  BAINIMARAMA 2016 NEW YEAR'S MESSAGE, 12/31/2015 My fellow Fijians, Bula Vinaka and a very Happy New Year to you all. As we end the past year and celebrate the coming of 2016, I hope you are all able to take the time to reflect on what we have been able to achieve and focus on the path ahead of us–a path that will take Fiji and all Fijians to even greater levels of success and prosperity. In 2015, we completed our first full year as a true democracy, and the Fijian people had the opportunity to see their votes and their voices become actions. 2015 was indeed a year of action. It was a year of achievement and it was a year in which Fiji truly came into its own as a model Pacific Island country. We witnessed how successful a Government can be when it remains untainted by ethnic considerations and division. How effective it can be when it awards on the basis of merit. How fair it can be when it embraces common and equal citizenry for all Fijians. And how successful the country can be when we focus on growing the economy for the well-being and prosperity for all. These values have led us to become a more unified country, and the world has taken notice. This year, I had the opportunity to visit the Fijian diaspora around the globe and tell them what we have been able to accomplish as a new Fiji. I let them know that Fiji is back, better than ever before, and that we are open for business. The changes that we have implemented were long-awaited by many of our Fijian brothers and sisters overseas -- and it was an emotional time, as we reconciled with many people who were told that Fiji was no longer home for them. They recognised the progress we’ve made, and many committed themselves to walk side by side with us towards an even more prosperous and united future for our country. As we recapture what we lost, and rebuild relationships with many Fijians who were driven away, we will strengthen our global presence. And with their knowledge and investment, and together with our home-grown talent, we will take our economy to even greater heights. That is why reconnecting with our people living abroad is so important. My fellow Fijians, Last year I asked you all to capitalise on our transition into democracy, and I am proud to say we are meeting that challenge every day. In 2015, we built upon our education revolution, we continued to improve and modernise our infrastructure – connecting more and more Fijians to roads, water and electricity - and we logged our sixth consecutive year of economic growth. Our schools continue to equip our children with new technology in the classroom that will keep our students, and future workforce, competitive on the regional and global stage. Our infrastructure continues to develop, bringing essential services to every corner of the country. Our economy is improving every day, and my Government will remain committed to making sure that the benefits reach every level of our society. All of this was made possible because the vast majority of Fijians are focused on the future, they don’t live in the past, and they don’t want to go back to the politics and ways of the old. They have stood as one people, together, to confront the obstacles that came our way and now step into the future confidently. My fellow Fijians, To strengthen our stand as one modern nation, free from its colonial past and to give ample opportunity to Fijians of all ages, and in particular our youth, to further contribute and consider what symbols most rightly represent our wonderful nation; my Government has decided to further extend the feedback period for designs for the new national flag to 29 February, 2016. The Government has received a number of new submissions since the 23 designs were published earlier this year. The new time frame will be as follows: From 1st to the 19th of March 2016, 5 designs will be chosen, through the PM’s Office, for you all to vote on. Members of the public will have 3 months to vote on the 5 designs through public consultations, social media and text messaging. It is expected that the design with the most votes will be announced on 1 July to be our new national flag. The new national flag will be raised on Constitution Day which is on September 7. I urge you all to join our pursuit for a flag that represents who we are today, rather than our past and one we can fly proudly into the future. With that said, my fellow Fijians, our work can’t stop here. There is much that is left to be done, not only to reach our potential in the short-term, but also to pass on better opportunities to our future generations. That means leaving our children and grandchildren a world, and environment, that we can be proud of. Recently, I was in Paris at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change advocating a strong deal that addressed the threat climate change poses to our region and demanded real action on the part of developed countries. At the start of this month, the UN laid out the Paris Agreement. It’s not everything we asked for, but it is still a step in the right direction. But now, more than ever, our commitment will be tested as we continue to fight to make sure the strong words printed on the agreement take the form of real, binding cuts on emissions through the developed world. I am counting on other small island Leaders to stand fast, as we have in the months leading up to the Conference, and on our development partners to continue collaborating with us as we push forward in mitigating the effects of climate change. By having a national co-ordinated approach, we will mainstream climate change issues to all the Government Ministries and ensure that we are able to source the right levels of financial support and allocations. My fellow Fijians, I hope that you have been able to spend quality time with your