Blog Archives

PAP Candidate LILIANA PARETI WARID: In her acceptance speech she was waxing lyrical about leader RABUKA. She 'forgot' two years ago he tried to force her Uncle's widow to pay outstanding loan he made to him

19/5/2022

0 Comments

"The plaintiff (Sitiveni Rabuka), in cross-examination agreed that she [Emmaline Biu Mavoa) was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of EM. In my judgment, the claim against the second defendant is misconceived and is declined."
A.L.B. Brito-Mutunayagam
Judge, 3 July 2020

"My name is Liliana Pareti Warid and I am deeply honored to be nominated as a provisional candidate for The People’s Alliance. I am originally from Daliconi village in Vanuabalavu, Lau, with maternal links to Kabara, Lau."
Fijileaks: Has she also recently forgotten her leader's blatant lies when he blamed the late Lauan chief Ratu Mara for being behind his COUP?

"I stand here today on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. Those that sacrificed and worked hard so that you and I could have better lives so that we could be better people and achieve greater things. My grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and many others have built the foundation that I stand on today."
PAP Candidate Liliana Pareti Warid's Acceptance Speech

Fijileaks: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief, who knew her late grandfather JONATI MAVOA from the Alliance Party days (he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, Civil Aviation and Tourism; died in June 1985), and her uncle, the late ERONI MAVOA (her mother Olivia and Eroni are the daughter and son of Jonati Mavoa), was surprised to hear Liliana Pareti Warid wax lyrical about her party leader Sitiveni Rabuka in her acceptance speech.
* Sadly, only four years ago, he tried to fleece thousands of dollars from her uncle's widow, EMMALINE BIU MAVOA, claiming that she must be held responsible for paying as executor of her late husband's estate the outstanding loan. As expected, the Fiji High Court threw out his claim.
* Rabuka, in cross-examination agreed that Emmaline Biu Mavoa was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of Eroni Mavoa. The Fiji High Court ruled the claim against her was misconceived and was declined.
*All the time, Rabuka was pleading poverty, claiming he was collecting and selling bottles to make a living.

Candidate Acceptance Speech
Liliana Pareti Warid

Please let me begin by acknowledging our Party President, Na Momo na Tui Nadi, Ratu Vuniani Navuniuci; Party Leader Sitiveni Rabuka; ladies and gentlemen. Cola vina riki!

My name is Liliana Pareti Warid and I am deeply honored to be nominated as a provisional candidate for The People’s Alliance. I am originally from Daliconi village in Vanuabalavu, Lau with maternal links to Kabara, Lau.

Politics was never part of my plan however I serve a God whose plans supersede mine and late last year he called me into this season. After I had finally accepted that this was the new plan, I realised that the whole 45 years of my existence has prepared me for this season. My experience and achievements personally and professionally - in the corporate world, in the community, in church, in my family has all been to equip me for this season. And I believe that the final nominated candidates for The People's Alliance would have all been prepared and called for such a time as this.

I stand here today on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. Those that sacrificed and worked hard so that you and I could have better lives, so that we could be better people and achieve greater things. My grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and many others have built the foundation that I stand on today.

With this foundation, just like they did for me, I now stand for those coming after me. For my children and grandchildren - for your children and grandchildren of Fiji. So they can be better, do better, achieve greater!

Now more than ever, we need to stand for our children, the future of Fiji.

* I am tired of having our children see 16 years arrogant, selfish, disrespectful leadership - bearing witness as leaders lie through their teeth.

* I am tired of seeing our children losing the battle with substance abuse such as drugs and alcohol - with no appropriate rehab facilities to help them.
* I am tired of seeing our children experience abuse.
* I am tired of not being able to speak freely
* I am tired of watching our children turn on the taps and get no water, even worse, dirty water - making them sick.
* I am tired of hearing that no Fijian gets left behind when everywhere I look, I see my people are suffering.
NOW is the time for us to stand. If we don't stand for our children, then who will?

How will our children know what's right and wrong if we don't stand and put a stop to this moral violence that is taking over our country?

There is no one else - the time has come where you and I have to put our foot down and REFUSE to have any more stolen from our future.

Finally, we know there is a mess waiting for us when we get into Government. One that will require a high calibre team with out of the box solutions. We understand it will require personal sacrifice and a strong will. It can seem impossible. However we draw confidence from the God of the impossible whom we serve.

To use the words of where my children come from - “vucukia a vuravura qa to so!”

Malo vakalevu sara.
Liliana Pareti Warid
9 May 2022
Nadi Civic Centre

In the High Court of Fiji
At Suva
Civil Jurisdiction

Civil Action No. HBC 296 of 2017

Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka
Plaintiff
v
The Estate of the late Eroni Baleiwai Mavoa
First defendant

Emmaline Bui Mavoa
Second defendant

Bruce Rokosiga Ferguson
Third defendant

Counsel : Ms A. Vuki with Mr J. Lanyon for the plaintiff
Ms S. Nayacalevu with Mr V. Seduadua for the second and third defendants

Date of hearing: 7th and 8th November, 2019

Date of Judgment: 3rd July, 2020

Judgment

The plaintiff (Rabuka] brings this claim against the defendants to recover the monies he loaned to the first defendant. The first defendant is the estate of the late Eroni Mavoa, (EM). The second defendant is his legal wife. The third defendant is a businessman trading as Kiodai Enterprise, (KE). The plaintiff obtained default judgment against the first defendant.
The statement of claim states that KE “used to purchase, harvest, process and retail mahogany logs and timbers”. EM, acting as business investment collaborator for KE approached the plaintiff with a proposal to invest in the mahogany project of KE. The plaintiff agreed to the proposal. On 7th May, 2015, the first defendant provided a financing proposal, which outlined that the plaintiff’s initial loan of $70,000.00 would secure an annual return of $177,065.00. The plaintiff advanced the second loan of $98,000.00. He was paid interest for the total loan advanced. On 13th September, 2016, EM passed away. The second defendant has not taken out letters of administration.
The second defendant in her statement of defence states that the plaintiff failed to make an application to appoint and bring an action against the personal representatives of the late EM. The institution of this action is a nullity. There are no assets to distribute in his estate. She is not in a position to take out letters of administration.
The statement of defence of the third defendant states that KE is a solely owned enterprise of the third defendant. It was never in partnership with EM. EM had no authority to negotiate on behalf of KE. The third defendant was not a party and unaware of the loan agreement between the plaintiff and EM. EM advised the plaintiff that he was personally responsible for the funds invested.

The determination

The question for determination is whether the second and third defendants are liable for the loan given by the plaintiff to the first defendant.

The second defendant

The claim against the second defendant is made on the ground that she is the “legal wife and next of kin of the late (EM) and the person entitled to take out letters of administration for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant”.
In my view, the second defendant is entitled to take out letters of administration of the estate. But that does not make her personally liable for the loan given to EM. The plaintiff, in cross examination agreed that she was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of EM.
In my judgment, the claim against the second defendant is misconceived and is declined.

The third defendant

The case for the plaintiff is that he loaned monies to EM, the investment collaborator for the business of the third defendant trading as KE. It is alleged that EM represented KE. The third defendant denies the claim.
The plaintiff, (PW1) in evidence in chief said that he paid the monies to EM. EM paid him interest. He signed an agreement with EM at a restaurant in the presence of its owner, Ms U. Fa. He did not have a copy of the agreement.
PW2, (Ms U. Fa, Barrister and Solicitor) in her evidence said that she was asked by EM to peruse a loan agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant and witnessed by the third defendant regarding a project for mahogany. She was present when it was signed. The agreement stated that EM was an agent for a company, but she could not recall the name of the company.
The third defendant, (DW1) said that EM, his father in law) was never involved in his business. He did not have any discussion with the plaintiff nor authorize EM to make any representation. He was not involved in any mahogany project. He got angry when he read the email of 21st April, 2015, which referred to KE and himself.
The plaintiff, in cross examination agreed that the averments in his statement of claim stating that he advanced monies to the third defendant were incorrect. EM, in his email to him of 21st April, 2015, and copied to the third defendant said that he will be personally responsible for the funds. There was no deal between him and the third defendant. He did not have any discussions with the third defendant on the transactions at any stage.
In my judgment, the evidence reveals that there is no cause of action against the third defendant.
I reproduce an excerpt from the email of 21st April, 2015, sent by EM to the plaintiff and copied to the third defendant:

We are using Kio Dai Enterprise (company belonging to Bruce Ferguson – Lea’s husband) as vehicle to harvest, buy, process and sell logs/timber.

Funding will be to him from you but via me. That is, I will be personally responsible for the funds – its use and repayment. So the agreement will be between you and me. I hope this arrangement will be fine with you.(emphasis added)

It is clear from the words that I have highlighted that the first defendant was solely responsible for the loan provided.
The action against the third defendant is declined.
Order
- (a) The action against the second and third defendants is declined.
- (b) The plaintiff shall pay costs summarily assessed in a sum of $1500 to the second defendant and $1500 to the third defendant.

A.L.B. Brito-Mutunayagam
Judge
3rd July,2020

0 Comments

19 MAY 2000, George Speight Coup: President Ratu Mara on RABUKA: 'He telephoned me to say, I am ready. I then pointed to Rabuka and Police Commissioner Isikia Savua and accused them of hand in Coup.'

19/5/2022

The Price of a COUP: 19 May 2000
"May 19 marks the 22nd anniversary of the 2000 coup that removed the popular Labour coalition government of Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry after just a year in office. Some 22 years later, people are realizing that had the Chaudhry government been allowed to stay for its full term in office, Fiji would have been a much more advanced and happier place to live in." FLP, 19 May 2022

JUST RELEASED HOSTAGE
ADI KOILA NAILATIKAU

LAST HURRAH: People's Coalition Government , 1999

The late President Ratu Mara

Fijileaks: Astonishingly, in June 2000, shortly after George Speight and others seized Parliament, Rabuka told the world that the old South Africa might be a model for Fiji. He no longer seemed to believe in a multi-racial chamber. Rabuka said Fiji might need racially segregated houses of parliament, ‘like pre-Mandela South Africa’, as part of a constitutional settlement to its problems. The solution to Fiji's problems ‘must come with a constitutional arrangement that [i-Taukei] Fijians can work with ... and at the moment, they cannot work with the 1997 Constitution’.

*Basically, he was disowning the very 1997 Rabuka-Reddy Constitution that PAP-NAG is now brandishing around the country. The typical opportunist in time of crisis

Rabuka: "I supported every move to destabilise the Chaudhry government, but I was not part of the coup. I was not involved in any of the [pre-coup] marches. But I was going to be involved in the next one because it was [to be held at] the time of the signing of the successor to the Lome Convention this month.’
Rabuka said he had known Speight and had played golf with him and knew of his commitment to indigenous rights. However, he did not agree that Speight represented the ‘soul’ or the ‘voice’ of the indigenous people, or the i-Taukei. ‘Why should he consider himself the voice of the iTaukei?* His grandfather was a European. The military has only [negotiated with] Speight because of the security of the hostages. He has no legal claim. I don't have any moral stance on whether his actions are right or wrong. I cannot say anything about that because I was in the coup in 1987. I am giving my opinions as a private citizen.’ But Speight ‘has lost the plot and right now he is trying to hang onto every little straw that floats by. He is living in a bubble, and very soon that bubble will burst’

DEPOSED PRIME MINISTER MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY, after being released, said he had been told of Rabuka's complicity by the leader of the CRW unit in parliament, Ilisoni Ligairi. In talks with Chaudhry, Ligairi had claimed he was very angry with Rabuka because he had ditched them at the last minute.

Rabuka says by next day it will be over

Colonel Savua

LAUGHING COUPIST: Sitiveni Rabuka laughs [above] as he announces in Suva on 20 May 2000 that he is certain the crisis will be over by the end of the day, following the overthrow of Prime Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry. The hostage crisis dragged on for 56 days

The Guns of Lautoka: Some of the weapons the CRW soldiers who stormed Parliament had on them were those seized by Rabuka in 1988

Fijileaks: Our Editor-in-Chief had consistently opposed the mandatory multi-party power-sharing government provision in the 1997 Constitution and still stands by his criticisms. The following excerpt, part of a longer article, first appeared in the Fiji Sun in 2003 and was reproduced by online websites and quoted in academic journals.

Sitiveni Rabuka: Old South Africa- A Model for Post-Speight Coup Fiji

Astonishingly, in June 2000, shortly after George Speight and others seized Parliament, Rabuka told the world that the old South Africa might be a model for Fiji. He no longer seemed to believe in a multi-racial chamber. Rabuka said Fiji might need racially segregated houses of parliament, ‘like pre-Mandela South Africa’, as part of a constitutional settlement to its problems. The solution to Fiji's problems ‘must come with a constitutional arrangement that Fijians can work with ... and at the moment they cannot work with the 1997 Constitution’. Interviewed at his office in Suva by Malcolm Brown, where he presided as chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs, Rabuka made it plain he had sympathy for Fijians who thought indigenous rights had been eroded under the government of Chaudhry and the 1997 Constitution, under which Fiji returned to a multiracial democracy.

‘Let us go along with them [the critics of the 1997 Constitution] and see what arrangements they want,’ he said. ‘Whatever we come up with, there will be problems. We must be prepared to face the consequences, as did the South Africans. However, we can prove that under 138 years of Fijian and colonial leadership we have done very well.’ Rabuka denied he had any warning or role in the coup executed by Speight. But as leader of the two coups in 1987, he believed indigenous rights needed continuing protection and that in the Chaudhry government's 12 months in office it had attacked institutions sacred to the indigenous people.

‘Fijians saw them try to erode the Fijian institutions such as the Fijian Affairs Board, Fijian Administration and the Native Lands Trust Board’.

He did not think that by backing the 1997 Constitution he had eroded the gains made by the indigenous people.

‘But the people were disillusioned with my leadership. When they voted last year [1999] they were voting me out. I did not agree with an Indian prime minister, but it was a product of the Constitution. And in 12 months there were 42 bills, 23 aimed at eroding the Fijian institutions. (Fijileaks: Now, same allegations are made against Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and his Bills).

Rabuka: "I supported every move to destabilise the Chaudhry government, but I was not part of the coup. I was not involved in any of the [pre-coup] marches. But I was going to be involved in the next one because it was [to be held at] the time of the signing of the successor to the Lome Convention this month.’

He said the convention, which provided for co-operation between African, Caribbean, Pacific and European states, would have attracted world leaders and drawn attention to the problems of indigenous Fijians. There had been resistance in the 1999 Parliament to the Chaudhry bills which affected indigenous interests and only one of them had gone to the Senate, he said. It would probably have gone to the Great Council of Chiefs for an opinion, and on that occasion the 1997 Constitution would probably have been tested as well. The coup leaders had jumped the gun by invading the parliamentary complex on May 19, he said. But had the 23 pieces of legislation gone through the process and become law, the political power of the Indo-Fijian MPs would have been well established.

