Blog Archives

SPIES AND LIES. 'High-level conspiracy within criminal justice system to remove Pryde and replace him with Toganivalu. The Resident Magistrate Seini Puamau accused of getting DPP staff to SPY on their boss PRYDE'

21/4/2023

"Was the Acting Chief Justice [Salesi Temo] part of a conspiracy, involving Seni Paumau and Attorney General, Siromi Turaga, to engineer Christopher Pryde’s removal? It is inconceivable that a magistrate would be reckless enough to try to recruit spies in the DPP’s office without the official imprimatur of more senior figures in the system. Justice Temo has some pressing questions to answer, including why he failed to act on Christopher Pryde’s request to suspend Puamau for conduct that in any other circumstances, would result in a magistrate’s dismissal and possible charges for wilfully undermining the integrity and independence of the DPP."
GRAHAM DAVIS, Grubsheet

Resident Magistrate Seini Puamau

Clear evidence has emerged of a high-level conspiracy within the criminal justice system to remove the suspended Director of Public Prosecutions, Christopher Pryde, four years into his seven year contract not on the grounds of competence or performance but on the grounds of ethnicity.

In an explosive memorandum obtained by Grubsheet that was sent by Christopher Pryde to all staff at the Office of the DPP on February 8, the DPP details an attempt by the resident magistrate, Seini Puamau, to recruit informants within the ODPP to spy on him and provide her with confidential information on internal conversations within the office. (document above)

It is an extraordinary document that lays bare one of the most astonishing episodes in the history of the criminal justice system in Fiji – a DPP accusing a magistrate of subverting him with his own staff and formally referring her to the Acting Chief Justice, Salesi Temo, and the Judicial Services Commission. Yet even more extraordinary is that Justice Temo did nothing to act on Christopher Pryde’s request that Seini Paumau be suspended. Nor is there evidence of any investigation being conducted into the complaints against her. Which raises an extremely serious question with grave implications for the rule of law in Fiji.

Was the Acting Chief Justice part of a conspiracy, involving Seni Paumau and Attorney General, Siromi Turaga, to engineer Christopher Pryde’s removal? It is inconceivable that a magistrate would be reckless enough to try to recruit spies in the DPP’s office without the official imprimatur of more senior figures in the system. Justice Temo has some pressing questions to answer, including why he failed to act on Christopher Pryde’s request to suspend Puamau for conduct that in any other circumstances, would result in a magistrate’s dismissal and possible charges for wilfully undermining the integrity and independence of the DPP.

On the contrary, it is Christopher Pryde who has been removed. So let’s just go through the timeline of all of this, which Grubsheet revealed in our posting on Wednesday that has since been republished by Victor Lal’s FijiLeaks but has still to reach the mainstream media in Fiji. The Pryde memo on Seini Paumau is hard evidence and there is no longer any excuse for the mainstream media to ignore a story that is becoming more perplexing and sinister by the day.

· We now know that Seini Puamau was allegedly trying to recruit spies in the DPP’s office sometime before Feburary 8.
· Grubsheet has revealed that a week later, I received a message from a reader that Christopher Pryde would soon be replaced by David Toganivalu.
· On February 21, I wrote to Biman Prasad asking him if it was true that Pryde was being replaced. The Deputy Prime Minister came back saying the he had spoken to the Attorney General and Siromi Turaga had said it was “bullshit”. That was a lie.
· Seven days later, Christopher Pryde was photographed in conversation with Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at the Japanese Embassy residence in a roomful of people. He maintains that he was unaware that any police file on the ousted AG had reached the ODPP and there was no reason to snub him.
· Some time after that, Siromi Turaga summoned the DPP to his office, presented him with the photographs and demanded a written apology, telling Pryde that once he received that letter it would be the end of the matter. That too was a lie. Because soon afterwards, the DPP received a letter from the Acting Chief Justice saying that he had received a formal complaint from the AG and that the matter was being referred to the Judicial Services Commission.
· And then, of course, the JSC advised H.E the President to suspend Christopher Pryde on a complaint of misbehaviour by the Attorney General for meeting Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum when it is now clear that David Toganivalu had been lined up to replace him as DPP well before Pryde’s encounter with Khaiyum.

The fact that Christopher Pryde has been suspended but no action has been taken against the magistrate trying to recruit his staff to spy on him carries the whiff of a very big rat indeed. In any other jurisdiction, it would be enough to trigger a high level investigation into the conduct of Seini Puamau, Salesi Temo and Siromi Turaga. But not in Fiji. Instead we get the Home Affairs Minister , Pio Tikoduadua, saying there is “no cause for concern” about the circumstances of Christopher Pryde’s suspension when there is actually cause for considerable alarm
.
The Fijian people deserve a full accounting of what at face value appears to be a shocking attempt to set up the DPP and remove him four years into a seven year contract not for engaging in conversation with Khaiyum but because the new government was gunning for him to replace him with an iTaukei. Those involved may think they can escape the scrutiny of a supine media even with the shackles of MIDA removed. But they will not escape the scrutiny of the three judges who will eventually make up the Tribunal that will hear the complaint of misbehaviour against Christopher Pryde. Because this is now a full-blown scandal.

Biman Prasad told the National Economic Summit yesterday that the nature of democracy means that he has to embrace the flying bricks as well as the bouquets in his own decision-making. Well a hail of bricks is coming his way for failing to use his influence to save the man who happens to have saved Prasad's own political career - and enabled the Coalition victory - with his decision not to charge the NFP leader over the Taniguchi affair in the lead-up to the December election.

Grubsheet understands that Biman Prasad told the Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, to exercise caution in removing Christopher Pryde but stopped short of saying it was unacceptable. Which is adding to a groundswell of opinion that the NFP leader is enabling Siromi Turaga’s pro-indigenous agenda, assault on the institutions of state and flagrant law breaking on the secular state rather than acting to prevent it.

Biman Prasad ignores sentiments like the following at his peril – a message from one of Grubsheet’s regular correspondents:

“I was at a large indo-fijian function during the long weekend and believe me I did not meet a single person who expressed any praise of the NFP. In fact people were referring to Biman as "Baimaan" meaning someone who has betrayed.

The anti-NFP feeling is widespread. If an election were to be called today, take my word, Graham, FijiFirst will walk in with a sizeable majority and NFP will be sent into the wilderness.”

LOVE TRYST from Prime Minister's Office to PANAMA: Two high profile members of Rabuka's Transitional TEAM in the Prime Minister's Office likely to RESIGN after lying to Rabuka that 'No, No, We Not in Love Tryst'

20/4/2023

RABUKA DRAWS THE LINE IN THE SAND: Panama, a Lovers Paradise

Highly placed sources in Prime Minister's Office inform Fijileaks that after observing COUPLE's dalliance in Panama on taxpayer funded trip to UN Ocean Conference, Rabuka has concluded that they will have to go to avoid another KAMA SUTRA scandal that has dogged him all his life. They had flatly denied having any affair when Rabuka had confronted them in the Prime Minister's Office in Fiji but they fell out of favour when he closely observed their dalliance in Panama recently.
He is very frightened that his three-wheeled wobbly Coalition government's SURVIVAL will be at STAKE over another KAMA SUTRA scandal right inside the heart of Prime Minister's Office

STING OPERATION: GRAHAM DAVIS, 'Tikoduadua is just plain wrong. The AG engaged in campaign to undermine DPP Pryde, including hand-picking his successor in advance, finding a pretext to dispense with him'

19/4/2023

"Grubsheet learnt in mid February from one of our readers that David Toganivalu had been approached to replace Christopher Pryde as DPP. It prompted me to write to the Deputy Prime Minister, Biman Prasad on February 21 asking if these reports were true. Prasad came back telling me that he had asked the Attorney General, Siromi Turaga, about the reports and the AG had responded that it was "bullshit". That was a LIE." - DAVIS

Minister for Home Affairs, Pio Tikoduadua says there is no cause for concern after the suspension of the Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Pryde.