families and loved ones this holiday season. Families are the backbone of our country, and we must do what we can to protect the sacred bonds of trust that hold our families together. That is why I have committed to using every available opportunity I have to condemn domestic violence and sexual assault that plague our society. The law punishes these crimes severely, but we need to create a culture that disgraces anyone who even thinks about abusing or assaulting our women and children. And people who commit these atrocities should be mortified to show their faces in our communities and in our society. When we allow violence to persist in our most private settings, when we have such a fundamental breach of trust, it creates an epidemic of destructive and immoral behaviour that spreads throughout our society, and it is our collective responsibility to prevent that from happening. As Fijians, we should be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and know that we are doing our utmost to protect those who cannot always protect themselves. So, I call on all of you to join me in this mission to ensure that every Fijian woman and child lives a fulfilling life that is free from violence and abuse. As we close out 2015, let us, above all, thank God for the many blessings, and let’s resolve to do our best to keep building a better Fiji. Wherever you are on this New Year’s Day, I wish you all a very happy and prosperous 2016. Vinaka vakalevu. Thank you
        “I let them know that Fiji is back better than ever before and that we are open for business. The changes that we have implemented were long awaited by many of our Fijian brothers and sisters overseas and it was an emotional time as we reconciled with many people who were once told that Fiji was not longer home for them. They recognized the progress we’ve made and many committed themselves to work side by side with us towards an even more prosperous and united future for our country.” - Bainimarama's 2016 New Year Message; |
 |  |
"Khaiyum abuses his illegal AG office by warding off foreclosure and selling his properties in exchange for IG favors; the bank unwilling to foreclose for (the entirely reasonable) fear that its expatriate managers would be DEPORTED should they do so" - US Ambassador Steven McGaan to Washington
Peoples Charter architect John Samy told US Ambassador McGann Frank Bainimarama must return to 1997 Constitution (co-authored by Professor Brij Lal) and Parliament if Charter goals are to be achieved in post-coup Fiji
BY VICTOR LAL
In late December 2008 John Samy, credited as the architect of the Peoples Charter, had a lunch meeting with United States Ambassador Steven McGaan in Suva. The then dictator Frank Bainimarama had earlier asked McGann’s predecessor Larry Dinger in November 2007 if the United States government could provide him US$2.6million to help fund the Peoples Charter exercise, led by Samy.
It has emerged that during that lunch meeting with McGaan in 2008, Samy had expressed his grave reservations on the Charter, as McGann reported to Washington in a leaked Wikileaks cable dated 22 December 2008 under the heading John Samy and the NCBBF Process. First, McGaan explained the background to the Charter: “The National Council for Building a Better Fiji (NCBBF) completed nation-wide & consultations on the draft Peoples, Charter this month and presented their report to the president on December 15. The NCBBF claimed to have consulted approximately 425,000 people, with more than 370,000 completing response forms, 92 percent of which reportedly fully endorsed the Charter. As reported reftels B and C, the consultation process involved a wide range of coercion and is perceived as having very little legitimacy. Opponents continue to question why, if the public truly supports the Charter, the IG remains unwilling to hold a public referendum on the document as originally promised. Meanwhile, the role the Peoples, Charter will play in Fiji,s future and how its aspirational goals will become political realities remains a mystery.”
Intimidation used to get people to endorse Peoples Charter: Samy
McGaan then turned to the contents of the meeting, informing Washington: “In a recent lunch meeting, the architect of the Peoples, Charter, John Samy, told the Ambassador that that he undertook the process thinking it would be helpful to Fiji. As political events have unfolded since the Charter’s launch in August, Samy has lost enthusiasm for the direction of the IG. He expressed disappointment about the intimidation used to get people to endorse the Charter. Samy understands now that the aspirational goals of the Charter) some of which are necessary to take Fiji away from race-based politics) will not be met without returning to the 1997 Constitution and Parliament. Ultimately, it might require a deal among all the parties and it is too soon to tell whether the PPDF can achieve this. Samy said he was looking forward to his return to New Zealand.”
Khaiyum obstacle to holding election – Samy and Parmesh Chand
In the same cable, McGann, under the heading “Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and the Politics of Delay” noted Samy’s disenchantment with the Peoples Charter: “Some of Samy’s frustration at the direction the IG has taken undoubtedly stems from encounters with attorney general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, who remains close to Bainimarama and is strongly opposed to holding elections in the near term. Fiji’s highest ranking civil servant, Parmesh Chand, reached out to the Ambassador to express concern, both his own and on behalf of others within the IG seeking elections in 2009, about the AG’s influence with Bainimarama. Chand’s view, that the AG has captured the ear of Bainimarama in a negative way, is widely held in Fiji.”
