By PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY

One important electoral challenge was surprisingly indicated in Chief Justice Anthony Gates’ Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights on the Code of Conduct Bill (read Mere Naleba and “Gates not happy with system”,  FT 8 Dec. 2016).

Justice Gates was apparently “disappointed that there wasn’t a constituency system in the new parliamentary arrangements” hence no mechanism whereby MPs could go “back to the people who had elected or who haven’t elected you and get the feedback as to what they thought was going on in Parliament”.

This is of course a logical consequence of the “one national constituency system”  imposed on Fiji by the unelected Bainimarama Government in 2013. Not having local constituencies clearly undermines one crucial benefit of parliamentary democracy whereby elected MPs who do not perform as expected by their voters, face the prospect of being rejected by the same voters at the next election. Opposition political parties and independent electoral experts had made this very same point when the electoral system (and the 2013 Constitution) were imposed on Fiji, but to no avail. While Gates’ recent submission refers only to an electoral weakness, the public ought to remember two other judgments by Justice Gates in 2001 and 2000, where he reminded the Interim Qarase Government after the 2000 coup, of the importance of laws regarding constitutional legitimacy.

Why it was Justice Gates making these comments and not the Fiji Electoral Commission is another story.

There is of course a far bigger story which examines the personal role of Chief Justice Anthony Gates since his 2001 judgement:  why does Fiji’s Chief Justice not comment on the massive human rights problems created by a constitution imposed by a military government deemed illegal in 2009 by the highest court in the land (Appeals Court), and instead zooms in on a relatively minor electoral issue?

The 5% Threshold

Most electoral experts agree that while the current electoral system has a positive feature in that the number of seats in parliament are proportional to the votes received by political parties, one clear weakness is that “winning” parties (or Independents) must receive at least the 5% of all votes cast or a massive 27 thousand votes.

Thousands of voters, who voted for small parties like the Fiji Labour Party or the People’s Democratic Party or for Independents, were effectively disenfranchised because their choices did not achieve the 5% threshold (as had been warned by critics). It made a mockery of the frequent advertisements by the Bainimarama Government that 1 person = 1 vote = 1 value. Collectively, these wasted votes (some 36 thousand of them) represented more than 4 seats in Parliament, which were effectively transferred to the larger parties (some 3 to Fiji First Party and 1 to SODELPA).

The 5% threshold, which worsens the “one constituency problem”, must be removed.

The one national constituency problem

It is abundantly clear after the 2014 Election that having the “one national constituency” enabled the Fiji First Party, probably as planned, to focus their elections strategy on the populist electoral support of Bainimarama (candidate number 279) who thereby personally received a massive 202 thousand votes.Effectively, the majority of the other Fiji First Party candidates (except for a few canny ones), became superfluous, the last one r ecently getting into Parliament having less than 600 votes. They could have been any Tom, Dick, Harry or balabala.

In contrast, many other candidates from small parties disqualified by the 5% threshold rule, received more votes but were not elected.

There were 6 from NFP, 4 from FLP, 4 from PDP (including one unknown Vuniyayawa with a hilarious 4956 votes (his candidate number was 297); 2 from One Fiji Party (one with 2788 votes), and even an Independent (Roshika Deo) with 1,055 votes. The public might note that these “unsuccessful” candidates had far more votes than that received by several current Ministers and Assistant Ministers such as Akbar, Usamate, Delana, Sudhakar, Koya, and Bhatnagar.

Weakens Government MPs

FFP supporters should note that the current electoral system discourages internal FFP democracy and accountability to voters.

With most FFP MPs (including the Speaker of the House) personally receiving small numbers of votes, they have no voter base to back them up, and hence to survive, must be totally subservient to the wishes of the FFP leaders. The FFP MPs must blindly support their leaders’ motions, however undesirable, and oppose every Opposition motion, however sensible, as has already been illustrated in several cases. Having a less than independent Speaker of the House has also allowed the expulsion from parliament of Opposition MPs for minor reasons (thereby denying thousands of voters their voice in parliament), and also discouraged strong independent views in Parliament on strange grounds ruled by the Speaker as  “un-parliamentary language”.

None of this is good for parliamentary democracy.

