Blog Archives

OPERATION SURPRISE. 'No More Coups', pleads the Father of COUPS Rabuka, his political pimps NFP, with Kalouniwai half-heartedly assuring Fiji. In 1987, it was an obscure Third-Ranking Colonel who did it - Rabuka

20/7/2023

Fijileaks: If there is going to be a COUP, it will be carried out by a rank outsider, a 'sleeper' within the RFMF ranks, who will follow in Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka's 1987 boots.
Since coming to power, the Coalition has been repeatedly violating the 2013 Constitution (whether we accept the Constitution or not) and is taking Fiji perilously close to the dark, violent, racist i-Taukei days of 1987, disguised as a mandate from the voters to form Coalition government. NFP is assisting in the i-Taukeinization* of Fiji.
*If Ro Jone Kalouniwai has chosen to sleep and snore on Section 131 of the Constitution, we have no doubt a 'SLEEPER' at the RFMF will wake up and read Section 131 to the Coalition regime. God Help Fiji, Amen

Fijileaks: In 1987, all focus was on the then RFMF Commander Ratu Epeli Nailatikau after his father-in-law, Prime Minister and Alliance Party leader Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara lost the general election to Dr Timoci Bavadra's FLP-NFP coalition. Nailatikau informed the tense nation that the RFMF will support the incoming Bavadra government.
But treasonously lurking in the dark was an obscure third-ranking colonel who was to strike after 33 days, overthrowing the Bavadra government, imprisoning them, jailing his opponents, shutting down the media, ripping up the 1970 negotiated Constitution, and imposing a racially biased 1990 Constitution, stripping Indo-Fijians of all political, social, religious, cultural, and educational rights.
The first of many NFP traitors gave weight to his two coups, beginning with NFP deputy leader Mrs Irene Jai Narayan, later followed by Jai Ram Reddy, and now Biman Prasad.
*Below is the COUP DOCUMENT of Rabuka, ending with Amen. It should have ended with AMIN, for he became the new DADA IDI AMIN of Fiji.
He was assisted in the coup by Filipo Tarakinikini, Isikeli Mataitoga, Isireli Dugu, Iowane Naivalarua, Inoke Kubuabola, Apisai Tora and many chiefs, thieves, and others, mostly i-Taukei from Northern, Central and Eastern divisions.

The Coupist's Coup Charter
The original document is hand-written by Rabuka. It was unsigned and undated (just like the two documents currently circulating that calls for the overthrow of the Coalition government). Rabuka had taken two hours to write and polish his treasonous 'Operation Kidacala'. He finished the document at 4.35am, and executed his treasonous act at 10am on 14 May 1987.
The document was passed to our Editor-in-Chief for his book Fiji: Coups in Paradise

RABUKA RAKES IN $100,000+ after Coup
While Indo-Fijians were reduced to second-class citizens, Rabuka pocketted over $100,000 in films and book deals, all with the following secret coup plan on 14 May 1987. Since 1994, the political NFP pimps (bhajaruus) had been campaigning, and eventually succeeded, in making RABUKA prime minister once again.
Now he is PRIME MINISTER, from Pio Tikoduadua to Biman Prasad, they are screaming NO MORE COUPS.
As we have pointed out, the COUPIST, TREASONIST has never been arrested, charged, and prosecuted for his two racially motivated coups because he acquired IMMUNITY at the barrel of the gun

IMPECCABLE CHARACTER, "Your 'A*se, Judge Goundar." In an illogical, contemptible judgment Goundar hails convicted lawyer Richard Naidu as of 'Impeccable Character' and agrees with A-G Turaga to set him FREE

18/7/2023

When someone has impeccable character, it means that they are of the highest moral standards and are free from any wrongdoing. Naidu has abused his legal connection with the Fiji Times* to spew out relentless propaganda on behalf of the Coalition parties before and after the election, and had ridiculed a court judgement on social media.
As we pointed out previously, when Naidu spotted the word 'injection'* instead of 'injunction' in a court judgment in which one of his colleagues was involved, he could have had a good laugh at the expense of the Judge in the Munro Leys office or better still, as a senior lawyer of so-called 'Impeccable Character', he could have written to the Chief Registrar and got the error corrected.
Instead, the NFP propagandist took to his Facebook and Twitter accounts and ridiculed the Judiciary, with others joining him.
*He, along with other lawyers and the Fiji Law Society, never stood up for lawyer Aman Ravindra-Singh, and stood down Singh after promising to have a cup of coffee in downtown Suva.

Justice Jude Nanayakkara

Ricahrd Naidu

In agreeing with Siromi Turaga that the scandalizing the court case against Naidu (where he ridiculed Goundar's brother Sri Lankan Judge) should NEVER have been brought to court, Goundar has opened the court and the judges for ridicule and abuse, as our tongue-in-cheek headline reads, 'Impeccable Character, Your Ase, Judge Goundar'.

A-G Siromi Turaga cannot substitute the position that was taken by the A-G's Office with his own opinion, "I am of the view that these proceedings should never have been instituted in the first place".*
Turaga gave no legal reason for his decision. Goundar glibly accepted it.

It was wrong for Justice Goundar to even consider Turaga's opinion that these proceedings against Naidu should never have been instituted.

Justice Goundar is also clearly saying in his judgment that the correct forum for the case was the Appellate Court and not the Trial Court?

Why did the Fiji High Court (Trial Court) dismiss Naidu's conviction then?

Why did Goundar venture into considering portions of the Sentencing and Penalties Act when Nadiu did not subject himself to a sentencing hearing?

How can Goundar say at para.28 that Naidu is of Impeccable Character and that it was not necessary to call for Naidu to tender his mitigation?

Since when has the Fiji courts begun to add their own opinion about litigants and their characters?

How well does Goundar know RICHARD NAIDU to pass judgment on his character - the man who arrogantly sat on the Fiscal Review Committee as Chair while being a convicted lawyer?

At the time of his application in court, he was guilty of contempt of court. He was guilty of scandalizing the Fijian judiciary?

What is so impeccable about his character?

He was found guilty of this (he cleverly chose not to give evidence) - he was guilty of ridiculing judges.

He was found guilty of making a mockery out of the court system and lowering the administration of justice.

Yet Justice Goundar didn't care about the protection of the Bench accorded to it under the Constitution of Fiji.

As for Naidu, “I think there is still a question that I still want to raise with the authorities on how this case ever got to this point, but that is something I will do in the course of time.”

Fijileaks: It got to this point, and it should have gone further to the Appellate Court, because you cynically, and deliberately, abused your political connections and the social media to ridicule the Sri Lankan Judge, and your mob hounded another Sri Lankan judge out of Fiji before your sentencing.
Now, the Attorney-General has abused his powers to set you free.*

*Both, Justice Goundar and Attorney-General Siromi Turaga have set a dangerous precedent by dismissing the charge of contempt, leaving the RFMF to ask if now is time to deploy S131 of the Constitution of Fiji.

