The Fiji First Party's Howard Politini who lost out to his colleague Sanjit Patel in Nadi has lodged a complaint with FijiFirst party bosses claiming that Patel went around allegedly telling Indo-Fijian voters not to vote for Politini because FFP needed as many Indo-Fijian MPs as possible in the new Parliament of Fiji. Politini is the son of late Louise Politini  who represented Fiji in rugby and basketball in the 80's. He is also the nephew of the retired Major Howard Politini (2000 coup military spokesman with Major Filipo Tarakinikini).

One Fijileaks source on the ground said many Indo-Fijians were also falsely told that Major Politini was involved in the overthrow of the Chaudhry government and the Politini's were close to the SDL government. Politini's  mother worked for the deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase in the 2006 election campaign. He runs the Highlands Scenic Eco-Tours tour company in Nadi. It seems the Highlanders did not vote for him. Politini had started his election campaign in Nadi well before Patel's name was endorsed by FFP. If one analyses the election results, one will notice how many FFP winning Indo-Fijian candidates are on top of the FFP list. It has also been brought to Fijileaks's attention that some Indo-Fijians like Patel did not promote 279 (Frank Bainimarama's candidacy number) in the Western Division, and in rural pocket meetings.

The Politini camp sources told Fijileaks: "In Ba, four Indo-Fijians candidates made it to Parliament for FijiFirst. Three in Nadi, and another three in Nausori. Also, Indo-Fijian candidates had a high number of votes. So much for equal votes and race free one Fiji."

Source close to the Politini camp also claim that Patel did not declare his full assets and might have cheated the tax department because of Fiji's double taxation arrangements with India and Australia. They allege that Patel inherited his wealth in Surat, India, and has properties in Canberra and in Fiji. One of the winning candidates Parveen Bala was reportedly given 10 rental cars by Sings Rental. The FFP Indo-Fijian candidates used hired vehicles to bring in voters.

Patel could not be reached for comments. RACE, claims FFP, is a thing of the PAST. We are all FIJIANS now. Tell that to Howard Politini who is CRYING FOUL over RACE CARD.

LOOKING INSIDE FROM OUTSIDE:  As Politini looks from outside, sources in his camp say the following could be in the new Cabinet: PM, Bainimarama; Deputy PM, Finance: Khaiyum, AG: Mereseini Vuniwaqa, Koya, or outside appointment, Sarvadanand Sharma (SC) ?; Trade and commerce: Dr Reddy, Foreign Affairs: Inoke Kububola 1987 coup, 2000 coup,2006 coup; Utilities and Works: Lesi Natuva, Education: Dr Brij Lal, Health: Dr Neil Sharma; Youth and Sport: Rosy Akbar, BA soccer manager,BA festival, Teacher; Agriculture: Dr Reddy -PHD  agricultural economist or Inia Seruiratu; Tourism: Lorna Eden, Hotelier but might be conflict of interest; Forests: Osea Naiqama, Fiji Pine Landowners Trust; Provincial Development: Cawaki, Commissioner Western; Public Enterprises: Pio Tikoiduadua;  Home Affairs: Nemani Rika or Konrote (Rabuka days); Labour: Jone Usumate; Housing and Urban Development: Parveen Bala;  Social Welfare: Dr Luveni; Information Minister: Veena Bhatnagar, former broadcaster; Itaukei affairs: Rupeni Nadalo, Tikoiduadua or Rika

ITS HIM: Shaheen Ali, the PS for Trade and Industry, right (in right hand photo), with Khaiyum in India. According to entrepreneur Dayal Fiji's 'Taliban' made all Muslim appointments including that of Ali, 'the gay one'

"When certain figures came to the PM complaining about the AG and seeking his removal, Bainimarama sent them packing with the savage admonition to come back to him when they did a fraction of the work the AG was doing for the betterment of the country. The term workaholic could have been invented for him. It has been a unique partnership that now goes into the new Parliament. One of the great shibboleths in Fiji is that the AG is unpopular, even hated, and would lead the PM to defeat unless he cut him loose. The raw figures have proved this wrong. How did it happen? The electorate has undoubtedly recognised his hard work to reform the country. But it’s also a little known fact that the AG gives his personal mobile number to many ordinary people, answers their calls when they ring him and tries to help them navigate a way through the tangled web of Government to solve their problems. He emerges from this election as a political figure of consequence in his own right, having garnered more votes for FijiFirst than any other candidate after Bainimarama and being beaten only by Ro Teimumu Kepa in the overall tally. He is the third most important politician in Fiji in terms of his ability to secure votes and has the political mana to be Deputy Prime Minister, if indeed, that is what is decided."

By GRAHAM DAVIS

Well, he’s done it. Voreqe Bainimarama has seized his place in history by blitzing his opponents and scoring a decisive win in the first genuinely democratic election in Fiji since Independence 44 years ago. By any standard, it is a remarkable achievement. Because this is no run-of-the-mill election win of the kind the world routinely witnesses, a changing of the political guard under a tried and tested order. Bainimarama not only upended the status quo in Fiji when he seized power eight years ago. He took a sledgehammer to the entire political edifice, smashed it to smithereens and then set about rebuilding Fiji into a modern nation-state that has been transformed at almost every level. And transformed it for the better in the eyes of most Fijian voters, who’ve given the PM an overwhelming mandate to continue his reform program.

