopefully that helps.

"I'm still living every day with anxiety; I'm still trying to reattach myself to society. It's not an easy process but it is a necessary one."

In her victim impact statement to court, Holly said she was trying to start anew.

"I had a home, a new job and a new life - but as our first trial drew closer, I began to break again. I still struggled to use the words to describe it, and it was easier to call it an attack because they wouldn't pity me as much. I began to withdraw again, using whatever I could to hide in my body and spiral and want to give up on life.

"I refused to leave my house, everywhere I looked I had flashbacks, and any hard work of coping strategies I developed has gone... These three years have been the longest and worst of my life, and I'm at the point of losing everything I have again.

"I'm hoping from today you begin to be a memory that I work through and move past, and through getting justice, I gained some power back."

'A victory for the industry' - sex workers' collective Aotearoa New Zealand Sex Workers' Collective Wellington regional coordinator Cherida Fraser was Holly's first point of contact after the crime.

"The worker involved came to me the day after it happened... and we liaised with our police liaison people to make sure she could speak to the police and report the crime," she said.

She said the case opened space for other workers to report crimes without the fear of not being believed due to their job.

"It's another powerful message to our sex work community that they are believed, that they do have access to justice and that they can get justice.

"I think there may be a perception out there that sex workers won't report or won't seek justice due to stigma, and I think sometimes the stigma of sex work continues to be exploited by people who don't think sex workers will report."

The sentencing sent a message to sex workers that they have access to justice like anybody else when these violations of consent happen, Fraser said.

"There's a lot of sexual violence that doesn't get through the justice system because it's very difficult for anybody who's the victim of sexual violence to speak about it.

"For sex workers, the stigma can be a barrier but that doesn't mean you should come forward. In this case, justice has been served." Source: RNZ, New Zealand Herald.

Andrew Hughes and Frank Bainimarama

Victor Lal and Russell Hunter

Fiji's chief of police made a private call to his New Zealand counterpart urging him to arrest Commodore Frank Bainimarama a few weeks before the military leader seized power in a coup in December 2006.

It was reported at the time that a request had been made through Interpol and rejected by the New Zealand Government but only now can details from behind the scenes be [re]vealed.

In November 2006 then Police Commissioner Howard Broad took the call from his Fiji counterpart Andrew Hughes, an Australian, who wanted to know if Commodore Bainimarama had committed any offence under New Zealand law for which he could be arrested.

Teams of police officers from both forces worked over a weekend and agreed the future dictator could be charged in New Zealand with perverting the course of justice in a foreign jurisdiction.

The planned charge related to remarks made by Commodore Bainimarama in New Zealand regarding an investigation into his alleged sedition in Fiji.

Mr Hughes sent two senior officers - an assistant commissioner and a senior detective - to New Zealand to liaise in the planned arrest.

"Then Howard Broad had a change of heart," said Mr Hughes. "He said New Zealand Foreign Affairs preferred a political solution.

"I argued it was his decision as Police Commissioner as to who should be charged in New Zealand."

At the time Commodore Bainimarama was in New Zealand for his granddaughter's christening and the Foreign Minister at the time, Winston Peters, had taken the opportunity to broker talks between him and elected Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase aimed at diverting Fiji's lurch towards a military takeover.

A day later, Mr Hughes received a call from Mr Broad.

"He sought my assurance that no NZ citizen would be endangered in Fiji as result of an arrest," said Mr Hughes.

"Of course I would do all in my power to protect all the people in Fiji but a blanket assurance of that kind was not possible. It would be like me asking him for a similar assurance covering all Fiji people in New Zealand. It wasn't possible to give him that.

"In the end, Mr Broad told me, 'Well, we're not going to arrest him."'

Mr Broad, now retired, told the Weekend Herald yesterday in a written statement that he remembered the call well.

"I remember it as a highly unusual request to consider an allegation against the Chief of Defence Force of a neighbouring country's properly constituted Government.