Rabuka said he did not think he was being racist. ‘I believe the best interests of the indigenous people can only be served when there is a very strong Fijian economy, of which the Indians are a very strong part. I believe we can still maintain political control if we [as indigenous Fijians] do not split.’

Rabuka said he had known Speight and had played golf with him and knew of his commitment to indigenous rights. However, he did not agree that Speight represented the ‘soul’ or the ‘voice’ of the indigenous people, or Taukei. ‘Why should he consider himself the voice of the Taukei? His grandfather was a European. The military has only [negotiated with] Speight because of the security of the hostages. He has no legal claim. I don't have any moral stance on whether his actions are right or wrong. I cannot say anything about that because I was in the coup in 1987. I am giving my opinions as a private citizen.’

But Speight ‘has lost the plot and right now he is trying to hang onto every little straw that floats by. He is living in a bubble, and very soon that bubble will burst’.

RABUKA ON THE MUANIKAU ACCORD:
The military has only [negotiated with] Speight because of the security of the hostages. He has no legal claim.

Fijileaks has decided to conceal the identity of the Fiji High Court Judge, delegated with ruling on the question of Amnesty in the
Muanikau Accord, signed between Bainimarama and Speight on Sunday, 9 July 2000 at Muanikau, Suva

While this couple and thousands of descendants of Girmitiyas tried to once again rebuild their lives following the 2000 coup, the deposed Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry became a DOUBLE-DIGIT MILLIONAIRE. The Indian Government secretly funnelled $2million into his Sydney bank account, which he later claimed before the Fiji High Court was for him and his FAMILY to relocate to Australia. Today, Chaudhry, Rabuka and Bainimarama are fighting for the political spoils while George Speight and his comrades are languishing behind the prison bars. COUPS, if they succeed, really PAYS in Fiji

KNEECAPPED: PAP leader Sitiveni Rabuka says his general secretary Sakiasi DITOKA got it wrong. 'I didn't go to meet Indian defence team, or to address NGOs but to get medical update on my 2006 knee-operations'

18/5/2022

COMING UP:
Statutory Declaration: On the events of 5 December 2006 by Sakiasi Ditoka. A statutory declaration by Sakiasi Ditoka, who was the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister of Fiji from 2002 to 2006, on the early days of the military coup of 5 December, 2006. Witnessed by Daiana Buresova (Ms), Barrister & Solicitor, High Court of Fiji, Commissioner of Oaths. Fijileaks: For too many years, we helped these TRAITORS, from Ditoka to NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD, only to wake up and discover that they have betrayed us, especially by jumping into bed with Sitiveni Rabuka. Its time to hold them to account. Meanwhile, the India TRIP:

DITOKA is another former military man who had been groomed by Rabuka and was Laisenia Qarase's Private Secretary before the 2006 Coup. It is pretty possible PAP leader kept the reason for his trip to India SECRET from DITOKA (suspected of being a SODELPA mole in PAP) or DITOKA (on Rabuka's instructions) brazenly lied to the country. We wonder if Rabuka's political coalition wife, BIMAN PRASAD, knew Sitiveni Rabuka's reason for the India trip?
NO UNIFORM NARRATIVE:

This man has never been consistent with TRUTH. Like the confusion over the India trip, Rabuka refuses to clarify which of his two statements is true or false. He and his witnesses told his INCITING MUTINY trial in 2006 that he did NOT have his UNIFORM with him when he entered RFMF at the height of the bloody mutiny raging at the camp.
*In 2018, as SODELPA leader, he admitted that he had his uniform in the back seat of his car. On his denial in the Fiji High Court during the trial that he never took his army uniform to the camp on 2 November 2000, the Appeal Court believed him. It upheld his acquittal by Justice Winter

IS THIS THE ARMY UNIFORM HE WAS WEARING A DAY BEFORE THE BLOODY 2 NOVEMBER
2000 RFMF MUTINY?

PAP-NAG GIRMIT POLITICAL
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE

FIRST CLASS TREATMENT:
The INDIA trip was privately funded by some friends

"I have offered to be a WITNESS if necessary where a Policeman is seen beating up a bus driver," Lenora Qereqeretabua. We suggest Policeman Apologize to Driver just like NFP claims Rabuka has apologized for 1987

17/5/2022

BEATING IS BEATING: Qereqeretabua and her leader Biman PRASAD has signed a girmit with COUPIST RABUKA to form a coalition government. He should have been charged with Treason, Kidnapping, Hostage-Taking, Crime Against Humanity (Disenfranchising Indo-Fijians), Rape, Torture, Assault, and Sacrilege (burning and looting of Hindu temples, Mosques, Gurudwara, and a host of other crimes in 1987. We are told the criminal has apologised on many occasions. No, he is hiding behind Immunity. NFP can't have one law for Rabuka and another for the Policeman.
Let us not forget that Rabuka was a serving military officer when he overthrew a democratically elected government and went on to rape, beat, and torture half of the population. We call on the Policeman to apologize to his VICTIM, and just like Rabuka, carry on as a Policeman.
Sitiveni Rabuka had carried on as Commander, RFMF after two coups

Bus Driver

BALA-KALA PANI: We are not BALA fan but his claim of the Girmitiya contribution to survival of i-Taukei population is CORRECT reading of history. Displacement of Coolie, prevented Dispossession of i-Taukei

16/5/2022

Fijileaks: We would go further. Indian Indentured labour system had been in operation since 1834 (starting in Mauritius). If the i-Taukei Fijian chiefs had not ceded Fiji to Great Britain in 1874, there would not have been coolies in Fiji.
Yes, Sashi Kiran and Shamima Ali and Sitiveni Rabuka's new-found coalition partner, girmitiya* BIMAN PRASAD, are right to claim that Girmityas will always be indebted to the Vanua of Noco for their courage, care & concern in saving 'our ancestors'. We agree with the sentiments.
They were able to do so, for, since 1879, the villagers had been left alone while shiploads of coolies kept being brought to Fiji to toil the sugar, cotton, tea and copra plantations from 1879 to 1920. The Syria* carrying indentured labourers
was wrecked on Nasilai Reef on 11 May 1884.
* During the Middle Passage, hundreds of coolies who died on board were thrown overboard to be feasted by marauding sharks in the Kala Panis - Black Waters.
* The white planters, including those in Fiji, were screaming:
'Give me a coolie, and I will make a million hogs of sugar'.
One of the most powerful chiefs in Fiji was seen as only fit to be
a white man's gardener.
The self-styled 'King of Fiji', Ratu Seru Cakobau, who signed the Deed of Cession (no western i-taukei chiefs are signatories) subjugated the i-taukei to British control by calling on them to 'exercise a watchful control over the welfare of his children and people, and who, having survived the barbaric law and age, are now submitting themselves under Her Majesty's rule to civilization'.
For the next 90 years, the British kept the races apart - she united to
rule and divided to exploit.
The Europeans forged alliances with the i-taukei leaders, lying to them that '99% of the Europeans are loyalists and the handing over of Fiji to evil-smelling, treacherous, non-educated, garlic-eating Indians would be one of the greatest crimes in the history of the British Empire'.
No wonder, in 1987, when the Indo-Fijians woke up to share political power with an i-taukei Fijian Prime Minister, Dr Timoci Bavadra, BIMAN PRASAD'S Brown Overseer, one SITIVENI RABUKA, instead of whips, stormed Parliament with guns, and ended the descendants of coolies march from Plantation to Parliament - on 14 May 1987, one hundred and eight years to the day the first coolies, on Leonidas,* were introduced on the sugar plantations.
Like Europeans before him, Rabuka described Indo-Fijians in a very similar language - they smelled differently, and Hindus and Muslims are pagans who must be converted to Christianity, for otherwise, i-taukei would become pagans. He wanted them to return to India or live as second class coolies - which he made them in his racist 1990 Constitution, from 1990 to 1999.
Thankfully, Rabuka and his coolie political girmitiya JAI RAM REDDY, were chased out by the VOTERS in the 1999 election. They had read it correctly that the Rabuka-Reddy 1997 Constitution had been crafted so that these two,
master-servant could let Rabuka continue to rule Fiji.
For Indo-Fijians the Rabuka coup ousted their MPs on 14 May 1987. Their history, however, will record that their own displacement* from British India prevented the dispossession of the i-Taukei Fiji in colonial Fiji. Indeed, ironically, the indentured Indian was uprooted specifically to prevent the disintegration of the Fijian way of life.
*In June1978, Dr Satendra Nandan, then a Lecturer in English at USP, reminded the NFP Convention on 'The Fiji Indian- a complex fate. Legacy of Indenture':

'Whatever one may say of the material condition of the Indian villages, it was not totally deprived for each little, obscure hamlet had an enduring sense of community, sustained by generations of living together, though sometimes amidst abject circumstances. Above all, the Indian's affinity with the land was as mystical as anyone else's anywhere in the world: he always had a sense of belongingness, and frequently a sense of self-sufficiency, Both were necessary for his self-respect. In the indenture system, they were caught in a hierarchy of power designed to extract the maximum labour from its victims, no matter what the cost in human terms...Besides, they had little opportunity to establish emotional ties with the land they tilled on which many of their children and 'jahajis' were being buried; they were deliberately kept from reaching out to the indigenous people because people in authority saw it as a threat to their monopoly of freedom and monopoly of power.

*Fortunately, Fiji's history saved it from disaster. In here the system came almost 50 years after its inception; it came in a unique historical context; the impact of colonialism was never fully felt in all its barbarity in the South Pacific. The Aborigine had borne the brunt of it; the Maori had attempted to resist it. The European imagination was stirred by the images of the Nobel Savage in the Garden of Eden. Fiji itself was ceded, not conquered. Its indigenous people were not totally decimated (despite the introduction of measles which killed thousands) as had happened in many other colonial territories. What of future speculation. To quote Nandan at the NFP Convention:

"Indeed by a happy irony, the indentured Indian was uprooted specifically to prevent the Fijian way of life from disintegrating. It is interesting to speculate if this peasant labourer had not come to Fiji at a critical time, not only the Fijian way of life but many island communities in the South Pacific would have been disrupted and perhaps permanently disclosed. The planters needed labour, the government wanted economic viability for political stability, and it is anyone's guess what they would have done to achieve this. Thus the displacement of the Indian prevented the dispossession of the Fijian (i-Taukei). This may be the lasting and most significant contribution of the peasants from India. Without this the Fijian (i-Taukei) might have lost much of his land, and more tragically his self-respect."

Fijileaks: The great, What If of HISTORY? What if Fiji had not been ceded to Great Britain, the Indian Coolie had not been uprooted and brought to Fiji, would the i-Taukei have remained safe from the warring powerful tribal chiefs?
We may recall that in 1871 Cakobau after conquering the Lovoni people on the island of Ovalau had sold them into servitude to white planters at the rate of £3 a head, and a yearly hire of the same amount. The revenue from the 'hire’ of Lovoni labour was considerable and it was placed at the disposal of the Cakobau Government before Fiji was ceded to Britain in 1874.
Worst, some Lovoni people were sold to Barnum, Coup and Costello's great American railroad circus, along with the pickled arm of a slain i-Taukei chief. We should be grateful that the NOCO villagers were not meted the same punishment as the LOVONI people, for they would not have been around to save those shipwrecked coolies in 1884.
*In this election, the voters must wake up and realise that like those colonial planters, two coupists, Rabuka and Bainimarama, with their overseers in Biman Prasad and Aiyaz Khaiyum, believe that these four only have the birthright to lead us into the future. But, we caution, against these two snakes and their snake charmers, for we have reached that
...tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

Sadly, like the Indian coolies, these four Lovoni people [below photo] were sold to P.T Barnum, an American showman famous for promoting celebrated hoaxes like the Feejee mermaid. He had managed to recruit 4 Fijian prisoners captured by Ratu Cakobau. He apparently paid $15,000 to Ratu Cakobau for their release.
Barnum wrote in his book: "I have tried in vain for years to secure specimens of these man-eaters. At last, the opportunity came. Three of these cannibals having fallen into the hands of their Royal enemy, who was about to execute and perhaps to eat them, the missionaries and my agents prevailed upon the copper-colored king to accept a large sum in gold on condition of his Majesty granting them a reprieve and leave of absence to America for three years, my agent also leaving a large sum with the American consul to be forfeited, if they were not returned within the time stipulated.'
The dwarf mentioned below as Ra Bian (Rabian) died in New York and is believed to have been buried there. RIP. Exile and loss are recurring themes in our lives, whether it is the Indian coolies in 1879 or the Lovoni 'coolies' in 1871.

A DAY BEFORE THE MUTINY. A Uniform Dress Rehearsal to takeover the RFMF ARMY Command? A new photo emerges of Rabuka allegedly in uniform. We know he had gone to the camp with his uniform in his car

16/5/2022

HOSTAGE: On 2 November 2000, the current RFMF Commander Ratu Jone Kalouniwai was held HOSTAGE as the shootings, death and blood flowed during fierce gunfight between rebel and loyal soldiers.
We are yet to hear from PAP leader Sitiveni Rabuka if the
PHOTO is GENUINE or FAKE?
As we disclosed previously, some of the weapons the CRW soldiers used in overthrowing the Chaudhry government and holding the MPs hostage for over 50 days were the same weapons Rabuka had confiscated in 1988 that were shipped to Fiji by the London based 'Movement for Democracy in Fiji'.
*We recognised the weapons. The CRW soldiers had trained on his Valavala Estate (Rabuka claims he was not aware of the training) before seizing Parliament in May 2000 and going on to mutiny in November.
During the inciting mutiny trial, Rabuka was adamant that he did NOT bring with him his uniform (Fiji Court of Appeal, 25 June 2007). But, in 2018, finally admitted to the country that he had gone to the military camp with his uniform at the height of the mutiny because he was sent in by the Home Affairs operations to negotiate a ceasefire.
Is this the same UNIFORM?

"When at 5.00 p.m. that afternoon the respondent finished lunch at the Insurance Company office, he travelled out to the Barracks, then still under the control of the rebels, where he went to the officers’ mess. Much reliance was placed by the State on the fact that on arrival he was seen by some witnesses to have with him his Army uniform. It was distinctive in that, being a former Major-General, the collar and shoulders were decorated with red badges or flashes which a number of witnesses claimed to have noticed. On the other hand, two other witnesses as well as the respondent (Rabuka) were equally adamant that the respondent brought no uniform with him. It is very doubtful whether the question of the uniform justified the time and effort expended on it at the trial or on appeal. The prosecution case presumably was that the respondent was planning to wear the uniform in order to promote the incitement to mutiny, or intending to do so as soon as it succeeded in having Commodore Bainimarama removed from command. However, the respondent’s action in taking the uniform with him to wear was and is equally capable of being explained as designed to stress his military position and authority when he came to negotiate a ceasefire. As a Major-General, he would have outranked all others at the Barracks. The uniform would certainly have been more appropriate and impressive than the shirt and sulu that he had been wearing at the Insurance Company lunch.
Fiji Court of Appeal, 25 June 2007

Fijileaks: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief and the late RUSSELL HUNTER were finishing a book, TREASON IN PARADISE: The Inside Story of the 2006 Coup, when Hunter passed away in Brisbane, Australia. Tragically, Hunter could not see this work through to publication. Although he kept his side of the bargain by contributing to the chapters (19 in all), and we produced a full-length manuscript for the publisher in rough draft, his deportation from Fiji in 2008(over Chaudhry's $2million in Sydney bank account story) and later his death meant he could not complete revision, and sharpen and update and incorporate new materials that were continuously leaked to us. We strongly feel we ought to publish the first draft chapter of the book that opens with the bloody 2 November 2000 mutiny.