But some canny FFP candidates

I suspect that many Fiji First Party candidates in the 2014 Elections regretted that they followed “party orders” and asked their voters to vote for Bainimarama and his Candidate Number 279, thereby not getting enough votes for themselves.

But do not forget the canny (smart) Fiji First Party candidates who made sure that they received enough personal votes, like: Khaiyum, Parveen Bala Kumar, Kubuabola, Reddy, Nadalo, Tikoduadua, Cawaki, Naiqamu, Brij Lal right down to Jiko Luveni and Inia Seruiratu. You can be sure that even if the Bainimarama Government refuses to budge from the one constituency system, the candidates in the 2018 Elections are going to campaign for votes for themselves, not some “leader”.

The public might want to come out in full support of Justice Gates idea that there ought to be specific constituencies for candidates and voters.

Of course, there can be other improvements as well.

Other improvements

There are many other possible improvements to the electoral system  in addition to having a geographically practical number of constituencies. There can be the addition of a Closed List system to ensure proportionality as well as increase the number of women in Parliament (through appropriate placement on the Party Lists). The ballot papers must allow Party symbols and photos to assist voters. Far more important, there must be removal of government control over the Elections Office, Electoral Commission and MIDA.

There must also be removal of all legislation, including the many decrees that discourage the media and journalists performing their necessary role of “watchdog on Government” although the media “lapdogs” will happily lap on. Unfortunately, such comprehensive changes, which must meet with the approval of Opposition parties,  require more than just “tinkering” with the imposed 2013 Constitution and electoral system.

Gates’ broader constitutional challenges

The Fiji public might remember a 2001 case Koroi v Commissioner of Inland Revenue in which the learned Justice Gates had pronounced (his words in italics):

“It is not possible for any man to tear up the Constitution. He has no authority to do so.  The Constitution remains in place until amended by Parliament, a body of elected members who collectively represent all of the voters and inhabitants of Fiji. Usurpers may take over as they have in other jurisdictions, and in some cases rule for many years apparently outside of, or without the Constitution. Eventually the original order has to be revisited, and the Constitution resurfaces …  For the courts cannot pronounce lawfulness based simply on the will of the majority. … and the courts will not assist usurpers simply because they are numerous, powerful, or even popular.”

Gates was of course talking about Qarase’s attempt to abrogate  the 1997 Constitution following the 2000 coup. I suspect that Justice Anthony Gates, given his personal role in legitimizing Bainimarama’s 2006 military coup, would not be particularly keen to apply his 2001 judgement to the Bainimarama Government’s purported abrogation of the 1997 Constitution. But the Fiji public cannot forget that that the 2013 Constitution and its electoral system has also been imposed on Fiji without due legal process, or parliamentary or popular approval, and indeed, against the opposition of all other political parties, just as Rabuka’s 1990 racist constitution had been opposed by Opposition parties.

While some might think that the results of the 2014 Elections “validates” the 2013 Constitution, Gates’ 2001 judgment stated clearly “the courts cannot pronounce lawfulness based simply on the will of the majority”. The public may be reminded that the many campaigning issues in the 2014 Elections did not include the legitimacy of the 2013 Constitution or the suitability of the electoral system.

No need to reinvent the wheel

The public might care to remember that the Bainimarama Government had once upon a time appointed the Yash Ghai Constitution Commission to revise the 1997 Constitution and it had consulted widely throughout Fiji and with international experts. Despite being summarily rejected by Bainimarama and his advisers (on unconvincing grounds), the Yash Ghai Draft Report had many positive elements some of which addressed the current weaknesses. However weary the Fiji public may be of the political instability and the social discord faced for the last thirty years, these constitutional issues must be revisited for the sake of the future generations.

It is unfortunate that NGOs like Citizens Constitutional Forum and the many “Old Hands” who used to agitate energetically for constitutional reform after the 1987 coups, appear to have gone into hibernation after the 2006 coup, some rather conveniently. But then, it might be an opportune time for  a new generation of younger, less tired and less tainted activists to take up the cudgels for  electoral and constitutional reform. They can take encouragement from Justice Gates’s recent submission that people “should not be frightened” to bring general grievances forward.

As Gates would himself probably ruefully acknowledge with respect to his 2001 judgments, such advice is easier to give than to implement.