Khaiyum defaulter on several property loans, says US Ambassador McGaan
Khaiyum abuses his illegal AG office by warding off foreclosure and selling his properties in exchange for IG favors; the bank unwilling to foreclose for (the entirely reasonable) fear that its expatriate managers would be deported should they do so
McGaan also explained why Khaiyum was holding Fiji back from going to the polls: “While ideology undoubtedly plays a role, Sayed-Khaiyum’s personal ambition and political isolation likely fuel his opposition to near-term elections. The AG is not affiliated with any major political party, has limited contacts outside the IG, and would face an uncertain future should he lose his position. He was in default on several property loans to one of Fiji’s largest banks for much of the past two years; the bank unwilling to foreclose for (the entirely reasonable) fear that its expatriate managers would be deported should they do so. He recently resolved the delinquencies by selling the properties to law firms he dishes out IG work to, for prices well above fair market value. For the time being, Sayed-Khaiyum seems firmly ensconced, having time and again proven himself as Bainimarma’s go-to guy, resolving a number of political and economic problems created by other IG ministers.”
John Samy’s candid acknowledgement to US Ambassador Steve McGaan in 2008 flies flat in the face of lying deputy secretary of the Strategic Framework for Change in Fiji, Edward Tuindau in 2011. His speech to the Melanesian despots in Nadi on 5 September 2011, Tuindau told the gathering: “The Peoples Charter process was a nation-wide inclusive and participatory process. It represents Fiji’s own way of addressing its deep-rooted, complex and fundamental problems. The NCBBF had received very strong broad-based support from the people of Fiji for the draft Peoples Charter with an acceptance rate of 64%. It is on the basis of such a feedback from the people of Fiji that the NCBBF finalised the draft document and submitted this – The Peoples Charter for Change Peace and Progress to His Excellency the late President of Fiji in December 2008 for endorsement”
The Peoples Charter architect John Samy told US ambassador Steve McGaan that INTIMIDATION was used to get the people of Fiji to endorse the Charter.
Fijileaks: And Fiji was being held to ransom by a megalomaniac and near bankrupt illegal Attorney-General Khaiyum, Bainimarama’s go-to guy thug. Khaiyum had also secretly registered the FijiFirst Party in 2009
Peoples Charter architect John Samy told US Ambassador McGann Frank Bainimarama must return to 1997 Constitution (co-authored by Professor Brij Lal) and Parliament if Charter goals are to be achieved in post-coup Fiji
BY VICTOR LAL
In late December 2008 John Samy, credited as the architect of the Peoples Charter, had a lunch meeting with United States Ambassador Steven McGaan in Suva. The then dictator Frank Bainimarama had earlier asked McGann’s predecessor Larry Dinger in November 2007 if the United States government could provide him US$2.6million to help fund the Peoples Charter exercise, led by Samy.
It has emerged that during that lunch meeting with McGaan in 2008, Samy had expressed his grave reservations on the Charter, as McGann reported to Washington in a leaked Wikileaks cable dated 22 December 2008 under the heading John Samy and the NCBBF Process. First, McGaan explained the background to the Charter: “The National Council for Building a Better Fiji (NCBBF) completed nation-wide & consultations on the draft Peoples, Charter this month and presented their report to the president on December 15. The NCBBF claimed to have consulted approximately 425,000 people, with more than 370,000 completing response forms, 92 percent of which reportedly fully endorsed the Charter. As reported reftels B and C, the consultation process involved a wide range of coercion and is perceived as having very little legitimacy. Opponents continue to question why, if the public truly supports the Charter, the IG remains unwilling to hold a public referendum on the document as originally promised. Meanwhile, the role the Peoples, Charter will play in Fiji,s future and how its aspirational goals will become political realities remains a mystery.”
Intimidation used to get people to endorse Peoples Charter: Samy
McGaan then turned to the contents of the meeting, informing Washington: “In a recent lunch meeting, the architect of the Peoples, Charter, John Samy, told the Ambassador that that he undertook the process thinking it would be helpful to Fiji. As political events have unfolded since the Charter’s launch in August, Samy has lost enthusiasm for the direction of the IG. He expressed disappointment about the intimidation used to get people to endorse the Charter. Samy understands now that the aspirational goals of the Charter) some of which are necessary to take Fiji away from race-based politics) will not be met without returning to the 1997 Constitution and Parliament. Ultimately, it might require a deal among all the parties and it is too soon to tell whether the PPDF can achieve this. Samy said he was looking forward to his return to New Zealand.”
Khaiyum obstacle to holding election – Samy and Parmesh Chand
In the same cable, McGann, under the heading “Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and the Politics of Delay” noted Samy’s disenchantment with the Peoples Charter: “Some of Samy’s frustration at the direction the IG has taken undoubtedly stems from encounters with attorney general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, who remains close to Bainimarama and is strongly opposed to holding elections in the near term. Fiji’s highest ranking civil servant, Parmesh Chand, reached out to the Ambassador to express concern, both his own and on behalf of others within the IG seeking elections in 2009, about the AG’s influence with Bainimarama. Chand’s view, that the AG has captured the ear of Bainimarama in a negative way, is widely held in Fiji.”