"I remember giving this decision a lot of consideration because it contained complex operational, legal and policy issues. I made the decision but I took a lot of advice. I remain comfortable with it."

He said some aspects of Mr Hughes' explanation did not accord with his recollection but he did not specify what they were.

In Suva, the Fiji police force had been awaiting an opportunity to arrest the commodore on the sedition charge but were unable to penetrate his heavily armed personal security detail - rarely less than 12-strong at any given time.

"I had earlier taken a brief of evidence to the DPP," said Mr Hughes, "and it was agreed that there was a case to answer on a sedition charge.

"We wanted to arrest and charge Commodore Bainimarama but he was permanently covered by heavy security. I was very keen to avoid an armed confrontation between the police and the military. So we waited."

As Prime Minister Qarase waited at Suva's Nausori airport to board a New Zealand Air Force VIP jet to take him to the Peters-brokered talks in Wellington, he was surprised to be joined by Mr Hughes, who then explained that the arrest plan was unlikely to come to fruition. Mr Qarase was shocked.

The Fiji Police Commissioner boarded the flight and in Wellington he met a deputy secretary for foreign affairs but was again told the New Zealand Government's position was that a political or diplomatic solution was preferred.

Aware that the police were ready to arrest him in Suva, Commodore Bainimarama had made it one of his many conditions for any settlement that the police commissioner would have to go.

Mr Hughes had, a week previously, sent his wife and sons to Australia having received credible information that they could be targeted by a military snatch squad.

In Wellington, he sought consular advice which was that he should not return to Fiji. He never did.

Mr Hughes also considered the safety of his own loyal officers who would try to protect him from military arrest.

The 2006 coup was the commodore's fourth attempt.

In 2000 during the negotiations that ended the Speight hostage crisis he suggested that the military should run the country for up to 50 years but Speight - and the president - would have none of it. In 2004 and again in 2005 he planned to take over the Government but his senior officers refused to commit treason.

All were sacked.

By December 2006 it was now or never for Commodore Bainimarama. It was widely agreed amongst informed observers of the events of 2006 in Fiji, including the diplomatic community, that without Commodore Bainimarama the RFMF would be rudderless.

Had Commodore Bainimarama been arrested in New Zealand the Fiji military would have been unable and unwilling to proceed with the removal of the Qarase Government.

The then US ambassador to Fiji, Larry Dinger, summed it up when he told his masters in Washington in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks regarding the New Zealand arrest plan.

"Being passive with bullies only encourages them. An arrest abroad might be the only way to enforce a criminal charge and remove the Bainimarama thorn," he reported.

Labour's foreign affairs spokesman Phil Goff, who did not deal with the issue, could not confirm Mr Hughes' account.

However, he could understand why no arrest was made, saying such a course of action would mean a country lost its credibility as a mediator for dealing with crises.

"I scarcely think you were going to lure a person here under false pretences only to arrest him. That would be seen as an ambush and bad faith and it wouldn't have resolved the situation within Fiji. "

Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief: We have on us scores of highly confidential files that were leaked to us from inside the RFMF High Command and the Laisenia Qarase government as dictator Frank Bainimarama began threatening to stage his 5 December 2006 Coup.
Russell Hunter and our Founding Editor-in-Chief were completing a book on the 2006, including Speight's failed coup and the subsequent Bloody 2 November 2000 mutiny when Hunter suddenly died in Brisbane, Australia. We hope to complete the book, in Hunter's memory.
In 2008, Hunter had been abducted from his Suva home in front of his family, detained, tortured and deported out of Fiji after our Founding Editor-in-Chief had revealed in the Fiji Sun that Bainimarama's then Interim Finance Minister and FLP leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry was hiding Two Million Dollars in a Sydney bank account.

A series of documents smuggled out of Fiji tell a vastly different story. Bainimarama not only wanted the job but had tried three times previously to seize control of the nation.

His first attempt occurred during the negotiations to end the George Speight hostage crisis in August 2000. Several of those present confirmed that the Commodore - who had tacitly supported the Speight coup - declared that the military should lead the nation "for the next five, 10 or 50 years".