LEGAL VOICE TO MILITARY COUNCIL
BEFORE 2006 COUP

TREASON IN PARADISE:
THE INSIDE STORY ABOUT 2006 COUP IN FIJI
Russell Hunter and Victor Lal
Fijileaks: GO FOR IT, ITS LEGAL: Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum addressed the Military Council before the 2006 Bainimarama Coup, claiming coup justifiable in law

2017: In London, to try and finish the book

Chapter One
Bloodbath at the Barracks (Unrevised)

Monday November 2, 2000 was a typical of Suva day for at that time of year - a balmy day with a gentle breeze from the ocean. A clear sky, resembling the colour of the national flag, looked down on a time of minimal activity at the Queen Elizabeth II barracks (QEB), the home of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces. Nobody inside or outside of the military could have foreseen the storm that was about to break. Well, almost nobody.

On that lazy day Lance Corporal Simione Rawaileba, expecting little in the way of activity, returned from the usual lunch of dalo and rice, and lay down to rest in his bunk in the barracks. He slept peacefully never suspecting that it was a slumber from which he would not awake.

As he gently snored, a member of the Counter Revolutionary Warfare group (CRW), an elite force within the RFMF, stole silently into his room on a freelance murder mission all of his own. Rawaileba, a former CRW member had given the man some trouble in the past and would that day pay for it today with his life. The man walked silently to within a metre of the sleeping corporal, drew a Browning 9mm automatic pistol and shot him once in the back of the head at a range of perhaps six inches.The unfortunate and innocent corporal died instantly, his brains and blood splattered across the room. It was the first of many shots, and eight deaths, in an afternoon that would alter Fiji forever.

The shooter (VIC, YOU HAVE HIS NAME) should not have been there. It was not part of the plan by CRW commander Captain Shane Stevens, who later received a life sentence for his part in what followed. The dead man and his murderer were cousins and the killer was to hang himself the next day in a fit of remorse – or possibly in fear of the knowledge of what fate might await him at the hands of the loyalist troops. For worse was to follow.

The CRW group, formerly known as the First Meridian Squadron Force (or 1MS), was the brainchild of the father of the nation’s coup culture – the then Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni L Rabuka. The CRW were a highly trained outfit – some member’s having had experience with Britain’s Special Air Services Regiment. The CRW had also been heavily involved in all three of the nation’s previous coups. The first two of these were executed by its founder, the third by failed businessman George Speight who was almost certainly no more than a front man. He is to this day in the high-security wing of Naboro Prison serving a life sentence commuted from the death penalty. He is likely to be joined by the military officers responsible for putting him there.

The 25-strong CRW team moved into to the armoury. Helping themselves to automatic assault rifles and stun grenades they set about their mission – to capture – some say to kill - their commander, the now self-appointed and illegal dictator and illegal, Commodore Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama. The commodore was finishing lunch in the officers’ mess when the first shot rang out. Fearing the worst, his security detail hustled him out of there and into his office where it soon became apparent that a full scale mutiny was in progress.

It went so well for the mutineers that the Commodore’s men practically carried him the short distance from his office to the sheer-sloped 100ft deep ravine that still separates the QEII barracks from the residential and light industrial suburb of Namadi Height, Samabula, and thence to the safety of the main naval base in the port of Suva on the coast to the west of Lami..They had scrambled through a rear window just as a heavily armed team of CRW soldiers broke down the front door. The commander escaped certain death by seconds, a terrifying experience that still haunts him.

Meanwhile the dull multiple thuds of automatic fire and the sharp blasts of grenades echoed throughout Suva. The media, desperate for news of what was in progress, rushed to the “camp” as QEB it is universally known. Parked at the top of the ravine overlooking the barracks the Fiji Times van took a stray round and moved to a safer distance. A family of Samabula was later to tell of another stray round that smashed through their window narrowly missing the head of the household as he sat down to lunch with wife and children.

At that time, Land Force Commander, Lt-Col Jone Baledrokadroka had rallied the loyal soldiers (the majority of the infantry division), gathered what weapons and ammunition could be found and mounted an organised counter attack. The resistance sergeant’s experience and training were instrumental in planning the counter attack. Heavily outnumbered, the CRW team had lost the advantage of surprise, they were now heavily outnumbered and while the promised support of 2,000 civilian demonstrators had failed to materialise at the camp gates. The game was up. Some members took flight and were soon captured but most laid down their arms and, prepared themselves to take what was coming to them. Had they known what that was, they might have acted differently.

Three loyalist soldiers - Lance Corporal Rawaileba, Private Seru Sirinavosa and Private Jonetani Veilawai - lay dead in the camp. The remaining 20 or so wounded would all recover. But the scar of that day, however, has never healed. The potential for violent retribution was obvious – but few in Fiji expected what followed from a once proud disciplined service.

Five members of the CRW force were quite literally kicked to death. Post mortem photographs displayed viciously mutilated corpses barely recognisable as human remains.

One of the dead played no part in the mutiny. It seemed CRW membership alone was sufficient motive for the most brutal of murders. The following morning, Jone Kamoe Davui was picked up while in class at the Fiji Technical College. He was taken to join the other CRW prisoners at the Suva Central Police Station from where all were collected in army vehicles. None were seen alive again. Witnesses told the media they heard the sounds of blows and cries of pain from the canopied trucks that took the men away. At the time of this writing , the killers have not been brought to account nearly ten years later.

A Catholic Priest, Father Akauola from Tonga, visited the injured CRW boys who had been tortured and were being held captive in the Korovou prison in Suva, just across the road from the Suva yacht club. Father Akauola recalls that concerned officers within the RFMF had asked him to visit the CRW boys in prison. They were worried about the state of the CRW boys’ injuries and that Frank Bainimarama had given them strict orders not to treat their injuries. More than 60 CRW soldiers were being held in a small and isolated concrete building just inside the prison walls.

The building itself also had a concrete wall around it, like a prison within a prison. Father Akauola recalls seeing Captain Shane Stevens lying on the bare cold concrete floor unable to move with his gunshot wound untreated and looking dangerously infected. The light coming through the opened door was not great but it was enough for Father Akauola to see that Captain Stevens was in really bad shape and clinging to life. Other CRW boys lay injured in the dark and some were groaning from pain. This was not any ordinary sort of pain. These were elite soldiers, tough men feeling pain from severe torture. Most had opened wounds, some were unconscious while others unable to move. The CRW boys had to literally crawl out of the dark room so that Father Akaoula could see them. Some had fractured bones piecing out through their skin, broken jaws, broken limbs, severe bruising and near death.

With tears in his eyes Father Akaoula continued to describe the horror that he saw before him. He could not believe that one human being could do this to another human being. But the horror of Bainimarama’s orders lay there in front of him to see. More CRW soldiers were being rounded up and brought in to the prison each day. Not all of these CRW soldiers were involved in the mutiny, but they had been arrested all the same, severely beaten and tortured. Their families were not told of their whereabouts and nor were they told if they were dead or alive. The world didn’t know of their existence.

Frank Bainimarama had given strict instructions that none of the tortured CRW soldiers were to receive any medical attention. But through the grace of God, this Marist Priest, Father Seluini Akauola, a specialist Moral Theologian and Counselor, was there in Fiji and he went out of his way to seek help for the CRW soldiers. After some negotiating with senior military officers Father Akauola was able to get medical attention for the CRW boys who are still alive today.

Here are a few photos of those tortured and murdered Loyal Fiji CRW soldiers.

At the time, the Suva rumour mill, a machine seldom if ever idle, went into overdrive. A death squad had been dispatched from the northern army base at Labasa to carry out the executions. The commander, still in shock, had ordered the deaths in angry revenge. The deaths were also ordered to protect the faceless ones behind the mutiny. The men were also killed by soldiers wishing to ingratiate themselves with the commander. And so it
went on.

In fact, there was and is no evidence to support any of the theories while the commander has, no doubt predictably, consistently denied any involvement in the killings. It is one of the very few matters he has been consistent with. There is in reality no evidence at all.

Acting Police Commissioner Moses Driver pronounced the deaths as murder and launched an investigation – a deed that marked him for later attention from the military.

The shootings and killings were over – but the stain of mutiny would never be removed.

And Commodore Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama could never feel safe again. That much is known. Much more remains murky. Shane Stevens maintained at his court martial that the intention was never to kill the commander and that the loyalists fired the first shot. Loyalists were equally resolute in their depositions that the CRW men opened the firing that day.

The then Lt-Col Baledrokadroka was later to be dismissed as Land Force Commander, effectively the now dictator’s 2IC, for refusing to take part in a coup initially planned for 2005. In an email interview with the authors he was scathing of what he described as the failure by then Lt-Col Pita Driti to bring his logistics unit into the fray. Driti later argued that he and his men took control of the magazine building where ammunition was stored separately from the armoury to deny the mutineers access to ammo.

It is of course possible that in the heat of battle both men reported what they saw.

However, in his deposition to the subsequent military board of inquiry that deliberated – mostly in secret – on the events of that day, Lieutenant Colonel Waqausa threw some light on what really happened. We have been unable to interview Lt-Col Waqausa but have found his previously classified evidence which we reproduce here in full. (Fijileaks: We are withholding the evidence. In our research, we also found that Baledrokadroka’s account in his thesis was seriously flawed and questionable, when examined against the evidence of other actors that day, 2 November 2000)

The more important question remains: Why did the CRW men mutiny? As we are about to see it was a result of the actions of two men – Commodore Josaia Vorege Bainimarama, and the former commander and coupist Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka.

Chapter 1: Bloodbath at the Barracks
The bloody mutiny of November 2, 2000 from which Bainimarama barely escaped and which informed much of his future attitudes. The murders that followed would haunt the dictator for years to come.

Chapter 2: Saviour or Opportunist?
Bainimarama’s role in the George Speight coup of 2000. His double dealing in the negotiations that ended the Speight hostage crisis, his removal of the president and his bewitching experience of power.

Chapter 3: Who is Bainimarama?
An overview of his naval career, some schoolboy memories, an assessment by then Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes, the harrowing experience of a senior public servant threatened with death.

Chapter 4: Reign of Terror
The Christmas Eve tortures, the murders of two civilians as well as the many acts of intimidation, beatings, threats and harassment of even the mildest regime critics. The firing of a judge’s home,
threats to editors and journalists.

Chapter 5: Frank and the Media
The arrival of total censorship and how it was achieved. The deportations of publishers. The Anthony Report which led to the Media Development Authority and its Orwellian nature. Censorship becomes part of the state apparatus.

Chapter 6: The People’s Charter
A document prepared by hand-picked individuals who made up team in order to set out “binding guidelines” and how it was chaired by Bainimarama and close supporters. The failed attempt to gain public support for it. Its relevance – or otherwise – going forward.

Chapter 7: Shakin’ Stevens
The not unaffectionate soubriquet bestowed on the late president who suffered from some degenerative disease. How he was manipulated by Bainimarama into giving him a “mandate” he had no power to give. Inside accounts of his state of mind, his purported abrogation of the constitution the regime had pledged to uphold. His ultimate removal and death.

Chapter 8: Frank’s Law
The dismissal of the judges. The formation of an independent commission against corruption which was anything but independent. The regime’s contempt for the courts and the legal system. Its refusal to obey High Court orders, its legality as declared by regime-favoured judges and the reversal of it by the Appeal Court leading to the end of the constitution and the appointments of new judges and magistrates. The regime’s refusal to allow entry to the International Bar Association which had wanted to assess the independence of the judiciary.

Chapter 9: Lawfare
The formation of an independent commission against corruption and its relationship to the regime. The expanding practice of using the court system to punish those whom the regime saw as opponents or whom it simply didn’t like. Includes a case study.

Chapter 10: The Police and the Military
The murders investigation and how Frank stonewalled it. The actions of the he military’s legal officer in suspending witness interviews when he feared he police were approaching too close to the truth. Bainimarama’s refusal to attend non-caution interviews. The charges against Bainimarama.

Chapter 11: A Comedy of Errors
Bainimarama’s previous aborted attempts at a coup. The bungled attempt to replace him. The folly of his reappointment.

Chapter 12: Countdown to a Coup
The military’s failed intervention in the 2006 election campaign and its subsequent crescendo of invective against the elected government. Last ditch attempts to neutralise him including an aborted effort to have him arrested in New Zealand. The final hours of the legitimate government.

Chapter 13: The Time has Come
The coup itself and Bainimarama’s promises to the people

Chapter 14: We’ll Do It My Way
Frank’s short-lived “Robin Hood” finance minister and his shorter-lived “cabinet”. The militarisation of the civil service. The Bainimarama back pay scandal and an end to transparency and accountability.

Chapter 15. Just Call Me Frank
The new dictator’s failed efforts to rebuild his image with overseas press corps and his increasing frustration with New Zealand and Australia leading to the deportations of NZ High Commissioner Michael Green and, later, his Australian counterpart.

Chapter 16: A Failing Economy
The disastrous economic impact of the coup with a suddenly shrinking GDP, the end in sight for the sugar industry on which roughly 160,000 people depend for their daily bread. The expropriation of the Fiji Times and other damaging signals which have seen inward investment all but dry up.

Chapter 17: The Secret Police State
Despite its pledges of transparency the Bainimarama regime has restricted access to information previously regarded as public property while its many decrees include the proviso that they cannot be challenged in any court of law. The suppression of auditor general’s reports, the total secrecy surrounding ministers’ salaries. The pay rises for soldiers and a continued crackdown on dissent
however mild.

Chapter 18: A Friend in Need
The regime’s secret relationship with China and its increasing borrowing from the People’s Republic. The open-door policy to Chinese investment of all kinds and the regime’s willingness to sequestrate native land for Chinese resource and other projects.

Chapter 19: What next?
The regime’s craving for legitimacy leading to the promise of an election in 2014. The role the race vote will play and how Bainimarama has to reshape his policies and image in order to retain power. His efforts at forming a new constitution and how that is likely to favour his continued hold on overall power.

TO INDIA WITH LOVE: PAP leader Sitiveni RABUKA is in India on the 'invitation of the Indian Military Attache' and plans to hold meetings with NGOs. We should leave him alone, and for him to explain on his RETURN

15/5/2022

WHITE HAIRED ARMY OFFICER: We are also waiting for a reply whether it is him, or if the photo is a FAKE, and if not, when was it taken, 2000?