Judiciary postscript 1:

One might note that currently shoved under the national carpet is the Pandora’s Box which has been opened by the recent judgement of the Fiji Court of Appeal comprising Justice William Calanchini, Justice Almeida Guneratne and Justice David Alfred (FT 30 Nov. 2016), that the Fijian Supervisor of Elections (Saneem) must comply with all the decisions and directions given to him concerning the performance of his functions by the Fijian Electoral Commission and that he was wrong not to do so.

The Electoral Commission had received objections against Parveen Kumar and had ruled that the Fiji First candidate be disqualified from the National Candidates List. They had also ruled that the Fiji Labour Party candidate Steven Singh be reinstated in the final list of candidates but Mr Saneem had gone ahead without the instructions of the commission. Parveen Kumar, who the Electoral Commission had disqualified from standing,  is a Minister in the current Bainimarama Government. Should Parveen Kumar now resign from Parliament given that he should not have been allowed to stand in the first place?

Should the Supervisor of Elections (appointed by the Bainimarama Government without political consensus) now resign given that his judgment was blatantly and unreasonably wrong given what “common sense” would have indicated? There are many nationally important legal issues that the Chief Justice Anthony Gates and the slumbering emasculated Fiji Law Society could exercise their collective minds on, rather than the lack of constituencies in Fiji’s electoral system.

Judiciary postscript 2

Fiji can be encouraged that the judiciary (which Justice Anthony Gates heads) can be given some well-deserved credit, with two politically difficult judgments they have made in recent months.

The first is the Fiji Appeals Court decision against the Supervisor of Elections (as outlined above).

The second is the conviction by Justice Aluthge of eight policemen and a soldier, of the rape and sexual assault of Vilikesa Soko (who later died of his injuries), and the perversion of the course of justice.

While there is a general feeling among critics of the Bainimarama Government that the Sri-Lankan dominated judiciary cannot be trusted to deliver unbiased judgments, these two cases at least suggest otherwise. Some judges, even if hand-picked by the political masters of Fiji, will abide by the principles of their profession and not be hand-maidens of injustice.

What happens eventually to policemen and soldiers convicted and jailed for human rights abuses is unfortunately another story for the public to follow, given that the current Commissioner of Police and the current Commissioner of Corrections (Prisons) are both ex-military personnel, with neither having clean personal records.

Fiji High Court judgment against Qarase was flawed – Justices Gates and Pathik should have recused from the case
 
By VICTOR LAL 

The Fiji Court of Appeal judgment which overturned the High Court ruling that the 2006 was lawful could have gone one step further and ruled that the first judgment in October 2008 was flawed because two of the judges, Justices Anthony Gates and Justice Davendra Pathik, should have recused themselves from hearing the case. In the case of Justice Gates, he should have recused himself because his own appointment as acting Chief Justice was under legal challenge and any ruling in the Qarase versus Bainimarama was going to directly impinge on his own appointment. His sitting on the case was like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

What about Justice Pathik? He had compromised his position before the judgment was delivered in October 2008 because during the hearing he was captured by Fiji TV “powdering” the coupist and usurper Frank Bainimarama during the Holi festivities. The occasion referred to is the colourful and joyous holi party at the residence of Prabhakar Jha, the Indian High Commissioner to Fiji, on 29 March 2008. The Fiji Television captured and relayed to the general viewing public Justice Pathik and Bainimarama celebrating holi together at Mr Jha’s residence.

Shortly before the judgment was delivered in October 2008, I had written my column raising the question of apprehended bias and called for recusal on Justice Pathik’s part but the Fiji SUN’s legal team feared the wrath of Justice Pathik given his unabashed support for the illegal regime. But what could have been expected of him, a man who should have retired after the court ruling that those over 55 years should simply pack up and go home. Justice Pathik is nearing over three quarters of a century.

 Do we recall his statement about “Regulating the Legal Profession” at the Attorney General’s conference in Fiji where he reminded lawyers and the public to leave the judges alone. Yes, on one level Justice Pathik was correct, but if a judge’s particular behaviour or judgment raises questions of fundamental importance, he must be subjected to the same scrutiny as an individual citizen of the State, for as a senior law Lord Atkin once remarked, “Justice is not a cloistered virtue”.