A heated argument between Speight and Bainimarama ensued, ending only when President Ratu Josefa Iloilo said a democratic solution was the only way forward.

Bainimarama proposed that banker and businessman Laisenia Qarase should lead an interim government with elections after one year. But to his frustration he found his "advice" to the interim government was routinely shunned.

By December 2003 the Qarase government - tired of the Commodore's constant and often public interference - was reluctant to renew his term, due to expire in April the following year.

When Bainimarama got wind of this, he flew into a rage and ordered his senior officers to start planning a coup. But he reckoned without senior officers who counselled against such action and finally refused to implement his orders.

On January 5, 2004, secret advice to Bainimarama not to stage a coup warned of the chaos and damage that could follow.

The document, composed and signed by Lieutenant Colonel Jeremaia Waqanisau, Colonel Alfred Tuatoko, Colonel George Kadavulevu, Colonel Samuela Raduva and naval commander Timoci Koroi, reads in part:

"We feel that the interests of the RFMF (Republic of Fiji Military Forces) and the nation have been overridden by your personal wishes ...

"Under the circumstances there is no way you can justify your intent and impending action. On the other hand the consequences of such action would be catastrophic for Fiji. The despair and suffering will be unbearable and longer lasting than that experienced after 1987 and 2000."

None of the officers agreed to be interviewed.

However, the later "redress of wrong petition" also contains a statement by Tuatoko, who wrote: "In my interview with [Bainimarama] he stated that he would forcefully remove the present government if his term as Comd RFMF was not renewed.

"I advised him that such an act was illegal and amounted to treason. I advised him that there are legal ways to settle his disagreement with government and that he must follow that legal path. Comd said that doing so would take too much time. He said that removing the government would be legally wrong but was morally correct."

This document was sent to the Minister for Home Affairs, Joketani Cokanasiga, and is likely to have been seen by Qarase. Incredibly, nothing was done. A senior minister told Hunter at the time: "We're not too worried about him [Bainimarama]. He doesn't have the support at the camp that he thinks he has."

The aborted coup of January 2004 persuaded the Government that the soldiers would not obey their commander if he ordered them to commit treason by removing it.

In December 2005, Bainimarama decided to try for a third time. He had been reappointed, so his job was no longer an issue, but he knew Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes had no intention of backing off a murder inquiry into the deaths of five members of the elite Counter Revolutionary Warfare unit, kicked to death by loyalist soldiers after the November 2000 mutiny.

There was also anger in sections of the officer corps (by now mostly hand-picked Bainimarama men) that the Qarase Government was "soft" on those involved in the 2000 coup.

Bainimarama had sacked the five officers who refused to carry out his first attempted coup and appointed Lieutenant Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka as Land Force Commander - effectively his deputy. He told Baledrokadroka to prepare plans for a military takeover.

Like his brother officers before him, JB (as he was known) refused to be involved in treason. He was told to take leave and not come back but again the coup had to be postponed.

JB told Hunter on the day of his dismissal: "I saw an order that I deciphered as treasonous and I could not accept it."

By May 2006, in the full realisation that Bainimarama's reappointment had not bought off its troublesome military commander and with a fresh election victory under its belt, the Cabinet wanted him gone.

There was talk of surcharging him for the blatant abuse of military funding in the army's "Truth and Justice" campaign that sought to influence voters during the 2006 election. It came to nothing - but Bainimarama was to hear of it and it fanned the flames of his fury.

With the dismissal of JB he was able to surround himself with an officer corps that owed their positions to him alone. His coup would take place within a year.

Claim strongman threatened to kill officer

Fiji leader Frank Bainimarama threatened to kill a former top army officer who challenged his 2003 coup plan, according to the officer's written testimony.

The late Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremaia Waqanisau refused to carry out the Commodore's coup order and took a new job as CEO at the Ministry of Home Affairs.