By GRAHAM DAVIS

Pio Tikoduadua is just plain wrong. There is a great deal for the Fijian people to be worried about over the suspension of the DPP, Christopher Pryde, four years into a seven year contract.
Ever since the new government took office in December, attempts were made to destabilise the DPP. This included a prominent iTaukei magistrate approaching someone in his office to spy on him - an act that prompted Christopher Pryde to write to his staff exposing the person in question and instructing them not to have anything to do with her.
He also reportedly lodged a formal complaint with the Judicial Services Commission about this attempt to subvert him but nothing was done.
Grubsheet learnt in mid February from one of our readers that David Toganivalu had been approached to replace Christopher Pryde as DPP.
It prompted me to write to the Deputy Prime Minister, Biman Prasad on February 21 asking if these reports were true. Prasad came back telling me that he had asked the Attorney General, Siromi Turaga, about the reports and the AG had responded that it was "bullshit". That was a LIE.
On February 28 - seven days later - Christopher Pryde attended a Japanese national day reception at the Japanese [ambassador's] residence in Suva. At some point in the evening, he was approached by Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and in full view of the room, the two had a conversation. At this point, the DPP says he was NOT AWARE that a police file on Khaiyum had been received by his office.
So he saw nothing wrong with engaging him in an informal chat so long as there was no discussion about any police investigation into Khaiyum.
Aiyaz Sayed- Khaiyum himself would also have known that it would have been a serious violation of the law to engage in such a conversation. So Grubsheet understands that the content of the discussion was confined to family matters, including the recent arrival back in Fiji from Australia of Khaiyum's wife, Ella, and their three children and the challenge of finding a school for them in Nadi and setting up house there.
In other words, a typical conversation at any social function in Fiji. The two men were in full view of the room and there was nothing clandestine about the encounter.
Some time later, Siromi Turaga summoned Christopher Pryde to his office and showed him a series of photographs that had been taken of the two men in conversation. The AG told the DPP that he considered it inappropriate and while the DPP explained that it was confined to family matters, Siromi Turaga asked Christopher Pryde to submit a formal apology to him in writing for having had any contact with his ousted predecessor.
The AG assured the DPP that once the apology was submitted, that would be in the end of the matter. It was another LIE.
The AG used what had happened to approach the Acting Chief Justice, Salesi Temo, asking him to formally demand Christopher Pryde's resignation or refer him to the Judicial Services Commission for misbehaviour.
When he received this demand from the Acting CJ, the DPP wrote to Justice Temo explaining the circumstances and protesting that Siromi Turaga had told him that beyond the formal apology he had made, there would be no further action taken against him. He also complained for a second time about the campaign of destabilisation that had been launched against him, including the magistrate who had tried to recruit one of his staff to spy on him.
It was to no avail. The record shows that Christopher Pryde was suspended for alleged misbehaviour and the charge against him will eventually be heard by a tribunal of three judges, who under the Constitution, are required to submit their findings to H.E the President and those findings will be made public.
It is also on the public record that Pryde has refused to resign as DPP, maintains that his suspension is unjust and that he will fight it.
On any evaluation of the facts, this was a set-up. David Toganivalu was recruited BEFORE the Japanese function at which the DPP and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum were photographed. Siromi Turaga LIED to Biman Prasad - his coalition partner - that this was the case.
The AG LIED to Christopher Pryde when he said a formal apology would be in the end of the matter and no further action would be taken. And while it might have been an error of judgment for the DPP not to have turned his back on Khaiyum at a diplomatic reception, Grubsheet understands that he had NO KNOWLEDGE that any police file on the ousted AG had been received by his office and there was no legal reason to shun him.
Pio Tikoduadua as Minister for Home Affairs assures the public that "there is no cause for concern". Wrong. There is every cause for grave concern. The DPP is an independent officer of state appointed by H.E the President. Under the separation of powers that underpins our system of government, he does NOT report to the Attorney General or take instructions from him. Yet in this instance, there is clear evidence that the AG has engaged in a campaign to undermine the DPP, including hand-picking his successor in advance of finding a pretext to dispense with him.
In terms of a breach of contract alone, this could eventually cost the Fijian taxpayer dearly. But in terms of public confidence in our institutions and the ability of independent officers of state to do their jobs free from political interference, it is a disaster. Pio Tikoduadua knows it. And if he doesn't, he should. Because for a start, we already know that Siromi Turaga and the Acting Chief Justice are putting pressure on Christopher Pryde's successor, David Toganivalu, to fast-track the prosecutions of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and others associated with FijiFirst.
And that is extremely dangerous for the proper administration of justice and the rule of law in Fiji.

DAKSESH PATEL and Biman Prasad's Economic Summit. The 1987 FLP deposed MP NITYA REDDY expresses disquiet over Patel's inclusion. 'He is same man who disrupted Charan Singh's NFP campaign meet in 2018'

18/4/2023

"In a meeting at Baigan Vanua in Labasa, Singh had questioned the misuse of some $80 million hurricane funds, the principal beneficiaries of which were some of the leading building merchants of the country. He had not named any. Singh had barely finished his speech, when Daksesh Patel called and attacked him for his comments including some highly offensive personal comments. In the last sitting of Parliament only a few weeks ago, the DPM Biman Prasad confirmed the massive wastages, corruption and pilferages that took place under the Fiji First and specifically referred to the hurricane/ flood scams.
1. Is it humanly possible for somebody with such entrenched and partisan support of the previous economic and social agenda to change their views and suddenly transform into a passionate apostle of the new Coalition policies?
2. Can they be fully trusted to transfer their loyalties to the new govt given their years of intimate relationship with FFP?
3. Are there not enough competent and experienced people to replace these “holdovers“ of the past?" NITYA REDDY

There is widespread disquiet about the continued presence, dominance and reappointment of some key board members, who held the levers of power under the previous Fiji First Government.

Whilst, not advocating for a wholesale purge of the statutory boards, there is, however, many valid questions surrounding the suitability of some of these people. Continuity, expertise and management experience are necessary but it cannot be at the expense of good governance and public confidence.

Many of them are political “holdovers“ of the Fiji First reign and avowed ideologues of the Bainimarama/ Khaiyum agenda.

One in particular who has polarised many is Daksesh Patel. In addition to his multiple existing positions, he has just been announced as the Chairperson of “Key Growth Strategies “, a powerful sub Committee of the Economic Summit to be held next week.

From that position, he will be directly involved in the affairs of the nation and be able to influence deliberations about its future economic policies. Many believe that, Patel’s baggage of the past, including his many questionable decisions at FNPF, FDB, EFL and Air Pacific should be enough to disqualify him from any such role.
Patel has form and history in the promotion and execution of the Fiji First agenda. He is widely seen as a flashpoint of resentment by those many thousands of workers who have suffered as a result of his decisions.

This is the same man who had interrupted a NFP campaign meeting of Minister Charan Singh in 2018.

In a meeting at Baigan Vanua in Labasa, Singh had questioned the misuse of some $80 million hurricane funds, the principal beneficiaries of which were some of the leading building merchants of the country. He had not named any.

Singh had barely finished his speech, when Daksesh Patel called and attacked him for his comments including some highly offensive personal comments.

In the last sitting of Parliament only a few weeks ago, the DPM Biman Prasad confirmed the massive wastages, corruption and pilferages that took place under the Fiji First and specifically referred to the hurricane/ flood scams.

1. Is it humanly possible for somebody with such entrenched and partisan support of the previous economic and social agenda to change their views and suddenly transform into a passionate apostle of the new Coalition policies?

2. Can they be fully trusted to transfer their loyalties to the new govt given their years of intimate relationship with FFP?

3. Are there not enough competent and experienced people to replace these “holdovers“ of the past?

4. What special skills and knowledge do they offer that is not available in our people?

5. Can we not manage Fiji without the shadow of these people constantly contaminating our governance?

6. Why is it that in a nation of nearly a million, we still find ourselves shackled in the tentacles of a few who call the shots for the rest of us?

7. Fiji has been an independent sovereign nation for the last 53 years. We must ask whether this sovereignty is worth anything if it is still to be a victim of “state capture” by a few.

Real freedom, justice and dignity will never be realised for the country unless and until we liberate ourselves from the dependence on these mercenaries.

BIZARRE RANT FROM ANOTHER SUMMIT ATTENDEE, GANESH CHAND

Dear Mr. [Officer from Government who invited me],

As advised earlier I have kindly accepted your invitation to participate in the National Economic Summit.

However, I kindly decline the offer of $80 for travel expenses from Lautoka to Suva, as well as the accommodation for 2 nites @ the Peninsula.

Please also note: I humbly decline to partake in any tea/coffee/snacks/lunch/dinner layouts, and have opted to bring my own. Please ensure that your catering order reflects one less person to be catered for, for this. I shall keep the Government auditor alerted of it come the audit time.

Likewise, I decline to consume any wine/beer/alcohol during the cocktail or consume any finger food; I shall bring my own wine or beers, as suits my mood then, and my own bean-peanut. Likewise, please ensure that your catering order reflects this.

Can you please also make arrangements with the local police etc., to allow me to carry my own snacks, eats and drinks.

Please be alerted: I shall be making a lot of interventions and fruitful contributions.

I, thus, need your advise: I intend not to use the PA system, which you would be paying from taxpayer funds; instead I will use my natural voice. I am trying to locate my 24-year old amplifier - Bhopa they call it in Hindi - which I had purchased for election campaigns in 1999 and 2001. In case I can find it and power it up, I may bring that in so that my own sound system carries my voice well. On this, I know that the sessions will be live online. So listening is not a problem. BUT can you advise me please also on how would you arrange to carry my voice to the other 499 participants, as I intend not to use the tax-payer funded GPH space; would you be able to arrange a government owned desk and chair outside, in Albert Park possibly, from where I can make my contributions. If it rains, I will have my umbrella handy.

This is all in the interest of tax-payers like your panelist Save Narube and invitees, MPC and the Fiji First supporters who, I am sure, will be amply present in the Summit.

Oh, one final matter: Since I wont be using any of the tax-payer paid facilities and provisions, how do you intend to remunerate me for my intellectual contributions to building a better Fiji. I can assure you that the quality of my contributions will be far superior to the combined brain power of the vocal custodians of taxpayer money like Save, MPC and their trolls. Do I invoice you at the rate at which Fiji companies with offices abroad have been charging management fee to their parent companies in Fiji? Or should this be at the rate at which Government pays foreign consultants without any blink of an eye by the vocal public custodians of public finance? I do recognise that after billions were literally siphoned out from Government through shady deals by the previous regime (on which those who are vocal critics now of the summit costs remained silent), Fiji has a financial crisis, and that the Hon. DPM/MF has to walk extra miles to bring Fiji back to normal. In light of this crisis, and as a person with Fiji dear to his heart, do I massively discount my invoice to the level which is comparable to the value of the contributions to Fiji's development by the Summit cost critics?