In the process, Bainimarama himself has changed – the impatient, sometimes fiery authoritarian figure giving way to a softer, more genial presence who has come to relish his encounters with ordinary people and has taken to being a politician in a way that few would have expected. Watching the Internet feed of the PM’s debate on radio with his principal opponent, Ro Teimumu Kepa, many Fijians would have been surprised to see that it was Bainimarama who was most at ease, smiling as she launched a barrage of provocations in his direction, including “you will soon get your just deserts”. Well yes he has, though not quite in the way the GMBRTD – as some people refer to her by the acronym of her chiefly title – would have expected.

SODELPA LIUMURI-ED

There are many dimensions to this extraordinary saga but none more notable than the way in which Bainimarama has carried indigenous opinion with him and rewritten the political rules in Fiji. For the first time, i’Taukei voters have failed to be swayed by the traditional political weapon of crudely exploiting their fears – fears for their land, their religion, their culture and their way of life. SODELPA tried to wield that weapon with a campaign characterised by some of the worst lies ever told in a Fijian election. They included the former Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, openly telling i’Taukei that they would not be able to worship Jesus if FijiFirst won the election. It didn’t work. In fact, there’s ample evidence that it backfired, driving voters into the arms of the PM, who patiently explained that these lies were being told to manipulate  i’Taukei opinion while he laid out an alternative vision of inclusiveness and hope.

When the polls over the past few weeks gave Bainimarama a commanding lead, the word from SODELPA was that Frank would be luimuri-ed (betrayed) by his ostensible supporters, who were telling him to his face that they supported him but would vote SODELPA in the privacy of the voting booth. In fact, the reverse happened on Election Day. SODELPA was liumuri-ed by many of those who’d pledged allegiance to it publicly but privately voted for Frank. It is arguably the end of the indigenous scare campaign in Fijian politics. The days of i’Taukei leaders treating their own people as fools are over. And not a moment too soon.

A DIPLOMATIC BLUNDER

The extent of the Bainimarama victory has floored his opponents and much of the diplomatic community, which has never believed the opinion polls showing him with a commanding lead all year. Australia and New Zealand, in particular, have peddled the notion that Bainimarama would be forced into a coalition even if he managed to garner the most votes. It has been yet another in a long line of miscalculations by our bigger neighbours since 2006, most of them based on being captive to the views of the wrong people. The reason why few diplomats saw this result coming is that the local diplomatic community continues to place far too much store on the views of partisan participants in the process and certain local NGOs, who have been overwhelmingly opposed to Bainimarama. One ambassador confided to me that as recently as a few months ago, a senior Australian diplomat was still trying to persuade his diplomatic colleagues of the need to “destroy” the PM. The encounter left this ambassador shaking his head. “You cannot have a democracy without racial equality and only Bainimarama can unite Fiji”, he said.

In the election aftermath, Australia and New Zealand will be hoping to step up their recent attempts to ingratiate themselves with a democratically-elected Bainimarama Government. It isn’t going to be easy. There’s a strong feeling in certain circles that they should be brought to account for their overt attempts to damage Fiji for having the impertinence to chart its own course. Overall relations will remain standoffish, the charm offensive by Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop notwithstanding. Or the positive contribution that Australia has made co-leading the Multinational Observers Group and at the Elections Office, where Michael Clancy has been a valued deputy to Mohammed Saneem, together with a number of others who have played an integral role in the success of this election.

New Zealand, in particular, continues to sorely offend the Fijian establishment with the content of its travel warnings. The latest – updated after the election – urges New Zealanders to be cautious when visiting Fiji and refers to “some risk to your security because of underlying political tensions”. Really? The visiting TV3 correspondent, Amanda Gillies, might have put herself at risk by “door-stopping” the Prime Minister and gratuitously asking him whether he planned another coup (he didn’t hit her, whatever the blogs say). But it would be difficult for any other visiting New Zealander to detect  “underlying political tensions”. Yes, the Government’s opponents are decidedly unhappy but the police and military are ready to step in at the first sign of restiveness, let alone civil disturbances. A SODELPA attempt to stage a march through the streets of Suva on Friday afternoon was firmly rejected. Such marches have been the prelude to disturbances in the past and will not be tolerated again.

A SMEAR ON THE JUDICIARY

The latest NZ Travel Warning goes on to make the outrageous claim that “the government has a degree of influence over the judiciary”. Where is the evidence for the truth of this statement? None is given in the advisory. Given the gravity of the charge and its potential impact on public confidence in the judiciary, isn’t it incumbent on the NZ Government to provide the details on which it bases its claim? Because the truth is that no credible evidence has ever been advanced that the executive branch of the Fijian Government influences the judiciary, nor that the judiciary does the Government’s bidding. Indeed the Chief Justice, Anthony Gates, and his fellow judges pride themselves on being fiercely independent, as does Christopher Pryde, the NZ-born Director of Public Prosecutions. Yes, some political figures have been convicted of a range of offences, including former Prime Ministers Laisenia Qarase and Mahendra Chaudry. But they have been convicted solely on the evidence before the courts and there have been no serious legal challenges to the validity of the charges against them.

The CJ and the DPP are highly aggrieved by the NZ accusations and understandably so because of their potential to damage public confidence in the system. Is it that the Kiwis continue to be irritated that Fiji has maintained a functioning judiciary despite all the attempts by Australia and NZ to deter their citizens from taking up posts in Fiji? If NZ wants to have friendly relations with a democratic Fiji, it must stop trying to denigrate and degrade our institutions.