In a file note at the time he recalled in January 2004 the Commodore barged into Home Affairs Minister Joketani Cokanasiga's office with several bodyguards, accusing Waqanisau of raising an army against him.

"Bainimarama further said had it not been for the minister I would have been dead already, and next time the military came back to finish what they started he would personally lead [them] to town and make sure I would be the first to die.

"I told Bainimarama when he came down next time he should come alone, without his weapon and his armed body guards and then try to kill me. He became furious challenging me to a fight taking off his [weapon] and posing for a fight... I said I didn't want to fight him and he should go away. The minister was holding him back and eventually pushed him out the door."

When questioned by defence lawyer Filimoni Vosarogo, Kalouniwai revealed that they did not have any documents and did not have any intelligence on the Attorney General’s alleged dealings.

Kalouniwai said that the Prime Minister made it clear to them that he will not do anything unless he gets the information relating to the allegations.

He also said that Driti had told him to conduct the investigation about the Attorney General.

Kalouniwai then instructed his team to gather information about Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

He said the meeting ended abruptly with Commodore Bainimarama as they only had information from various blog sites.

While testifying in court today Driti also confirmed that they had met with Commodore Bainimarama in September 2010.

Driti said he briefed Commodore Bainimarama and asked for the removal of the Attorney General due to the alleged dealings.

He said Commodore Bainimarama told Driti and Kalouniwai and I quote “No, walk out” end of quote.

Driti said he was called back to Commodore Bainimarama’s residence on the following day.

Commodore Bainimarama, Brigadier General Ioane Naivalurua, Force Chaplain Major Tikinatabua and Ratu Tevita Mara were present in the meeting.

Bainimarama told Driti that he had received some information on the plan to overthrow him and the President when Bainimarama takes the trip to Sudan.

Commodore Bainimarama then told Driti to speak to Brigadier General Mohammed Aziz and take his overdue leave and remain at the quarters.

Bainimarama asked Driti to resign as Land Force Commander and as a commissioned officer after his leave comes to an end. Source: Fijivillage

By GRAHAM DAVIS

(Fiji-born Graham Davis is now an award-winning print and broadcast journalist in Australia. He has covered major events around the world.
He blogs at grubsheet.com)

Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has strongly denied claims made by two former Fiji journalists that he tried to mount three coups before his takeover in December 2006.

In two articles in the New Zealand Herald, the Oxford-based academic and author Victor Lal and Russell Hunter, the expelled former publisher and editor-in-chief of the Fiji Sun, said Commodore Bainimarama had tried to take over the country after the Speight coup in 2000, and then again in 2004 and 2005.

The latest article details what the authors say is leaked correspondence from some of Commodore Bainimarama’s fellow officers urging him not to proceed and warning that they would oppose him.

In an interview in Suva, Commodore Bainimarama said the allegations were “not true”.

In the case of 2000, Mr Lal and Mr Hunter reported that Commodore Bainimarama demanded the military should be given the authority to rule Fiji for 50 years but this was opposed by the then president, Ratu Josefa Iloilo.

ALREADY IN CONTROL

Denying the account, Commodore Bainimarama said he was already in control of Fiji in 2000. “For their information, I was in charge of the nation in 2000, so I took over in 2000. I gave the government to (Laisenia) Qarase”.

The Prime Minister said it was historical fact that he had handed the reins of power to Laisenia Qarase hoping that he would govern for all Fijians and not just the indigenous majority.

“Everyone knows the story of 2000 when I came in, so why they changed this and (have) people believing it, I don’t know”.

Commodore Bainimarama also denied subsequent attempts to seize government before his takeover in 2006.
He said: In 2004 and 2005, there was no intention then to remove the government because I was trying to tell the government to play ball.

“There was a build-up of animosity between us and the government of the day, but there was no intention then to remove them because I was trying to get them to change their stance on the Qoliqoli (coastal resources) Bill and the racism that was rife. I was trying to persuade Qarase that he was wrong but there was no talk of us wanting to do coups then.”