I want to state my case as follows regarding the Qarase and Others v Bainimarama and Others that was delivered on 9 October 2008. Imagine, if you will, a scenario where Justice Pathik, in the course of writing his judgment, along with acting Chief Justice Anthony Gates and Justice John Bryne, was forced to ask himself: “Don’t I know the Commodore from somewhere?” The answer would have been as follows, “Yes, Your Honour, from the Holi celebration where Fiji TV captured you and the Commodore exchanging coloured powder”.

So, what should have his Honour done? Justice Pathik should have, I want to humbly submit, seriously considered stepping down from the case. And if he had refused to step down, than Justices Gates and Bryne should have decided what course of action to take, to resolve the matter. I am basing my submission on AWG Group Ltd (formerly Anglian Water plc) and another v Morrison and another ([2006] EWCA Civ 6) British Court of Appeal, Civil Division (Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Carnwath) 20 January 2006.

If we are to accept the “Morrison Principle”, Justice Pathik should have, in my humble submission, recused himself from hearing the case and from writing up his judgment. As the three judges in Morrison ruled, disqualification of a judge for apparent bias was not a matter of discretion, and, in a case where the principle of judicial impartiality was properly invoked, inconvenience, costs and delay did not count.

In Morrison, the question arose, “Don’t we know each other from somewhere?” In that case, the trial judge, Justice Evans-Lombe was reading into a case on the eve of the trial when he realised that he knew one of the claimant’s proposed witnesses, one Mr Jewson. Justice Evans-Lome’s family had known Mr Jewson’s family for many years. Their children were friends, and they had attended dinner parties and played tennis together. The judge immediately informed the parties. In response, the claimant decided that it would not call Mr Jewson to give evidence. Notwithstanding the claimant's decision, the defendant asked Justice Evans-Lombe to withdraw.

Justice Evans-Lombe refused, as Mr Jewson was no longer being called as a witness. He took into account the delay, disruption and additional cost that would flow from having to find a new judge. The defendant appealed. Although there was no suggestion of actual bias, or that Justice Evans-Lombe had any personal interest in the outcome of the litigation, the defendant argued that there was the “real possibility of apparent bias”.  

Lord Justice Mummery said that disqualification of a judge for apparent bias was not a discretionary matter. Inconvenience, costs and delay did not count in a case where the principle of judicial impartiality was properly invoked. That was because it was the fundamental principle of justice, both at common law and under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If, on an assessment of all the relevant circumstances, the conclusion was that that principle either had been, or would be, breached, the judge was automatically disqualified from hearing the case. In the unfortunate circumstances of the present (Morrison) case, the judge should have recused himself.

In Weber v The Queen (1994), the basic test for disqualification on the ground of apprehended bias was as follows: “Whether, in all circumstances, a fair-minded lay observer with knowledge of the material objective facts might entertain a reasonable apprehension that the trial judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question.” The test has been described as “double might test” – a possibility, not a probability, of bias.

The rationale is that no person shall be a judge in his or her own cause and, secondly, that it is important to maintain public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system. The legal question and debate is whether Justice Pathik’s conduct at the Indian High Commissioner’s residence had crossed the line into impermissible indications of bias.

In Pinochet (No 2), the House of Lords unanimously held that one of their brethren, Lord Hoffman, who had sat and determined R v Bow Street Metropolitan Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (Pinochet No.1) was automatically disqualified from hearing the case because of the apprehension of bias. The House of Lords was prepared to automatically assume bias from Lord Hoffman’s relationship with Amnesty International, one of the interveners in the proceedings. This assumption of bias amounted to a departure from precedent.

It is worth pointing out that Pinochet had put the British judiciary in the glare of national and international public attention. Like all high-profile cases, lawyers and legal academics engaged in a prediction game (something now being discouraged by the recent Hickie judgment against Fiji Times), stating which judges will rule in favour of General Augusto Pincochet and which judges might go against him. In the Pinochet case, Lord Hoffman had not disclosed his connection with Amnesty International. He was merely a director of Amnesty International; in fact, he was a director of Amnesty International Charity Ltd, he was not even a member of Amnesty International itself, although his wife was in the Press and Publicity section of Amnesty International’s International Secretariat.