FREE EDUCATION: THE GAME CHANGER

While the diplomatic miscalculations have been monumental, it has been a correspondingly monumental era in the nation’s development, whether it is the many thousands of households who now have electricity and clean water for the first time, the dramatic improvement in the nation’s roads, the completion of projects such as the Grand Pacific Hotel or the clock tower atop Government Buildings chiming in the hours again for the first time in a generation.

Fiji is patently not the same country in the same arrested state of development that it was when Bainimarama herded the old political order aside at gunpoint in 2006. And while that intervention may have earned him pariah status among Fiji’s bigger neighbours – who fulminated about Bainimarama perpetuating a coup culture – they missed a wider truth. That far from being regarded as a tyrant by the majority of his own people, they came to regard him as a hero, someone who identified with them, empathised with their needs and had their best interests at heart. Nothing exemplifies this more than the Government’s free schooling policy, truly the game changer that has transformed many lives for the better and set Fiji on a path towards being a smarter country.

I was in a taxi on Friday with a driver who said he wished he’d been born in the new Fiji because his widowed mother had been too poor to pay for his school fees. He’d been dragged in front of the class in primary school and humiliated as the principal demanded payment before eventually throwing him out of the school. Heartbreaking stories like this are legion in Fiji. Bainimarama put an end to the suffering of countless parents and students alike this year with his free schooling initiative. So it is only a mystery to outsiders – and the PM’s band of unyielding domestic opponents – that while he may have begun his journey as a coup maker, he ends it having morphed triumphantly into a democrat with the biggest popular vote ever secured by a politician in Fiji.

THUMBS UP FOR THE BAINIMARAMA AGENDA

How it must gall these opponents that the “illegal dictator” is about to become the legally elected Prime Minister, that the “Pariah” is now an important player on both the regional and international stages and that the Fijian people – in an election dubbed credible by the Multinational Observer Group – have put their trust in him to take the nation forward. Not only has Bainimarama emerged triumphant at the polls, his program has now been overwhelmingly endorsed in what has unquestionably been a referendum on every aspect of his program. Every citizen is now a Fijian by popular acclamation. Every Fijian enjoys equal status and equal opportunity by popular acclamation. The Secular State is endorsed by popular acclamation. The Qoliqoli Bill is rejected by popular acclamation.

The point is that Voreqe Bainimarama now has a democratic mandate for the 2013 Constitution, which his opponents say was foisted on the nation, but that the nation has now embraced. And he has a decisive mandate to implement the Manifesto he took to the election. It is inarguable. It is unambiguous. And it is a momentous achievement, an unparalleled triumph of leadership in the Fijian context.

Far from pandering to their prejudices and fears, Bainimarama has convinced the Fijian people – and especially the i’Taukei – to turn their backs on division and embrace a united and inclusive future. He has created Year Zero in the country’s tumultuous history to finally begin the task of nation building that should have begun at Independence in 1970 but was derailed by sectional interests, the elite and a culture of self entitlement and outright selfishness. Instead of working together as one nation, Fijians have spent much of the last 44 years in the thrall of those around them who preach division and hatred. But now – thanks largely to Bainimarama – they have been jolted into the realisation that they have been perpetually manipulated, not for their own benefit, but to suit the base ambitions of others.

In the election coverage on television, I was struck by the number of people – notably i’Taukei – who said they voted for Bainimarama not so much for his service delivery – impressive as that may be – but because he was “the best person to take the nation forward”. This is a hugely positive phenomenon. Because it suggests that ordinary people have rejected the politics of division. They are sick of living in the past. They are tired of the old arguments. They want to embrace a united future in which every Fijian has a stake. And they regard Voreqe Bainimarama as the best person to deliver that future. To offer a vision of progress and hope.

A SUCCESSFUL DOUBLE ACT

I recall a conversation I once had with the Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, in which he opined that the PM’s moral clarity and force of will had provided Fiji with a unique and perhaps unrepeatable opportunity. ” No other leader has ever had the vision to tackle the divisions between us or the courage to take on the forces holding us back”, he said. The AG’s unwavering loyalty to the PM is based on this fundamental premise and this loyalty has been returned in equal measure. When certain figures came to the PM complaining about the AG and seeking his removal, Bainimarama sent them packing with the savage admonition to come back to him when they did a fraction of the work the AG was doing for the betterment of the country. The term workaholic could have been invented for him.

It has been a unique partnership that now goes into the new Parliament. One of the great shibboleths in Fiji is that the AG is unpopular, even hated, and would lead the PM to defeat unless he cut him loose. The raw figures have proved this wrong. How did it happen? The electorate has undoubtedly recognised his hard work to reform the country. But it’s also a little known fact that the AG gives his personal mobile number to many ordinary people, answers their calls when they ring him and tries to help them navigate a way through the tangled web of Government to solve their problems. He emerges from this election as a political figure of consequence in his own right, having garnered more votes for FijiFirst than any other candidate after Bainimarama and being beaten only by Ro Teimumu Kepa in the overall tally. He is the third most important politician in Fiji in terms of his ability to secure votes and has the political mana to be Deputy Prime Minister, if indeed, that is what is decided.