Your advice would be most appreciated.
Kind Regards.
Ganesh Chand

Fijileaks: The Principal Witness in Chand's Abuse of Office criminal case had leaked scores of documents to us that we published. As a result, Chand was charged. For some unexplained reason, the principal witness refused to return to Fiji from Australia, and testify against Chand.

From Fijileaks Archive, 8 February 2015

MURDER SUSPECT Naisoro on acting DPP David Toganivalu: 'He was DDP officer who prosecuted me. He approached me to testify against my co-accused, and in return I would get IMMUNITY. I flatly refused to do so.'

15/4/2023

Fijileaks: We were not surprised when we heard of Toganivalu's appointment as DPP. Since private photos began circulating of Christopher Pryde and Aiyaz Khaiyum chatting at a private function at the Japanese ambassador's residence in February, we were constantly informed that Pryde will be gone 'soon' and Toganivalu will replace him. In 2010, Khaiyum had terminated Toganivalu's contract as Deputy DPP.
Conflict of Interest: We argue that Toganivalu cannot handle any file (docket) relating to Police investigations into Khaiyum's case (s).
Pryde was appointed DPP in November 2011.

That now it so happens that since he [David Toganivalu] and Mr. Simione Valenitabua are in partnership both of them will have had “put their heads together” to discuss my appeal without a doubt. For as long as my file is in that office Mr. Toganivalu will always feel uncomfortable with my case since my conviction in which he was the State prosecutor was set aside by the Court of Appeal and he will always feel guilty of his attempts at turning me into a State witness to lie under oath.
Rupeni Naisoro, in Naisoro v Commissioner of Police*, FJCA 238,
30 November 2018

CONVICTION MOST FOUL: On 16 May 2007 Justice Nazhat Shameem jailed RUPENI NAISORO and SENIVALATI RAMUWAI to life imprisonment after two of the three assessors found Ramuwai guilty of murder as charged. All assessors found Naisoro guilty as charged.
*David Toganivalu & S. Vodokisolomoni represented the DPP Josaia Naigulevu.
Ms Samanunu Vaniqi defended Ramuwai and Sevuloni Valenitabua represented Naisoro.

Naisoro and Ramuwai were found guilty of brutally murdering a 17-year-old carrier driver NAVNEET KUMAR (son of Seet Kumar Singh) in Korovou, Tailevu, on 29 April 2005. The trial heard that $100 was stolen from Kumar, he was punched until he fell down and then hit with a knife in the head and upper body. There were multiple blows with intent to kill. Kumar was thrown into the Wainikavula River. When it appeared that he was not dead but trying to get out of the other side of the creek, he was held under water and drowned. The knife was left at the scene of the stabbing. Justice Shameem sentenced the two accused to life imprisonment as required by law but did not fix a minimum sentence to be served before release on parole.
On 20 August 2007, Senivalati appealed against his conviction, and a year later, on 9 August 2008, Naisoro followed with his appeal, arguing that Shameem had erred in law and in fact in not addressing and/or directing the assessors that the fact that he (Naisoro) had refused an offer of immunity was a matter for the assessors to take into account.
Then on 12 August 2009 Naisoro swore an affidavit saying that four years after the murder it had come to his attention that a new team of officers was carrying out further investigations, and that a person unconnected with him and Senivalati had confessed to the murder of Navneet Kumar.
On 22 September 2009, ASP Rupeni Raqa swore an affidavit which included as follows: 'That since the 18th of April 2009, a TIMOCI RAVURABOTA had confessed to a Church Group in the name of Waimaro Methodist Church Reconciliation Prayer Team that he himself had murdered the deceased Navneet Kumar at Korovou, Tailevu, on the 29th April 2005." In 2010, Ravurabota pleaded guilty before Justice Salesi Temo and was subsequently jailed for murder. It turned out that both Raburobota and Kumar had attended the Tailevu North College from Form 3 to Form 6, and knew each other. The then 17-year-old Ravurabota had robbed and murdered his former classmate so he could use the money to attend the Coco Cola games at the National Stadium.
* As expected, on 12 March 2012 the Fiji Court of Appeal freed both Senivalati and Naisioro on appeal against their convictions based on Raburobota's confession and conviction.
The acquitting Judge William Marshall ruled that the two accused were victims of miscarriage of justice.
Later, the two unsuccessfully sued the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General and in the process Naisoro, in November 2018, moved that his lawyer Simione Valenitabua no longer represent him, for by now Valenitabua was 'in partnership with David Toganivalu who wanted me to implicate Ramuwai in the [Kumar murder] and in return that I would be granted immunity'. Valenitabua informed the FJCA that he was withdrawing from the case.

Sevuloni Valenitabua

“As lawyers we are able to tell straight away if our clients are guilty of an offence or not. In Rupeni’s case I believed he was innocent from the very first day. From the outset he kept saying he did not do it.
It got to the extent that when he was offered immunity by prosecution in return for revealing details of the murder, he refused to do it. He told me that he would not lie to the court about something he didn’t have anything to do with.
He said he didn’t know anything about the murder and he wasn’t going to lie about having knowledge of it.
He always maintained his innocence.”
Naisoro's lawyer Valenitabua, 7 October 2009 to Fiji Sun

Acting DPP David Toganivalu in his legal office

Naisoro v Commissioner of Police, FJCA 238, 30 November 2018

That after everything that has transpired up to this point I [Rupeni Naisoro] now have some reservations with my solicitor and in the way he has been conducting my case.
That he is in partnership with David Toganivalu . Mr. Toganivalu was the DPP officer who prosecuted the State case against me.
This same Mr. Toganivalu had approached me when I was out on bail for the above murder charge and wanted to negotiate that I turn State witness against Sainivalati Ramuwai, the 1st accused (2nd appellant) and implicate him in the said murder trial and in return that I would be granted immunity.
That I flatly refused because I knew nothing about the case and if I testified against Sainivalati Ramuwai, the 1st accused that would tantamount to perjury and my lying on oath. I immediately made it known to him to proceed and charge me for the offence anyhow which did happen.
That now it so happens that since he and Mr. Simione Valenitabua are in partnership both of them will have had “put their heads together” to discuss my appeal without a doubt.
For as long as my file is in that office Mr. Toganivalu will always feel uncomfortable with my case since my conviction in which he was the State prosecutor was set aside by the Court of Appeal and he will always feel guilty of his attempts at turning me into a State witness to lie under oath.
That I am now beginning to wonder how it is that I lost my civil claim case before Brito J as it is a fairly straight forward case after I wrongfully spent 2 years in remand and was serving 2 years out of a life imprisonment sentence before the real perpetrator above name confessed to the killing.
With Mr. Toganivalu now in partnership with Mr. Simione Valenitabua and because of the supposed conflict of interest my imagination into how my case was lost is now beginning to run wild”.

The most important evidence on 13th October 2011 comes from the fact that the full statement under caution of Timoci and his response to being charged was read to him in court. Under oath he then said that every answer was correctly recorded, that he had signed at the time in a number of places and that all the facts in his answers were true. He had not been threatened, hit or improperly pressured by ASP Rupeni Raga in any way. He agreed that he had pleaded guilty before Justice Salesi Temo on 16th February 2010. The facts in the statement of facts agreed with the prosecution and Defendant were read out and Justice Temo asked if he admitted the facts and after Timoci Ravurabota said "yes" Justice Temo wrote in the Record "facts admitted".

"I am Timoci Ravurabota of Nailega village. District of Namalata in the province of Tailevu. I am only known by the name Timoci. I live with my parents at Nailega Village. I am not married. I am not employed other than assisting my father with farming. My level of education if Form 6. In 2005 I attended Form 6 at Tailevu North College. It is true that I told Kuliniasi Vunikedra and Inosi Turagalada that I murdered Navneet Kumar in the year 2005 near Matacula Village. I murdered Navneet within the period of time from 8.30 pm on Friday 29th April 2005 to 4.15 pm on Saturday afternoon on 30th April 2005. No one assisted me in murdering Navneet. I murdered him alone. I killed him by stabbing him repeatedly on his neck, face, upper chest and his head with a kitchen knife before I forced him underwater in the Wainikavula River until he was dead. I then put his body under the roots of a tree which was underwater so that the body does not float. The kitchen knife I used to repeatedly stab Navneet belonged to my mother Venaisi Bolaciri which I brought from home that day Friday 29th April 2005 at about 6.00 pm. It is a small knife with a brown handle and it is marked with the letters 'IL'. 'IL' is my younger brother's name Inoke Lavaisiga. My mother put these initials on the knife. I can still very well remember that knife but the blade is bent where I stabbed Navneet's head. I have been handed a knife and I recognise that I used (it) to repeatedly stab Navneet. Her identification marks is still there. After I stabbed Navneet I left the knife near Wainikavula Creek which is the place where I killed Navneet. I still remember the exact place at the Wainikavula Creek where I put Navneet's body after killing him. I can show that place to the police. I know Navneet Kumar very well since we attended Tailevu North College from Form 3 to Form 6. I was in Class 602 while he was in Class 601."