Hanif Tuitoga Lawyers for the Attorney-General
Munro Leys Lawyers for the Respondents

JON Apted, law partner with Richard Naidu at Munro Leys, is Sitiveni Rabuka's nominee to the Constitutional Offices Commission, whose chairman is Attorney-General SIROMI TURAGA

From Fijileaks Archive, 25 June 2023

JUDGE SHOPPING? Last Monday, the Fiji Law Society president Clarke was spotted having lunch together with the self-proclaimed CONVICTED LAWYER Richard Naidu at the foodhall above BSP Bank in Suva.
As we chewed on Clarke's call for the Naidu negotiated Coalition government to transfer FICAC prosecution powers to the DPP, we wondered why Clarke had chosen not to comment and remain silent on Naidu's case that raise many fundamental legal questions.
Of course, Clarke will retort with the usual 'bullsht' that the matter is before Justice Daniel Goundar in the Fiji High Court.
Well, the first question that Clarke should have raised (and must) is why Naidu's case, which is a CIVIL MATTER, is being heard before Justice Goundar who presides over CRIMINAL MATTERS
Richard Naidu's case should have been sent to JUSTICE ANJALA WATI who hears CIVIL MATTERS.
It is right to ask if it could be because under criminal litigation Naidu's case can be retried?
However, Naidu has been found guilty in a civil court thus he must be sentenced, and then only, he can appeal through the normal legal process.
During submissions before Justice Goundar, he was reminded by Attorney-General's delegated lawyer Feizal Haniff that Naidu's case is a CIVIL MATTER?
Naidu's lawyer and legal partner JON APTED also submitted that the proceedings were civil, governed by the High Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Apted is also Sitiveni Rabuka's nominee on the CoC.
No wonder there is disquiet and a CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE in the judicial system, with lawyers and laymen asking whether this is not another case of JUDGE SHOPPING.
Why is Haniff appearing for the A-G, when he (Haniff) began his legal career with Munro Leys and worked closely with Richard Naidu?
Since Munro Leys and Naidu, the serial Coalition and NFP propagandist in the Fiji Times Opinion columns, are also legal advisers to the Fiji Times, we stand no chance to challenge Clarke, hence its here, in the Fijileaks, including the OPTIONS we had written some months ago that was available and not available to Naidu and his legal team.

In cases with a conviction, there are a couple of options

Option 1

The first option is for the parties to make submissions relating to sentencing and see how the Court sentences the Defendant. The matter is before Justice Daniel Goundar.

Option 2

If the Defendant wants to set aside the conviction his lawyers could apply to arrest the Judgment similar to the powers under s. 239 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 i.e.

Motion in arrest of judgment

239. — (1) The accused person may, at any time before sentence, whether on a plea of guilty or otherwise, move in arrest of judgment on the ground that the information does not, after any amendment which the court has made and had power to make, state any offence which the court has power to try.
(2) The court may, in its discretion, either hear and determine the matter during the same sitting, or adjourn the hearing of it to a future time to be fixed for that purpose.
(3) If the court decides in favour of the accused he or she shall be discharged from that information.

Option 3

If the Defendant wants the Court to discharge him even after he has been convicted using the principles under the Sentencing and Penalties Act he could apply to do the same. This is possible even where there has been a conviction i.e

Release after conviction

44. — (1) A court may discharge a person whom it has convicted of an offence.
(2) A court, on convicting a person of an offence, may adjourn the proceedings for a period of up to 5 years and release the offender upon the offender giving an undertaking to comply with the conditions applying under sub-section (3), and any further conditions imposed by the court.
(3) An undertaking under sub-section (2) shall have conditions --
(a) that the offender shall appear before the court if called onto do so during the period of the adjournment, and if the court so specifies, at the time to which the further hearing is adjourned;
(b) that the offender is of good behaviour during the period of the adjournment; and
(c) that the offender observes any special conditions imposed by the court.
(4) A court may make an order for restitution or compensation in accordance with Part X in addition to making an order under this section.
(5) An offender who has given an undertaking under sub-section (1) may be called upon to appear before the court --
(a) by order of the court;
(b) by notice issued by a court officer on the authority of the court.
(6) If at the time to which the further hearing of a proceeding is adjourned the court is satisfied that the offender has observed the conditions of the undertaking, it must discharge the offender without any further hearing of the proceeding.

Option 4

The Defendant could appeal against the conviction and any sentence and take his chances in the Fiji Court of Appeal.

DRUNK with self-belief Selina Kuruleca, 'I am the best for PS Education JOB'. She is refusing to respond to claims that while allegedly drunk and driving, she smashed into Ford Ranger. The owner yet to get his $70,000

17/7/2023

UNMASKING Kuruleca

Watisoni Nata Jnr

A Fijileaks investigation reveal that the accident happened two years ago on Reservoir Rd, Suva. The Black Ford Ranger was owned by WATISONI NATA Jnr.
*It is alleged that she convinced the occupant of the Black Ford Ranger that there was no need to involve the Police and she would settle the repair bill. Both cars were writen-off.

A similar looking Black Ford Ranger that was written off, and Nata Jr yet to get his $70,000

She got her Insurance and it is nearly two years and allegedly she is yet to fork out $70,000 to Watisoni Nata Jnr as compensation from her.
Now, PSC chairman Luke Rokovada and Sitiveni Rabuka are trying to drive her appointment through the Ministry of Education despite objection from teachers unions to Education Minister Radrodro.
*Meanwhile, instead of asking Radrodro to resign, Rabuka and Rokovada should be the ones resigning for reneging on the Coalition Agreement to always consult each other on all issues, especially those affecting the Ministry of Education, which is a SODELPA Party assigned Ministry.

COMING SOON: One of the five PSC Commissioners who interviewed and approved Kuruleca's appointment MERESEINI BALEILEVUKA, the failed PAP candidate, was reported to the Namaka Police Station last year by the Free Bird Institute but so far POLICE are dragging feet on case.

"All five (5) PSC Commissioners conducted the interviews with Kuruleca'
PSC chairman LUKE ROKOVADA

From Fijileaks Archive, 11 January 2023:

We wrote to her daughter Unaisi Baleilevuka to ask her mother Mereseini to comment on the allegations that had been passed to us, and which read as follows:
Dishonest declaration by PAP candidate Mereseini Baleilevuka

"Mereseini had been working for Freebird Institute in Fiji & Japan for more than 10years. She was terminated at the end of June. She had been receiving her Board allowances from both companies but Freebird Institute company's accountant states that Mereseini never asked the accountant to prepare her income & tax certificate.
Then ________went to FEO to check her declaration. Her declaration said she declared only an annual income of $5,000 as her private business. She didn't declarae her allowance income from Japan, her salary income from Fiji, money she had received as dividend.
In other words, she allegedly didn't declare $80,000 to the Supervisor of Elections. The matter was brought to Saneem's attention but he is yet to respond to the allegations'. 6 December 2022.