BULA AND NAMASTE FROM INDIA

SITIVENI RABUKA and
SAKIUSA RAIVOCE

14 MAY, RABUKA: 'Indo-Fijians should be grateful that my coup played a huge part in preparing those that left for greener pastures. None returned to India.' Adolf Hitler to Jews: 'Be grateful for Holocaust. You got ISRAEL'

14/5/2022

Fijileaks: The Government of India, on application, may register as an Overseas Citizen of India, any person who: (a) is a citizen of another country, but was a citizen of India on 26 January 1950 or at any time thereafter; or (b) is a citizen of another country, but belonged to a territory that became part of India after 15 August 1947; or (c) is a citizen of another country, but was eligible to become a citizen of India on 26 January 1950; or (d) is a child or a grandchild or a great-grandchild of such a citizen.
*The only beneficiary of the COUPS in Fiji was FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry who got $2million from India into his bank account

Indo-Fijians Ineligible

GIRMIT: Just look at the joyous face of this Hindu TRAITOR. After the first girmitiyas, 143 years later, he signed a coalition pact (GIRMIT) with Fiji's 'Adolf Hitler', renouncing his RIGHT, and by extension, those of Indo-Fijians, to become PRIME MINISTER after the election.
* In his GIRMIT, he declares that he will become ONLY Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji if PAP-NAG(NFP) Coalition forms the next government. In other words, he has surrendered our birthright and agreed with Rabuka who told the world on 14 May 1987 that "Indians Will Never Rule Fiji", a racist declaration that was endorsed by the former NFP leader JAI RAM REDDY, who asserted that Fiji was not ready for "an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister". Rabuka is hiding behind IMMUNITY.
The Indian indentured labourers arrived in Fiji on 14 May 1879, to recall Dr Satendra Nandan, deposed in the 1987 coups, with
bada dukh se - rowat, gawat, heelat, dolat, adat padat (farting).*
Today, ironically, 143 years later NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD is only TOO HAPPY TO CATCH RABUKA'S PAAD (FART-PAAP), GIVING THUMBS UP:

"The indenture they signed was for five year's slavery in the cane fields of His Britannic Majesty's Crown Colony of Fiji.To them it was girmit, an agreement, and it contained some of the most pernicious clauses thought up by man. There were such things expressed and inferred as "fixed immigration of four men to one woman"; no choice of place or method of employment; women to work in the fields for at least the first seven months of pregnancy; having conditions worse if anything than those from which they had escaped; working hours unlimited. And all for a few pence a day."
WALTER GILL, An Australian Overseer

WHITEWASHING RABUKA AND BLAMING RATU SIR KAMISESE MARA
The NFP's prospective candidate and Suva lawyer RICHARD NAIDU, whose hero is Jai Ram Reddy, recently claimed that it was Ratu Mara who deported him out of Fiji and it was Rabuka who let him back in 1995. Excuse us, Rabuka had the guns and a HIT LIST of his opponents. Our Founding Editor-in-Chief was on the list as well as one Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum.
Naidu was the deposed Prime Minister Timoci Bavadra's spokesman.

From Veiseisei into the clutches of an obscure Vakadrecike Colonel

On 14 May, We Must NOT Forget what Rabuka did to Bavadra, his family, and to moderate i-Taukeis who vehemently opposed the 1987 Coups. He beat them up, locked them up, and disenfranchised urban i-Taukei Voters. He staffed the Civil Service from Cakaudrove - Kai Vatas.
One young FILIMONI VOSAROGO got a study scholarship despite his father being of sufficient financial means - at expense of poor i-Taukeis
"When he heard Dr Bavadra's death from cancer, Rabuka rejoiced.
'On 3 November [1989] Dr Bavadra died after a long battle with cancer. Rabuka's reaction, he recalls, was to FEEL GOOD that his enemy was gone, for a major obstacle had been removed by his death. Bavadra's death confirmed for Rabuka the rightness of his action in May 1987' -
John Sharpham, Rabuka of Fiji, The authorised biography of
Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka

UNGODLY VERSES FROM BIBLE AND 1987 COUPS

1987 Coups Captured for History

Our Founding Editor-in-Chief presenting a signed copy of his book, Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention to the late Adi Kuini Bavadra

CARE FOR RABUKA'S CRIMES, INCLUDING RAPE AND TORTURE OF INDO-FIJIAN WOMEN, NOT ABOUT CARETAKER GOVERNMENT
FWCC and FRIEND Fiji have called for a Caretaker Government

"The yoke, if it fell from the Negroes black neck, was transformed to the brown neck of the coolie. In the process, it has to be somewhat polished. It has to be lightened in weight and even disguised. Nevertheless, in all essentials, it retained its original quality. Indenture is indeed a state of semi-slavery. Like the slave before him, the indentured labourer cannot buy his freedom.
A slave was punished for not working; so also is an indentured labourer. If he is negligent, does not attend work for a day, if he answers back, he will suffer imprisonment for one of these lapses. A slave could be sold and handed over by one owner to another, so the indentured labourer can be transferred from one employer to another. The children of a slave inherited the taint of slavery; much the same way, the children of an indentured labourer are subject to laws specially passed for them...It should be noted that indenture came after the abolition of slavery and that indentured labourers were recruited to take the place of slaves."
Mahatma Gandhi, campaigning for the abolition of indenture system, 1917

SLAVERY IS SLAVERY: COUP IS A COUP
LURKING AND LEARNING ART OF COUP

The late Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and best-selling author of "Night" about the atrocities he witnessed inside the Nazi concentration camps

Elie Wiesel was just 15-years-old when he was sent to Auschwitz, facing a daily struggle to preserve his identity in inhumane conditions as "prisoner A-7713". Night: Elie Wiesel's memoir and how it preserved the Jewish identity

NIKO NAWAIKULA: He was like a crocodile resting in warm water. He did not recognize difference in the increasing temperature to control his bite and GREED. Another of Sitiveni Rabuka's 1987 Fake Messiah Nationalist

9/5/2022

Sadly, while the COUPIST, hiding behind IMMUNITY, has conned and moved on and now wants to become Prime Minister under his PAP, Nawaikula carried on with his nationalistic chest-beating, portraying himself as the torch-bearer of Rabuka's bogus indigenous rights while dipping into the Parliamentary Allowance as a Member of Parliament - a replay of the collapsed National Bank of Fiji
As a legal adviser with the NLTB, he oversaw after the 1987 coups the eviction of hundreds of Indo-Fijian sugarcane farmers from their leased lands, many not receiving any compensation, including one, from court records, losing her house worth $40,000 after her husband had died, and the lease was not transferred to her
* Our Editor-in-Chief's aunt and her husband were evicted after nearly
57 years from their family farm in Rakiraki. They had to leave their life's possessions, including the house, animals, tractors and the sugar canes still standing, and were forced to emigrate to Australia, where the aunt's husband, a hardy sun-scotched farmer all his life, died of depression.
The aunt is nearly turning 100 but still crying and cursing the evil
Rabuka-Nawaikula Axis, saying Australia is worse than 'prison'.
We will not hear Rabuka's Ponga Professor buddy calling for compensation on behalf of those who were forcibly evicted or their ashes brought back to Fiji and buried in their Fijian Motherland.
* This week, we saw him screaming, 'Political Gimmick,1987 Coups.'
*If Nawaikula is JAILED, there will be no TEARS in hundreds of Indo-Fijian households, many now squatters in the Suva-Nasinu corridor
HE was given a free and fair trial, unlike hundreds of evicted farmers
KARMA IS REALLY A BITCH, DEAR OLD (ONCE) FRIEND!

Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) v Nawaikula [2022] FJHC 192; HACD005.2022S (3 May 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

ANTI-CORRUPTION DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HACD 005 of 2022S

FIJI INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
(FICAC))
vs

NIKOLAU NAWAIKULA

Counsel: Mr. Aslam R and Mr. Work J with - for Prosecution
Mr. Hickes D and Mr. Nand A
Mr. Valenitabua S. R and Rokodreu V - for Accused

Dates of Trial: 28th March – 19th April 2022
Date of Judgment: 03rd May 2022

JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The accused in this matter, NIKOLAU NAWAIKULA, was charged with one count of tendering FALSE INFORMATION TO A PUBLIC SERVANT and one count of OBTAINING FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE by the FIJI Independent Commission Against Corruption, as below:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence (a)
False information to public servant: Contrary to Section 201(a) of the Crimes Act No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence (b)
Nikolau Nawaikula on or about 10th April 2019 at Suva in the Central Division gave Viniana Namosimalua the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament of Fiji a person employed in the Civil Service false information that his permanent place of residence is in Buca Village, Buca Bay which he knows to be false knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause Viniana Namosimalua to approve allowance claims submitted by him which Viniana Namosimalua ought not to do if the true state of facts with respect to the permanent place of residence of Nikolau Nawaikula were known to her.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence (a)
OBTAINING FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE: Contrary to Section 326(i) of the Crimes Act No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of the Offence (b)
Nikolau Nawaikula between 1st August 2019 and 30th April, 2020 at Suva in the Central Division engaged in conduct namely submitted Allowance Claims to the office of the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament of Fiji and as a result of that conduct obtained a financial advantage amounting to $20,201.35 from the office of the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament of Fiji knowing or believing that he permanently resides at 15 kilometers Kings Road, Koronivia, Nausori which is a place less than 30 kilometers away from the place of Parliament or committee as per the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014 and therefore was not eligible to receive the said financial advantage.

When these charges were read over to the accused in open Court on 14/02/2022, the accused understood the charges and pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial to this matter on the above counts commenced on 28/03/2022 and proceeded till 19/04/2022.
For the Prosecution case 19 witnesses gave evidence and marked 88 (PEX1 – PWEX88) documents, which included admitted documents by the Defense. At the end of the Prosecution case, since the Court was satisfied that a prima facie case has been established against the accused, acting under Section 231 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2009, the Defense was called from the accused and the standard options available to the accused for his Defense were spelt out. For the Defense case, the accused gave evidence under oath and was cross-examined by the Prosecution. Further, 3 more witnesses were summoned to give evidence for the Defense case and 42 documents (DEX1 – DEX42) were marked. On both the Prosecution and the Defense making final submissions on 19/04/2022, this case was fixed for the judgement.

BACKGROUND

The accused in this matter, Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula, is an honourable member of the current Parliament of the Republic of Fiji representing the SODELPA Party. He has been actively involved in political activity in the Republic of Fiji since 2005.
To provide for remuneration and allowances for the Members of Parliament of Fiji, including His Excellency the President of the Republic of Fiji, the Legislature has passed and published in the Gazette of 03rd October 2014 the Parliamentary Remuneration Act of 2014 (The Act). The Schedule to this Act provides provisions in relation to the SALARY together with ALLOWANCES and BENEFITS available for the honourable members of Parliament at the time.
In this regard, under Part B of this Schedule to the Act , Allowances and Benefits available for the Members of Parliament are clearly highlighted as below:

“Members of Parliament (including Deputy Speaker, Government/Opposition Whip and Leader of the Government in Parliament and excluding the Prime Minister, Ministers, Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition)

Accommodation Allowance – For meeting of Parliament or Committee, if the member permanently resides at any place more than 30kilometres away from the place of the meeting of Parliament or Committee, then the member shall be entitled to an allowance of $350 per day plus $30 per meal.
Traveling Allowance – For meetings of Parliament Committee, if the member permanently resides at any place more than 30km from the place of the place of meeting of Parliament or committee, then the member shall be entitled to cost of travel by the most direct route and from the meeting. Allowance in respect to motor vehicles shall be payable at the following rates-
- (a) Vehicles of up to and equal to 200cc – 50 cents per kilometer and;
- (b) Vehicles of 200cc or over -60 cents per kilometer.”
To facilitate the execution of allowances and benefits available for the Parliament members under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act of 2014, subsequent to taking the oath of office and the oath of allegiance by the Parliamentarians to the New Parliament on 26/11/2018, the office of the Secretary General to the Parliament had conducted two induction programs for the Parliamentarians to detail Parliamentary procedures that should be followed in relation to swearing – in and the administrative procedure in day to day activities. At the second induction, Parliamentarians have been requested to provide a Declaration affirming their personal details that could assist the determination and calculation of their allowances and benefits by the Office of the Secretary General to the Parliament.
1. In compliance with this request, Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula had provided his Member of Parliament Declaration Form (MPDF) dated 10/04/2019, certified by a Commissioner for Oaths, to the then Acting Secretary General to the Parliament. This Declaration is an admitted fact by both parties, which is marked by the Prosecution as PEX3. Consequent to the information provided in PEX3, the Office of the Secretary General to the Parliament had made reimbursement payments to Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula on accommodation and traveling claims submitted by him.
2. The charges filed in this case by the FIJI Independent Commission Against Corruption against Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula revolves around the accommodation and traveling claims tendered to the Office of the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament by Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula, on the premise that his permanent place of residence was Buca Village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove as per PEX3, and the resultant payments made to him by the Parliament.
1. THE LAW

C (1) – BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF

In proceeding with the trial in this matter, this Court was mindful that as recognised by Section 14 (2) (a) of the Constitution of Fiji, the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.
Further, in establishing the charges tendered in the Information for trial, the burden was on the Prosecution to prove them beyond reasonable doubt. Each contested element of each count required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution and this burden never changed and never shifted to the Accused.

C (2) – OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE DEFENSE CLAIMING LACK OF DUE PROCESS

In the final submissions made by the Counsel for the Defense and during cross examination of some Prosecution witnesses, Defense claimed of a lacuna of due process being followed by the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption (FICAC) in arresting and forwarding charges against the accused in this matter, resulting in several errors of law. This Court is mindful that if such errors of law have been committed by the Prosecution, the benefit of non-adherence to the due process by the Prosecution should be given to the accused to the extent recognized by law.
On this premise, before considering the substantial charges against the accused, Court wishes to consider the veracity of the claims made by the Defense and the impact that could have had on a fair trial against the accused in this matter.

C (2) (a) – Absence of a Complaint

It was brought to the attention of Court by the Defense Counsel that the complaint in this matter had been made by an anonymous person. Defense claims that the complainant in this matter was never identified or brought to Court during trial to give evidence, therefore the complainant remains unknown to this hour. Defense counsel contends that Section 56(1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2009 requires a complaint to be made by a person designated as a complainant. Defense claims that due to the absence of a complaint in writing signed by the complainant in this matter, the institution of Criminal Proceedings was unlawful and invalid from the outset.
Further, according to the Defense, the Charge in this matter was signed by the prosecutor, making the prosecutor the complainant. Defense notes, as per Section 12B (5) of the FICAC Act of 2007, “it is lawful for any officer authorized in that behalf by the commissioner to make a complaint or charge against any person before a Magistrate”. In this regard, Defense contends that the word “officer” should not include a legal practitioner, as done in this matter. It is submitted by the Defense that Section 56 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not contemplate the “prosecutor” preferring the charge. On this premise, Defense aver that the Prosecution has committed an error of law in this matter, which should be considered by Court.
In relation to the anonymity of the complainant, though there can be many practical reasons for a complainant to remain anonymous, there can’t be any anonymity in the evidence lead in Court to prove the case by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, though the complainant may not be brought to Court, all the pertinent evidence should be lead in Court in the presence of the accused by the Prosecution.
Further, the Prosecution brings to the attention of Court that under Section 115 (7) of the Constitution of Fiji, in exercising its powers and performing functions, the Commission against Corruption shall be guided by the standards established under the United Nations Convention against Corruption. For this end, Article 33 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption 2003 reads as follows:

“Article 33- Protection of Reporting Persons - Each State Party shall consider incorporating into the domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.”