After the above Timoci Ravurabota was asked by ASP Rupeni Raga about his plan to rob and kill and what happened. Timoci Ravurabota replied:

"First of all, the Coca Cola Games was to be held at the National Stadium on Friday 29/4/2005 and Saturday 30/4/2005. I was still in form 602 at Tailevu North College at that time and I was camping with our village rugby 15 team at our Village Community Hall beginning from Monday 25/4/2005 for the rugby game to be played on Saturday, 30/4/20005 against Dritabua, a team from Naivicula. I asked my mother to give my admission fee to the Coca Cola Games and she gave me only $20.00 which is not enough to pay my fare, food and admission fee to the National Stadium in Suva. On Friday, 29/4/2005, the beginning of the school break, at about 7.00 pm, I walked alone to Korovou town. I was wearing a dark blue long trousers with side pockets with a brown round neck t/shirt. I was bringing with me my mother's kitchen knife which was pocketed inside my trouser's side pocket. I was planning to rob Dharmen by threatening him with the kitchen knife. I remembered meeting Samuela Qiotagane in Korovou town. We played billiard together before we came to the bus stand that goes to Suva where we were just yarning. It was dark and lights were switched on in Korovou town. I was looking for Dharmend, carrier driver but I didn't see him. Whilst I was yarning with Samu, the kitchen knife fell off from my pocket and Samu saw the knife, he then advised me in Fijian 'Qarauna Vinaka, ke raica na ovisa ni o kauta tiko nai sele ena taoni, ena vesuki iko' which when translated means 'Be Careful, if a police officer sees you carrying a kitchen knife in town, you will be arrested'. I picked up the knife again and put it back into my trouser's side pocket. Samu is one of my close friends, we attended form 3 and 4 together at Tailevu North College. During our conversation with Samu, at about 8.00 pm or after 8.00 pm, I saw Navneet Kumar driving their white liteace van to Korovou town through the road that goes to Tailevu North College. I saw Mrs Torika Vateitei sitting in the front seat of the van. The van then driven by Navneet Kumar then went up Nawiwaivusa Road. I crossed to the other side of the road and followed Navneet Kumar's van. I stopped Navneet Kumar's van near Master Peni Saukarawa's house along Nawiwaivusa Road. Navneet stopped and there was no other passenger inside the van. I opened the back passenger door of the van and told Navneet to take me to Burerua and I was seated at the back seat. When we (were) approaching the Korovou town main road, I told Navneet Kumar not to allow anyone to see me because some gang were looking for me. Navneet then advised me to go underneath the seat, which I did. The reason he told me to get down underneath the seats because the van will stop in town. He did stop in town, and I believe he was talking with an Indian guy, I recognised the voice to be of Gyan Prasad because we also attended Tailevu North College. I heard Gyan Prasad talking from the passenger side window and they were talking in Hindustani, and I can only understand that Navneet was telling Gyan that he wanted to buy a CD radio for his lorry. Gyan wanted to go for a ride but Navneet told him that he's going for another pick up job. After a short while, we then drove out again and I remained underneath the seat until I felt that the lights of the town faded and we have passed the Doctor's government quarters. Just after we passed the government quarters, I saw a lorry coming towards Korovou town, but I don't know who was driving it. We drove passed Burerua village and was about to reach RKS, then we return until we reached a drain just passed the junction that goes to Matacula village, I then told Navneet to stop. While stopping there, I saw a white twin cab coming with its light flicking, when it was about to reach us, then slowed down, then drove passed us after Navneet flickered his van light. I don't know the owner of the lorry as well as the registration number. Navneet's van lights was still switched on. I then got off then walked around the back of the van then came to the front at Navneet's side (driver's side). I took out the kitchen knife from my pocket and placed the blade on Navneet Kumar's neck and told him to get off the van. I saw him getting all the money from under the seat and handed it all to me, even before I asked him for money. I took the money and put it inside my trouser's pocket. He wanted to give me his mobile phone as well but I refused it. I removed the knife from his neck and I held the collar of his t/shirt from the back, then pushed him in front of me as we were following the road up to Matacula. After a while, we went through under a fence near a hill. After going under the fence, I then released the collar of his t/shirt because the place was bushy. A little bit further, he ran down the slope until I caught him again down the slope. I again got hold of his collar and we walked until we reached some Ivi trees, where I punched him until he fell to the ground. At that time, I started to stab him on his neck, upper chest including his head and his hands when he tried to stop the knife. Whilst I was stabbing Navneet Kumar, his mobile phone rang and at the same time someone was calling out to Navneet. I then threw Navneet to the river believing that he is dead. Then I saw him trying to come up again to the other side of the river, I then jumped down to the river and got hold of Navneet and submerged him until he was motionless. I knew that he is really dead, I then put his body under the roots of trees in the water, then I swam out of the water. I knew that when I stabbed his head, the kitchen knife blade bent, I just left the knife there. I did not take his mobile phone, it was still with him. I believed that I killed Navneet Kumar at 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm. Navneet was wearing a white t/shirt with a black long trousers. I think his t/shirt fell off at the place I repeatedly stabbed him. After killing Navneet, I ran towards Matacaucau, the night was so dark I didn't know where I was running. I recalled climbing a tree and when I looked back, I saw Tom's light and I followed the light until I almost reach Tom's house, I came down and crossed the road to Deepwater. I cross the Waibula river and followed along the back of the houses near the Bilo Road. I again crossed the Waibula river, and up the Daya Ram Tyre Repair, I then followed the Nabilo road until I reached the Kings Road, up to the PWD Depot, then went to the village. I reached home at about 5.00 am on Saturday, 30/4/2005. I changed my clothes and put my long trousers and t/shirt at the back of the double wall of our old store. I just laid down inside our kitchen when my mother woke up to cook. I think I laid down for only 5 minutes when I got up again to walk with the rugby 15 team to Korovou town. I well remembered that when I just laid down, the police from Korovou Police Station arrived in their lorry at my uncle Bolalailai's house. I didn't know what they came there for."

TWO FINGERS TO THE $360,000 NATIONAL ECONOMIC SUMMIT: BIMAN Prasad should come up with a BUDGET and Financial Road Map to sort out the so-called financial mess. Kalavatas and KariaVatas NOT solution

14/4/2023

Fijileaks: If this unwarranted and taxpayer fraud economic summit goes ahead, Prasad should recommend the delegates bring their own homemade vegetarian gyozas to the Grand Pacific Hotel in Suva

Fijileaks: It is time we scrapped the so-called national consultations and economic summits where a bunch of failed economists, wannabe economists, and Prasad's economist lackeys, including the chair of his Financial Review Committee, the convicted Suva lawyer and others will be wearing two sets of matching underwears, sulus, shirts, skirts, and sandals for cocktails, morning teas, lunches, afternoon teas and dinners, and gorging on Japanese sushi.
Prasad must put his party's and the other Coalition parties economic manifestoes together and present to the people of Fiji his BUDGET to sort out the financial woes the people are moaning about.
The so-called economic geniuses can send their financial papers via e-mails to the voodoo economic professor who allegedly couldn't run three taxis that operated from Kundan Singh outlet.
How can he run Fiji's economy?
It is time we gave him TWO FINGERS for abusing $360,000 that he has set aside to promote and entertain his economist buddies at GPH.
The gutless TRAITOR should SLASH the RFMF's $100M BUDGET

TEEING OFF WITH PRIME MINISTER: Welcome to the Extra Experience

13/4/2023

MEANWHILE, SODELPA Management Board Meeting Paper No.11 to discuss on 14 April, 'Who defied the MB directive in the voting for the position of Speaker and the Prime Minister in Parliament'

A 'TRANSITION TEAM' at PM's Office. As the 'TEAM' seek extension, we are becoming suspicious, for it is the first time ever a new Government in Fiji has put in place a 'transition team ', made up of failed PAP supporters

6/4/2023

This is unprecedented. So the contract was initially for 3 months until March 31 at $160,000 which has expired and now they want it extended because to date only Pita Wise and Pramesh Chand have got jobs while the rest are awaiting the results of the PS interviews.
Does this not remind us of how the FFG outsourced the payment of salaries and perks of its Cabinet Ministers, including payment of consultancy fees to Nur Bano Ali’s company from 2009 (when Aiyaz Khaiyum took over as Finance Minister from Mahendra Pal Chaudhry) to 2014, just 3 or 4 months before the elections that year.