Fijileaks: We are also waiting to hear from the Baleilevukas' that they allegedly provided FAKE RECEIPTS acknowledging donations of $1,700 and PAP leader and now Prime Minister had to be involved to obtain proper receipts. The argument was whether the money was 'a donation or gift' to PAP.
*We are also waiting for comments that the Baleilevukas' allegedly illegally appropriated $170,000 that was compensation money to a family overseas - two Freebird Institute students (Mother & Daughter) were involved in a car accident in Fiji.
The mother was killed. The daughter suffered life-changing serious disability.
FULL EXPOSURES TO FOLLOW SOON.
The two, Mereseini and Unaisi, were also accused of providing fake receipts and Rabuka was dragged into the matter

Fijileaks: We will soon focus on Bainimarama-Qiliho case, for we had revealed most of the USPGATE Reports. We have long fought against Qiliho and Bainimarama, only to wake up and discover that the Coalition THUGS are wearing the same corrupt shoes

RESIGN, PSC chairman Luke Rokovada. In leaked emails Luke Rokovada branded Education Minister Aseri Radrodro 'Intransigent' and a different type of person to deal with', copied in Rabuka, Prasad and Kamikamica

15/7/2023

HILARIOUSLY, Rokovada has been locked in a bitter war of words with an old friend of his in his e-mail thread, wrongly accusing him off being our mole:
"No further comments Brother as it will end up in Fijileaks and Grubsheet."
There are 24 of them in his email thread, including Sitiveni Rabuka

"Hope you understand _ the Minister for Education is a different type of person to deal with and the composition of and conditions for the People's Coalition Government makes it even more difficult to manage him. Perhaps you could offer your skills to try to address the intransigent Minister." Luke Rokovada

Coming Soon: RFMF alarmed that KURULECA might compromise national security, for as newly appointed PS, on appointment as a Civil Servant, she LEAKED her Private Viber messages with Radrodro to her Australian supporters to post them all over social media

Fijileaks: Perhaps Kuruleca may be of better use to the Health Ministry, but not at PS level as that will set the qualified medical doctors (and may be nurses too who have their own union) working in Health on a path of frustration and resistance.
The fact that she is Director of Kuruleca Consultants, is not equivalent administratively in any way at all to the very large Ministry of Education, nor to schools.
Any person in Fiji can register a consultancy.
*She has a Masters in Counselling and Psychology from Santa Clara University (a private Jesuit university), in Santa Clara, California. Emphasis in Health Psychology and trained as a marriage and family therapist.
Graduated in 2003, Ms Kuruleca returned to Fiji and joined the Department of Psychology, University of the South Pacific, before venturing into full time private practice in 2006.

*Meanwhile, ROKOVADA also lied that he had on-going discussions with Radrodro when the Education Minister told a press conference that he was never informed of SELINA KURULECA'S appointment as his new Permanent Secretary

"Thank you __for your thoughts and views on the appointment of Selina Kuruleca as PS Education. Consultation with Minister for Education was ongoing throughout the process and still ongoing now. The Commission interviewed more than ten shortlisted candidates for the position of PS Education. The usual number of shortlisted candidates for interview for the PS positions ranged from 4 - 8 depending on the number of well qualified applicants. All five (5) PSC Commissioners conducted the interviews and the KPMG senior partner's role was to introduce the shortlisted candidates and thank them for participating in the interview process at the end.
Hope you understand _ the Minister for Education is a different type of person to deal with and the composition of and conditions for the People's Coalition Government makes it even more difficult to manage him. Perhaps you could offer your ____ skills to try to address the intransigent Minister."

SWEET [KAMIKAMICA] REWARDS: While Manoa Kamikamica and Biman Prasad were allowed to retain their PS' from the FFP government era, Radrodro was not extended the same opportunity or even asked if he wanted to keep the old PS Education. Rabuka and Rokovada, indulging in constitutional gymnastics, dumped Kuruleca on Radrodro and the teachers unions in Fiji.
*The former veteran permanent secretary JIOJI KOTOBALAVU agrees with our initial argument that RADRODRO should have been consulted on Kuruleca's appointment.

APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT SECRETARIES TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES SHOULD A MINISTER BE CONSULTED BEFORE HIS OR HER MINISTRY's PERMANENT SECRETARY IS APPOINTED?

By Jioji Kotobalavu

According to media reports, the Minister for Education, Aseri Radrodro, is not happy with the Permanent Secretary recently appointed by the Public Service Commission to serve in his ministry. The officer concerned, Ms Selina Kuruleca, has confirmed that she has signed with the PSC her contract of service.

She has also publicly said that she is ready to serve in this capacity.

Commenting on this appointment, the chairperson of the Public Service Commission, Luke Rokovada, and the Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, the two constitutional authorities for the appointment of permanent secretaries have asserted that Ms Kuruleca's appointment was made fully in accordance with the law.

Section 126-(1)(a) of the 2013 Constitution empowers the PSC to appoint permanent secretaries, with the agreement of the Prime Minister.

So, both the PSC chairperson and the Prime Minister have acted correctly in accordance with their constitutional powers. However, in order to ensure that what has happened in this particular case does not recur in future, it is important to look at the procedures for appointing permanent secretaries, from other pertinent perspectives.

Considering this issue from the perspective of administrative justice and employment law, the question that arises is: in the appointment of permanent secretatiries to Government Ministries, should there be an informal and good faith procedural requirement that before the PSC makes a decision in exercise of its powers under section 126-(1)(a) of the 2013 Constitution, the Minister in the Ministry involved should be first consulted either by the Prime Minister. or by the chairpersion of the PSC with prior clearance from the Prime Minister.

The public purpose to be served by this procedural requirement for prior consultation with the Minister is to ensure that the two; ie, the Minister and the Permanent Secretary can work together in mutual confidence and trust.

This is very important because in managing a ministry and its departments the permanent secretary does not act alone. In fact, consider the following provisions from the 2013 Constitution:

*Section 127-(3 ): The permanent secretary of a ministry is responsible to the Minister concerned for the efficient, effective, and economical management of the ministry or any department under the ministry

*Section 127-(7): The permanent ministry shall have the authority to appoint, remove and institute disciplinary action against all staff of the ministry, with the agreement of the Minister responsible for the ministry

*Section 127-(8): The permanent secretary of each ministry, with the agreement of the Minister responsible for the ministry, has the authority to determine all matters pertaining to the employment of all
staff in the ministry, including...

One can clearly see from these provisions the crucial importance of enabling a smooth and effective working relationship between the Minister and the permanent secretary based on, in employment law parlance, mutual confidence and trust.

In administrative law, the courts have always emphasised in relation to section 16 of the 2013 Constitution-on Executive and administrative justice- the importance of public authorities exercising their statutory powers in good faith and in adopting procedures that are procedurally fair to those that are directly affected by the exercise of a statutory power.