The duo at the top is supplemented with a range of capable individuals, some of whom were proven performers in the last Government, such as Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, Inia Seruiratu, Dr Neil Sharma and Dr Jiko Luveni,. They’re joined by new additions in the Parliament such as Dr Mahendra Reddy and Pio Tikoduadua, who have been star performers as vote getters in this election. Both these figures are widely respected, Dr Reddy as Head of the Commerce Commission and Tikoduadua as former Permanent Secretary in the PM’s Office, a man with a reputation as a “Mr Fixit” who carried the election fight to Ro Teimumu’s doorstep in Rewa and Tailevu and did her significant electoral damage. These, along with many others, will form the nucleus of a fresh administration that Bainimarama says will redouble its efforts to improve the circumstances of Fijians across the nation.

THE CHURCH OF DIVISION

With his comfortable majority, the PM enjoys both a mandate to implement his program and a cushion in the Parliament to keep him secure on the floor of the House. One of his biggest fears – aside, of course, from defeat – was either the slimmest of winning margins that would shackle his reform program or a coalition that he always ruled out but might have embraced if it meant keeping SODELPA at bay. Yet a solid margin in the Parliament is no insurance against continuing problems in the wider community. And there are ominous signs that while the majority may have embraced him at the ballot box, some of Bainimarama’s opponents – political and religious – remain a brooding, malignant presence. Among these, regrettably, are Bainimarama’s old detractors in the Methodist Church, the biggest religious organisation in Fiji and still a bastion of indigenous supremacy, whatever its protestations to the contrary.

The Methodist Church claims that it has turned its back on partisan politics and has conducted a very public campaign to “heal” what it says are the divisions of the past. Yet last week it made the extraordinary decision to boycott the National Day of Thanksgiving for the release of the 45 Fijian Peacekeepers in Syria. In doing so, the Church has ripped the scab off its slowly healing relationship with the Government and restored its pariah status in the eyes of the Prime Minister, who has now been elected democratically by a huge margin and commands unprecedented authority in the country.

The Methodists were to play a major role in the Service of Thanksgiving at the ANZ National Stadium on election eve. But that morning came the news that its leadership would not be taking part because it regarded the event as “political”. This was a State Event at which the President gave the main address, the Prime Minister had no role and to which the leaders of all political parties were formally invited. It was to give thanks to God for protecting our men and sustaining their families during a terrible personal ordeal. Yet the biggest Christian denomination in Fiji chose to boycott the event. The news didn’t get out and has yet to be reported. Why? Partly because nobody seems to have noticed on the day due to the impressive turnout. And partly because after the scale of Wednesday’s election win, the Methodists are hardly anxious for their partisanship and insensitivity to be exposed.

In the event, the Service proceeded without the Methodist leadership, without the Centenary Church Choir but with many Methodists present who were totally unaware of the boycott. The media didn’t notice and neither, it seems, did the aspiring politicians present – Biman Prasad, Mahendra Chaudhry, Roshika Deo and several others. But guess who else wasn’t there? Yes, SODELPA leader Ro Teimumu Kepa, who sent someone else in her place but whose absence confirms what many suspect – that the Methodist Church is SODELPA at prayer. A church so totally politicised that it was willing to turn its back on a service organised by the State, the Nation – not a political party – to give thanks to God for the release of 45 Fijian hostages held by a terrorist group that routinely beheads its victims. To give thanks for the comfort he gave their families and the whole nation.

There has been no public explanation of the boycott and no comment from the Methodist Church leadership. But it is time for all Fijians – and especially Methodists – to demand that the Church hierarchy explain itself. To explain why it turned its back on the hostages and their families. To explain its gross insult to the Nation. The fury in official ranks is palpable. Because it was not the service that was “political” but the actions of the Methodist Church leadership. Why did they really do it? Was it because it was an interfaith service and the Methodist hierarchy was not prepared to share a stage with Hindus or Muslims? Was it because of the  failure of the Church’s campaign for the imposition of a Christian State? Was it because the Methodists became convinced that their own star candidate, Ro Teimumu Kepa, would win the election and there would be no consequences? Answers please.

It is deeply troubling that the hierarchy of the largest Church in Fiji is so out of kilter with the public mood that it would engage in such a blatantly partisan stance. Many Methodists will have voted for Bainimarama. And like other Fijians, they have voted overwhelmingly for religious tolerance, not bigotry. They have voted overwhelmingly for equality, not racially-weighted advantages for some. They have voted overwhelmingly for a just and fair society and everyone joining hands to work together to build a better Fiji. They have turned their backs on the division embodied by SODELPA and its acolytes in the Methodist Church and embraced a better future.

It is a wonderful moment in the life of the nation and a historical watershed – the birth of our first real democracy. Voreqe Bainimarama enters the history books as the man, who through sheer force of will, reset the national compass and led Fiji to a more united future. As the PM says: “There has never been a better time to be Fijian”. And most citizens – no matter what their backgrounds and beliefs – will say a collective Amen to that. Source: http://www.grubsheet.com.au/the-new-democracy-begins/

“Not everyone voted for me, but the fact that we have so far approximately 32 seats in the 50 seat parliament demonstrates the enthusiasm and the faith and the trust the Fijian people have had for both the track record of my government and FijiFirst manifesto.” - Frank Bainimarama in his 'Victory' Speech

JUST IMAGINE: We know Fiji's first Olympic Paralympian Iliesa Delana won the gold medal. He had gone into the games, ranked number two in the word but he jumped 1.74m to win the gold on count back, after clearing all heights up to and including 1.74m on his first attempts. His jump of 1.74m broke the Oceanic record for the event. Under Khaiyum's d'Hondt model, if it had been used by the Paralympian Olympic Committee, other Fijians taking part in F42 category (for single leg amputees without prosthesis) would have qualified for a medal also simply on the grounds that Delana came first in the jump. On his return Delana jumped over to FijiFirst Party and despite securing only 848 votes is entering Parliament under the d'Hondt electoral system under Bainimarama's coat tail.