Therefore, this Court finds no harm caused to the fairness of the trial by such anonymity, since the Prosecution is bound to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt with evidence lead in Court to convict the accused.

Further, the submission of the Defense in relation to the requirement of a complaint to be made by a person designated as a complainant under Section 56 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2009 is vitiated by Section 56 (5), where a police officer or other officer acting under lawful duty can file charges in the Magistrate Court, as done in this matter.
In relation to the complaint of the Defense of the prosecutor being the complainant in this case, this Court recognizes that as per the definition of the word “Officer” under Section 2 together with Section 8 of the FICAC Act of 2007, this could be either a legal officer or a police officer. Therefore, there is no error in law in this regard.

C (2) (b) – Unlawful Arrest

Referring to evidence given in this Court by the two FICAC investigating officers, Mr. Kuliniasi Saumi and Ms. Milika Cakacaka, it was submitted by the Defense that knowing that the accused in this matter was investigated by FICAC for summary offenses, FICAC officers arrested the accused unlawfully without a warrant on 25/08/2019 in Buca village and on 29/09/2019 in Nandi. In this regard, the position of the Defense is that both under Section 10 (1) of the FICAC Act of 2007 and under Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2009, FICAC or police officers could only arrest an accused without a warrant if the accused person is suspected for an indictable offence and not for a summary offence, as in this matter.
Therefore, it is averred by the Defense that the accused was arrested unlawfully in this matter creating an error of Law. As a consequence, it is the submission of the Defense that all the proceeding that stemmed after the alleged unlawful arrest were unlawful and void, necessitating this Court to acquit the accused of the charges filed in this case.
In addressing this concern, this Court wish to refer to the Powers of the Commissioner under the FICAC Act of 2007 stipulated in Section 13 of the Act. In this regard, Section 13 (1) (d) reads as follows:

“13 (1) For the purpose of the performance of his functions under this promulgation the Commissioner through the Deputy Commissioner and/or through his officers, may-

............; b).............; c)............;

d) Without warrant, arrest or authorize any officer to arrest a person who is suspected to have committed an offense to which this promulgation applies; e) .............”

As per Section 2 (A) (h) of the FICAC Act of 2007, this Act applies to any offense under the Crimes Act 2009. Therefore, pursuant to the above provision in the FICAC Act of 2007, this Court holds that the contention of the Defense Counsel with regard to unlawful arrest is without merit.

C (2) (c) – Parliamentary Remuneration Act of 2014 (PRA) is non-justiciable

In consideration of the Parliamentary Remunerations Act of 2014 (PRA), Defense Counsel highlights this Court that it is established law that the internal processes of the Parliament are non-justiciable, unless a provision of the Constitution was contravened during the process of enactment.
It is submitted, since Parliamentary Remunerations Act of 2014 was passed and enacted as law by the Parliament of Fiji detailing internal processes of Parliament, it is non-justiciable. The Defense is of the view that it is now not the time nor the responsibility of the Court to read extra conditions in the PRA and adjudicate on them.
In addressing this submission, at the very onset, this Court concedes with the Defense Counsel of his stance in relation to the non-justiciability of internal processes of the Parliament. However, by this Information filed in this Court by the FICAC, this Court is not expected to scrutinize or question the internal processes of the Parliament.
As this Court sees, the expectation from this Court is to determine whether a crime has been committed under the Crimes Act of 2009 by a Parliamentarian by providing false information to the Parliamentary internal process and whether thereby the accused squandered ordinary taxpayers’ money of this country. In any event, if a Crime has been committed by a Parliamentarian or a farmer, as per the basic principles of Rule of Law, the same law should apply. There is no special law to determine the criminality of conduct of Parliamentarians in any jurisdiction.
To lend a force to the above determination, this Court refers to the full bench decision of the Supreme Court of England and Wales in the case of R v Chaytor and Others (Appellants)[1], where few Parliamentarians of Westminster were committed for trial at the Crown Court, in the first instance, on charges arising from alleged dishonest Parliamentary expenses and allowance claims. In that, on conviction they went in appeal claiming that the internal processes of Parliament are protected from general law by Parliamentary privileges. In this regard, in agreeing with the other Lords to dismiss the appeal against the conviction, Lord Roger of Earls Ferry stated as below:

“..........if a Member of Parliament dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself, submitted a claim form which to his knowledge was false in a material particular, the law of England would apply. The member would commit an offence under s 17(1) of the 1968 Theft Act, even if he completed the form to claim in the House of Commons and submitted it in person to the Fees Office”

C (3) - ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED

In relation to the two counts against the accused in this trial, the elements of the offenses can be detailed as, below:

Count 1 – Tendering False Information to a Public Servant – Section 201(a) of the Crimes Act 2009
i) The Accused person (Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula) gave information;
ii) To a person employed in the Civil Service;
iii) That he knew or believed to be false;
iv) Knowing it to be likely that the Accused person will cause the person employed in the Civil Service to do anything which she ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information was given were known to her.

Count 2 – Obtaining Financial Advantage - Section 326(1) of the Crimes Act 2009

The Accused person (Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula)
Engages in conduct; and
1. As a result of the conduct, obtains financial advantage for himself from another person; and
2. Knows or believes that he was not eligible to receive that financial advantage

In order to establish the guilt of the accused for Count 1 & Count 2, the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements as elaborated above. However, by the agreed facts between the parties and by submissions made by counsel for both parties in Court, parties have agreed to some of the elements of these two counts. As a consequence, under Section 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2009, such admitted elements need not be established by the Prosecution in this trial to prove the guilt of the accused.

C (4) – ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTS AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES

The following elements of the Counts in the Information are agree by the Prosecution and the Defense. Thus, Prosecution did not have to establish these elements.

Count 1
i) The Accused person gave information;
ii) To a person employed in the Civil Service.

Count 2

The Accused person
Engages in conduct; and
1. As a result of the conduct, obtains financial advantage for himself from another person; and

C (5) - ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTS CONTESTED BY THE DEFENSE

Consequent to following the pre-trial procedures laid down in Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2009, the Prosecution and the Defense have managed to narrow down the elements that need to be proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to the elements below for the two counts in the information filed.

Count 1 – Tendering False Information to a Public Servant – Section 201(a) of the Crimes Act 2009
i) The accused knew or believed that the information he provided to the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament to be false;
ii) Knowing it to be likely that the accused person will cause the person employed in the Civil Service to do anything which she ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known to her.

Count 2 – Obtaining Financial Advantage - Section 326(1) of the Crimes Act 2009

The accused knew or believed that he was not eligible to receive that financial advantage consequent to the false information provided by him.

PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ACCUSED BY THE PARIAMENT, AS PER THE PARLIAMENTRY REMUNERATIONS ACT OF 2014

To confirm the payments made to the accused as per PEX39 to PEX51, which are agreed documents by the parties, the Prosecution lead the evidence of Mrs. Viniana Namosimalua, who was the Acting Secretary General of the Parliament of Fiji during the time in issue. Since the charges filed in Court stems from the information received from the accused and payments made to the accused by the office of this witness, this Court considers it pertinent to succinctly stipulate the evidence given by this witness in Court, where she stated as below:
- “I was the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji during the time in issue.
- I was appointed by the Constitutional Officers Commission (COC) as the S/G, as per Section 79 of the Con. I was the chief Admin officer of Parliament. I reported to the Speaker. For the purpose of the Constitution and the Crimes Act, I was a civil servant.
- After the election of Parliament, just before the sittings in 2018, there were 2 induction for Parliamentarians. At the first induction, members were told of the swearing in procedure. Second induction was to introduce Parliamentarians’ to the admin processes like claims and allowances.
- I presided at the swearing – in, where there was an oath of office and an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Law. Parliamentarians signed these oaths before me, and I counter signed.
- PEX1 is the Oath for taking office and PEX2 is the Oath of allegiance signed by Honorable Niko Nawaikula on 26/11/2018.
- During the inductions, I wrote to the honorable members and inform them of their entitlements.
- PEX74B was the letter, dated 10/12/2018, addressed to Honorable Niko Nawaikula informing him of his entitlements as a Parliamentarian. This details all his allowances, including accommodation, travel, sitting allowances, superannuation and overseas travel in laymen’s terms. This letter translated the provisions of the Parliamentary Remunerations Act of 2014.
- With regard to accommodation allowance, it is mentioned in (a) that those who reside at any place more than 30 kilometers away from the place of meeting of Parliament or Committee then they are entitled to an allowance of $350 per day plus $30 per meal.
- With regard to travel allowance, it was mentioned in (c) that members who are residing any place more than 30 km away from the place of the meeting of Parliament will be entitled.
- By way of my letter dated 10th December 2018, I advised Honourable Niko Nawaikula of all his entitlements, salary etc. This letter was hand delivered to Honorable Niko Nawaikula.
- At the inductions, members of Parliament were requested to provide a declaration. The declaration was necessary because it had financial implications tied to it. Declaration requested for the permanent residence, since we would not be able to pay any allowances to members, if we didn’t have information of where they resided.
- My view was that we needed to hold them to account because they had sworn on oath when they first joined Parliament. And also they were honorable members of Parliament and I needed to capture that in something that was legally binding, like a declaration.
- PEX3 is the completed declaration provided by Honourable Niko Nawaikula to my office. The details in this form are as below:
  - - Name: Nawaikula Nikolau Tuiqamea
  - - Permanent address as at 10/04/2019: Buca Village in Buca Bay, Cakaudrove.
  - - Postal Address: P O Box 904 Savusavu.
  - - Telephone Number: 88450239
  - - Mobile Number: 8683844
  - - Business Address: First floor, Anderson Fong building, Main Street in Savusavu.
  - - Next of Kin: Miliakere Ratawake Nawaikula, wife of 15KM Kings Road, Koronivia, Nausori
  - - The Honourable Niko Nawaikula has signed this declaration on 10/04/2019.
- Thereafter, I didn’t go further to clarify this, trusting that this is honest and sincere, since there was also a declaration provided with MPIF.
- The payment of claims process begins with the claim forms that are filled in by the members of Parliament with the assistance of their admin officers and certified correct and sent to the Secretary General’s office. I have two officials who would check on my behalf and then it comes to me for signature.
- Our finance would seek clarification if there were things that they felt is not in line with the laws and then they would make adjustments. Thereafter, payments will be made. I don’t recall Honorable Niko Nawaikula complaining about his claims to me directly or indirectly.
- By PEX6A, I wrote to the Solicitor General on 24/02/2020 of the problems of claims. Staff informed me of the problems of claims. By looking at the claim forms they had felt that there were incorrect claims. By this letter, I informed the Solicitor General and sought advice that some Honourable members for the purposes of claiming allowances under the Act have made declarations that they permanently reside at their property more than 30km away from Parliament, even though they are known to be living more habitually at the property that is within the 30km.
- By PEX5 the office of the Solicitor General states what is important is not where property is owned, but where the Parliamentarian permanently resides. That is where he lives the most part of the year. Subsequently, I made a complaint to FICAC.
- At this time, I knew about 7 suspected Parliamentarians, but Honorable Niko Nawaikula was not subject to my complaint. I think somebody else has complained about Niko Nawaikula.
- I was very disturbed by this development, since these were members of Parliament who had sworn on Oath and also filled in statutory declarations, which were legally binding. It became very clear to me that some things were not put to me honestly.”
As stated above , by the information in the Members of Parliament Declaration Form tendered to the office of the Acting Secretary General of Parliament by the accused (PEX3), which was also signed and witnessed by a Commissioner of Oaths, the accused informed the Parliament that his permanent place of residence was Buca Village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove. This location of permanent residence of the accused made him eligible to claim accommodation and traveling allowances under the Parliamentary Remunerations Act of 2014, , since that locality was more than 30km away from the Parliament in Suva.
To confirm that the payments to the accused under agreed documents PEX39 to PEX51 were made consequent to the claims submitted on behalf of the accused, Prosecution lead the evidence of Peniasi Daveta, who had been the constituency officer at the opposition office in 2019 and 2020. According to him, when Parliamentarians of the opposition come for official duties to Parliament he helps them to complete the forms, GP8 and GP21, needed for them to claim for reimbursements from the office of the Acting Secretary General for the expenses incurred. He fills the forms, as per the information and supporting documents provided by the Parliamentarians, where these forms are also signed by the relevant Parliamentarians. After he fills the forms, these forms are also verified by the senior officer of the opposition office before submitting them to the Secretary General of Parliament.
He remembers filling claim forms for the accused, where the accused brought the required acquittals for him to fill the claim forms. He also has had access to the information in his declaration (PEX3), where he has considered the residence of the accused to be Buca village for his claims.
In addition to the above witness, Prosecution lead the evidence of Mr. Saruwesh Narayan, who was the Senior Finance Officer of the Parliament of Fiji during the time in issue, responsible for supervising the finance team and processing all allowance payments to Parliamentarians. According to him, this process starts from the Member of Parliament completing and submitting the required forms. Senior officer appointed by the Party has to certify the GP8 form before the claim is submitted to the Secretary General’s office. Then the Secretary General signs the claim form with acquittals and then given to the Finance Unit.
Once the claim is received by the Finance Unit, they verify the Parliamentary sitting dates and tickets of travel with GP21 form. If there are discrepancies in the GP8 and GP21 forms, Finance Unit amend the claims. Finally Finance Officer and the Senior Finance Officer sign the claims. Thereafter, the forms go to the vouchering clerk and then to the FMIS clerk to enter into the system. Lastly, it goes to the payment processing clerk and she will electronically transfer the money to the Parliamentarian.
According this witness, the Declarations of Parliamentarians with their details are given to the Secretary General in the first instance. PEX3 is the declaration of the accused that they relied on. In this, the accused has given his permanent residence as Buca village, Buca Bay. He confirmed his signature in PEX39 to PEX51 in relation to these claims going through him.

EVIDENCE LEAD IN THE TRIAL IN RELATION TO THE CONTESTED ELMENTS BY THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE

From the evidence lead in the trial by the Prosecution and the Defense, this Court needs to determine whether the Prosecution managed to prove each contested element of each count beyond reasonable doubt or whether the Defense created a reasonable doubt in relation to any of the contested elements in any of the counts, warranting the acquittal of the accused for that count. To achieve this objective, this Court intends to analyse the impact of the Prosecution and Defense evidence lead in this Court on the contested elements of each court.