Clearly, the PSC should consider these administrative justice and fair employment practises when making appointments of permanent secretaries to Government Ministries.

This is especially in light of the provisions of the 2013 Constitution under section 127 empowering the Minister with a role in the management of the ministry's and its associated departments' staff and budget.

From my own experience as a permanent secretary, what has happened on this issue underscores the importance of the PSC and senior management staff in the civil service and other public service agencies of the state investing time in educating themselves on the principles of administrative law and employment law

Jioji Kotobalavu is a former permanent secretary in the Fiji civil service and currently lectures in public
law and in international relations and diplomacy at the University of Fiji's JDP School of Law. The views
he expresses are his own and are not necessarily shared by this newspaper

Coming Soon: RFMF alarmed that KURULECA might compromise national security, for as newly appointed PS, she LEAKED her private Viber messages with Radrodro to her Australian supporters to post them all over social media

DELUSIONAL DOCTOR: Now, questions are being raised whether 'DR' SELINA KURULECA really holds a DOCTORATE in PYSCHOTHERAPY. Pressure mounts on the PSC chairman LUKE ROKOVADA to RESIGN

14/7/2023

FWRM Disappointed with reaction to Dr Kuruleca's Appointment

Rokovada

Fijileaks: As is standard procedure, questions are being asked whether any background checks were conducted to find out if the applicant, during her career, abused her position while attending to her vulnerable clients? The PSC is refusing to respond to our questions, and whether Kuruleca holds a DOCTORATE in Pyschotherapy

Minister for Education Aseri Radrodro has defended his decision not to accept Selina Kuruleca as his Permanent Secretary.

'As a former school teacher, a USP lecturer, a mental health professional, an iTaukei and a woman, I am the best for PS Education Job.'
SELINA KURULECA

Fijileaks: There were other highly qualified candidates (Dr Priscilla Puamau) but Rabuka and Rokovada, without consulting Education Minister Aseri Radrodro, imposed Kuruleca on him, despite objections from the Fijian Teachers Association.

Radrodro only found out about Kuruleca's appointment on her Facebook while in Labasa

MISSED OUT:
Top Candidate DR Priscilla Puamau

Priscilla Puamau

FWRM Disappointed with reaction to DrKuruleca's Appointment

The Fiji Women's Rights Movement (FWRM) is disappointed with the way the appointment for the Permanent Secretary (PS) position for the Ministry of Education has been handled by the Minister for Education and union representatives.

Dr Selina Kuruleca, whose appointment was confirmed by the Public Services Commission (PSC) and due to have begun work on July 3rd this week, has been rejected by her own Minister, Aseri Radrodro, an act that not only undermines the qualifications and capabilities of Dr Kuruleca - a professional woman in her own right -but also the decision made by PSC.

"We are disappointed with this turn of events. In the line-up of new PS appointments, we only have three women. Dr Kuruleca has contributed immensely to the fields of teaching and mental health. Why is she not the right candidate for the PS role? This reeks of gender bias.

Dr Kuruleca is not being given the chance to take up her post, despite meeting the criteria and deemed the best candidate. What are the justifications of the Minister and the unions rejecting her appointment to the education ministry? And why do they think they have to be consulted when the law clearly states otherwise. Section 126 –1 of the constitution confirms that ministers are not required to be consulted about appointment of Permanent Secretaries," FWRM Executive Director Nalini Singh said.

Ms Singh said gender prejudices and stereotypes are often a major barrier of women at work, issues that women's rights groups have continuously advocated against as it prevents the recognition of women's contributions and limits their achievements at work.

"Gender bias impedes the advancement of women's careers – when we talk about the glass ceiling – this is the glass ceiling for women. Dr Kuruleca is more than capable of handling the role of the PS. We are saddened that issues around her appointment have been thrashed about in the media after processes have been followed as there could have been better ways to address this issue. PSC has done what needs to be done. We call on the Minister and the unions to respect the decisions made by the Commission," Ms Singh said.

FWRM believes that to truly provide an opportunity for women's advancement into leadership positions, organisations including the state ministries and departments need to overcome gender bias in the workplace and other professional settings.

A research on leadership perceptions in Fiji conducted by FWRM in 2022 found that 69 percent of 906survey respondents indicated that “gender stigmatisation” decreased a woman’s chances of being 'elected' as a leader.A combined 74% (agreed and strongly agreed) that performance rewards are easily awarded to men, while women have to work twice as much.

"Our society lacks the provision of enabling working environments for women. In order to truly give both women and men an equal platform and chance to excel into leadership positions, we need to be aware of our own unconscious bias and stereotyping," Ms Singh said
.
FWRM hopes that a solution is met and chaos over Dr Kuruleca's appointment diminishes.

WELCOME TO FRIENDLY FIJI, and get your butts kicked by CRIMINALS, robbed by Taxi passengers, nightclub and bar patrons, avoid seawalls, waterfronts, unpatrolled and unguarded Colo-i-Suva Forest Park TRAILS

12/7/2023

"Violent robberies and assaults continue to occur within the Colo I Suva Forest Park and as of July 2023 there is no security presence on the trails." United States Embassy in Fiji, July 2023

JULY 12, 2023Crime: Remain cautious and alert in public places. Urban areas experience a higher incidence of crime than rural areas, but there are specific locations to avoid. Most crime is opportunistic. If you are not familiar with an area, ask hotel staff about areas to avoid.

Several assaults and robberies have occurred in the bar and nightclub district of downtown Suva, the waterfront/seawall area during hours of darkness, as well as on Victoria Parade street. Consider taking door-to-door transportation.
Violent robberies and assaults continue to occur within the Colo I Suva Forest Park and as of July 2023 there is no security presence on the trails.
Be attentive to your personal safety and be cautious about sharing too much personal information about where you are from and where you are staying while traveling.
Reports of sexual assault against female tourists have increased. You should not walk alone after dark and always be sure to avoid isolated and deserted areas.
Since some crime takes place in taxis, do not allow taxis to pick up other passengers while you are enroute. Similarly, you should never enter a taxi already carrying other passengers.
Although demonstrations are not common in Fiji, you should avoid marches and large crowds, remembering that even peaceful demonstrations can turn violent unexpectedly

Victims of Crime: U.S. citizen victims of sexual assault are encouraged to contact the U.S. Embassy for assistance at + (679) 331-4466, or after hours at +(679) 772-8049.

Report crimes to the local police at 911 and contact the U.S. Embassy at + (679) 331-4466, or after hours at +(679) 772-8049. Remember that local authorities are responsible for investigating and prosecuting crime.

KEEP AWAY FROM FARM HOUSES: Otherwise, you might become VICTIM of Drug Lord and Sex Trafficker running a joint farm with his former jailor and now Minister of I-Taukei Affairs

Vasu told Fijivillage News that when he was removed from the post of Commissioner of Corrections and charged with abuse of office, Jason Zhong approached him to start farming on his land.
He says they continue to develop the farm until early this year when he entered politics so he transferred his shares to his wife.
Vasu says his business is purely on farming, and Zhong has served his time, let’s give him a second chance.
*The Minister says Zhong is committed to farming, and helping other farmers, food security and export of farm products.