NO WAY: The threshold to obtain parliamentary representation, like in Albania, could have been 3% for political parties and 5% for coalition parties. But there was no way Khaiyum would have permitted it, for it could have resulted in a seat or two for PDP. After all, the 5% threshold and anti-worker and trade union decrees were designed with PDP in mind.

As we can see from the results (left), Vuniyayawa, Anthony and Tabuya got more votes then many FFP candidates who will make up the 32 parliamentarians from FFP. The 3% threshold would have looked like this for PDP:

The 'Six Dead Voters' Turn Up to Vote on 18 September:

The Fijian Elections Office today confirmed that the total number of registered voters increased by six from the initial 591,095 that were released in their official voter tally. This sees the final number sitting at 591,101. Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem said this late increase was caused by the Births, Deaths and Marriage department of the Ministry of Justice where they had informed them that the six were deceased. Around the first week of September, the FEO had stated that the total number of registered voters for this election was 591,095. “The final number was 591101, there were six people whom we’ve sent them deceased letters, they came and said “I’m still here and we had to allow them in because that was an error on BDM. “That is why the numbers went up and it is really sad that they came two to three days away from elections so we had no way on knowing that they were still alive because we had sent the letters in April,” Saneem said. He added they allowed these voters to practise their rights and did not deprive them of their chance to cast their vote and have a say. Source: Fijilive.

Flour Mills of Fiji v Dayals (Fiji) Artesian Waters Ltd [2014] FJHC 662; HBC157.2009 (12 September 2014) IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No. HBC 157 of 2009

BETWEEN:

FLOUR MILLS OF FIJI
a company incorporated in Fiji having its registered office at Leonidas Street, Walu Bay, Suva.
Plaintiff

AND:

DAYALS (FIJI) ARTESIAN WATERS LIMITED
a limited liability company having its registered office at 1 Kings Road, Yalalevu, Ba.
Defendant

Counsel : Mr H Nagin for the Plaintiff

Mr A Sudhakar for the Defendant

Date of Judgment : 12 September 2014

JUDGMENT

1. By the Summons filed on 31 October 2013, the Defendant sought the following Orders:
   

(a) That the orders of the Master of 28th July 2011 wherein he ordered that the Defendant's Statement of Defence and counter-claim be struck out on default of filing the affidavit verifying list of documents and that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff be set aside;


(b) That the matter be restored to be cause list for it to take its normal course;


(c) That further proceedings on the orders and judgment entered on 28th July 2011 be stayed pending the hearing and determination of this application;


(d) That leave be given to the Defendant to file its affidavit verifying list of documents;


(e) That time for filing and service of this application be abridged to 1 day;


(f) That the cost of this application be paid by the Plaintiff.


2. The application was made in pursuant to Order 3 Rule 4, Order 19, Order 32, Order 44 and Order 45 Rule 10 of the High Court Rules 1988. The Defendant relied on the Affidavit of Jay Prakash Dayal dated 31 October 2013 in support of the summons.


3. The Plaintiff opposed the Defendant's application and relies on the Affidavit of Ram Charan Shivanand Bajekal filed on 12 December 2013.


4. The court had perused the contents of both the Affidavits and matter was taken up for hearing on 29 July 2014.


5. At the hearing the counsel for the Plaintiff referring to paragraphs 10, 12, 13 of the Affidavit filed on 12 December 2013 stated the Unless Orders made by the Learned Master sealed on 17 August 2011 cannot be set aside. The said order states:


1. There is no Affidavit of documents filed by the Defendants as ordered on 31 May 2011.


2. The Defendant's Statement of Defence and Counter Claim filed on 12 July 2010 to be struck out.


6. On 28 July 2011 when the Order was made the Defendant's counsel Mr Samad instructed by Natasha Khan & Associates was present before the court. The Defendant filed summons on 31 October 2013 to set aside the Unless Order after 27 months of the order for the reasons set out in the paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Affidavit sworn by Jay Prakash Dayal of the Defendant Company and I considered the reasons set out therein and conclude the reasons are not justifiable and could be accepted by this court.


7. Having concluded as in the preceding paragraph it is now to decide on the preliminary issue raised by the Defendant's counsel as to whether the Unless Order can be set aside. The counsel for the Defendant relied on the Judgment in case of Housing Authority vs. Raju HBC 71 of 2008 decided on 19 December 2008 (unreported). The facts of the said case is totally different to the present matter and there is no relevance to this case.