COUNT 1

As identified above, there are two contested elements in relation to this Count that needs to be determined by the Court. Now this Court will venture to consider these two elements in relation to the evidence lead in Court.
1. THE ACCUSED KNEW OR BELIEVED THAT THE INFORMATION HE PROVIDED TO THE ACTING SECRETARY GENERAL TO THE PARLIAMENT TO BE FALSE.
According to the Prosecution, the alleged false information of the permanent residence of the accused in PEX3, i.e. Buca Village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove, required the Office of the Acting Secretary General to reimburse accommodation and travelling claims of the accused, as per the Schedule to the Parliamentary Remunerations Act of 2014.
1. Therefore, before considering the evidence deduced by the Prosecution and the Defense to demonstrate the permanent place of residence of the accused during the time in issue, this Court needs to determine what is meant by the permanent residence of a person.

Permanent Residence

At the very onset, this Court recognises that the phrase “Permanent Residence” does not seem to have an all-encompassing definition in the legal literature and has been determined subjectively on the relevant circumstances. This Court perceives that in identifying a suitable definition for the phrase “Permanent Residence” for the contentious reimbursements made by the Parliament to the accused, it is useful to comprehend available determinations for the two words independently and apply the circumstances to determine the definition subjectively.
1. For this end, the word “Permeant” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as, “lasting or remaining unchanged indefinitely, or intended to be so; not temporary”. Though the Black’s Dictionary and other legal dictionaries had not provided a definition to the word “Permanent”, STROUD’S Dictionary of Words and Phrases has referred to an English case for the definition for this word. In this regard, in the case of Henriksen v Grafton Hotel[2] the Court of Appeal of England and Wales had made an observation of the word “Permanent’, where Lord Justice DU PARCQ has stated, as below:

“Permanent” is indeed a relative term, and is not synonymous with “everlasting.”

On these definitions, it can be safely concluded that in relation to the matter in issue, i.e. Residence, though there needs to be continuity, there is no requirement for that continuity to last for ever.
In relation to the word “Residence” a plethora of definitions can be found in legal literature. However, contingent on the matter at issue, it is important to select the definition subjectively on the applicable facts and circumstances. In the book, ‘The Conflict of Laws’ by Dicey & Morris[3], this word is defined as below;

“The word “residence” has different meanings in different branches of the law. It is clear that it must be distinguished from the mere presence, the state of being found in a country, but the nature of the distinction and the factors which should be taken into account will vary with the subject matter.”

In the early English case of Barlow v Smith[4], which brought in foundations for the word “Residence”, Lord Coleridge the Chief Justice of England and Wales, states;

“A man resides where he lives with his wife and family. That is the old and well-established idea of residence. Why should we depart from it?”

However, in more recent cases, Courts have included the circumstances applicable to the time, but maintained the basic idea of “Residence”. In the case of Brokelmann v Barr[5], Lord Ashworth of the Queen’s Bench Division of England and Wales making reference to an often-cited case in relation to ‘residence’, states as follows;

“The word 'residence' has come before the courts in a number of cases of which the most familiar are those relating to income tax and voting rights. In an often-cited passage taken from Levene v Inland Revenue [1928] UKHL 1; [1928] All ER Rep 746), Viscount Cave Lord Chancellor said:
'My Lords, the word “reside” is a familiar English word and is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning “to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one's settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place.” No doubt this definition must for present purposes be taken subject to any modification which may result from the terms of the Income Tax Act and Schedules; but, subject to that observation, it may be accepted as an accurate indication of the meaning of the word “reside“. In most cases there is no difficulty in determining where a man has his settled or usual abode, and if that is ascertained he is not the less resident there because from time to time he leaves it for the purpose of business or pleasure’”.

In fact, in the Indian case authority tendered by the Defense in their final submissions, the Indian Courts also have defined residence on the same lines. In this regard, in the Indian case of Smt. Jeewanti Pandey v Kishan Chandra Pandey[6], the Court has stated as below;

“... in its ordinary sense ‘residence’ is more or less of a permanent character. The word ‘resides’ means to take an abode for a considerable time, to dwell permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time. It is a place where a person has a fixed home or abode. If there is a fixed home or such abode at one place, the person cannot be said to reside at any other place where he had gone on a casual or temporary visit. If a person lives with his wife and children in an established home, his legal and actual place of ‘residence’ is the same.”

In the final submissions, Defense submitted further authorities on “Domicile”, claiming that the “Domicile” of the accused in Fiji is Buca. Charles Wild in his Textbook ‘Conflict of Laws’[7], describes the concept of domicile as follows:

“‘domicile’ has a variable meaning in English law, but in general terms means ‘permanent home’; that the person is deemed to belong to the community where they have made their home (see Re Flynn [1968 1 All ER 49). A more precise definition is that domicile means ‘that legal relationship between a person ... and a territory subject to a distinct legal system which invokes [that] system as [his] personal law (per Sir Jocelyn Simon in Henderson v Henderson [1967] ...). It is simply that place considered by the law to be a person’s permanent home.”

In this regard, this Court sees a clear distinction between the words “Residence” and “Domicile”. Since in PEX3 the word used is “Residence”, this Court sees no need to consider the Domicile of the accused and this Court does not intend to determine the contours of the definition of the word “Domicile” further in this matter.
On this discussed case law and definitions available in legal literature, this Court comprehends that the idea of “Permanent Residence” can be prudently defined as, “a place where a person has his usual or settled abode continuously for a considerable period of time, where he is not less resident of the place due to his absence from time to time for the purposes of business or pleasure.” However, this proposed definition needs to be applied subjectively on the facts and circumstances of this case.

Prosecution Case to Establish this Element

It is the position of the Prosecution that during the material times to this Information, the accused had a property situated at 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia as his permanent place of residence. Prosecution is of the view that this was the matrimonial home of the accused and his wife, which was readily available for the accused prior to, during and after the offending period. In addition, Prosecution claims that the accused had knowingly provided details of this property as his permanent address to several organisations to be included in official documents. Prosecution intended to establish this position through the evidence of the below witnesses.
The first witness for the Prosecution was Monita Devi Ram (PW1), the Executive Officer at the Office of the Registrar of Titles. Giving evidence in Court she mentioned that she provided agreed document PEX7 to FICAC from her office, which is a document about a Native Lease also known as i-Taukei Lease of Lot 2 on the SO plan 170 in the Tikina of Naitasiri in the Province of Naitasiri. She affirmed that the current owner of this land is Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula and Mrs. Miliakere Ratuwale Nawaikula. According to her, Lot 2 is 1654 square meters, the road next to it is Kings Road and it is located between Suva and Nausori. She further affirmed that the transfer of this property to Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula happened on 7/04/2003 and the second transfer of one undivided half share to Mrs. Miliakere Ratuwale was done on 14/12/2006. Thereafter no more transfers have happened and this property is now owned by Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula and Mrs. Miliakere Ratuwale Nawaikula under a 99 year lease, where it will expire in 2079.
The second witness was Sereana Tausabeto (PW2) from the i-Taukei Land Trust Board. She mentioned that PEX7, the lease for the native land, was issued on 01/11/1980 to Mohamad Hussain for a 99 year lease. She confirmed that the current tenant of the lease is Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula and Miliakere Ratuwale Nawaikula. The lease for the land is due to expire in November 2079.
Further, by the agreed document marked as PEX8, a report prepared by a Technician of the Fiji Roads Authority, Prosecution claimed that the Euclidean distance between the Parliament and the property owned by Mr. Nikolau Nawaikula and Mrs. Miliakere Nawaikula in 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia was 15 kilometers. Therefore, if the accused mentioned to be residing there, he could not have claimed allowances under the Parliamentary Remunerations Act of 2014, since this property was less than 30 km to Parliament.
Still, further, to establish that the accused knowingly provided false information to the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament that his permanent residence was in Buca village, Prosecution lead the evidence of few representatives of government establishments to demonstrate that for all his other important day to day activities the accused provided his permanent residence as 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia. On this premise, the Prosecution intended to demonstrate to Court that the accused knowingly provided false information to the Parliament of his residence.
Prosecution witness 3, Mesake Dawai, and Prosecution witness 4, Jasmine Kumar, gave evidence in Court from the Fijian Elections Office. According to PW3, the accused had submitted the agreed document, PEX9, to the Fijian Elections Office declaring that he owns only one “Home” and his residential address was 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia. Accused had made this declaration in PEX9 on 19/10/2018, 6 months before he made the declaration to the Parliament, by PEX3, claiming that his permanent residence was in Buca villiage, Buca bay, Cakaudrove.
According to PW4, she had been responsible for the voter registration in the Fijian Elections Office. She concedes that she provided the agreed document PEX11 to FICAC during investigations. She claimed that PEX11 information is about Niko Nawaikula. According to her, the resident address given initially was Koronivia Nausori and his poling venue was Koronivia Service Station FEO shed. This poling venue has been selected by the voter because it was the nearest to his address. She informed that there had been a change of address and polling venue on 02/12/2021, where the address had been changed to Buca village, Natewa and the polling venue had been changed to Buca Community Hall. As for this, Prosecution submits that during the offending period, though the accused claims that his voter base was Cakaudrove, he was registered to vote in Suva and not in Buca village.
Prosecution lead the evidence of witness 5, Elenoa Waqatairewa, of the Legal Practitioners Unit (LPU) of the Office of the Chief Registrar next to demonstrate the accused mentioning 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia as his residential address to obtain the annual Practicing Certificates from the LPU during 2017 to 2021, as below:
- According to this witness she had been working in the Legal Practitioners Unit (LPU) of the Chief Registrar’s Office for over 10 years, and currently is the senior secretory.
- She informed that LPU maintains Practicing Certificates of all Legal Practitioners of Fiji, where the Practicing Certificates are regulated under the Legal Practitioners Act of 2009. She confirmed that Leal Practitioners have to renew the Practicing Certificate annually. A lawyer in Fiji can’t practice without a current Practicing Certificate, where in renewing the Practicing Certificate there is a form to be submitted by the Practitioner. She stated that finally the Practicing Certificate is issued by the Chief Registrar under his signature.
- She confirmed that she tendered copies of Practicing Certificates issued to the accused and the applications submitted by him for renewal to FICAC during investigations.
- Identifying Prosecution document PEX56, she stated that it was the Practicing Certificate issued to Mr. Niko Tuiqamea Nawaikula for 03/2020 - 02/2021 and the residential address stated in this Practicing Certificate is 15 KM, Kings Road, Koronivia, Nausori.
- As to Prosecution document PEX57, she confirmed that it is a copy of the application form submitted by the accused to obtain PEX56, where a statutory declaration dated 04/03/2020 and a photo were attached to this document. According to her, this was submitted by Mr. Niko Tuiqamea Nawaikula and his Statutory Declaration was attached to confirm that all the information provided was true. She further confirmed that it is a legal requirement under Section 42(5) of the Legal Practitioners Act of 2009 to provide a Statutory Declaration. She affirmed that the residential address provided in this application by the accused was 15 km Kings Road, Koronivia, Nausori. Next of kin is, Miliakere Nawaikula, the wife. Her address is also15 km Kings Road, Koronivia, Nausori. His usual place of business is Kadavu House, Victoria Parade, Suva. Further, the application mentions a branch in No. 32, Savusavu. The legal practitioner based in Savusavu is Pauliasi Nawaikula.
- Regarding Prosecution document PEX58, she confirmed that it was the Practicing Certificate issued to Mr. Niko Tuiqamea Nawaikula of 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia for 01/03/2019 – 29/02/2020. According to her, the application and details for this certificate were provided by the applicant. He has provided a Statutory Declaration with the application for this renewal to affirm the details.
- Referring to Prosecution document PEX59, she confirmed this as the form and Statutory Declaration for the renewal under PEX58, dated 08/03/2019. The address of the accused is15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia, Nausori. Next of kin is, Maliakere Nawaikula, the wife. His usual place of business is Kadavu House, 414 Victoria Parade, Suva and no branches are mentioned in this form.
- According to her, if a practitioner wishes to change his residence address, he/she will have to inform the Chief Registrar under Section 62(5) of the Legal Practitioners Act of 2009 and when Chief Registrar approves, they make the changes in the file.
- She confirmed that from 2017 to 2021, the address used by Mr. Nikolau Tuigamea Nawaikula for the Practicing Certificate renewals was 15 km Kings Road, Koronivia, Nausori.
Next witness for the Prosecution was witness 6, Margret Grey-Ralege, from the Land Transport Authority (LTA). This witness gave evidence on two Prosecution documents, PEX64 and PEX65. PEX64 referred to the details of the accused in the LTA database and PEX65 was the license renewal application form submitted by the accused on 13/06/2019. According to this witness, in both these documents, accused had tendered his address as 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia. By this evidence, Prosecution intended to assert that even after submitting his permanent address as Buca village to the Parliament in PEX3, the accused submitted his address as 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia to the LTA, 2 months after the submission of PEX3 demonstrating that he knowingly provided false information to the Parliament.
Subsequently, Prosecution lead witness 7 Taraivini Savou, Senior Immigration Officer, from the Immigration Department of Fiji, who has been working in the department for 32 years. According to her, she is responsible for overall operation of the border control section in the Suva division that includes the Nausori Airport. She mentioned that every citizen coming to Fiji has to provide an Arrival Card, designed for all passengers arriving into the country to provide information. In this card, in 1.3 you have to mention your permanent address and in 1.8 you need to mention your address in Fiji. In the second page of this Arrival Card, there is a declaration that needs to be made by the passenger. The declaration states that the information given in the arrival card is true and correct in every respect.
She mentioned that she handed over to the investigation officers’ arrival cards given by Mr. Niko Nawaikula on 3 previous occasions. On the card of 05/07/2019, marked PEX67A, the permanent address mentioned by the accused is 15 km, Kings Road, Fiji and the address in Fiji is Buca Village. On the card of 15/05/2015, marked PEX67B, the permanent address is 15 km, Kings Road, Fiji and the address in Fiji is 15 km, Kings Road, as well. On the card of 15/03/2015, marked PEX67C, the permanent address is Koronivia Research Station and the address in Fiji is Koronivia.
As per the evidence of this witness, it was the contention of the Prosecution, even a month before the period of offending (05/07/2019), the accused had mentioned his permanent address as 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia in a statutory declaration tendered to the immigration department. Therefore, it is evident that the accused was submitting false information to the Parliament by stating that his permanent residence is Buca village, Cakaudrove.
Further, to establish the movements of the accused during the time in issue, i.e. 01/08/2019 to 30/04/2020 (273) days, Prosecution relied on the agreed fact No. 6, where the accused had admitted that at all material time to this case, he had been in the possession of the phone bearing the Vodafone mobile number 8683844. This was also confirmed by the accused during his cross-examination. Also by the agreed document PEX31, Defense confirmed the localities by which the calls were made, this was especially corroborated by the travel acquittals submitted by the accused to the Parliament in PEX39 to PEX51 in relation to claims. In addition, it was the contention of the Prosecution that it is evident from the phone records the pre-planned movements of the accused to the Buca village just few days before a Parliamentary sitting to substantiate his claim of travelling from Buca village to Parliament.
In addition, through the evidence of the FICAC investigations officer Milika Cakacaka (PW19), Prosecution produced PEX80, consisting of a chart that detailed the movements and the whereabouts of the accused. In fact, this document was not contested by the Defense, but utilized to provide explanations for the movements of the accused during the period in issue. Evidence of the movements of the accused during the offending period, lead by the Prosecution, was not challenged by the Defense.
With the evidence lead through the phone records of the accused, Prosecution claimed that the predominant part of his life during the offending period of 273 days, amounting to 82% of the time was spent in Viti Levu in Koronivia. Prosecution further claims that, though the accused travelled to various locations in the country like Lautoka, Labasa, Nandi and even Buca, he spent only few days in those locations and always returned to Koronivia to his family home. It was further averred that late night calls and early morning calls made from Koronivia implied that he was making those calls from his family home in Koronivia, Suva.
In addition to leading evidence of these witnesses, representing government and other organization with whom the accused had interactions to demonstrate the actual residence of the accused was 15KM Kings Road, Koronivia, Suva, Prosecution lead the evidence of the village headman of the Buca village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove (Turaga-ni-Koro) to establish that the accused did not reside in Buca village, though he used come there intermittently. For this end, Prosecution witness 12, Kitione Rawalai stated, as below:
- That he is the Village Headman (Turaga-ni-Koro) of the Buca village, holding that position for 8 years and he is from Buca village.
- As the village headman, he claimed to look after the whole village and to be the contacting point between the government and the village.
- He confirmed that Buca village has about 640 people and he knows everyone personally. He affirms that his village is in Savusavu. He claimed that he knew details about people living full time in the village and that he maintains a book of the residents.
- He informed Court that he knew the accused personally, since he is from his family and the accused is related to him, where the accused is his cousin brother. Regarding the accused, this witness affirmed that the birth place of the accused is Buca and the accused was raised in Buca and that himself and the accused went to secondary school together.
- He claimed that from 2014, he knew people permanently living in Buca and though the accused was not living in Buca, he used to visits Buca. According to this witness, later he had come to the village as a politician to give them advice. When he comes to Buca he lives with his mother and father, and the father passed away recently and the mother is still living.
- He declared that he doesn’t know the family of the accused much, since they don’t live in Buca and live in Koronivia, Suva
- Referring to PEX4 (b), he confirms that it is the village stamp, which is his stamp. As to the letter given by him to the accused to tender with his Parliamentary Declaration, this witness says that he didn’t type that letter and he doesn’t know the details. When the accused brought this letter to him he signed thinking it was needed to say that the accused was a resident in Fiji and since he is in Buca once in a while. He claims that he read the letter in English and interpreted in Fijian, where the accused did not say why this document was needed.
In cross-examination, Defense challenged this witness in the lines of his knowledge about Nikolau Nawaikula’s Mataqali in the village. In this regard, this witness mentioned the Mataqali of the accused to be Naucuqumu, where the Mataqali of the accused has been registered in the VKB for i-Taukei citizens as Vilaca. However, this discrepancy was verified by the Prosecution during cross-examination of the accused, where the accused admitted that his Mataqali is called both Vilaca and Naucuqumu, since the Mataqali mentioned in the birth certificates of his three children is Naucuqumu.
As per the evidence given by this witness, this Court had no reason to doubt the veracity of the evidence given by him. Facing the cross-examination of the Defense, this witness promptly answered every question as a proud headman of an i-Taukei village radiantly representing his community. Further, the demeanor and deportment of this witness was very noteworthy.
Above mention witnesses were the main witnesses who gave evidence to establish the Prosecution case that the permanent residence of the accused was not Buca village and thereby to assert that the accused knew or believed that the information he provided to the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament was false.