Khaiyum defaulter on several property loans, says US Ambassador McGaan
Khaiyum abuses his illegal AG office by warding off foreclosure and selling his properties in exchange for IG favors; the bank unwilling to foreclose for (the entirely reasonable) fear that its expatriate managers would be deported should they do so
McGaan also explained why Khaiyum was holding Fiji back from going to the polls: “While ideology undoubtedly plays a role, Sayed-Khaiyum’s personal ambition and political isolation likely fuel his opposition to near-term elections. The AG is not affiliated with any major political party, has limited contacts outside the IG, and would face an uncertain future should he lose his position. He was in default on several property loans to one of Fiji’s largest banks for much of the past two years; the bank unwilling to foreclose for (the entirely reasonable) fear that its expatriate managers would be deported should they do so. He recently resolved the delinquencies by selling the properties to law firms he dishes out IG work to, for prices well above fair market value. For the time being, Sayed-Khaiyum seems firmly ensconced, having time and again proven himself as Bainimarma’s go-to guy, resolving a number of political and economic problems created by other IG ministers.”
John Samy’s candid acknowledgement to US Ambassador Steve McGaan in 2008 flies flat in the face of lying deputy secretary of the Strategic Framework for Change in Fiji, Edward Tuindau in 2011. His speech to the Melanesian despots in Nadi on 5 September 2011, Tuindau told the gathering: “The Peoples Charter process was a nation-wide inclusive and participatory process. It represents Fiji’s own way of addressing its deep-rooted, complex and fundamental problems. The NCBBF had received very strong broad-based support from the people of Fiji for the draft Peoples Charter with an acceptance rate of 64%. It is on the basis of such a feedback from the people of Fiji that the NCBBF finalised the draft document and submitted this – The Peoples Charter for Change Peace and Progress to His Excellency the late President of Fiji in December 2008 for endorsement”
The Peoples Charter architect John Samy told US ambassador Steve McGaan that INTIMIDATION was used to get the people of Fiji to endorse the Charter.
Fijileaks: And Fiji was being held to ransom by a megalomaniac and near bankrupt illegal Attorney-General Khaiyum, Bainimarama’s go-to guy thug. Khaiyum had also secretly registered the FijiFirst Party in 2009
NEW YEARS MESSAGE
Ni sa Bula my fellow citizens
As we welcome in the New Year, let us pause for a moment to reflect on the year that was and examine the journey so far on our way back to parliamentary democracy.
Are we still on course or have we lost our way? The answer to this is vital for every one of us – for every man, woman and child – because it will determine our way of life. That, in turn, reflects on our national happiness and our destiny as a nation.
Some people say that if we want to achieve success in the future, we should stay focused on what is to come and not look back. By the same token, if we ignore the errors of the past and leave them unresolved, as we tend to do, then we are bound to repeat the same mistakes in the future.
Achieving any level of attainment in our bid to return to democratic governance depends on correctly establishing the fundamentals because they form the building blocks for our nation.
Regrettably for Fiji, the fundamentals were ‘imposed’ and designed only to keep power in the hands of the military-backed regime. The interests of the people were secondary.
Consider the following:
· The 2013 Constitution now in place has still not been ratified by the people;
· Decrees remain in force that are undemocratic and inconsistent even with the imposed Constitution.
· The imposition of Sec 131 (2) of the Constitution gives to the military total responsibility for the welfare of our people. It is the military that is responsible for the coups that have caused so much damage and instability.
These facts demonstrate that our path to Parliamentary democracy is severely flawed. Unless these problems are dealt with, the prospect of achieving real democracy – government of the people, by the people - is impossible. What passes for democracy now is actually the dictatorship of two men, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.
Other serious flaws are the constraints on freedom of expression and access to information. These limitations completely undermine key elements of the democratic way of life.
Much of what happens or what is said in national affairs is hidden from the people. This is because one newspaper declines to print certain comments or publishes versions that are severely ‘filtered’ by its solicitors. This is to avoid possible legal action with the threat of jail time for its editor. The other paper has chosen to become the Government’s ‘propaganda’ arm in return for handsome payments from taxpayers’ funds. It concentrates on portraying the government in a positive light, whatever the facts. It prints false stories about the SODELPA party; in fact about anyone who dares to speak up against wrong- doing or challenges the Government. All the while the so-called watchdog, the Media Industry Development Authority, remains silent.