Fijileaks Fact Check on Rabuka's Transitional Team:
The transitional team is made up of PAP Office staff /supporters and failed election candidates (like Pramesh Chand) and they are not established civil servants.
From the recent Fiji Sun report, it is obvious that it is a consultancy group hired by the Coalition Government not only to promote its image but also to advise the PM on the appointments and movements of senior officers (PS, Departmental Heads, Ambassadors).
This is unprecedented. So the contract was initially for 3 months until March 31 at $160,000 which has expired and now they want it extended because to date only Pita Wise and Pramesh Chand have got jobs while the rest are awaiting the results of the PS interviews.
This is highly irregular for a group from a political party (which has formed a coalition with 2 other parties to be able to govern), to be advising Rabuka on postings and reshuffling of civil servants when the PSC and its Chair are already in place.
Does this not remind us of how the FFG outsourced the payment of salaries and perks of its Cabinet Ministers, including payment of consultancy fees to Nur Bano Ali’s company from 2009 (when Aiyaz Khaiyum took over as Finance Minister from MPC) to 2014, just 3 or 4 months before the elections that year.
This was really criminal because Ministerial salaries were normally being paid from the Treasury like all public servants at no extra costs to Government but here Nur Bano Ali must have been paid no less than $20 million dollars consultancy fees annually for 6 years.
So, this Coalition Government is no different from its predecessor. And worse it has destroyed the political neutrality and independence of the Public Service Commission by opening the door for PAP and the Opposition FFP (first time since independence) to nominate the 5 members of the Commission (3 Government and 2 FFP). Accordingly, appointments and promotions in the public service will now be determined not only by merit and qualifications but also on political affiliation.
Hence, this “transition team” sounds suspicious to us as it is the first time ever a new Government in Fiji has put in place at the PM’s Office to do what exactly?
Surely, existing Permanent Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries in the Public Service are well trained to handle. Rabuka didn’t have such a team when he walked into his PM’s office after winning the 1992 elections, nor did the past Governments of Qarase and Chaudhry. So why now ?
* Bainimarama's ’s former Secretary to Cabinet Yogesh Karan (who replaced Pramesh Chand) was there all the time after the elections and only got transferred by Chairman PSC Luke Rokovada to the Ministry of Sugar and Multi-ethnic Affairs as its new PS.
Karan could, with Rokovada, have helped in setting up PM’s new Cabinet Office staff while waiting for appointment of his successor before his transfer. There were other Permanent Secretaries in other Ministries who could have been assigned temporarily to the PM’s Office to assist.
There was actually no need to hire a transition team whose head is Peter Wise and who has since been appointed acting Secretary to Cabinet and Pramesh Chand as acting PS of PSC?
Where is the lady who was PS for PSC?
*We assume that Wise and Chand were also being paid from the transition team budget of $160,000 until their acting appointments were made when their salaries would be paid for by their departments.
WELCOME TO FIJI'S NEW ANIMAL FARM

Tikoduadua, PS to Prime Minister's Office

ARMY DESERTER TARAKINIKINI and Torturer MOSESE TIKOITOGA at Borron House. We are told that Tikoitoga might be posted to PNG as Ambassador, for he is allegedly close to Rabuka and PAP VP MATAITINI

4/4/2023

The former FLP Attorney-General, the late ANAND SINGH (RIP), had claimed to us that he and another political colleague of his were taken up to the Nabua military barracks in 2011 and bashed up by balaclava* clad bodyguards of the then Prime Minister for hours. Tikoitoga led the balaclava clad hit squad that assaulted the two former FLP political colleagues at the Officers Mess

The former FLP Attorney-General, the late ANAND SINGH (RIP) had claimed to us that he and another political colleague of his were taken up to the Nabua military barracks in 2011 and bashed up by balaclava* clad bodyguards of the then Prime Minister for hours before they were confined in the RFMF Front Gate Security cells for 48 hours to allow their wounds to heal and before they were interrogated daily for two weeks at CID headquarters.
During the two weeks at CID headquarters, Pita Driti, Uluilakeba Mara and Mohammed Aziz were also being interviewed simultaneously, and separately, for their alleged attempt to remove Aiyaz Khaiyum as Attorney-General.
Aziz, of course, was later released while Driti was convicted and jailed but Mara managed to escape to Tonga.
* Tikoitoga led the balaclava clad hit squad that assaulted the two former FLP political colleagues at the Officers Mess in 2011 when he was Land Force Commander.
Two weeks later he was promoted by Bainimarama as his new RFMF Commander, perhaps as a reward to carrying out the brutal assaults.
Now, Tikoitoga is back, and he was recently photographed witnessing the appointment of army deserter Tarakinikini as Fiji's PR to the UN.
Those close to the Coalition claim Tikoitoga is earmarked for posting to PNG, for he is allegedly close to Rabuka and PAP VP, Colonel Matt Mataitini, who retired from the UN (Security Section).
As for Tarakinikini, he was never a UN diplomat and after retiring from the UN as a mid-level official on security matters, he was allegedly working as a security guard at a New York shopping complex.
A highly reliable source told Fijileaks:
"Why should a person (Tarakinikini) who disappeared from this country under a black cloud of scandal for well over 20 years and upon return is immediately rewarded with a top multi-lateral diplomatic post ? Why should the taxpayers fund such a person? Military cronyism at work again under the current leadership. God help the poor people of Fiji and hardworking professionals who invested all their profesional years living here and building up this country and would have made a far better and effective representative in presenting Fiji's interest at the UN. I hear from the grapevine that former retired RFMF Commander Tikoitoga who was FFG’s Ambassador to Ethiopia and PNG is earmarked to be appointed and posted as Ambassador to PNG later in May/June. SLR (Rabuka) revives his coup culture."

From Fijileaks Archive, 3 December 2020.
The Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka is hiding behind the IMMUNITY that he granted to himself in the 1990 and 1997 Constitution (endorsed by the NFP leader, the late Jai Ram Reddy). The IMMUNITY continues in the 2013 Constitution, and protects Coupist Bainimarama's torturers.

In 1987, ANAND SINGH found himself at the receiving end of the Father of Coups, SITIVENI RABUKA, whose fanatical racist Tonton Macoutes, and the security forces, were leaning hard on him. Based in Lautoka, he had been briefed to defend a fellow Lautoka lawyer Haroon Ali Shah who was being held without charge apparently in connection with the arms that had been shipped into Fiji.
He was also liasing with New Zealand lawyer Christopher Harder who had been hired to defend a group of Rotumans who had threatened to breakaway from Fiji rather than accept Rabuka's treasonous coup.
There was also Rabuka's Internal Security Decree under which he was rounding up his opponents and throwing them into military prisons because GOD had whispered into his ears. As Harder records, 'Anand Singh was having a rough time. The security forces were leaning hard on him, his office and home had been broken into twice in the preceding week. Never before had it been broken into. He was representing six of those charged with the gun affair and needed a hand'.
The harassment and threats continued until the racist Rabuka got his way but in a sweet irony he was defeated in 1999, and the same Singh went on to become Chaudhry's Attorney-General, only to be cruelly cut short by Rabuka's copycat George Speight.
That is why we find it SICKENING when we see or hear Rabuka's 'Bll greasers' pushing him to lead SODELPA into the 2022 election. This racist destroyed so many lives and has inflicted untold suffering on the likes of Singh and Others.
To quote Harder again, 'Anand was nervous as we entered the Natabua Prison. He was a sensitive fellow struggling to survive where there was real oppression...'
May Anand Singh's soul rest in peace.
As for SITIVENI RABUKA, he can rot in political hell. He does not deserve our sympathy nor our support.
Rabuka lit the racial fire for Singh and others to be held hostage by George Speight. He had unleased Coup Culture in Fiji. Only really DEMENTED people will advocate Sitiveni Rabuka for Prime Minister in 2022.
*What kind of a society are we trying to create - that it is normal to recycle DICTATORS to rule Fiji. Might as well, have another four years of Bainimarama-Khaiyum Dictatorship until a new crop of leaders emerge to consign dictatorship into the dustbin

From Fijileaks Archive, 5 September 2013

ARMY DESERTER TARAKINIKINI and role of Public Service Commission in his permanent appointment to UN raise questions of far import and whether PSC colluded with Coalition to disregard appointment process

2/4/2023

We were somewhat shocked at the speed with which the Public Service Commission dealt with the confirmation of the appointment of Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini as PRUN (Permanent Representative to the UN) since the applications according to the advertisement closed on the 22 March, which made us wonder if the process of selection adopted by the Commission was thorough enough and transparent in order "to give respect and equal opportunity to every applicant"* for the post of PRUN.
* Doesn't the appointment of Tarakinikini remind us how Mohammed Saneem had been convicted by the Fiji High Court for gross insubordination in the 2014 elections and yet Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum defied the High Court decision and recommended to the Fiji Constitutional Services Commission that Saneem's contract be renewed without even carrying out any disciplinary proceedings against him following his court conviction.
In Tarakinikini's case, at least there should have been an inquiry on his role in the 2000 coup and his High Court conviction as an army deserter. So, Bainimarama and Khaiyum's legacy of lies or my way* or the highway continues under Rabuka's Coalition government.

Meanwhile, we noticed that Tarakinikini even turned up at the memorial service of the late Ratu Epeli Ganilau at the RFMF Barracks, with no attempt to march him off the military grounds or for Commander Jone Kalouniwai to order his detainment for DESERTION.

Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief: In 2011, Tarakinikini had declined to co-operate or answer questions for the book that I was working on, based on highly confidential military documents and other sources, regarding his role in the formation of the CRW Unit, the events in Parliament in 2000, and the overthrow of the Chaudhry government by George Speight. To Speight and CRW mutineer Shane Stevens credit, both through my personal contacts, provided answers from behind the confines of the prison walls.
Filipo Tarakinikini's UN appointment is another evidence of the complete i-Taukeinization of Fiji that Coupist Sitiveni began in 1987, and now assisted by the NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD who is silent as a political church mouse. During the elections he was screaming, Transparency and Accountability.* Shockingly, no one is SPEAKING UP for Indo-Fijians and other non i-Taukei races.
Why should we expect Prasad and his side-kick Poster Boy, RICHARD NAIDU, to remind us of the 2004 Fiji Supreme Court judgment against Tarakinikini that ruled that the former army colonel was a DESERTER.
In Naidu's case, despite waiting for sentencing, the Suva lawyer is running around Fiji, asking taxpayers, on how his master Prasad should run ECONOMY.
There is widespread perception, and gossip around grog bowls, that Naidu will be the latest beneficiary of the Coalition government - his conviction swept under the carpet, for why else he is so brazenly running around Fiji as chair of FRC?
We will soon publish the Options that Naidu has regarding his CONVICTION

Fijileaks: We were somewhat shocked at the speed with which the Public Service Commission dealt with the confirmation of the appointment of Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini as PRUN (Permanent Representative to the UN) since the applications according to the advertisement closed on the 22 March, which made us wonder if the process of selection adopted by the Commission was thorough enough and transparent in order "to give respect and equal opportunity to every applicant" for the post of PRUN.
Additionally, we wonder why the process of shortlisting applicants for the post of PRUN was not given to the same recruitment agency working with the PSC to shortlist the 700 applicants for the 11 PS positions, especially since there has been a lot of adverse public reactions in the social media to the initial acting appointment of Tarakinikini.
At least the Commission would have avoided being accused of employing double standards in the appointment of Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Missions, both of which appointments require the concurrence of the Prime Minister.
The normal PSC procedure for the appointment of Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Missions (if not handled by Recruitment agencies) is that when the deadline for the applications is closed, the PSC would then vet and evaluate each candidate.
Once the short list is drawn up in order of merit and preference, the PSC would then refer the list to the PS for Foreign Affairs (in respect of Ambassadorial applications) for his views and comments on each candidate.
Then the list comes back to the PSC for the Directorate of the Personnel Division to carry out their usual vetting process (including police clearance) and upon completion of that exercise, they submit their findings to the SPS who will then put up his recommendations and short list to the PSC Chairman for consideration by the Commission.
After the Commission has made its decisions, the Chair or the SPS will then seek the endorsement of the PM to the proposed appointments by the Commission.
It is a normal procedure for the Commission to submit to the PM a short list of at least 5 candidates, in order of preference, whom they consider eminently qualified and suitable to be appointed for each individual post.
This process gives the PM greater freedom and transparency to select anyone from among the five candidates presented to him by the Commission rather than deciding on one single candidate which can smack of nepotism, graft, etc.
If he is unhappy with all the candidates recommended then the post is re-advertised.
Meanwhile, we noticed that Tarakinikini even turned up at the memorial service of the late Ratu Epeli Ganilau at the RFMF Barracks, with no attempt to march him off the military grounds or for Commander Jone Kalouniwai to order his detainment for DESERTION.

Tarakinikini v Commander Republic of Fiji Military Forces [2004] FJSC 8; CBV0007.2003S (21 May 2004)IN THE SUPREME COURT, FIJI ISLANDS
AT SUVA

CIVIL APPEAL NO: CBV0007 OF 2003S
(Fiji Court of Appeal Civil Action No. ABU0049 of 2002S)

BETWEEN:

LT. COLONEL FILIPO TARAKINIKINI
Petitioner

AND:

1. COMMANDER REPUBLIC OF FIJI MILITARY FORCES
2. RATU JOSEFA ILOILO – PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
Respondents

Coram: Hon. Justice Daniel V. Fatiaki, President of Supreme Court
Rt. Hon. Justice Thomas Gault, Judge of Supreme Court
Hon. Justice Keith Mason, Judge of Supreme Court

Hearing: Friday, 14th May 2004, Suva

Counsel: Mr. K. Muaror, Mr. S. Matawalu for the Petitioner
Capt. A. Bale and Lt. Col. M. Aziz for the 1st Respondent
Mr. S. Banuve for 2nd & 3rd Respondents

Date of Judgment: Friday, 21st May 2004

Justice Fatiaki

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

These are the reasons for the Court’s decision, announced at the conclusion of the hearing, to refuse special leave to appeal.
The petitioner sought to challenge the order of the Court of Appeal which upheld an appeal from the High Court and made consequential orders that we set out below.
The petitioner, Lt. Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini was first commissioned in the then Royal Fiji Military Forces in 1981. By May of 2000 he held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF). On 19 May 2000, he was purportedly appointed chief of staff by those responsible for the May 2000 coup under the leadership of George Speight. This led to investigations against him later that year for alleged involvement with the coup plotters. The petitioner has always denied any complicity in those matters.
The petitioner was released on secondment to take up a 12 months United Nations posting abroad, such release being supported by the Prime Minister and approved by the Commander of the RFMF. He left to take up his appointment in March 2001.
Later that year further allegations about him were released to the public. He contends that he has sought a full public inquiry into the events of the May 2000 coup as it affected his professional and personal situation. RFMF refused an extension of the United Nations secondment beyond the initial 12 months term.
The petitioner has remained abroad. However, he has sought to resign his commission. The proceedings from which this appeal is brought were commenced in May 2002 and involve complaints and a claim for damages relating to the way in which RFMF has dealt with his application to resign.

The Process for resigning a Commission in RFMF

Before addressing the facts it is convenient to set out the statutory framework as to resignation of a commission in RFMF. What follows is a summary of the detailed reasoning of the Court of Appeal. We do not understand it to be contentious.
At common law an officer holding a commission in the armed forces is not free to resign at will (see generally Hearson v. Churchill [1892] UKLawRpKQB 125; [1892] 2 QB 144, Marks v. The Commonwealth [1964] HCA 45; [1964] 111 CLR 549).
Section 112 of the constitution continues in existence the RFMF established by the Constitution of 1990. That section also provides:

“(2) The President, acting on the advice of the Minister, must appoint a Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to exercise military executive command of the Forces, subject to the control of the Minister.

(3) The Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is responsible for:

(a) making appointments of members of the Forces;

(b) taking disciplinary action against members of the Forces; and
(c) removing members from the Forces.

(4) The Parliament may make laws relating to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.”

Pursuant to s.67(b) of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Act (Cap.81), the Minister may make regulations providing for the terms of service and appointment, duties, promotion, seniority, transfer, leave, resignation and release from service of officers. The presently relevant regulation is Reg. 21 which provides:

“21 – (1) An application from an officer to resign his commission shall be forwarded by the Commanding Officer to the Commander for transmission to the Governor-General. When forwarding the application the Commanding Officer shall state if-

(a) all regimental claims have been paid;
(b) he is aware of any outstanding public claim against the officer;
(c) there is any objection to resignation being sanctioned;
(d) there is any special reason why such officer should not serve in the Reserve of Officer.(Amended by Order 7th October 1970*)

(2) Where an officer is permitted to resign, the resignation shall not take effect, unless otherwise ordered by the Governor General, until the acceptance is notified in the Gazette. (Amended by Order 7th October 1970*.)

(3) A regular officer who has been trained at Government expense at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, or at any other Commonwealth Military College or Academy who applies to be posted to the Reserve of Officers or to resign his commission shall refund to Government the following amounts:
Within one year of being commissioned.............. $1,000
Within two years of being commissioned ............ $ 800
Within three years of being commissioned .......... $ 600
Within four years of being commissioned ........... $ 400
Within five years of being commissioned ............ $ 200”

(Inserted by Regulations 29th July 1952 )

The reference to the Governor General in this regulation should now read as a reference to the President.
The Court of Appeal held (at p.19) that s.112(3) of the Constitution was not affected by s.194(5) thereof in its application to the petitioner. Regulation 21 is the statutory framework within which the petitioner’s rights touching his decision to seek to resign are to be determined.
The Court of Appeal pointed out that:

“ [Regulation 21] clearly contemplates that resignation is an option open to an officer holding a commission in the forces but that resignation must be made in a particular way and the decision as to whether or not it is to be accepted is one to be made by the President. In view of the inappropriateness of a serving officer merely being released by the action of forwarding a resignation the regulation must mean that the procedures which it contemplates are to be followed and that the resignation cannot take effect until such time as it has been accepted by the President.
....

The ... regulation requires a resignation to be considered by and commented on by the commanding officer of the officer who wishes to resign his commission. The commanding officer must forward it on to the Commander, whose obligation it is to submit it to the President. In both cases it can be assumed that information will be forwarded which will enable a decision to be made.

The decision must reflect the circumstances. It is plain that bearing in mind the history that a serving officer may not resign without permission and the wording of the regulation shows that the decision is not one which is automatic.

In such case the person making the decision must be provided with the necessary information to enable the decision to be made and to be one which will not impede the effectiveness of the armed forces. It is no doubt for that reason that the regulation contemplates that the resignation will be forwarded through the chain of command.

A chain of command is an important matter in the armed forces and this is reinforced by the necessity for a considered decision to be given in the case of the resignation of a commissioned officer.”

As indicated, the correctness of this analysis by the Court of Appeal was not questioned in this Court.