8. The chronology of the events should be analyzed in this case whether the setting aside of the Unless Order is justifiable:


(i) The Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 11 June 2009;


(ii) The amended Statement of Claim filed on 15/01/2010 after the Deed of Settlement entered between the parties on 21 October 2009;


(iii) Statement of Claim and Counter Claim filed on 12/07/2010;


(iv) Reply to Defence was filed on 01/09/2010;


(v) Summons for Directions filed on 18/02/2011;


(vi) On 31 March 2011, the time table was given by the Learned Master. Ms Naidu appeared for the Plaintiff and Ms Ratuviki appeared for the Defendant and taken notice of the Directions.


(vii) The Affidavit verifying the Plaintiff's list of documents filed on 13/04/2011;


(viii) The Defendant failed to file the Affidavit verifying the Defendants list of documents as directed by the Learned Master.


(ix) On 31 May 2011, the Learned Master made an 'unless order' the Defendant was given further 14 days to file its Affidavit verifying the documents failing which the Defence and Counter Claim would be struck out. As stated in the preceding paragraph 6, the Defendant was represented by Mr Samad and failed to comply with the Master's Unless Order.


Accordingly, the Learned Master had struck out the Defendant's Statement of Defence, and Counter Claim and Judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff and I determine the said order by the Learned Master is final.


9. The Defendant's counsel was well aware of the Unless Orders made on 31 May 2011 and he was aware the orders had to be complied by the Defendant before 28 July 2011. From 31 May 2011 the Defendant had 1 month and 28 days to comply with the Master's orders. The Plaintiff had failed to make any application to the Court for extension of the Unless Orders.


10. The Defendant's present application was made when the Mareva Injunction Order dated 14 October 2013 was served on the Defendant. The Defendant had failed to justify the delay caused for 27 months.


11. I agree with the Plaintiff that the order made by the Master on 28 July 2011 is a final order and the Defendant should have pursued appeal against the said order.


12. The Learned Master had made the order on 28 July 2011 entering Judgment against the Defendant pursuant to Order 59 Rule 2 of the High Court Rules.


13. The Order 59 Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the High Court Rules provides for an appeal from the Master's decision which states:


"8.-(1) An appeal shall lie from a final order or judgment of the Master to a single judge of the High Court.


(2) No appeal shall lie from an interlocutory order or judgment of the Master to a single judge of the High Court without the leave of a single judge of the High Court which may be granted or refused upon the papers filed."


"9. An appeal from an order or judgment of the Master shall be filed and served within the following period –


(a) 21 days from the date of the delivery of an order or judgment;

or


(b) in the case of an interlocutory order or judgment, within 7 days from the date of the granting of leave to appeal.


14. The Plaintiff relies in the case of Rahman vs. Cumarasamy [1964] 3All E.R. 933 at p.935 which states:


"The rules of court must, prima facie, be obeyed, and, in order to justify a court in extending the time during which some step in procedure requires to be taken, there must be some material on which the court can exercise its discretion. If the law are otherwise, a party in breach would have an unqualified right to an extension of time which would defeat the purpose of the rules which is to provide a time table for the conduct of litigation."


It is well establish principle that Rules and Orders of the court are to be followed and obeyed. In this case:


(i) The Defendant failed and neglected to comply with the Orders of the Master until Mareva Injunction Orders were served on the 16 October 2013;


(ii) The Defendant's counsel was present when the Unless Orders were made;


(iii) The Defendant did not made any attempt to apply for extension of time to comply with the Unless Order and the first application was made after 27 months of the order which was a final order and the Defendant option was to appeal against the said order.


As stated in the judgment of Rahman vs. Cumarasamy, there are no grounds establish by the Defendant to exercise any discretion favouring him in this case.


15. I also considered the Fiji Court of Appeal case Trade Air Engineering (West) Ltd vs. Taga [2007] ABU0062 of 2006 (unreported):


"Although the judge rejected the Appellants' submissions he did give leave to them to apply for the action to be reinstated. Mr Haniff was unable to refer us to any provision in the rules granting the court power to reinstate an action struck out in these circumstances. Generally, a party's only remedy following the striking out of its action is appeal. Exceptions to this general rule such as Order 13 Rule 10, Order 14 Rule 11, Order 24 Rule 17 or Order 32 Rule 6 have no application to Order 25."


16. The case cited by the Plaintiff's counsel Pollard vs. Incorporated Nominal Defendant [1972] Vic Rp110; [1972] VR 955 the Defendant failed to comply with an "Unless Order" for filing answers to interrogatories and the Defence was struck out and a Judgment for damages to be assessed was entered against the Defendant. The Supreme Court of Victoria held that an application seeking to set aside interlocutory judgment was entirely misconceived. The only remedy against such a judgment was to appeal. I agree and apply the same principle in this case. The Unless Orders made by the Learned Master are to be appealed and the application for the set aside cannot be entertained.


17. I also note with concern that at the hearing taken up on 29 July 2014, the Defendant's counsel was granted leave to file written submissions at his request within 14 days, which was not complied (which should have been filed and served on 13 August 2014). When the matter was taken up on 1 September 2014 for review Mr Sudhakar was not present and Mr N Prasad appeared and requested further 14 days to file the submissions and this court granted further 3 days to file submissions (before 4 September 2014) which Order too was not complied. All the delays by the Defendant and his counsel shows the disrespect for the court's directives/orders and the conclusion by this court is the behavior of the Counsel/Solicitor/Defendant is an attempt to delay the proceedings which cause prejudice to the Plaintiff.