The Pinochet judgement is also relevant, albeit, tangentially, in the Qarase-Bainimarama case regarding Justice Pathik. We know from the University of Fiji’s official website, that both the Pathiks are represented on the University’s Council but on behalf of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji, which is one of many stakeholders in that university. Justice Pathik was also appointed as director of the University of Fiji’s Suva campus. But what has the Pathiks’ connection with the University of Fiji to do with the Qarase and Others v Bainimarama and Others case.

I would argue that the apprehension of the “Pinochet bias” test is relevant because in March 2008 (and after the High Court had heard the Qarase case between 5-20 March) the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo was appointed the first Chancellor of the University of Fiji. In delivering his key address at the first graduation ceremony that was held in Lautoka on 28 March, the President said he was honoured to accept the position adding that the new University held promise for Fiji as the nation strives to position itself in a rapidly globalizing knowledge society.

“I am honoured to be the first Chancellor of our University of Fiji, thank you for this honour, and my appreciation to you for such a dignified and splendid installation ceremony. Ratu Josefa was also awarded the first honorary doctorate of the University. Like the “powdering ceremony” at the Indian High Commissioner’s residence, the links of both the Pathiks and the President to the University of Fiji could, arguably, have given rise to the fear of apprehended bias in the Qarase-Bainimarama case. After all, the whole legal arguments before the Fiji High Court had been the constitutional role of the President before and after the 2006 coup.

In Pinochet, the British Law Lords had attacked their colleague Lord Hoffman who had failed to declare his links and that of his wife with Amnesty International. In their written judgement, the Law Lords were giving their detailed reasoning for overturning a ruling by a previous panel of Law Lords, including Lord Hoffman, which had denied the former Chilean dictator immunity from prosecution for his crimes against his opponents.

One of the Law Lords, Lord Hope had said: “In view of his links with Amnesty International as the chairman and a director of Amnesty International Charity Limited he could not be seen to be impartial. There has been no suggestion that he was actually biased. He had no financial or pecuniary interest in the outcome. But his relationship with Amnesty International was such that he was, in effect, acting as a judge in his own cause.”

Another appeal judge, Lord Hutton, said: “I consider that the links between Lord Hoffman and Amnesty International, which had campaigned strongly against General Pinochet, and which intervened in the earlier hearing to support the case that he should be extradited to face trial for his alleged crimes, were so strong that public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice would be shaken if his decision were allowed to stand.”

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who led the appeal hearing, stressed Lord Hoffmann was not guilty of any bias but said the appearance of absolute impartiality had to be maintained. They “reluctantly” agreed with General Pinochet’s legal team who argued that Lord Hoffmann’s links to Amnesty had given rise to “a real danger of bias” in the hearing.

As I have indicated above, I am not suggesting that the links between Justice Pathik and Ratu Iloilo with the University of Fiji is wrong but in the eyes of the law, I would humbly submit, it raises the question of the fear of apprehended bias. I am equally aware that Justice Pathik had refused to recuse himself in another case that was brought against him by Angie Heffernan, the NGO activist. She had made the application to recuse Justice Pathik from hearing the case she had brought against Justices Byrne and Gates. In Justice Pathik’s ex-tempore ruling, he had stated the application was “frivolous to say the least and was a clear case of abuse of process of the Court”.

In 2001, I had argued that Justice Daniel Fatiaki, later Chief Justice, “must recuse himself from hearing the case brought by the CCF against the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo following the 2000 coup”. I want to humbly submit that Justice Pathik should have done the same. I am surprised that Qarase’s legal team had not entertained the idea of Justice Pathik’s recusal after Fiji TV aired the holi celebration, which clearly shows the judge and the commodore “powdering” each other in a very friendly manner, in the presence of other guests, which included the interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, a fourth defendant in Qarase and Others v Bainimarama and Others.

In 2008, the Fiji Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were also confronted with the apprehended bias test in Gates v Takiveikata; State v Takiveikata [2008] FJSC 16; CAV0015.2007S & CAV0016.2007S (24 July 2008). This time it was about what conversation took place between Justice Gates, who had jailed Ratu Inoke Takiveikata following the mutiny trial, and the Brodies (Donald and Margaretha Brodie) at a cocktail party at the French Embassy on Bastille Day on 14 July 2004. The Brodies claimed in their affidavits that Justice Gates had told them that he was going “to put him away” – Ratu Takiveikata.