Defense Case Challenging this Element

At the trial, for the Defense case, the accused gave evidence under oath and was cross-examined by the Prosecution. Further, 3 more witnesses were summoned to give evidence for the Defense case. The evidence deduced in Court was as below:
In giving evidence under oath, the accused stated, as below:
- He stated that he was born in Buca village and had 8 siblings in his family. He was also brought up in the Buca village and went to the primary school there. According to him, his Yavusa is Kama, his Mataqali is Vilaca and his Tokatoka is Vilaca.
- He avows that he went to Napuka Junior Secondary and then to Marist Brothers High School. Thereafter, he had gone to University of South Pacific and then to University of Tasmania to do law. According to him, he was admitted to the Bar of Tasmania in 1986 and he got admitted to the Supreme Court of Fiji in 1987. From 2002 he had started his own legal practice with the office in Suva.
- He confirmed that DEX4 is the certificate for his registration of native land ownership, which was done on 13/09/2021 when he changed his name. He felt that he would have been registered in 1960 by his parents. By this registration he had become a permanent member of the Native Land around the village.
- Referring DEX5, DEX6, DEX7 and DEX8, he averred the registration of himself in his Tokatoka, registration for customary title for the land ownership for his Mataqali, the map available for the land owned by his Mataqali and the general location of his home in the map.
- According to him, he was first elected to Parliament in August 2005 through a by election. Then the general election had been in 2006 in which he was successful in getting a seat. He had been successful again in the election of 2014 and had served the full term till 2018. In the 2018 election also he had been elected, which is the current Parliament.
- In the current Parliament he had been sworn in on 26/11/2018. He confirmed that PEX1 and PEX2 are the oaths he took before the Acting Secretary General and signed as a Member of Parliament.
- He informs that though previously there were different constituencies, but after 2014 there was only one constituency. Thereafter, he has had his own area of voter base, and this had been the whole of Western Cakaudrove area, including the Buca village.
- After the election in 2018, he affirms that he decided to move to Buca and be close to his voters. He has had plans to retire to his village and he and his wife had wanted to transfer the Suva house to their children.
- He confirmed that after getting elected in 2018, he remembers giving a declaration to the Acting Secretary General of the Parliament, where he affirms that PEX3 is his declaration made on 10/04/2018. In this document, he confirmed that his permeant residence stated is Buca village. He had given several details in this declaration, where he mentioned his wife’s residence as 15 km Kings Road, since she stayed with the children at home. He affirmed that his wife didn’t accompany him to Buca regularly.
- He claims that he was very adamant to go back to the village and confirms that PEX4 (A) is a letter he wrote to the Secretary General and PEX4 (D) is a letter to the Chief Registrar about his office in Savusavu, where PEX4 (C) is a letter from his landlord.
- According to him, the Secretary General had not rejected his declaration and the Chief Registrar hadn’t rejected his idea of opening a new office in Savusavu. Thus, everything had been fine. He has made claims from Parliament, as he was entitled to by the Parliamentary Remunerations Act of 2014 and the Schedule.
- In 02/03 /2019 he had announced to his voters that he is moving to Buca, as a result, he had been appointed to the committee of the village. He had never thought that moving to Buca was wrong. He has known that he had to do it, since he was claiming from the Parliament.
- He further stated in his evidence that he carried his own receipt book to submit acquittals to the Parliament with his claims. When cross-examined by the Prosecution, he mentioned that he didn’t bother of the sequence of receipt numbers and he just severed a receipt and gave to the taxi driver to sign.
- He averred in his evidence that he never had a rejection of claims after assessments and the Secretary General’s Office didn’t say what he was doing wrong and he never knew that he was in the wrong. If there was anything wrong, he expected them to be resolved internally without any complaints.
- Referring to PEX67 A, B & C the Arrival Cards he submitted at the Airport, he stated that in the card dated 05/07/2019 (A), two addresses were required, he has written the permanent address as 15 KM Kings Road and it’s mistakenly done for convenience, since he knew that it was not his permanent address. He further claimed that addresses in PEX67 B) and PEX67 (C) he has written his permanent residence as 15 KM Kings Road by mistake.
- On his phone call records in PEX80, he gave detailed evidence for the reasons for being in the localities mentioned in PEX80 from August 2019 to April 2020.
- Further, by the photos marked by the Defense from DEX12 to DEX34 the accused highlighted his involvement in the Buca village and the projects he had done in the village during the time the Prosecution claims that he was not permanently resident in Buca village, Buca bay.
- He claimed that in his life as a Parliamentarian he never intended to gain and he decided to move to Buca not to gain but 2019 was the right time to move to his village.
- According to him, when he filled the declaration, he was not giving false information to Parliament and he had no belief that he was giving false information.
In cross-examination by the Prosecution, the accused confirmed that though all his siblings are entitled to inherit their family home in terms of succession, by custom his eldest brother will own the family house and his children should inherit thereafter. Therefore, in the future, he may not be able to live in the family house and that’s why he is building a house in the Buca village.
He also confirmed that he acquired a property in 15KM Kings Road in 2003 and in 2006 he transferred half of that property to his wife. Thereafter, in 2015 they have built a new house on the property for his family to live spending part of their family savings amounting to $80,000.
He further verified that he and his family came to live in 15 KM Kings Road in their own house in January 2016, where they lived till March 2019, where he considered to be his work residence and Buca was his permanent residence. He confirmed that his wife was living in 15KM Kings Road full-time and he went to work from there, where all the necessary amenities were available allowing his kids and family to live. He affirmed that when he came to Parliament and to work he came back to 15 KM Koronovia home.
However, by 01/03/2019 he wanted to shift to Buca and wanted to move his home structure gradually, since his permanent residence was always in Buca. Nevertheless, in relation to 15 KM Kings Road property nothing changed of the ownership though they decided to move to Buca. He affirmed that he wanted to transfer this property to his kids and instructed them to do the needful when ready.
Further in cross-examination, in relation to PEX65 - the application to the LTA to renew his driving license, he could remember signing this form and mentioning his address as 15 KM Kings Road on 13/06/2019. He claimed that he put Koronivia address for convenience to make it easier to contact him.
The accused also affirmed that as a lawyer in the Civil Practice for over 30 years, he relies on Affidavits and Statutory Declarations regularly and he is aware of the importance and the gravity of those documents. After the evidence of the accused, Defense summoned three more witnesses, a representative from the i-Taukei land and fisheries commission, wife of the accused and the son of the accused for the Defense case.
Defense witness Mr. Apimeleki Tola from the i-Taukei Land and Fisheries Commission confirmed that VKB is one of the documents of the i-Taukei commuity to register the owners of the land and different status of individuals in the community. He affirmed that people are registered in the VKB when an i -Taukei is born. With this registration your identity is registered and you become an owner of the land and a member of the community.
Testifying in Court, Mrs. Miliakere Nawaikula stated that she got married to the accused in 1985 and they have 5 children. They built a new house in 15 KM Kings Road and moved to that house in January 2016, where this house became their home. According to her, though they had plans to build a house in Buca and move after 2015 on retirement, it didn’t materialize yet. She affirmed that they didn’t move to Buca, since the accused was in Parliament and he wanted to move after Parliament finishes. She claims that the plan of the accused was to try to stay in Buca permanently. The accused came to Suva for Parliamentary sittings and for family functions and Court cases, and she stayed in Suva since her mother and her two grandchildren were there. Her two sons and the daughter in law are still with her in 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia.
She further claimed that, since the accused was a village boy, he always wanted to move to Buca. She affirms that the accused took part in many projects for the betterment of the Buca village, where she accompanied him on some occasions.
The last witness for the Defense was the son of the accused, Amosi Nawaikula. This witness testified that at present he lives in their house in 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia with his mom and dad. In 2009, his dad (accused) had asked him to do a law degree and take over his practice for him to move to Buca. According to him, accused moving to Buda had been a topic of discussion in his family and the accused had wanted him to do law, but though he has completed his law degree he has not yet been admitted as a lawyer.
He claimed that the accused wanted to transfer the Koronivia property to him, but he thought for all the siblings to benefit, they should create a trust and put the property in the trust, though this is not yet finalized.