ZIP UP YOUR MOUTH, SELINA KURULECA. 'As a former school teacher, a USP lecturer, a mental health professional, an iTaukei and a woman, I am the best for PS Education Job.' SHUT UP, as selected PS In-WAITING

12/7/2023

RUNNING TO THE MEDIA: Our sources in the local media claim that it was Kuruleca who ran to Fijivillage,* FBC, and the Fiji Sun crying 'wolf'.
We are surprised that no questions were raised when NFP's Employment Minister in the Coalition government AGNI DEO vetoed two Indo-Fijians who were selected to be his PS.
On taking Prime Minister's office, Sitiveni Rabuka threw out of his office the long-standing PS to PMs Office YOGESH KARAN to make way for PETER WISE. Karan was moved side-ways to Sugar Ministry and Ministry of Multi-Ethnic Affairs, to work with Minister Charan Jeath Singh.
Where is the promised Ministry of Multi-Ethnic Affairs?
Those not privy to the process of selection of the individuals based on interviews and assessments by KPMG, with all due respect to the PSC chair, we suggest that the Rabuka's Transition Team and the Commission overlooked to first consult with the Minister of Education ASERI RADRODRO prior to formalizing Kuruleca’s appointment.

This is a vital ingredient in the appointment process of PS which should have engaged the attention of the whole Commission prior to seeking the endorsement of the Prime Minister as required under the law.

The requirement to obtain the endorsement of the Prime Minister infers that the PM or the Chairman of the Commission would have already consulted directly with the Cabinet Minister concerned prior to giving his concurrence and this couldn’t be more particularly critical in the survival of a loose or volatile coalition relationship such as we have at present.

We think Kuruleca should have desisted from making any public comments since she had already received her letter of appointment which now makes her position untenable.

Rabuka had made the right decision that she should accept a sideways posting (PS for Children, etc, would be ideal if a new separate Ministry is formed or as PS for Environment and Climate Change?)

We just wondered if KPMG had listed their recommendations for each PS applicant in their order of preference, limited to first five, to allow the Commission and Rabuka a wider choice of eligible candidates

We say to SELINA KURULECA: 'ZIP UP YOUR MOUTH NOW YOU ARE A CIVIL SERVANT WHILE YOUR APPOINTMENT RAGES ON.'

Fijileaks: The requirement to have the Prime Minister's endorsement implies that the Prime Minister will have to take into account the views of his concerned Ministers before he gives his formal endorsement to the PSC's recommendations.

So he is obliged to consult with his Ministers in the appointment of their Permanent Secretaries.

In appointing Kuruleca he did NOT consult Education Minister Radrodro

*Of course, the PSC could argue that it will, in any future interviews, if it rubber stamps a Coalition Minister's choice of PS, compromise the Prime Minister's position, and violate the provisions of the Constitution.

MENTAL GYMNASTICS RAGES ON: (Mental Gymnastics basically means using a bunch of tricks and roundabout thinking to avoid reaching an obvious conclusion that you don't like in Fiji)

The PSC interviewed more than ten shortlisted candidates for the position of PS Education. The usual number of shortlisted candidates for the interview positions ranged from 4-8, depending on the number of well qualified candidates.
All FIVE PSC Commissioners conducted the interviews and the KPMG senior partner's role was to introduce the shortlisted candidates and thank them for participating in the interview process at the end.

MENTALLY BONKERS PSC: We were going to reveal last week that ex-Indian College principal NAVIN RAJ was the preferred PS Education Secretary but Rabuka imposed SELINA KURULECA on Aseri Radrodro

11/7/2023

UNLIKE Agni Deo who VETOED two Indo-Fijian candidates, Radrodro's preferred choice was NAVIN RAJ but the PSC kept Radrodro in the dark

Minister for Education, Aseri Radrodro has rejected the Public Service Commission’s decision to appoint Selina Kuruleca as his Permanent Secretary.

The Commission had appointed Kuruleca as the PS in May.

Today Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka held a meeting with Kuruleca in relation to the matter.

Rabuka told FBC News that the meeting was fruitful.

“She will not go to Education. She will probably come to one of the Ministries that doesn’t have a Permanent Secretary at the moment. And I have the Environment under the Prime Minister portfolio that she can go to.”

Rabuka adds that the government will announce Kuruleca’s new post soon.

Kuruleca confirmed to FBC News that she has a valid contract and an appointment letter but will await the commission’s advice before she can comment further.

The teacher unions rejected Selina Kuruleca’s appointment as the Permanent Secretary for Education.
Minister for Education Aseri Radrodro confirmed this to FBC News this afternoon.

Kuruleca was appointed by the Public Service Commission in late May.

Radrodro says the Union argued that there were other qualified candidates for the PS Position.

He says that he was also not consulted prior to her appointment.

The Minister adds that he would have aired his concerns to avoid what he calls an unfortunate scenario.

Meanwhile, the PSC is not required to consult ministers when it comes to the appointment of the Permanent Secretaries.

According to Section 126(1) of the 2013 Constitution, the Public Service Commission appoints Permanent Secretaries with the agreement of the Prime Minister.

PSC Chair Luke Rokovada confirms that there will not be any further discussion on the matter.

NAVIN RAJ, the former Principal of Indian College (formerly JAI NARAYAN COLLEGE) in Suva was let down by the NFP in the three-legged Coalition government.
But we are not surprised, for since 1987 coups, the party has been PIMPING Coupist Rabuka to lead them in a coalition pact. In December 2022, they got their wish, finally.
In October 1987, the former NFP Deputy Leader Mrs IRENE JAI NARAYAN (the school was named in her husband's honour) had become Rabuka's MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, endorsing the gross human rights violations, beatings, torture, and rape of Indo-Fijians, not to mention the political disenfranchisement of the Indo-Fijians in the name of bogus i-Taukei indigenous rights claims. Neither Mrs Narayan, Jai Ram Reddy nor Biman Prasad had (have) the right to whitewash Rabuka's treasonous crimes against Indo-Fijians.
*These political pimps don't represent Indo-Fijians views on RABUKA.
As the late SIR VIJAY SINGH once reminded us, Rabuka looked around and found that NFP was a willing PARTNER to protect his TREASON

"Thank you Mr Speaker sir, I called the Honorable Prime Minister last night when we finished from here, just to apologize to him because what was said last night by honourable Ketan Lal was not only disgraceful, it was in bad taste, it was designed to fan further racial ill will and hostility between the communities and as the Honorable Prime Minister said himself..."

"I was around Sir in 87, I had started my work. I was probably as young, probably younger than Honorable Ketan Lal and probably younger than Honorable Rinesh Sharma. And we know what happened. We have history. We saw what happened since 87. We saw the Honourable Prime Minister over those many years. We saw when he was Prime Minister..."