The Steps taken by the Petitioner to Resign

On 27 February 2002 the petitioner tendered his resignation from RFMF with effect from 21 March 2002. He wrote (from New York) to the Commander, RFMF. The lengthy letter contained a deal of historical and explanatory material and it referred to recent telephone conversations between the Commander (Commodore F. V. Bainimarama, the first respondent) and himself. The letter (hereafter referred to as the first letter) clearly expressed the writer’s intentions to tender to the Commander his resignation with effect from 21 March 2002.
As the Court of Appeal pointed out, the letter made no reference to Reg.21. Nor had it followed the procedure contemplated by the regulation, which (read fairly and in light of military practice) contemplated that a letter of resignation would be submitted in the first instance to the officer’s immediate commanding officer, who had the right and obligation to include material relevant to considering whether or not the resignation should be permitted, when forwarding the application to the Commander for transmission to the President.
The Petitioner’s commanding officer at the time was Lt. Colonel Waqavakatoga.
The Commander’s reply on 12 March 2002 was in the following terms:

RESIGNATION FROM THE FORCES

I have received your letter of resignation dated 27th February 2002. I have carefully considered your request and have decided that first you must return home as scheduled.

You will appreciate that my desire to have you returned is based precisely on the outcome of the formal Board of Inquiry conducted by Lt. Col J. Evans on the alleged participating by some members of the RFMF during the events of May 2000. It is for this reason alone that your presence is imminent to provide answers to these allegations.

You must understand that the interest of the Nation and in particular the RFMF is foremost and it is my intention to have the investigation completed as soon as possible.

In view of the above reasons, your request for release is not approved.

The petitioner made a lengthy reply to the Commander in a letter of 21 March 2002. The letter contains material explanatory of the petitioner’s role in the May 2000 coup and complains about the injustice of the RFMF’s decision not to permit the extension of the United Nations contract. On the subject of the resignation it said this:

“I sent my resignation letter to you on 27 February 2002 and I received your response on 18 March 2002. After receiving your response I feel the need to highlight some issues in order to put matters that prompted my resignation in proper perspective. I list here the five issues that relate to my case and the resignation itself. The issues are:

a. The investigation into the May 2000 coup;
b. The extension of my contract with UNDPKO;
c. My resignation;
d. The allegations against me;
e. Command.
....

My Resignation

With all due respects, your response to my resignation aims to cast doubt on me and is evasive and manipulative in avoiding issues. It says nothing of substance and is silent on the issues I raised as some of the reasons prompting my resignation. Sec 194 (2) (b) of the constitution provides me the absolute right to resign from the Force. I exercised this right in my letter of resignation dated 27th February. My resignation was formally accepted once received by you. Therefore it is effective no later than 18th March 2002 as that is the date of your reply.
....

Conclusion

I have defined five independent issues that have contributed to my resignation. In that I have explained that:

My resignation letter dated 27th February is, and has been since that date both lawful and irrevocable....”

The petitioner’s claim in this letter that s.194(2) (b) of the Constitution gave him an absolute right to resign is not correct, as the Court of Appeal pointed out.
Indeed, the petitioner appears to have recognised this early in the piece, because he wrote to the President and Commander in Chief of RFMF on 8 April 2002 complaining that his application to resign should have been transmitted to the President under Reg. 21. This letter was copied to the first respondent. On 22 April 2002 the petitioner’s legal advisers also wrote to the first respondent, referring to Reg.21 and calling upon the Commander to transmit the original letter of resignation to the President with the Commander’s comments on the matters set out under Regulation 21(1)(a)-(d). (The lawyers appear not to have recognized that the Commander was not the petitioner’s immediate commanding officer at the time.)
On 28 April the petitioner wrote to the Acting Commander, RFMF, Lt Colonel Naivalurua confirming his intention to resign with effect from 21 March 2002. We refer to this as the second letter.
On 2 May 2002 the first respondent directed that the Application for Resignation of Commission be actioned (affidavit of first respondent sworn 5 June 2002, par 12 (m)).
On 10 May 2002 the letter of 28 April 2002 was forwarded by the Acting Commander to Lt. Colonel Waqavakatoga, the petitioner’s commanding officer. Lt. Colonel Waqavakatoga treated that letter as a letter of resignation delivered under Reg.21. On 31 May 2002 he submitted to the Acting Commander his “submissions and sanctions” in accordance with Reg. 21. In his affidavit of 5 June 2002, the first respondent indicated that the submission would be forwarded to the President “with sanctions”. This was done.
These proceedings were commenced by Ex Parte Application under Part 53 of the High Court Rules on 13 May 2002. The Application seeks the following relief:

(i) A Declaration that the decision of the First Respondent dated 12th March 2002 purporting not to approve the Applicant’s notice of resignation is null and void and of no effect.

(ii) An Order that Certiorari do issue quashing the said decision of the First Respondent.

(iii) An Order that the First Respondent be estopped from denying that the Applicant has properly been cleared of all allegations during the investigations conducted by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces and Fiji Police Force in terms of the letter of the Prime Minister dated 19th January 2001 to the Secretary General to the United Nations.

(iv) An Order that Mandamus do issue requiring the First Respondent to transmit the Applicant’s resignation to the Second Respondent for his decision.

(v) Damages

(vi) Costs

(vii) Further or other relief as to this Honourable Court seems just and expedient.

The President has taken no action pending the resolution of these proceedings. But this is not the subject matter of any complaint in the proceedings, which are focussed on the decision of the Commander evidenced by his letter of 12 March 2002.
The Court of Appeal recorded that counsel were unable to indicate that Lt Colonel Tarakinikini had been disadvantaged by the second letter (of 28 April 2002) activating the procedure rather then the first (of 27 February 2002). The reasons for this become clear when it is recognized that (1) the orders of the Court of Appeal (see below) leave the petitioner free to litigate his claim for damages stemming from allegedly tortious conduct involved in the non-processing of the first letter; (2) the petitioner has always been at liberty to forward submissions directly to the President, and has done so; and (3) the stream of correspondence between the petitioner and his lawyers on the one hand and the President, members of government and superior officers on the other hand (only some of which we have referred to) shows that the later correspondence almost invariably incorporated reference back to the original letter of resignation. In short, there has been no impediment to the petitioner having the full text of his initial letter of resignation placed before whomever he wished.

The Decisions of the Lower Courts

The primary judge (Byrne J) concluded that the petitioner had made it abundantly clear in his first letter that he intended to resign; and that the first respondent had knowingly failed to forward the letter to the President in terms of Reg 21. In what were described as interim orders, his Honour granted a declaration quashing the first respondent’s decision refusing to approve the notice of resignation and he directed that certiorari was to issue for that purpose. The Judge also found that requesting the petitioner to return for a further investigation without charging him with complicity in the events of May 2000 was “unreasonable in the ‘Wednesbury’ sense and arbitrary”. It was held that the petitioner had a right to claim damages for the tort of misfeasance in public office, but the Judge wished to hear further submissions before giving any decision as to the amount. No order in the nature of mandamus was made.
The Court of Appeal upheld the respondents’ appeal.
The Court held that the problems in this case have largely arisen because the procedures contemplated by Reg 21 were not followed in respect of the first letter and that consideration of this obscured the fact that the second letter did result in the contemplated procedures being followed.
The Court recognized that the first letter indicated an intention to resign, but that matters were complicated by the petitioner including a great deal of material some of which was critical of the Commander to whom the letter was addressed. The petitioner further complicated the situation by addressing his letter to the Commander which delayed the procedures contemplated by Reg 21 since the letter would have had to be passed on to his commanding officer to obtain any comments relevant under the provisions of the Regulation.
The Court of Appeal did not disagree with the primary judge’s characterisation of the first letter as a letter of resignation. But it was pointed out that the trial judge’s reasons had not referred to the fact that the procedures contemplated by Reg 21 had not been followed as regards that letter. The Court said (at 16-17):

“This is not in our view merely a matter of form. The regulation plainly contemplates that the commanding officer should have an opportunity to put forward material that may be relevant in considering whether or not the resignation should be permitted. We note also the submission made by counsel that the Commander could not have been expected in the circumstances of this case to merely forward on to the commanding officer the original letter as he did with the second letter because of the material it contained which was inappropriate in the light of the personal criticism it contained.

The Judge also considered it appropriate to rule that the response of the Commander to the first letter in so far as it indicated that the application was being declined was not within the parameters of regulation 21 because such a decision was a matter for the President. It was because of that conclusion that the Judge issued an order for certiorari in respect of what he saw as a decision which the Commander was not empowered to make.

There has been no criticism of the procedures adopted in respect of the second letter other than perhaps by implication. That relates to the observation that investigation of the alleged conduct of Lt Colonel Tarakinikini is not a valid reason for refusing to accept the resignation.

We should make it clear we do not necessarily concur with the Judge in this conclusion. The material which the Commander makes available to the President must reflect all matters of concern to the Commander of the armed forces and will include the existence of material which may relate to conduct affecting the armed forces and their responsibilities to the State which it is appropriate to draw to the attention of the President.”

The Court then addressed and rejected a submission by the present first respondent to the effect that Reg 21 had been overtaken by provisions in the Constitution. This conclusion is not under dispute in this Court.
The orders by way of judicial review that had been granted at first instance were overturned by the Court of Appeal, essentially on discretionary grounds. The debate about the first respondent’s conduct referable to the first letter and the first respondent’s answering contentions based upon the petitioner’s own departures from due procedure were held to be hypothetical as regards these heads of relief. The nub of the reasoning was that (pp 20-21):

“...Regulation 21 contemplates that the application will be forwarded by the commanding officer to the Commander. That contemplates that the application will either be made to the commanding officer or will find its way to the commanding officer who forwards it on to the Commander before any action is required from the Commander. We agree that it is possible for the application to find its way to the commanding officer other than by a direct submission from the applicant, (that is what happened in the case of the second letter) but there is nothing to require the Commander to take any action until such time as he has received the application from the commanding officer with such comments as the commanding officer considers appropriate in terms of regulation 21.