The Prime Minister also responded to the account by Mr Lal and Mr Hunter that the former Australian police chief in Fiji, Andrew Hughes, tried to persuade NZ police to arrest him during a visit there in the lead-up to the 2006 coup.

According to their report, Mr Hughes believed that comments made by Commodore Bainimarama during the visit constituted grounds for a NZ charge of perverting the course justice.

These comments related to an ongoing police investigation in Fiji into whether Commodore Bainimarama could be charged with sedition for threatening to overthrow the government of Laisenia Qarase. In the event, the New Zealanders refused to act, primarily because of fears for the safety of NZ citizens in Fiji if the arrest provoked a backlash in the military.

IGNORED THE HUGHES PLAN

The Fijian leader said he’d been aware at the time of the Hughes plan to have him arrested but had ignored it
.
“I didn’t think much of it because I think this guy is a twit. I mean, who would think of getting away with the arrest of a defence force chief in the Pacific, especially an Australian coming to arrest a commander of the Fiji Military Forces”, he said.

Noting that the then NZ Police chief, Howard Broad “had more sense” than Hughes to reject the request, Commodore Bainimarama said the arrest attempt “didn’t surprise him” and he believed that Andrew Hughes was acting on the instructions of the Australian Government.

“I have no doubt about that. The government of the day (Qarase’s SDL) were puppets in the hands of the Australians so Hughes was doing the bidding of both the Qarase government and the Australian Government”, he said.

The Fijian leader said the arrest attempt did not change his behaviour in any way. “We’d already made up our minds on what we were going to do and that was to remove Qarase,” he said.

PERSONAL VENDETTA

He also launched an attack on Mr Lal and Mr Hunter, claiming they were engaged in a personal vendetta against him.

“You should look at the writers. They are not credible people. Victor Lal runs down everyone in Fiji. So does Russell Hunter”.

The prime minister said Mr Hunter was motivated by anger that he’d been expelled from Fiji after 2006.

“He got the kick from here so obviously he will try and retaliate,” Commodore Bainimarama said.

LYNDA TABUYA REPORTED TO FIJI ELECTIONS OFFICE. After Biman Prasad, a complaint has been lodged against Women's Minister Tabuya alleging false declarations, non-compliance under Political Parties ACT

20/3/2024

"That Lynda Diseru Tabuya did not declare the income of her spouse one Robert Peter Semaan- therefore it constitutes a clear breach under section 24 (1a) (b) whereby the spouse’s income must be declared. I argue that Rob Peter Semaan is the Director of Pacific Building Solutions and earns an income which has not been declared. (This can be verified by pursuing through the said person’s declaration)."

19th March 2024

Dear Ms Mataiciwa, Re: Lynda Diseru Tabuya- Peoples Alliance Party- Minister of Women and Poverty Allievation- Complaint for False and Non Declaration (1st Janaury to 31 December 2023)

*I am writing this letter to lodge a complaint against one Lynda Diseru Tabuya for false and non-declaration under the Political Parties Act 2014. I note that Ms abuya is a member of the Peoples Alliance Party which forms part of the Coalition Government. In expressing my constitutional rights to formally submit a complaint I state the following below:-

1. That under section 24 (1 (a) (b) (ii) Lynda Diseru Tabuya declared her income of $11,818.33 as the Minister for Women and Poverty Alleviation. This can be verified by pursuing through the said person’s declaration.

2. That under section 24 (1 (a) (b) (ii) Lynda Diseru Tabuya did not declare total source of income which is from the Travel Allowance she received - This can be verified by pursuing through the said person’s declaration and the (Attached as exhibit 1- Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014).

3. That under section 24 (1 (a) (b) (ii) Lynda Diseru Tabuya did not declare her travel allowances she received when she undertook overseas travel in the course of her employment between the period of the 1st of January to the 31st of December 2023 and is an additional benefit paid and seen as income.

4. That should Lynda Diseru Tabuya claim she did not receive the income from the Travel Allowance, and that she paid her own travel expenses whilst overseas for work related purposes- she did not declare the liability/expenditure required under section 24 (1) (a) (b) (viii).