18. Accordingly, I make the following Orders:


(a) The summons filed on 31 October 2013 for set aside of the Learned Master's Order dismissed and struck out;


(b) The Defendant is ordered to pay costs of $2,000.00 summarily assessed to the Plaintiff within 30 days of this Judgment.


Delivered at Suva this 12th Day of September 2014


..............................

C. KOTIGALAGE

JUDGE

Looking into claims of electoral fraud
Professor Wadan Narsey
Saturday, August 02, 2014
Fiji Times

The only real possibility of "vote rigging" will be if results from polling stations are systematically changed in the reporting to the central Elections Office

Many anonymous bloggers are already alleging the Bainimarama Government will be rigging the forthcoming September 2014 election.

Such allegations have been made before, and despite being unsubstantiated, have had disastrous results, politically and economically, and must be guarded against.

Here I take you back to the last 2006 election where soon after the results were announced, the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) claimed that they had been cheated of victory by SDL's electoral fraud.

This electoral fraud claim was then used by Bainimarama, as one of his justifications for the 2006 coup. But when the Leader of the FLP and a few of his colleagues joined Bainimarama's government, none of them produced any significant evidence of electoral fraud, despite being in government for more than a year

Neither was there any significant evidence of electoral fraud produced by the director of the Human Rights Commission, Dr Shaista Shameem, who financed and propagated a report on the elections by Dr James Anthony.

Nevertheless, the claims of electoral fraud have been believed by many Indo-Fijians and the allegations never retracted to this day, and even repeated by Bainimarama for seven years.

It is therefore useful to re-look at the voting numbers from 2006, and from 2001 and 1999, to see what lessons they hold for guarding against electoral fraud in the 2014 elections.

In a box, I list a number of 2006 allegations which political parties, candidates and voters can think about to consider their relevance for the September 2014 elections.

(This paper is drawn from a longer submission I had made to the Yash Ghai Commission).

Possible indicators of electoral fraud

Given the majority of SVT and SDL supporters were iTaukei, and the majority of supporters for the Fiji Labour Party were Fijians of Indian descent, there were two possible ethnicity-based indicators of possible electoral fraud in 1999, 2001 and 2006:

m Were the numbers of registered iTaukei voters higher than the potential numbers of voters indicated by population projections, and higher than the Fijian of Indian descent proportion? and

m Was the proportion of registered iTaukei voting systematically higher than the similar proportion for Fijians of Indian descent?

These two questions can be examined in aggregate for Fiji, or at the level of individual constituencies.

The electoral results suggest completely the opposite of the allegations.

The 2007 Census data and potential voters

One can work backwards from the 2007 Census results to estimate the numbers of potential voters for 2006 by reducing the iTaukei number by 1.9 per cent (that is the annual growth rate of iTaukei voters) and by reducing the Fijian of Indian descent number by a smaller 0.1 per cent, the growth rate of Fijian voters of Indian descent.

Table 1 gives the results for percent. of potential voters who were registered by ethnicity.

The last row indicates that a lower 98 per cent of eligible iTaukei voters were actually registered than the 99 per cent of Fijians of Indian descent, but both were pretty close to 100 per cent.

It is highly unlikely hordes of non-existent iTaukei voters had been registered by the SDL in order to swamp the Fijians of Indian descent vote.

And regardless of the excessive numbers of ballot papers had apparently been printed, what percentage of those registered voters actually voted?

The last row of Table 2 tells you a lower 87 per cent of registered iTaukei voters voted in 2006, compared with 89 per cent of registered Fijians of Indian descent.

A higher proportion of potential Fijian voters of Indian descent were registered than iTaukei. And a higher proportion of registered Fijian voters of Indian descent actually voted, than iTaukei. This was true in all the last three elections: 1999, 2001 and in 2006 as indicated by Table 3.

In all these elections, the election turnout of Fijians of Indian descent was higher than that of the iTaukei and Others.

It was highly unlikely that numbers of iTaukei voting were in any way artificially inflated by either SVT or SDL.

Both ethnic communities saw much lower proportions voting in 2001 (soon after the 2000 coup) than in either 2001 or 2006.

But what about at the individual constituency level, where there was one strange anomaly of more people voting than voters actually registered?

One small constituency irregularity

There was only one odd result in the 2006 elections, in the Cakaudrove East constituency where there were some 7587 voters registered and 7639 voters actually voted, with the "extra" votes amounting to a mere 52 voters (Table 4).

This was hardly evidence of electoral fraud, for two reasons.

First, one can easily imagine rural areas where some iTaukei voters may have just gone to the wrong polling booths.

In fact, right alongside Cakaudrove East was another Fijian constituency, Cakaudrove West, where a massive 1987 registered iTaukei voters did not vote, or more likely, some of them may have incorrectly voted in Cakaudrove East.

Second, note that the SDL won Cakaudrove East by a massive margin of 5353 votes over all the other parties combined. The 52 extra votes was a drop in bucket and no one with any common sense would suppose that SDL would have even bothered to cheat in that constituency.

Unlike the current electoral system, in 2006, having extra votes in any one constituency is no help whatsoever to winning in any other constituency.

Yet allegations of electoral fraud without an iota of evidence have continued to be made and believed by Fijians of Indian descent.

They believe what they want to

Most Fijians of Indian descent still believe the FLP's allegations of electoral fraud in 2001 and 2006, although no such allegation was made about the 1999 elections when they won.