There is also the direct interference by the Attorney General in almost every facet of governance in the country. Just look at some parts of the AG’s record:
· Interfering with a Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Shirley Park controversy;
· Interfering with the commercial sporting contracts of Fiji TV and Mai TV;
· Making direct contact with the Chairman of the Defence and Security Standing Committee on a recent case of allegations of ‘torture’ of citizens and ordering him to ‘stop’ committee proceedings when he has no right to do so;
These actions and more show a clear breach of the fundamentals of the ‘separation of powers’, a cornerstone of Parliamentary Democracy.
I raise these matters so you become aware of some of the deliberate ‘obstacles’ being placed in our path to democracy.
But the government should remember that when all is said and done, it will be the people who ultimately decide what they want. Although the majority of our people remain intimidated and fear persecution if they speak out, we can take heart from the few who continue to protest wrong-doing and bad behaviour. They are paying the price for us all. Hopefully the example they set will encourage others to step up and be counted.
Dr Martin Luther King Jr once said:-
‘When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love’
‘In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.”
As we enter 2016 I plead with you all to make a New Year resolution to engage with us as we push for change and for truth and justice. Let us come together so that the just, fair, transparent and accountable governance we seek and the freedoms to which we are entitled can, once again, become the reality for Fiji.
Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year and God Bless you all.
Ro Teimumu Kepa
Leader of the Opposition
Ni sa Bula my fellow citizens
As we welcome in the New Year, let us pause for a moment to reflect on the year that was and examine the journey so far on our way back to parliamentary democracy.
Are we still on course or have we lost our way? The answer to this is vital for every one of us – for every man, woman and child – because it will determine our way of life. That, in turn, reflects on our national happiness and our destiny as a nation.
Some people say that if we want to achieve success in the future, we should stay focused on what is to come and not look back. By the same token, if we ignore the errors of the past and leave them unresolved, as we tend to do, then we are bound to repeat the same mistakes in the future.
Achieving any level of attainment in our bid to return to democratic governance depends on correctly establishing the fundamentals because they form the building blocks for our nation.
Regrettably for Fiji, the fundamentals were ‘imposed’ and designed only to keep power in the hands of the military-backed regime. The interests of the people were secondary.
Consider the following:
· The 2013 Constitution now in place has still not been ratified by the people;
· Decrees remain in force that are undemocratic and inconsistent even with the imposed Constitution.
· The imposition of Sec 131 (2) of the Constitution gives to the military total responsibility for the welfare of our people. It is the military that is responsible for the coups that have caused so much damage and instability.
These facts demonstrate that our path to Parliamentary democracy is severely flawed. Unless these problems are dealt with, the prospect of achieving real democracy – government of the people, by the people - is impossible. What passes for democracy now is actually the dictatorship of two men, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.
Other serious flaws are the constraints on freedom of expression and access to information. These limitations completely undermine key elements of the democratic way of life.
Much of what happens or what is said in national affairs is hidden from the people. This is because one newspaper declines to print certain comments or publishes versions that are severely ‘filtered’ by its solicitors. This is to avoid possible legal action with the threat of jail time for its editor. The other paper has chosen to become the Government’s ‘propaganda’ arm in return for handsome payments from taxpayers’ funds. It concentrates on portraying the government in a positive light, whatever the facts. It prints false stories about the SODELPA party; in fact about anyone who dares to speak up against wrong- doing or challenges the Government. All the while the so-called watchdog, the Media Industry Development Authority, remains silent.
There is also the direct interference by the Attorney General in almost every facet of governance in the country. Just look at some parts of the AG’s record:
· Interfering with a Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Shirley Park controversy;
· Interfering with the commercial sporting contracts of Fiji TV and Mai TV;
· Making direct contact with the Chairman of the Defence and Security Standing Committee on a recent case of allegations of ‘torture’ of citizens and ordering him to ‘stop’ committee proceedings when he has no right to do so;
These actions and more show a clear breach of the fundamentals of the ‘separation of powers’, a cornerstone of Parliamentary Democracy.
I raise these matters so you become aware of some of the deliberate ‘obstacles’ being placed in our path to democracy.
But the government should remember that when all is said and done, it will be the people who ultimately decide what they want. Although the majority of our people remain intimidated and fear persecution if they speak out, we can take heart from the few who continue to protest wrong-doing and bad behaviour. They are paying the price for us all. Hopefully the example they set will encourage others to step up and be counted.
Dr Martin Luther King Jr once said:-
‘When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love’
‘In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.”
As we enter 2016 I plead with you all to make a New Year resolution to engage with us as we push for change and for truth and justice. Let us come together so that the just, fair, transparent and accountable governance we seek and the freedoms to which we are entitled can, once again, become the reality for Fiji.
Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year and God Bless you all.
Ro Teimumu Kepa
Leader of the Opposition
Fijileaks: 2015 will end as 2014 - drunk on corruption, lies and fraud!