Analysis and Determination of Court

In relation to this element, what the Court has to determine is whether the accused knew or believed that the information he provided to the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament to be false. In this regard, the information in issue is the place of “Permanent Residence” of the accused submitted by PEX3, where he mentioned his permanent residence was at Buca village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove.
In determining the falsity of the submitted place of residence by the accused to the Parliament, at the very outset, this Court intends to ascertain the locality where the accused had his usual and settled abode continuously between 01/08/2019 to 30/04/2020.
By PEX31 and PEX80, Prosecution demonstrated before this Court that during the alleged offending period the accused had been in 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia 82% of the time and had been in Buca village, Cakaudrove only 18% of the time by the phone records. Further, referring to the several calls made during early morning hours and late night hours from the phone of the accused, which is an agreed fact, Prosecution was successful in demonstrating that these calls had been made from no public place, but from the residence of the accused in Koronivia without any challenge from the Defense.
However, the implied physical presence alone would not establish permanent residency of the accused to assert the falsity of the information provided to the Parliament, it needs to be corroborated that 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia was the usual and settled abode of the accused continuously for a considerable period of time, together with his physical presence during the period in issue.
In this regard, on one hand, through the evidence of the accused and his wife it was affirmed to Court that they built a house in 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia on the land they owned in 2015 by spending part of their savings amounting to $80,000, especially for Miliakere Nawaikula (wife) and the children of the accused to reside with all the necessary amenities. Further, the accused confirmed that when in Suva, he went to the Parliament and attended to his legal practice from his house in Koronivia. Still further, Mrs. Miliakere Nawaikula in her evidence categorically mentioned that 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia was the home for her, the accused and the children. In cross examination, she confidently mentioned that where ever the accused go for work, he returns to Koronivia, since that is where she and the children lived and that is the matrimonial home of the accused.
On the other hand, in relation to residency of the accused in Buca village, though the accused had decided to build a house in Buca in 2015, still that house is under construction and not in a livable condition. According to the evidence of the son of the accused, Amosi Nawaikua, his father had been contemplating in moving to Buca since 2009. In addition, accused affirmed that when he goes to Buca he stays in the family house with his mother and his niece, which is now owned by his eldest brother. He also confirmed that since his brother’s children will own this property in the future, he might not be able to stay in this property for too long.
Though the accused confirmed of his involvement in the village committee and participating in village projects, the evidence of the headman of the village (Turaga-ni-Coro), clearly debunked the claim of the accused of his permanent residency in Buca village. Turaga-ni Coro reiterated that he is aware of all the residents of his village and the accused is not a permanent resident, though he comes for village committee meetings and special projects every now and then.
It was the contention of the Defense, since the Buca village, Buca Bay was the land of the Mr. Niko Nawaikula’s father and forefathers, Buda village is his permanent residence. However, this Court is of the view that there could have been some relevance to the land of the father and forefathers if we were considering the “Permanent Domicile” of the Parliamentarians in this matter. But Parliament in its wisdom, has referred to “Permanent Residence” in the MPIF and not “Permanent Domicile”, otherwise even a Parliamentarian having fathers and forefathers land in New Zealand would have been able to claim travelling to New Zealand under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act of 2014, because New Zealand was his domicile.
Further, though the accused reiterated in his evidence that one of the main reasons why he wanted to move to Buca village was to be closer to his voter base, according to PW4 from the Fiji Election Office, the address given by the accused to the Election Office had been Koronivia Nausori and his poling venue close to home had been Koronivia Service Station FEO shed. This address had been changed only on 02/12/2021 to Buca village, Natewa and the polling venue to Buca Community Hall. Surprisingly, though the accused represented Buca village from 2006, he had only changed his voting address to Buca village, 2 years after his arrest by FICAC on this allegation and when a case on providing false information to Parliament claiming Buca village as his residence was pending.
1. In addition, though the Defense claimed that the accused wrote to the Secretary General of Parliament of his intention to move to Buca village, and informed his caucus of his intended movement to Buca village and had communications with the Chief Registrar about him opening an office in Svusavu, these events had no consonance of residing in Buca village and what was needed to satisfy the declaration he made by PEX3 was not the mere intention, but the actual permanent residency in the Buca village to make any claims under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act of 2014.
2. In the light of the above evidence, it is perceptible that 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia was the usual and settled abode of the accused continuously for 3 1/2 years to the start of offending period and during the offending period, as alleged by the Prosecution, making that his “Permanent Residence”. In this regard, his wife and family lived in 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia and he went to work from there and continued his usual family life from there, requiring him to remain in this locality for 82% of the time period in question. Therefore, during the offending period, this Court can affirms that the Permanent Residency of the accused was not Buca village, but 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia.
  1. In determining whether the accused knew or believed that the information he provided of his “Permanent Residence” to the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament to be false, it will be appropriate for this Court to consider a subjective analysis of the evidence available in Court of the conduct of the accused during the period in issue. In analyzing the evidence subjectively, the Court needs to be mindful that by the time of initial sitting of the Parliament in 2018, the accused was a legal practitioner with over 30 years of experience, He has also had an illustrious political career for close to 15 years, where he had been the Deputy Speaker and the Shadow Attorney General in the Parliament of Fiji. Therefore, the accused had been a professional and political luminary in Fiji. Further, giving evidence in Court, the accused affirmed of his knowledge and understanding about the gravity and the importance of Statutory Declarations as a civil law legal practitioner.
  2. In this matter, Prosecution lead evidence of several witnesses holding pivotal positions in our community and established that the accused had tendered his address as 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia to their organizations even after tendering his address as Buca village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove to the Parliament. In this regard, as confirmed by PW5, accused had informed the Legal Practitioner’s Unit (LPU) on 03/2020 that his permanent residence was 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia in order to obtain his Practicing Certificate for 03/2020 to 04/2023. Further, according to PW5, in obtaining Practicing Certificates for the years 2017 – 2021, accused had maintained his address as 15 KM, Kings Road, Koronivia. As a Senior Lawyer in Fiji, the accused should have known the negative impacts of submitting false information to the body that regulates and holds disciplinary proceeding against lawyers, which could also result in the cancelation of his Practicing Certificate. To this end, it is common sense that the accused wouldn’t have given the LPU 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia as his permanent address, if he knew or believed that his permanent address was Buca village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove and not Koronivia.
According to PW6 from the Land Transport Authority, PEX65 was the license renewal application form submitted by the accused on 13/06/2019, which was 2 months after submitting PEX3 to the Parliament by the accused. In this application, the accused had mentioned his residential address as 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia. Therefore, the evidence of this witness also demonstrated that the accused knew that his residential address during this period was not Buca village, but 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia.
PW7 from the Immigration Department of Fiji confirmed of the accused mentioning 15KM Kings Road, Koronivia as his permanent address on the Arrival Card, dated 05/07/2019, marked PEX67A. This witness clarified that this form was a Statutory Declaration that was expected to be tendered by arrivals to inform Fijian authorities’ of their personal details, including the permanent address. Therefore, by PEX67A, the accused had confirmed his permanent address to be 15 KM, Kings Road, Koronivia to the Immigration Office 3 months after informing the Parliament by PEX3 that his permanent residence was in Buca village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove.
The Court observed that when the accused was questioned by the Prosecution of him stating 15KM Kings Road, Koronivia as his residence in the above instances and on several other instances as lead in evidence, the accused callously mentioned those to be “mistakes” and mentioning that for convenience in some instances. In fact, during cross examination of the accused by the Prosecution, the accused had mentioned in over 25 occasions he had stated 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia by mistake, including mentioning this address to the Immigration Department and the Land Transport Authority for his license. In this regard, Court noticed that the accused claimed it to be a “mistake” in the void of diminishing ability for him to give any other reason or provide an explanation. In this light, this Curt is doubtful of the tenacity and veracity of the evidence of the accused, in view of his unsatisfactory demeanor and deportment in Court.
In this background, in considering the veracity of the claims of the accused, Court was compelled to the thinking that if the former Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and the Shadow Attorney General with over 35 years of experience in the legal practice could make so many mistakes in tendering personal information to government authorities in the country, what could the Judiciary and the Bar expect from a layman in our community when providing information to the authorities.
From the above analysis of the evidence lead before this Court, this Court is content that the accused knowingly provided false information to the office of the Secretary General to the Parliament about his “Permanent Residence” as Buca village, Buca Bay Cakaudrove when it was 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that this element has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution.
1. The second contested element in this Count that needs to be proved by the Prosecution is THE ACCUSED KNOWING IT TO BE LIKELY THAT HE WILL CAUSE THE PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE CIVIL SERVICE TO DO ANYTHING WHICH SHE OUGHT NOT TO DO OR OMIT IF THE TRUE STATE OF FACTS RESPECTING WHICH SUCH INFORMATION IS GIVEN WERE KNOWN TO HER.
In analyzing the evidence to consider the establishment beyond reasonable doubt of this element, this Court perceives that this element is very much interwoven with the first element. In this matter, the accused had admitted receiving the contentious payments from Parliament by PEX39 to PEX51, which the Prosecution alleges to be made by Parliament due to false information submitted by PEX3.
From the evidence lead, Prosecution established that the accused had claimed his permanent residence to be 15 KM Kings Road, Koronivia to several organizations, except to the Parliament. Further, even after informing the Parliament that his permanent residence was Buca village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove, he has continued to claim that his permanent residence was 15KM, Kings Road, Koronivia to others on official business. In this regard, there wasn’t an iota of evidence to show that the accused had mentioned Buca Village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove as his permanent residence to any other organization, except Parliament, until investigations commenced against the accused in this matter. In addition, during cross-examination of the accused by the Prosecution, the accused admitted that he maintained his own receipt book to submit acquittals for his travel claims to Parliament, when needed.
On the evidence analyzed above, this Court can confidently reach the conclusion that the accused knew that he was likely to cause the Acting Secretary General to the Parliament to authorize the reimbursement of claims he submitted on the premise he was residing in Buca village. In this process, for not to cause any suspicion in the Parliamentary administration, the accused never complained when the amounts he claimed were adjusted by the accounts division and, as stated above, he maintained his own receipt book to tender acquittals for shortcomings. As confirmed in the evidence of the Acting Secretary General, the accused was not initially suspected by her office for misusing the Parliamentary administration process to claim allowances and benefits. The Court can now perceive through evidence that the accused was not even initially suspected by Parliament, due to his pre-determined and well planned actions.
In scrutinizing the interlacing connection between the contested elements in this Count, this Court intends to take guidance from a Supreme Court decision of Fiji in relation to an offence under Section 135 (a) of the then Penal Code of Fiji, which is a mirror reflection of Section 201(a) of the Crimes Act 2009. In the case of Lane v Reginam[8], where it was alleged that the accused tendered false information to a police officer regarding a motor traffic accident, His Lordship Moti Tikaram JA stated as follows:

“The essence of the last ingredient is an intention on the part of the maker to mislead or knowledge on his part that his false statement was likely to mislead the public servant into doing or omitting to do something. Insofar as the present charge is concerned the Prosecution had by inference satisfied the court that the accused knew the likely misleading consequences of his act. Whether the public servant was in fact mislead or not is immaterial.”

In this case also, this Court is satisfied that the Prosecution has by inference proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that he will cause the Acting Secretary General to reimburse his claims, which she wouldn’t have done, if she knew that his permanent place of residence was not Buca village, Buca Bay, Cakaudrove.
In this light, this Court is content that the Prosecution has proved all the required elements in Count 1 beyond reasonable doubt. On this premise, this Court finds the accused guilty of Count 1 as charged.

Count 2

In relation to this Count, the Prosecution has already established some of the elements in the process of proving the elements in the 1st Count beyond reasonable doubt, such as the fact of the accused providing false information in relation to his permanent residence to the Parliament.
Further, some of the elements have been agreed between the parties, such as the accused receiving payments from the Parliament for the claims PEX39 to PEX51.
Therefore, the only contested element in this count that needs to be determined by Court is:

WHETHER THE ACCUSED KNEW OR BELIEVED THAT HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THAT FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE CONSEQUENT TO THE FALSE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY HIM.

With respect to this element also, Court needs to consider the facts available subjectively. In this regard, the alleged financial reimbursements had been provided by Parliament to the accused as per the Parliamentary Remunerations Act of 2014. By the time period in issue, the accused had been a seasoned politician, holding the post of deputy speaker of the Parliament at one time and a senior legal practitioner in Fiji with over 30 years’ experience.
In view of this, this Court cannot consider the accused to be an amateur in relation to Parliamentary procedures and applicable laws in determining allowances and benefits for Parliamentarians. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Court to presume that the accused was knowledgeable in this regard.
Further in giving evidence, Mrs. Viniana Namosimalua, the then Acting Secretary General to the Parliament of Fiji confirmed that just before the sittings in 2018, there were 2 inductions for Parliamentarians, where at the second induction administrative procedures for claims and allowances were explained. Consequent to this induction, her office had handed over the letter marked PEX74(b) to the accused, where it clearly detailed that a Parliamentarian would be only eligible for accommodation and traveling allowances if the Parliamentarian permanently resided 30 km away from the place of meeting of the Parliament.
1. Since the accused had all this information before submitting the declaration (PEX3) to the Parliament and since it is now established in this trial that the accused was permanently resident in 15KM Kings Road, Koronivia, during the time period in issue, this Court can sanguinely reach the conclusion that the accused knew that he was not eligible to receive the subject financial advantage consequent to the false information provided by him to Parliament.
2. On this premise, this Court confirms that the Prosecution has proved the required elements in the second Count beyond reasonable doubt and this Court hold the accused guilty of the second Count as charged.

Verdict of the Court

On the evidence lead in this trial, this Court finds the accused guilty for Count 1 and Count 2, as charged, and convict the accused on both Counts.
You have 30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Fiji.
On a separate note, this Court wishes to thank the Counsel appeared for both parties in this matter, i.e. Mr. Valenitabua and Mr. Rokodreu for the Defense and Mr. Aslam and the FICAC Team for the Prosecution. Your professional approach to this trial was thoroughly appreciated by this Court.

...................................................
Hon. Justice Dr. Thushara Kumarage
At Suva
03rd of May 2022

HORSE-TRADING APPEASEMENT: Lynda Tabuya is suddenly brought onboard the rotting PAP horse wagon after we revealed how she 'cried' for betrayed Abel Camillo. Rabuka names her as PAP Deputy LEADER

7/5/2022

Former SODELPA MP Lynda Tabuya and businessman Daniel Lobendahn have been appointed as the People's Alliance Deputy Party Leaders.

The other Deputy Leader is Manoa Kamikamica.

This is in accordance with the party's constitution to have three deputy party leaders.

People's Alliance Leader Sitiveni Rabuka says he has appointed them because he trusted them.

Riding on His Master's Horse: SODELPA defector Kamikamica to Camillo

UP YOURS, INDO-FIJIANS:
"You deserved to be violently dismounted from the political horse on 14 MAY 1987, ending your march from Plantation to Parliament. After the election, I will once again be a coolie (kuli) Deputy PM under Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, whose racist mob horsewhipped and raped Indo-Fijian women (Shamima Ali and Sashi Kiran have testified the rapes), just like the overseers on the sugar plantations who sexually violated Indian indentured women from 1879 to 1920. As NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy reminded us in 2000, Fiji is NOT ready for Indo-Fijian PM.'

Fijileaks: We understand why the NFP leader is cuddling up in bed with Rabuka. In 1987 he was quivering under the bed at USP from Rabuka and his racist mob, who were dragging Indo-Fijian women out of their beds and RAPING THEM in their houses or in the fields.
One 75 old Indo-Fijian woman, as Sashi Kiran lately revealed, was RAPED in front of the old lady's family. And yet the previous NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy agreed to let Rabuka retain the IMMUNITY in the 1997 Constitution - Immunity that he (Rabuka) had given to himself in 1988 after the TWO COUPS.
* The 1997 Rabuka-Reddy Constitution was drafted to enable SVT-NFP Coalition to win the 1999 general election. But, thankfully, the Voters were wide-awake to Sitiveni Rabuka's atrocities, especially against Dr Timoci Bavadra and the discriminatory 1990 Constitution of Fiji
On 14 May, we must NOT forget the lives and careers this thug destroyed, not only of Indo-Fijians but moderate i-Taukei Fijians and Others who refused to buy his bogus 'Fiji for the i-Taukei Fijians'.
In 1987, Rabuka had grabbed a loaded M16 from a nearby soldier and cocked it at deposed Education Minister Dr Tupeni's Baba’s head. Baba was one of the most outspoken i-Taukei Fijians who had defied Rabuka
*George Speight and Frank Bainimarama are his coup off-springs

<<Previous

Forward>>

DEPOSED PRIME MINISTER MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY, after being released, said he had been told of Rabuka's complicity by the leader of the CRW unit in parliament, Ilisoni Ligairi. In talks with Chaudhry, Ligairi had claimed he was very angry with Rabuka because he had ditched them at the last minute.

LAUGHING COUPIST: Sitiveni Rabuka laughs [above] as he announces in Suva on 20 May 2000 that he is certain the crisis will be over by the end of the day, following the overthrow of Prime Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry. The hostage crisis dragged on for 56 days

The Guns of Lautoka: Some of the weapons the CRW soldiers who stormed Parliament had on them were those seized by Rabuka in 1988

RABUKA ON THE MUANIKAU ACCORD: The military has only [negotiated with] Speight because of the security of the hostages. He has no legal claim.

Fijileaks has decided to conceal the identity of the Fiji High Court Judge, delegated with ruling on the question of Amnesty in theMuanikau Accord, signed between Bainimarama and Speight on Sunday, 9 July 2000 at Muanikau, Suva

IS THIS THE ARMY UNIFORM HE WAS WEARING A DAY BEFORE THE BLOODY 2 NOVEMBER 2000 RFMF MUTINY?

PAP-NAG GIRMIT POLITICAL MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE

FIRST CLASS TREATMENT:The INDIA trip was privately funded by some friends

TREASON IN PARADISE: THE INSIDE STORY ABOUT 2006 COUP IN FIJIRussell Hunter and Victor LalFijileaks: GO FOR IT, ITS LEGAL: Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum addressed the Military Council before the 2006 Bainimarama Coup, claiming coup justifiable in law