One can understand their suspicions given that twice, in 1987 and 2000, coups removed their political leaders from control of government, with systemic violence directed against them.

There is little doubt that FLP's allegations of electoral fraud against SDL undermined national and international confidence in the resulting SDL/FLP multi-party government, and helped to justify the 2006 Bainimarama coup

This "bitterness factor" may have ironically encouraged the FLP leader (and other Fijian leaders of Indian descent) to join the Bainimarama Government after the 2006 coup, however unethical it seemed to neutral observers.

The irony is that eight years later, the same FLP is in partnership with SODELPA (the successor to SDL) fighting the elections against the Bainimarama Government's Fiji First party.

There is little doubt that had all the lawfully elected governments been allowed to continue their full terms in 1987, 2000 and 2006, they would have accelerated economic growth to levels achieved by other comparable countries such as Mauritius and Singapore, and allowed many progressive social policies for Fiji such as in education and health.

Fiji faces the same problem today.

Should the Fiji First party win a surprisingly large number of seats in September, how likely is it that there will once again be:

* allegations of electoral fraud;

* undermining local and international confidence in the legitimacy of the elections outcome fuelling further political instability;

* further undermining investor confidence; and

* and once again reducing economic growth?

Lessons for the 2014 Elections

In the previous elections with 71 separate constituencies, if there were close results in any one of them, then a few hundred votes rigged this way and that, could have made a difference to that particular constituency result, and the overall national tally of political parties.

But for the September 2014 elections, there is only one national constituency and the number of seats for each party will [be] decided by its share of total votes in aggregate.

Very differently from previous elections, fiddling or vote-rigging a few hundred votes here and there in some polling station, will not make any significant difference to the final aggregate votes and seats received by each political party.

An honest and efficient Elections Office will easily pick up any electoral fraud.

The September 2014 voter rolls are all computerised and voters will only be able to vote at their designated polling stations.

The two mobile phone companies, Digicel and Vodafone, have agreed to provide an extremely helpful free SMS service which has significantly reduced the headache and transport costs for voters having to find which polling station they are supposed to vote at, still a costly exercise for those not having access to a mobile phone - that Elections Office officials and political party workers can try and remedy.

Since there are no numbers of voters based on constituencies or ethnicity, such checks will be no longer possible, only aggregate numbers of total potential voters, total registered and total voting.

But there will be no difficulty in picking up if more persons have voted than are registered at any of these polling stations, or if there are systemic biases in percentages voting at each polling station, favouring some political party or other.

The only real possibility of "vote rigging" will be if results from polling stations are systematically changed in the reporting to the central Elections Office.

Political parties, NGOs and international observers must therefore make sure that they

(a) closely monitor the counting of votes for each candidate at as many of the polling stations as possible, and

(b) check their results with what is eventually put out by the Elections Office.

* These are the views of Professor Wadan Narsey and not of The Fiji Times. Professor Narsey was a parliamentarian from 1996 to 1999 after which he has had no political affiliation. He has stated to The Fiji Times he is not aligned to any political party

By VICTOR LAL
Fijileaks Opinion Columnist
COMING SOON

WHEN my own BROTHER told me in a phone call that he was switching his voting intention at the last minute and will be voting for FIJIFIRST PARTY, all my gentle warnings to SODELPA campaign apparatchiks and top leadership came true: 'PLEASE stop parroting about chiefs, church, GCC, qoliqoli, and land and indigenous rights. A vast majority of urban and progressive commoner Fijians, especially native Fijian youth voters, are not interested in these issues. And worst, it will frighten the hell out of voters. Native Fijians, Indo-Fijians and Others will conclude that a vote for SODELPA on these issues will translate to a vote for another COUP. After all, these were the issues which Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum cited as reason, and the need in 2006, to oust the SDL-FLP coalition government.'

THE RESPONSE from one firebrand Johnny-Come-Lately SODELPA campaigner to me: 'JUST SHUT UP. You and Aiyaz are cut from from same cloth - closet Indo-Fijian nationalists.' He reminded me of all the opinion columns I have written on the above issues, most highly critical of those i-taukei institutions. 'Kai, Aiyaz is simply putting into action what you and other Indo-Fijians have been advocating for years - to reduce us to second-class citizens.' 

But election, I told him and others, is about winning and not playing the Indigenous or Race Card, especially when the voters had been living under a brutal dictatorship for the last eight years. I will return to SODELPA. To my BROTHER NOW. 'Why are you bloody voting for FFP which has put me on the list of banned persons from entering Fiji after I had revealed that Bainimarama's then Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry was hiding $2million in his secret bank account?'

His reply: "Bhai, just look at what SODELPA is offering us. It is a recipe for another COUP. No way I am going to vote for them or other parties which seem to be in cahoots with them. They all ran away after 2006 coup. What guarantee is there that these chaps will stand up for us? I have changed my mind. I am voting for FijiFIRST Party. It does not mean that I am endorsing your banning order nor that I am supporting Frank and Aiyaz. I am voting for the Devil I know for the last eight years in this election. Sorry bhai. I know I am letting you down.' He had reason to fear another coup.

He has lived through 'four and a half COUPS' in Fiji.  I said: 'It is your choice but you will live to regret it. It will mean if FFP wins, you will not see me in Fiji for the next four years. The entry ban will most likely to continue against me.'  Fijileaks Editor: To be continued!