"We saw when he led this country into a process of reconciliation and formulation of the 1997 constitution. The 1990 constitution sir, that was imposed on us under which the Honorable Prime Minister was Prime Minister, he had no reason, he had the majority to change that constitution..."

"That was a landmark, historical leadership shown by the Honorable Prime Minister. Mr Speaker sir, yesterday, and I thank the Honorable Leader of the Opposition, I thank him very much for stating what he stated - taking the responsibility. Mr Speaker in this August house in the past, we have suspended members of parliament when I was in opposition for statements much less hostile than what was uttered by Honourable Ketan..."

"In fact in the last session of parliament when he spoke Mr. Speaker sir, I was tempted to refer him to the privileges committee then. If you remember, if you look at Hansard and the speech that he made and I thought Sir, that as you quite rightly pointed out..."

"I know him. He used to be a very strong National Federation Party supporter once. Don't know what happened. He moved to some people. He became Fiji First. He is a member of parliament, I respect him and as the Honorable Leader of the Opposition said..."

"I myself was an activist during 87 and beyond that and we like young people to be in parliament to contribute. And we want them to grow outside the shadows of some others, but what I heard yesterday not only from him, Mr Speaker Sir, but from some others as well is some disgraceful attack, personal attack, attack on the family..."

"I sat on the opposition Sir for 8 years on the other side. Never once I attacked an Honorable Member's family. In politics Sir, in this day and age, the families have a lot of burden on them. And when you make those kinds of statements as was made by him, I don't mind. Sir, I always remember Winston Churchill's famous saying, where he said that you will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks. So I always tell myself and I accept what people say about me..."

"I think if this matter is not to if it is not to go to the privileges committee, then honourable Ketan Lal must unreservedly apologize to the Honorable Prime Minister and give an undertaking that he will not repeat, not only to the Honorable Prime Minister but to other Honorable members on the government side or even with his own colleagues..."

"I know Mr Speaker there were other things said by other members yesterday. Those who are experienced, we will deal with that separately but on this I accept your very wise intervention and counsel in this matter. But I once again Mr Speaker, I apologize to the Honorable Prime Minister. On behalf of whoever is there, if there are members of the Indo-Fijian community..."

"In fact a lot of them called me last night and they were deeply deeply disturbed by the way in which Honorable Ketan Lal spoke and spoke disparagingly not only about the Prime Minister calling him incompetent, but also invoking racial invoking incidents 1987, to invoke racial hatred, racial ill will and link it to crime and other things. When in fact no, we should be hosing all those down in the social media that comes..."

"Otherwise Mr Speaker we will be stuck - the past is important. We look at history, it's important. We learn from history and I know she is commenting but she also talks about 87. I mean, we already Mr Speaker, we are talking about how to get over it and here she is still not pleased with what has happened..."

"And that's the arrogance that we want to take out of this house. But Mr Speaker if we are ,to move forward with this, then I move that we ask Honorable Ketan Lal to apologize unreservedly and give an undertaking that he would not repeat this, thank you Mr Speaker."

LAMU ROLLED OVER AND APOLOGISED AFTER GETTING A 'MASSAGE' FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT RABUKA AND 1987 COUPS

WIPING OFF $650m TELS Debt. Now, Biman Prasad claims it was Gavoka and SODELPA who forced three-legged wobbly scooter Coalition to wipe off student debt. PUBLISH the names of 53,750 TELS student DEBTORS

11/7/2023

Fijileaks: We must know their names, their ethnicities, their family backgrounds, the courses they were doing, Universities they were attending, and where they are now?
Prasad claims that he found out that $190 million was paid out to students who never completed their studies. Who are these students?
Where are they now? Are they in employment in Fiji?
Have they migrated, and are now in employment overseas?
Who the hell is BILL GAVOKA to hold the Coalition (and the TAXPAYERS) to ransom, by demanding $650million be wiped out?
In 2010, our Founding Editor-in-Chief spent a year analysing the National Bank of Fiji DEBTORS LIST and was shocked that Chiefs, Thieves, and Coupists were the major culprits who stole over $450million from the NBF, bankrupting Fiji's national bank under Coupist Rabuka.
*We demand that the names of 53,750 student TELS debtors be published, so we can hold them to account, and PUT SODELPA leader BILL GAVOKA on trial for extorting $650million from the TAXPAYERS. Sitiveni Rabuka and Biman Prasad should be held accountable.
The TELS LOAN DEBTS remind us of the NBF Loans Scandal. To date no one has been held to account, including Coupist RABUKA

In 2010 I enlarged, in 16 instalments in C4/5, the backgrounds of individuals, coupists, companies, chiefs, thieves, politicians, and provincial councils who stole thousands and millions from the National Bank of Fiji and disappeared into the sunset. The principal culprit who disappeared with them was Sitiveni Rabuka. He disappeared after losing the 1999 general election with his side-kick and NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy, and became chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs.

Qeleni Holdings Ltd owed $716,748 to collapsed National Bank of Fiji

NBF DEBTORS LIST: It was only when I researched into the background of companies listed as debtors that I was shocked to find out that many of the companies were owned by some prominent chiefs and their families.

Take, for example, QELENI HOLDINGS LTD.

It was owned by Rabuka's paramount Cakaudrove chief and Fiji's president Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and his family

Rabuka is yet to explain why the Ganilau family's Qeleni Holdings* was paid $F650,000 to buy off from the family the Prime Minister's (Rabuka's) new residence in 1993 when the Government valuer had estimated its value at $F465,000?

We might recall that Qeleni Holdings* owed $716,748 to collapsed National Bank of Fiji.

Why Qeleni debt was not deducted when the property was sold at an inflated price for Rabuka to reside in as PM?

* Who borrowed over $100,000 on behalf of the Cakaudrove Provincial Council from the NBF and for what, and whether the loan was paid back?
* We may recall that Ratu Epeli Ganilau owed NBF $631,594 and Ratu Inoke Kubuabola owed the bank over $198,000.
In 1995 the two were listed as Directors of the Cakaudrove Provincial Holdings Limited. One gave his occupation as FMF Commander; the other as Cabinet Minister:

Biman Prasad, 'Speaker, Sir, Bala is fanning racial hatred by lying. Before election; they said there would be a race-based scholarship. This man is now using the Parliament to incite racial hatred. That’s what he’s done.”

10/7/2023

Fijileaks: Come on, Biman Prasad. You are calling on the SPEAKER to reprimand BALA for allegedly inciting racial hatred. Where were you when PAP appointed a failed candidate with 300 votes, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, as Speaker, a paramount high chief who was jailed for joining GEORGE SPEIGHT in the worst racial violence against Indo-Fijians, especially women and girls who were beaten and raped in their own homes. Lalabalavu was controversially released from prison regarding his involvement at Sukunaivalu military barracks in Labasa.
*Bala also accused you of doling out over $1million to Ganesh Chand's shady Pacific Polytechnic which has close links to your WIFE, and another FFP MP questioned you over $200,000 to Global Girmit Institute

The Parliament Secretary has taken note of a Standing Order against Opposition MP Praveen Bala. This after Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad moved that Bala is using parliament to incite racial hatred. Bala, in his response to the national budget, says the new scholarship system that replaces the Tertiary Education Loans Scheme is a badly thought-out election promise.