5. That Lynda Diseru Tabuya did not declare the income of her spouse one Robert Peter Semaan- therefore it constitutes a clear breach under section 24 (1a) (b) whereby the spouse’s income must be declared. I argue that Rob Peter Semaan is the Director of Pacific Building Solutions and earns an income which has not been declared. (This can be verified by pursuing through the said person’s declaration).

6. That under section 24 (1a) (d) which stipulates that any directorship or other office in a corporation must be declared- as such Lynda Diseru Tabuya did not declare that her spouse is the Director of Pacific Building Solutions (Attached as exhibit 2 – Business Registration of Pacific Building Solutions for verfication).

7. That under section 24 (1) (a) (b) (iv) which stipulates that members must declare any directorship(s), or other office in a corporation or other organisation whether in Fiji or Abroad –I therefore argue as Lynda Diseru Tabuya is the president of the Kadavu Rugby Club a post she had since 14th of December 2023, which she did not declare within the statement period (Attached as exhibit 2- FBC News Article of Lynda Tabuya’s post)

8. That under section 24 (1) (a) (b) (iii) one must declare any business connection in Fiji or Abroad, hence I argue that Lynda Diseru Tabuya failed to declare that her spouse one Rob Peter Semaan is the Director of Pacific Building Solutions who obtained a $6 million contract to build the Great Council of Chiefs Building which was awarded in 2023 and may not have gone to Tender under the Procurement Regulations 2010 given that the value is over $50,000.

9. That under section 24 (1a) ( e) which states one must declare any business transaction entered by them within the statement period being the 1st of January 2023 to the 31st of December 2023. I argue that Lynda Diseru Tabuya failed to declare that her spouse one Rob Semaan entered into a Business Transaction with the Itaukei Lands Ministry for the Great Council Chiefs Contract.

10. That under section 24 (1a) (e) which states one must declare any business transaction entered by them within the statement period being the 1st of January to the 31st December of any given year. I state Lynda Diseru Tabuya may/may not [in] previous years declared that her spouse entered into a business transaction in obtaining the School Recovery Project awarded by the Ministry of Education and the value of that transaction. The awarding of the contract to Pacific Building Solutions may not have followed the Procurement Regulation 2010.

11. That under section 24 (1a) ( e) which states one must declare any business transaction entered by them within the statement period being the 1st of January to the 31st December of the year. I state Lynda Diseru Tabuya did not declare that her spouse Rob Semaan entered into a business transaction under the Coalition Government pertaining to School Recovery Project awarded by the Minister of Education (This can be verified by pursuing through the said person’s declaration).

12. That under section 24 (1a) (a) which stipulates that total assets must be declared (including money and other property under each of them). I therefore, argue that Lynda Diseru Tabuya did not declare the properties her spouse owns under Pacific Building Solutions which are Uduya Point Apartments which is rented out on AirBnB- the income from that rental is not declared.

13. That under section 24 (1a) (a) which stipulates that total assets must be declared (including money and other property under each of them. I therefore argue that Lynda Diseru Tabuya did not declare vehicle held under Pacific Building Solutions which are Chey Captiva Reg No IH221, Land Rover Reg No HJ314, Nissan Navara Reg No MB442 and Isuzu Truck MJ352 (which may now have been sold), nonetheless it should have been declared as an asset.

14. That under 24 (1a) (b) Lynda Diseru Tabuya failed to declare that her spouse (Rob Semaan) is the Director of Kaiviti Corporations (Attached as exhibit 4 Kaiviti Corporations Business Registration).

15. That under 24 (1a) (b) which states that the total income and the source of income must be declared. I therefore argue that Lynda Diseru Tabuya failed to declare her spouse Rob Semaan’s income received from Kaiviti Corporations.

16. That Lynda Diseru Tabuya failed to declare the bank accounts of her spouse and the value of the Bank accounts he possesses (This can be verified by pursuing through the said person’s declaration).