Last week, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum called the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on foreign affairs and defence and told him its investigations into allegations raised by local lawyer Aman Ravindra-Singh were illegal, resulting in the committee suspending its investigations.
Mr Sayed-Khaiyum later told Fiji media that the committee members were not suitably qualified and that the investigation should be carried out by police.
He also insisted he had acted within his rights in advising the committee.
But the University of Auckland's Bill Hodge says Mr Sayed-Khaiyum overstepped the boundaries set out by the original British bill of rights of 1689, which governs the separation of powers in democracies and parliaments all around the world.
"The attorney general is actually part of the executive and the original privileges for parliament were designed to prevent the executive from interfering. That is exactly why we have these privileges to keep the attorney general out of it."
Dr Hodge also says the speaker of parliament despite being the head of the house has no power over committees, and only a motion by the whole house can limit or terminate standing committee functions. Source: Radio New Zealand International
Mr Sayed-Khaiyum later told Fiji media that the committee members were not suitably qualified and that the investigation should be carried out by police.
He also insisted he had acted within his rights in advising the committee.
But the University of Auckland's Bill Hodge says Mr Sayed-Khaiyum overstepped the boundaries set out by the original British bill of rights of 1689, which governs the separation of powers in democracies and parliaments all around the world.
"The attorney general is actually part of the executive and the original privileges for parliament were designed to prevent the executive from interfering. That is exactly why we have these privileges to keep the attorney general out of it."
Dr Hodge also says the speaker of parliament despite being the head of the house has no power over committees, and only a motion by the whole house can limit or terminate standing committee functions. Source: Radio New Zealand International
AG SUBVERTING PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY - LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION CALLS FOR THE RESIGNATION OF THE AG
The Leader calls on the Attorney General to resign as he has subverted (again) the role and powers of the Speaker of Parliament and parliamentary democracy by ordering the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to stop looking into allegations of torture raised by lawyer Aman Ravindra Singh in the foreign media.
The Committee was meeting for the 2nd day today in Parliament following a letter from Committee Member and Opposition Parliamentarian Honourable Roko Tupou Draunidalo.
Committee Chairman Honourable Colonel Netani Rika decided to bring the meeting to an abrupt end before midday today. He told the Members that the Attorney General had called him to stop the meeting saying the Committee did not have parliamentary authority or approval to meet and furthermore that Aman RavindraSingh had not filed a complaint with police regarding the torture allegations.
Both Opposition Members on the Committee Hon. Draunidalo and Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca opposed this premature termination of the meeting informing Colonel Rika that the meeting was taking place under the authority of the Speaker who is the overall and sole authority of Parliament - not the Attorney General or any other Member of the Executive which is the Government.
The bipartisan committee adjourned their meeting and the Opposition Members asked the Chairman for clarification and direction from the Speaker and Secretary General to parliament.
Through his interference, the Attorney General has again, undermined the neutrality and independence of the Office of the Speaker to make decisions independently based on the sole premise of upholding parliamentary democracy.
If anything, the Attorney General should have (like any other member of the public), appeared before the Committee and made his submissions. This would have been the lawful and logical step.
This is a extremely dangerous action. Already at the beginning of this year, the Attorney General wrote to the Secretary-General of Parliament directing her to change the parliamentary office funding and resourcing formula. This matter could not be raised in Parliament after the Speaker ruled the contents of the letter were confidential in accordance with 44(12) of the Standing Orders.
And now the AG has gone a step further and through the Fiji First Committee Chairman stopped proceedings of a parliamentary committee mandated by the Speaker to meet - to look into serious allegations (torture of citizens and taxpayers).
This action by the Attorney General must be seen as a further step towards erosion of any semblance of parliamentary democracy in the New Year.
The Hon. Ratu Isoa has already tendered in parliament evidence of corruption against the Attorney General. That he has interfered with the judiciary, FICAC, PAC and now a parliamentary committee.
The Leader of the Opposition calls on the Attorney General to tender his resignation.
The Leader calls on the Attorney General to resign as he has subverted (again) the role and powers of the Speaker of Parliament and parliamentary democracy by ordering the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to stop looking into allegations of torture raised by lawyer Aman Ravindra Singh in the foreign media.
The Committee was meeting for the 2nd day today in Parliament following a letter from Committee Member and Opposition Parliamentarian Honourable Roko Tupou Draunidalo.
Committee Chairman Honourable Colonel Netani Rika decided to bring the meeting to an abrupt end before midday today. He told the Members that the Attorney General had called him to stop the meeting saying the Committee did not have parliamentary authority or approval to meet and furthermore that Aman RavindraSingh had not filed a complaint with police regarding the torture allegations.