The Opposition MP says the Finance Minister is simply keeping his job by keeping his promise.

“In fact, he knows very well that a scheme such as TELS is the only way to have a system that has the most accessible means to higher education for all the people of Fiji. Its replacement is a system that many suffered under, and he would know of the discrimination faced on racial grounds, as he was a student in the 1980s and 1990s.”

Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad immediately raised a point of order, claiming that Bala is inciting racial hatred.

“The honorable member is fanning racial hatred by lying, because this is what they did before the election; they said there would be a race-based scholarship under Standing Order 62. This man, who has just lied before, is now using Parliament to incite racial hatred. That’s what he’s done.”

Prasad says nowhere in the budget does it say any of those programs will be based on race.

The Finance Minister says this needs to be dealt with. Speaker Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu then asked the Parliament Secretary to take note of the point of order, saying this was the second time.

"One aspect of this case which is cause for disquiet is the way this application came to be made. First, as I have said a similar application was made in the Magistrate courts on the day trial was to commence. Obviously the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear a constitutional redress issue. The applicant again went to rest and six days before the defence was to open its case, in the Magistrates Court he filed this application. He had all the time after 31st August 2004 to file this application but filed it during the legal vacation."
Justice Jiten Singh, 8 April 2005

Mr. K. Vuataki for the Applicant
Mr. W. Kuruisaqila for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The application before me is made pursuant to Section 41 of the 1997 Constitution and the High Court (Constitutional Redress) Rules 1998. The motion seeks a declaration that the applicant’s Constitutional right to a trial within reasonable time and right to fair trial under Section 29 of the Constitution was breached. He is seeking an order permanently staying further proceedings by the Magistrate’s Court of Criminal Case in State v. Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu - Criminal Action 172 of 2004 at Labasa Magistrate’s Court.

The applicant filed three affidavits:

(a) first sworn on 30th November 2004
(b) supplementary affidavit sworn on 24th January 2005
(c) supplementary affidavit sworn on 11th February 2005.
The applicant was initially charged with two others for the offence of unlawful assembly. The events are alleged to have occurred between 4th July 2000 and 3rd August 2000at Sukanaivalu Barracks in Labasa. The charges were filed on 8th November 2000.

The chronology of events since filing of charge is as follows:

8th November 2000 - charges filed.
13th November 2000 - plea deferred at request of defence counsel.
14th December 2000 - proceedings adjourned for defence to make representations to the DPP.
14th February 2001 - proceedings adjourned for defence to make representations to the DPP.
5th March 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow defence to make representations to the DPP
25th April 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow defence time to have further discussions with DPP.
12th June 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow DPP to consider the submissions.
6th August 2001 - proceedings adjourned to give DPP more time to consider submissions.
24th August 2001 - no presence of accused as presence was excused.
21st September 2001 - no presence of accused as presence excused.
2nd November 2001 - prosecution seeks to obtain statements from people. Also disclosures not served.
11th February 2002 - Second accused absent as sick.
12th February 2002 - proceedings adjourned. Second accused deceased. Charges against 2nd accused withdrawn.
12th July 2002 - hearing adjourned. Magistrate in Conference in Suva.
5th August 2002 - adjourned. 1st accused not present. Magistrate in Suva.
15th August 2002 - 1st accused absent.
30th September 2002 - 1st accused absent. Bench warrant ordered.
10th October 2002 - Special call as 1st accused arrested. Bench warrant cancelled.
2nd December 2002
17th March 2003 - 3rd accused not present.
14th August 2003 - accused absent. Hearing aborted.
22nd August 2003 - accused absent.
8th September 2003 - 1st accused – not present. Presence was excused.
13th October 2003 - DPP’s file sent to Suva for DPP to decide whether to proceed with prosecution or not.
1st December 2003 - accuseds not present. Charges withdrawn. Bench warrant ordered against the two accused.
5th January 2004 - accuseds arrested and brought to court. Bench warrants cancelled.
2nd February 2004 - hearing fixed for24th to 28th May 2004.
5th April 2004 - case called in absence of accused, adjourned to 10th May 2004.
10th May 2004 - All coup related cases withdrawn under Section 201(2)(b)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code Amalgamated Charge for Unlawful Assembly filed. No objection from defence.
24th May 2004 - Motion similar to present motion filed in Magistrate’s Court. Motion filed on the very day of trial.

The sole issue before me is whether the post charge delay in court warrants a permanent stay of proceedings as it breaches Section 29(1) and (3) which stipulate that the accused has the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

I have had both written and oral submissions from counsels. If I may say part of respondent’s written submissions dealt with stay on grounds of abuse of process. That is not the ground on which the applicant is proceeding. Abuse of process is not alleged.

Mr. Vuataki relied heavily on the case of Apaitia Seru & Anthony Frederick Stevens v. the State – Criminal Appeals AAU0041 and 42 of 1991, where the Court of Appeal considered what is the applicable law in Fiji in case of delay. It adopted the principles on delay as considered in Martin v. Tauranga District Court – [1995] 2 NZLR 419.

At page 9 of the judgment the Court of Appeal laid out what ought to be the approach of courts and what factors to consider in applications for stay on grounds of delay.

“The general approach to a determination as to whether the right has been denied is not by the application of a mathematical or administrative formula but rather by a judicial determination balancing the interests which the section is designed to protect against factors which either inevitably lead to delay or are otherwise the cause of delay. As I noted in Smith [ R v Smith (1989) 52 CCC (3d) 97], ‘(i)t is axiomatic that some delay is inevitable. The question is, at what point does the delay become unreasonable?’ .... While the court has at times indicated otherwise, it is now accepted that the factors to be considered in analyzing how long is too long may be listed as follows:

1. the length of the delay;

2. waiver of time periods;

3. the reasons for the delay, including

(a) inherent time requirements of the case;
(b) actions of the accused;
(c) actions of the Crown;
(d) limits on institutional resources, and
(e) other reasons for delay, and

4. prejudice to the accused. (12-13)”

In Attorney-General’s Reference No. 1 of 1990 [1992] 3 ALL ER 169 Lord Lane at page 176 cautioned against permanent stays being granted too readily. He stated that:

“Stays imposed on the grounds of delay or for any other reason should only be employed in exceptional circumstances. If they were to become a matter of routine, it would only be a short time before the public, understandably, viewed the process with suspicion and mistrust. We respectfully adopt the reasoning of Brennan J in Jago v. District Court of New South Wales [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23.