17. That under section 24 (1a) (h) which stipulates a political member must declare their spouse’s expenditure and liability including the amount of each liability. I therefore submit that Lynda Diseru Tabuya failed to declare that Rob Semaan paid (liability/expenditure) of $4000 one way airfare for their daughter one Mercedes Tabuya and her spouse Brendon from Israel to Fiji in October 2023 (Attached as exhibit 5 is the receipt obtained pertaining the amount Rob Semaan paid to WABS Trading as Pacific Voyager for the Israeli Charter- currently under investigation at FICAC).

18. That under section 24 (1) (a) (b) (vi) any gift received by each of them whether in Fiji or abroad must be declared. I declare that Lynda Diseru Tabuya failed to declare that she received an all-expenses trip paid for to attend the Fiji Day (October) Celebrations 2023 as a Chief Guest in the United States of America.

I subsequently state that should Lynda Tabuya claim she paid for the trip of the Fiji Day Celebration in October 2023- she did not declare the liability in relation to the said claim under section 24 (1) (a) (b) (viii).

I therefore submit this complaint for the breaches under the Political Parties Act 2014 upon which I understand that whilst some elements of this complaint cannot be handled by your office.

You must, therefore, refer the matter to FICAC under section 18 of the Political Parties Act. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me directly as I am happy to assist in any matter.

Fijileaks: We have withheld the name of the complainant but the Acting Supervisor of Elections has accepted the Letter of Complaint and is acting on it,

COMING, Rob Semaan and Lynda Semaan's Fat-Dissolving Injections clients still pursuing the couple for millions of dollars in United States

Some of the clients running into 98 pages still after their monies

A Person of Interest to FICAC. GIRMIT with Biman Prasad to host at USP the $200,000 International Girmit Conference, organised by Rajni/Ganesh Chand's dubious Global Girmit Institute puts Ahluwalia in FICAC's radar

20/3/2024

STOP DEPARTURE ORDER. We understand that USP's 'Robinson Crusoe', VC PAL AHLUWALIA, operating out of Samoa, is likely be be slammed with A STOP DEPARTURE ORDER' the next time he is in Fiji as FICAC investigates how NFP leader Biman Prasad, without any tender process, handed $200,000 of taxpayers money to his wife and their chamcha Ganesh Chand, who in turn handed the money to Ahluwalia's USP to host the two-day international girmit conference.
*So far, Ahluwalia has not responded to our questions nor has USP produced any invoice or receipts to account for the conference, and whether there was 'insider dealing' since Rajni Chand is an USP employee, and Ahluwalia was very close to Biman Prasad.

Hundreds of scholars, researchers, and academics from around the world, together with some descendants of Girmtiyas, gathered at The University of the South Pacific (USP) Laucala Campus to attend the two-day International Girmit Conference, which began today (May 12, 2023).

Opening the conference at the Japan ICT Centre, Fiji’s President His Excellency Ratu Wiliame Katonivere, said the presence of all visiting scholars to participate in the conference signifies the importance of Girmit Day and its history.

“While the broad history is well-known, there are many aspects of history and the lives of the Girmitiya that we are unaware of. It is quite sad and unfortunate that our primary and secondary school curriculum does not emphasise our history. There is an urgent need to review our primary and secondary school curriculum to include all matters of significance for Fiji.”

The President further emphasised that “Cultural diversity should not just be recognised; it needs to be embraced and respected. Our society needs to continuously foster an environment of inclusivity where everyone, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or cultural background, feels valued and appreciated.”

Delivering his keynote address at the conference today, USP Vice-Chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia emphasised the importance of remembering the history of Girmitiyas.

“For the localised Indians, Fiji was the only home they knew. Sure, they were Indo-Fijians, but they were not willing to succumb to being merely part of an Indian diaspora. They were a unique localised indigenous Indo-Fijian diaspora.”

Professor Ahluwalia added, “Girmit day has the potential to be a powerful endorsement that a new dawn has arrived where inter-racial harmony is recognised not only as a pragmatic solution to contemporary issues but fundamentally born of an ethic which embraces the other.”

Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister, Honourable Professor Biman Prasad, also the National Committee on Girmit Chair, said today’s “144th-anniversary commemoration is a momentous occasion for us to reflect on the significance of Indian indenture in shaping the course of Fiji’s history.”

“For Indo-Fijians, ‘girmit’ connects us; it is the foundation for our shared language; it is the foundation of our spirituality. It is part of our history and our very being today.

“The history of Indian indenture is a crucial part of Fiji’s past, and it is essential that we continue to study and reflect on the period, not only to understand the challenges and hardships faced by our ancestors but also to honour their legacy and contributions to our society.”

The two-day conference’s primary objective is to facilitate discourse on all aspects related to documenting, researching, writing and communicating the histories and lives of Girmitiyas.

<<Previous

TWO of Sitiveni Rabuka's 1987 RACIST enforcers are back as JUDGES.It was the NFP, and its leader and MPs, who clothed them in the sulu of immunity for the rape, murder, torture and beatings of Indo-Fijians.

FAST TRACK APPEAL. Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo has fast-tracked DPP's appeal against magistrate Seini Puamau's judgment, to be heard in five days time - next Wednesday.

There were widespread allegations in 2000 that Salesi Temo, with his pro-George Speight rulings, was a Speight sympathizer, a charge he reportedly dismissed.

SOAP Opera continues outside Puamau's Magistrates Court

BEFORE THE 2022 ELECTION: Shailendra Raju to Jone Kalouniwai.We understand he is back in Fiji, lapping up to Coalition government

Frank Bainimarama gets Absolute Discharge and Sitiveni Qiliho fined $1,500. No CONVICTIONS recorded against Bainimarama and Qiliho

The late David Toganivalu was the prosecutor in the case. On instructions from acting DPP John Rabuku, Tabuakoro left the Suva Magistrates Court, without partaking in a minute's silence for Toganivalu

Fijileaks: More on the sentencing later

Fijileaks: We are holding Lynda Tabuya to account NOT because she is a WOMAN but as Sitiveni Rabuka's Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection in the Coalition government. ​*In the process, her husband Robert Peter Semaan's own financial activities has come under scrutiny

Room 233. Sadly, in the confines of Room 233 at Windsor Hotel, Rob was eerily present (in thought) as the two love rat cheats - Lynda Tabuya and Aseri Radrodro - indulged in 'brutal sex' that she could barely walk the next day

Sulu clad Kai Viti - Born in Fiji?

From Fijileaks Archive, 25 February 2022

* Let us not forget that Sitiveni Rabuka ruled as Prime Minister from 1992 to 1999 under a racially lop-sided 1990 Constitution that was motivated by the desire to exclude permanently any possibility of Indo-Fijian parties forming a government.

While demanding evidence of Rape and Sexual Violence against Indo-Fijian women and girls during the racially motivated 1987 Rabuka coups, here she is CRYING with the women victims of Rwandan genocide

*New Zealand legalised prostitution in brothels in 2003 and the capital city Wellington has made hay whilst the sun shines, currently offering several bordellos where you can pay for sex.

COMING, Rob Semaan and Lynda Semaan's Fat-Dissolving Injections clients still pursuing the couple for millions of dollars in United States

Some of the clients running into 98 pages still after their monies

Archives

TWO of Sitiveni Rabuka's 1987 RACIST enforcers are back as JUDGES.
It was the NFP, and its leader and MPs, who clothed them in the sulu of immunity for the rape, murder, torture and beatings of Indo-Fijians.

BEFORE THE 2022 ELECTION: Shailendra Raju to Jone Kalouniwai.
We understand he is back in Fiji, lapping up to Coalition government

Fijileaks: We are holding Lynda Tabuya to account NOT because she is a WOMAN but as Sitiveni Rabuka's Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection in the Coalition government.
*In the process, her husband Robert Peter Semaan's own financial activities has come under scrutiny