Since the first letter never found its way to the commanding officer the procedures were never set in train and we note that there were reasons why it may have not been appropriate for the Commander to send the first letter to the commanding officer bearing in mind the contentious material contained in the application. It was not a mere request for the resignation to be considered.

In the event whatever the consequences of the correspondence which occurred with respect to the first letter this was all overtaken by the second letter which was submitted by the Commander to the commanding officer. Having been received back with comments from the commanding officer it was then forwarded by the Commander to the President as contemplated by regulation 21.

In those circumstances we cannot see that there was a need for an order quashing the decision of the Commander with respect to the first letter since what occurred was in relation to an attempt to resign which had never reached the stage where any decision was required, whatever the Commander may have purported to do.

Nor was there any need for an order for certiorari as the procedures contemplated by regulation 21 were complied with in respect of the second letter. Certiorari was not appropriate where the preceding formality of reference to the commanding officer had not been complied with.”

The Court of Appeal refused the order or declaration as to the Commander being estopped from denying that the petitioner had properly been cleared of all allegations during the investigations conducted before his departure to the United States to take up his post with the United Nations. The Court observed that an evidentiary basis for such a declaration had not been established. The Court also doubted that the proceedings were an appropriate vehicle for such a form of relief.
Mandamus in regard to the transmission of the first letter was refused on discretionary grounds on the basis of inutility, given that the second letter had been referred to the President.
As to the claim for damages, the Court held:

“The applicant Lt. Colonel Tarakinikini also sought damages. In his decision the Judge in the High Court concluded that Lt. Colonel Tarakinikini had a right to claim damages for the tort of misfeasance in a public office.

Resolution of such a claim and entitlement to damages depends upon the filing of pleadings which define precisely the basis of the claim. There are no such pleadings in this case. The award of damages also depends upon the establishment of the right to recover them by evidence which has been the subject of appropriate testing.

There is no material in the case as recorded which could provide a justification for the granting of damages in respect of the tort referred to bearing in mind its establishment depends upon a proof of malice appropriate to the allegations concerned. It is wholly inappropriate for any such exercise to be conducted on the basis of affidavits.”

The Court of Appeal made the following orders:
1. The appeal is therefore allowed and the order quashing the decision of the Commander, the first appellant, is itself quashed there being now no need for any such order.
2. The order for certiorari is quashed.
3. There is a direction that outstanding matters be remitted to the High Court with a direction that on the present state of the proceedings no order for damages can be made and that no such order can be made in the absence of pleadings defining the basis of the claim and a hearing to resolve contested facts. Consideration will need to be given by counsel as to whether or not the present proceedings form an appropriate vehicle for the resolution of outstanding issues with regard to damages.

The Grounds of the Petition

The petitioner submitted that the issues raised in this Court are matters of great or public importance, thereby attracting a grant of special leave within s.7(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Act.
At several points in the written and oral submissions the petitioner sought to focus upon the importance of his allegations that the Commander’s conduct towards him provoked his tendered resignation. Alternatively, he contended that there is great or public importance in bringing to a head and resolving once and for all any suggestion made against him concerning alleged complicity in the May 2000 coup. The petition also contained a number of unverified allegations and assertions against the Commander and others.
It must be stated firmly that these proceedings are not the venue for airing or determining these and other grievances. These are appellate proceedings involving a challenge to the orders of the Court of Appeal. These orders were made in resolution of particular issues agitated in the Court of Appeal. In turn, these issues arose out of the particular proceedings in the High Court.
We have already drawn attention to the relief sought in the unamended initiating process in the High Court. With the exception of the estoppel declaration (that was properly rejected in the court below) it focusses upon the first respondent’s conduct as Commander in his 12 March 2002 response to the first letter of resignation. By the time of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal at the very latest, these issues had been confined to the operation of Reg 21 as regards the Commander’s response to the petitioner’s first letter of resignation.
Counsel for the petitioner was pressed repeatedly at the hearing to formulate the legal issue presented in these proceedings at their current stage. He had difficulty in doing so, for understandable reasons.
At one level, the petitioner sought to attract a grant of special leave by submissions of the broadest generality. He referred to the role of the armed forces in this country, the rule of law, and the importance of following due procedure in relation to a recurring matter such as applications to resign from the RFMF. The Court recognizes the importance of these matters, but it remains essential for a petitioner to demonstrate how they are engaged by the particular facts in the context of the particular legal issues raised in the particular proceedings.
At another level, the written submissions of the appellant raised a number of purely factual disputes, mainly involving the interpretation of particular letters or the drawing of inferences as to the intentions of writers of those letters.
The public law issues raised by the petitioner in so much of the proceedings as relates to judicial review were all focused upon the conduct of the first respondent in relation to the first letter. The letter clearly evidenced the petitioner’s intention to resign. But it did not invoke Reg 21; it went beyond the subject matter of resignation; it was not forwarded through the petitioner’s immediate commanding officer; and it was overtaken by other events well before the proceedings were commenced.
These other events were the clarification involved in the second letter and initiation of the formal and due processing of that letter all the way to it being placed before the President accompanied by additional material compiled in accordance with Reg 21.
We agree with the petitioner’s submissions that a letter of resignation need not be in any specified form, and that it is sufficient if a letter discloses a clear intention to resign. We would point out that acceptance of these submissions makes it impossible for the petitioner to insist that his only formal intimation of intention to resign was in the first letter.
In the upshot, the petitioner’s entitlement to have his application to resign dealt with in accordance with Reg 21 was acknowledged and put into effect by RFMF before the Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review was filed. The Court of Appeal was, in our view, clearly correct to refuse relief by way of judicial review directed at the first respondent’s initial response to the petitioner’s first letter. There was simply no utility in such relief. Indeed it would have been counter-productive in light of the fact that the second letter had been processed correctly and put before the President in circumstances where the petitioner had not been refused the right to put his story before the President.
The interpretation of the letters of 27 February 2002 and 12 March 2002 raises no matter of general or public importance. The orders of the Court of Appeal leave open the right of the petitioner, in a properly pleaded case, to pursue damages based on the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Application filed in May 2002 was never a proper vehicle for determining contested issues of malice and damages that formed part of this aspect of the petitioner’s claim in tort.
Before parting with the petition, we indicate that it became unnecessary in the circumstances to consider the respondents’ application to dismiss the petition on various formal and procedural grounds.
We also point out that the respondents’ submission that s.7(3) of the Supreme Court Act should be read as imposing cumulative requirements before special leave may be granted is rejected. The subsection is to be read as if “or” appeared after par (b) thereof.

Concluding Observations

Certain observations were made by the Court of Appeal which have either been misunderstood by the parties or with which we are not inclined to agree. Since the proceedings may conceivably go further in relation to the pending claim for damages for misfeasance in public office and since there is utility in any event in clarifying certain matters, we add the following comments.
First, the Court of Appeal noted the submission by counsel for the Commander that the presence of material critical of the Commander’s own conduct in the first letter of resignation would have relieved him of the duty to forward it along with the other requisite material to the President had it been received from the petitioner’s commanding officer accompanied by the latter’s “comments and sanctions”. Later, in a passage at pp 20-21 that we have set out above, the Court noted that there were reasons why it may not have been appropriate for the Commander to send the first letter to the commanding officer bearing in mind the contentious material contained in the application. As presently advised, we see no reason why a letter of resignation cannot contain such material as the person concerned considers relevant to his or her application. If it includes information or comment critical of a superior officer that is pertinent to the application, so be it. If its content or tone is inappropriate in the circumstances this might conceivably expose the applicant for resignation to justified criticism, but he or she would remain entitled to have the application dealt with on its merits.
Secondly, we agree with the comments by the Court of Appeal (at pp 22) recognizing what is effectively the corollary of the first point. Since Reg 21 confers no automatic right to resignation and since the President (on advice) is undoubtedly to consider the application in light of the information accompanying it in accordance with Reg 21 and the public interest, it follows that there seems nothing wrong with the applicant’s commanding officer and/or the Commander providing such further information as is thought relevant to the proper consideration of the application. The application of the principles of natural justice was not raised before us, either generally or in particular reference to the petitioner’s circumstances. Like the Court of Appeal (p 21), we do not wish to comment on it in the absence of submissions.
Thirdly, we observe that nothing in these proceedings raises any issue as to the procedures involved in or the outcome of the President’s consideration of the application.
The President has not formally addressed the application pending the determination of these proceedings, and it is understandable why no complaint has been raised on that account.
Reg 21 undoubtedly gives an applicant for resignation an entitlement to have his or her application processed and considered within a reasonable time. It is in no one’s interest that it should be left outstanding indefinitely.

Costs

The Court reserved the question of costs. There is no reason why they should not follow the event. We so order.

Order

The petition for special leave to appeal is refused with costs.

Hon. Justice Daniel V. Fatiaki
President of Supreme Court

<<Previous

Forward>>