In principle, therefore, even where the delay can be said to be unjustifiable, the imposition of a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule. Still more rare should be cases where a stay can properly be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution. Delay due merely to the complexity of the case or contributed to by the actions of the defendant himself should never be the foundation for a stay.”

With those above remarks I shall now consider various relevant factors:

Length of Delay:

Between the filing of the charge on 8th November 2000 to the commencement of trial on 24th May 2004 there was a delay of just over three years and six months. Some delay in prosecution of cases is inevitable. It cannot however be said that passage of time beyond a certain point is unreasonable and ipso facto mandates a stay. However, longer the delay, greater the possibility that a fair trial is impossible particularly if evidence to be led is recollection of events by witnesses and not based on documentary evidence. A delay of three years and nine months may be considered to be an unreasonable delay so the reasons for the delay have to be examined closely.

Waiver of time periods

Once the length of delay is significant as in this case, the second factor to consider is whether the accused has waived his right to complain about the delay. There were times when the accused consented to adjournments and sought adjournments. The first six adjournments were granted at the request of the defence to make representations to the DPP and the next two to allow the DPP to consider the representations. A total of nine months was chewed up by this process. On seven occasions one or other of the accused was absent without his presence being excused. One of those occasions was 14th August 2003 when the case was fixed for hearing when all the accused were absent. There was absence of first accused for a period of six weeks. The first accused the applicant was brought under arrest to court on 10th October 2002. Again from 17th March 2003 to 22nd August 2003 one or other accused was absent.

Reasons for the Delay

The chronology of events discloses a number of reasons for delays which include making representations to the DPP, the DPP taking time to consider those representations, the unavailability of Magistrates on two occasions as they were out on a conference, time taken to provide disclosures, absence of one or more accused and prosecution seeking to amalgamate the charges.

Limits on Resources

In the present case the Magistrates were present except on a couple of occasions when they were in Suva for a Magistrates’ conference. These I note were mention dates and not hearing dates. The unavailability of Magistrates has not been a contributory factor to delay in this case.

Prejudice to the Accused

The trial is over. It commenced on 24th May 2004. At the end of prosecution case on 30th June 2004 the defence made a submission of no case to answer (see affidavit of John Rabuku). After ruling of case to answer on 31st August 2004, the defence asked for adjournment and the case was fixed for continuation of hearing on 21st December 2004.

The applicant deposes that he was called to Sukanaivalu Barracks by Tui Labasa who died on 11th February 2002. He also deposed that one Ratu Orisi Vuki had been sent by Tui Labasa to call the applicant to the barracks and Ratu Orisi Vuki died on 23rd June 2003.

When questioned if the defence had statements from these various deceased witnesses, Mr. Vuataki admitted they had not taken statements from them. Without the statements, the court is left to speculate as to the nature of the evidence and its relevance to the defence. In paragraph 9 of his supplementary affidavit, sworn on 11th February 2005 the applicant deposes that a number of Army officers had also visited him. The applicant could have subpoenaed any of these officers if he considered their evidence relevant. The applicant must show that the evidence of the alleged deceased witnesses would be relevant as to disputed material facts in issue.

The applicant also deposed that he was prejudiced in that the original statements of all witnesses were not disclosed but only typed statements of witnesses were provided. The normal practice in Fiji is for police to hand-write the statements of witnesses. Often the handwriting is impossible to read so typed statements are given. If the counsel had difficulty getting a witness to admit a statement was his, the counsel could easily have made an application to the learned magistrate to ask prosecution to show the original statement to the witness. The original hand-written statements are not released to the defence but only photocopies or typed version. If the counsel failed in presentation of the case, that cannot be made a ground for stay.

Mr. Vuataki also submitted that his client was a public figure. He is the Minister for Lands, Leader of political party and a traditional leader and therefore occupied prominent position. He submitted that this was a high profile case with lot of media attention. He relied on authority of Apaitia Seru where at page 13 the Court of Appeal stated “to have serious, high profile charges handing over ones head for more than four years, with the ultimate spectre of a possible prison sentence, is in itself prejudicial”. He said in such a case there was no need to show prejudice.

The activities of those who occupy prominent position in society generally attract attention of the media. That is inevitable part of such occupations. I also do not lose sight of the fact that the maximum penalty for the offence is one year.

In Apaitia Seru the delay was institutional delay principally in the courts – both by the Magistrates Court during committal proceedings and later in the High Court.

One aspect of this case which is cause for disquiet is the way this application came to be made. First, as I have said a similar application was made in the Magistrate courts on the day trial was to commence. Obviously the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear a constitutional redress issue. The applicant again went to rest and six days before the defence was to open its case, in the Magistrates Court he filed this application. He had all the time after 31st August 2004 to file this application but filed it during the legal vacation.

At the time of the hearing of this application, the trial was well and truly over with only the judgment of the court left to be delivered on 4th April 2005. One would expect such applications to be made well ahead of the commencement of the hearing proper of the criminal trial so the outcome is known before the hearing date.

The delay in this case has to be seen in its proper context. There are lengthy delays as a result of applicant wishing to make representations to the DPP, lengthy delays due to absence of one or other accused. This is not a proper case where a permanent stay is warranted. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs which I summarily fix in the sum of $300.00.

[ Jiten Singh ]
JUDGE
At Suva
8th April 2005

www.fijileaks.com/home/girmit-with-coalition-government-biman-prasads-wife-rajni-and-girmit-conference-organiser-ganesh-chand-founded-global-girmit-institute-duo-re-registered-ggi-in-february-after-it-was-de-registered

www.fijileaks.com/home/get-lost-from-our-lautoka-and-nabua-premises-satan-dharm-pratinidhi-sabha-fiji-informs-prime-minister-rabuka-that-it-has-kicked-out-the-pacific-polytechnic-for-failing-to-pay-rent-arrears-of-160000

www.fijileaks.com/home/pacific-polytechnic-recruits-failed-nfp-candidate-satya-nand-shandil-as-deputy-director-with-ganesh-chand-n

More than 400 military personnel gathered at Sukanaivalu Barracks in Labasa to remember the fallen heroes who died during the attempted mutiny in 2000.

The memorial service was led by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces chief of staff Brigadier-General Jone Kalouniwai.

Wreaths were placed at the Sukanaivalu Barracks memorial plaque to remember the fallen.

For some of the ex-servicemen that were present at the dawn service, the event brought back memories of those who had given their lives for peace and freedom.

The soldiers who died were Private Temo Veilewai, Private Osea Rokosirinavosa and Private Simione Rawaileba.

Officer in charge Sukanaivalu Barracks captain Samuela Cikaitoga described the event as a celebration to remember the fallen heroes who sacrificed a lot for the nation.

“Every year since November 2, 2000, we come together and remember our fallen comrades, our loyal soldiers, who fell as the result of greedy people.

<<Previous

Forward>>

*Hanif Tuitoga Lawyers for the Attorney-General​*Munro Leys Lawyers for the Respondents