Both Opposition Members on the Committee Hon. Draunidalo and Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca opposed this premature termination of the meeting informing Colonel Rika that the meeting was taking place under the authority of the Speaker who is the overall and sole authority of Parliament - not the Attorney General or any other Member of the Executive which is the Government.
The bipartisan committee adjourned their meeting and the Opposition Members asked the Chairman for clarification and direction from the Speaker and Secretary General to parliament.
Through his interference, the Attorney General has again, undermined the neutrality and independence of the Office of the Speaker to make decisions independently based on the sole premise of upholding parliamentary democracy.
If anything, the Attorney General should have (like any other member of the public), appeared before the Committee and made his submissions. This would have been the lawful and logical step.
This is a extremely dangerous action. Already at the beginning of this year, the Attorney General wrote to the Secretary-General of Parliament directing her to change the parliamentary office funding and resourcing formula. This matter could not be raised in Parliament after the Speaker ruled the contents of the letter were confidential in accordance with 44(12) of the Standing Orders.
And now the AG has gone a step further and through the Fiji First Committee Chairman stopped proceedings of a parliamentary committee mandated by the Speaker to meet - to look into serious allegations (torture of citizens and taxpayers).
This action by the Attorney General must be seen as a further step towards erosion of any semblance of parliamentary democracy in the New Year.
The Hon. Ratu Isoa has already tendered in parliament evidence of corruption against the Attorney General. That he has interfered with the judiciary, FICAC, PAC and now a parliamentary committee.
The Leader of the Opposition calls on the Attorney General to tender his resignation.
THE principal administration officer at the Office of the Leader of Opposition, Mick Beddoes, has resigned from his position as political turmoil within the office heats up.
While Mr Beddoes has labelled the reason for his resignation as "personal", he said the SODELPA office needed a big shake-up, including the replacement of most of the "deadwood" within the party.
He said the party needed loyalists and not those who "liumuri" (traitor).
"The Opposition Office under the leadership of Ro Teimumu Kepa is a very capable and effective team. They are not the problem, they have performed well over the past 14 months and they have delivered," Mr Beddoes said.
"It is the SODELPA HQ that needs a big shake-up. We need to replace most of the deadwood there and we need to increase the involvement of our youth in the day-to-day management of the party."
He said SODELPA was a good party with a good database.
"But for the moment it has individuals running it who think they know politics, but are really just rookies or political novices. They know nothing about politics and are trying to manoeuvre themselves for positions of authority and hopefully leadership positions. Heaven forbid.
"I am hopeful that eventually the membership will step in and see what's going wrong and vote out our current crop of officials and put in the kind of people who are moderate, level-headed and will serve the greater interest of our members and supporters and not themselves."
Mr Beddoes said his decision to step down meant his support for Ro Teimumu would not come to an end.
"What my move means is I will now be a free agent unshackled by the constraints of holding a position in the Opposition Office and the level of restraint that I have had to exercise falls away and I might not be so polite the next time some dysfunctional, disloyal twit decides to hurl baseless 'fodder' my way'," he said.
Mr Beddoes said while his decision was in the pipeline for some time, he delayed it because of the baseless allegations the party's disciplinary committee had made against him and Ro Teimumu of abuse of office.
"I wanted to wait until the disciplinary committee made their determination, which I had no doubt would clear the marama, myself and others mentioned. This has happened and we have been exonerated so I can now proceed with my plans," he said.
Mr Beddoes said after spending 14 months with the Opposition Office, his personal affairs had not progressed well and he needed to refocus his attention to complete his outstanding matters.
Confirming Mr Beddoes' resignation, Ro Teimumu said she had accepted it reluctantly and with regret.
She said Mr Beddoes was an able and dedicated administrator with a highly developed sense of the political environment in which her office functioned.
"Mr Beddoes has played an invaluable role in the operations of the Opposition.
"He has led our small office team very well in difficult circumstances and acted as a mentor to the group of young people of the Opposition staff who have learnt so much from him about politics and the importance of loyalty and dedication to duty." Source: Fiji Times
While Mr Beddoes has labelled the reason for his resignation as "personal", he said the SODELPA office needed a big shake-up, including the replacement of most of the "deadwood" within the party.
He said the party needed loyalists and not those who "liumuri" (traitor).
"The Opposition Office under the leadership of Ro Teimumu Kepa is a very capable and effective team. They are not the problem, they have performed well over the past 14 months and they have delivered," Mr Beddoes said.
"It is the SODELPA HQ that needs a big shake-up. We need to replace most of the deadwood there and we need to increase the involvement of our youth in the day-to-day management of the party."
He said SODELPA was a good party with a good database.
"But for the moment it has individuals running it who think they know politics, but are really just rookies or political novices. They know nothing about politics and are trying to manoeuvre themselves for positions of authority and hopefully leadership positions. Heaven forbid.
"I am hopeful that eventually the membership will step in and see what's going wrong and vote out our current crop of officials and put in the kind of people who are moderate, level-headed and will serve the greater interest of our members and supporters and not themselves."
Mr Beddoes said his decision to step down meant his support for Ro Teimumu would not come to an end.
"What my move means is I will now be a free agent unshackled by the constraints of holding a position in the Opposition Office and the level of restraint that I have had to exercise falls away and I might not be so polite the next time some dysfunctional, disloyal twit decides to hurl baseless 'fodder' my way'," he said.
Mr Beddoes said while his decision was in the pipeline for some time, he delayed it because of the baseless allegations the party's disciplinary committee had made against him and Ro Teimumu of abuse of office.
"I wanted to wait until the disciplinary committee made their determination, which I had no doubt would clear the marama, myself and others mentioned. This has happened and we have been exonerated so I can now proceed with my plans," he said.
Mr Beddoes said after spending 14 months with the Opposition Office, his personal affairs had not progressed well and he needed to refocus his attention to complete his outstanding matters.
Confirming Mr Beddoes' resignation, Ro Teimumu said she had accepted it reluctantly and with regret.
She said Mr Beddoes was an able and dedicated administrator with a highly developed sense of the political environment in which her office functioned.
"Mr Beddoes has played an invaluable role in the operations of the Opposition.
"He has led our small office team very well in difficult circumstances and acted as a mentor to the group of young people of the Opposition staff who have learnt so much from him about politics and the importance of loyalty and dedication to duty." Source: Fiji Times
In 2006, Fijileaks founding Editor-in-Chief Victor Lal was instrumental in persuading Government House that MICK BEDDOES must be appointed the Leader of the Opposition! From Fiji Sun archive:
MICK BEDDOES MUST BE APPOINTED LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
Mick Beddoes to Victor Lal in 2006: "Just got app[oin]ted"
History preserved!
Opponents and pro-democracy champions are arrested, charged and dragged before Khaiyum's kangaroo courts; Kafoa hiding behind Bainimarama and "Killer Kean's" skirt - who says "masi polo" is dead?
All the rugby union franchises have been given time until the Fiji Rugby Union’s Annual General Meeting next month to give their views on the proposed structure of the Skipper Cup Competition in 2017.
At the Special General meeting last Saturday, it was put forward to all the unions that the bottom four teams from the Skipper Cup competition will be relegated with the top four teams from the B Division gaining promotion.
FRU Acting CEO Dr.Berlin Kafoa says although majority unions are in support of the idea, they have time till next month to discuss it among their members.
“Most of the unions supported the change in the meeting but I think it’s only fair for them to take back and discuss with their unions before they come to the Annual General meeting.”
Meanwhile, the FRU office will close from today for the festive season and reopen on the 2nd of next month. Source: FBC News
At the Special General meeting last Saturday, it was put forward to all the unions that the bottom four teams from the Skipper Cup competition will be relegated with the top four teams from the B Division gaining promotion.
FRU Acting CEO Dr.Berlin Kafoa says although majority unions are in support of the idea, they have time till next month to discuss it among their members.
“Most of the unions supported the change in the meeting but I think it’s only fair for them to take back and discuss with their unions before they come to the Annual General meeting.”
Meanwhile, the FRU office will close from today for the festive season and reopen on the 2nd of next month. Source: FBC News
IN HIS THRALL: Gifts keep being showered on Education Minister Reddy - This head teacher of Narere Primary School was accorded a favor in promotion and now is his favourite. Look at the gift in his hands. Its corrupt practice. Against what the FFP government preaches.
Zero tolerance on bribes?
In an e-mail dated 21 December 2015, the HR Department informed the Director ICT; Payroll; Deputy Manger People Personnel Records; General Manager Uniservices and Manager, Employee Relations under subject "Termination" the following:
1) Please note the following staff, Mr. Vimal Vikash and Mrs. Arti Jyotika Vikash have been terminated from employment effective today 21/12/2015.
2) DICT,
Please kindly deactivate their access to ICT facilities.
3) DMPPR/Payroll,
Please kindly process final pay and exit.
4) GM – Uniservices,
Please kindly ensure that these staff do not enter the University premises.
From Fijileaks Archive:
Finally shown the gate out of FNU. Vikash outside the Gate of India in New Delhi
Contact Email
[email protected]
[email protected]
Archives
June 2025
May 2025
April 2025
March 2025
February 2025
January 2025
December 2024
November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
October 2012
September 2012