In his affidavit of 21 December 2004, Justice Gates acknowledged that a conversation had occurred between him and the Brodies at the French Embassy. However, he gave his account of the conversation as follows: “We exchanged pleasantries, the details of which I do not now recollect. I did not say anything about the conduct to date of the case by the defence, nor about any pending applications. Nor did I express a view on “a form of traditional Fijian trial” or as to any punishment I was minded to pass in the event that Rt Inoke were to be convicted. It was Mr. Brodie who raised the topic of Rt Inoke’s trial. He asked whether charges Rt Inoke faced were serious. I said he faced several different charges but the courts had in the past considered such offences as serious. Much would depend upon the facts of the case and how the evidence unfolded I said. I then left.”

Both the Fiji Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court ruled in Ratu Inoke’s favour on the issue of apprehended bias, with the Supreme Court endorsing the Court of Appeal’s position, which had ruled: “For judicial bias to result in a retrial, the test has been formulated by the High Court of Australia recently in Antoun v The Queen [2006] HCA 2, 80 ALJR 497. This Court relied on that case in its decision in the application to adduce further evidence; further counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State agreed that it formulates the proper test. Antoun was a case of alleged bias on the part of the trial judge in dealing with a submission of no case to answer. We again set out two passages from judgments delivered in the High Court. Hayne J stated at p18: ‘The principle to be applied in determining these appeals is not in doubt. If a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide, the judge is disqualified from trying the case’.”

In Hefferman’s challenge, Justice Pathik claimed that there were only two grounds for his recusal: one, that his appointment was unconstitutional; and two, his age. But in this case I would argue, it is another, and a far more powerful one: a picture tells a thousand words, at the Indian High Commissioner’s residence.

Justice Pathik might want to ask: who is the “fair-minded and informed observer”? The answer, in my humble submission, is the television viewer (in possibly hundreds), who religiously followed the hearings on Fiji TV, and is acutely aware of the questions and interjections from Justice Pathik during the legal arguments before him and his fellow brother judges, and who witnessed the “holi powdering” event on Fiji TV. 

I rest my case on the “Morrison and Pinochet” precedents of recusal, supported by the rulings in Gates v Takiveikata on the “fair - minded and informed observer” test. I want to state that my submission and critique of Justice Pathik’s behaviour, as I understand the legal position on the “fair-minded and informed observer” test, is in keeping with Lord Salmon’s plea in Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn (No 2) [1968] 2 QB, at 155G), and quoted recently by Justice Hickie in the Fiji Times case: “It follows that no criticism of a judgment, however vigorous, can amount to contempt of Court, providing it keeps within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith.”

As far as I am concerned, the Fiji High Court judgment in favour of Bainimarama should never have been delivered by the court because two of three judges – Justices Gates and Pathik – had failed the fair-minded observer test.

December 31, 2016

MEDIA RELEASE
 
FIJI NEEDS SOUND AND SENSIBLE LEADERSHIP: NFP
 
The governance of Fiji needs to take a new direction in 2017 for all our citizens to witness genuine parliamentary democracy and full restoration of fundamental human rights and freedoms that are prerequisites for the social, political and economic advancement of our nation.
 
A New Year is naturally the culmination of the festive season. It is a time of rejoicing, reflection, making resolutions and welcoming the New Year with celebrations in a spirit of togetherness and harmony.
 
It is also a time to remember the sick and the infirm, the less fortunate and all those unable to celebrate New Year with the same passion and vigour as others due to various reasons.
 
The high cost of living, lack of meritocracy in the appointments to jobs and key positions in our civil service and statutory organisations, the staggering sugar industry, the devastating effects of Severe Tropical Cyclone Winston that has destroyed livelihood of many thousands of people, the bungling of a good policy like Help for Homes Initiative that has resulted in more than 3000 people still living in tents, the damage caused by recent floods, rising unemployment, rising national debt levels, derogations in the Bill of Rights of the 2013 Constitution, regressive and draconian decrees, a regulated media and the deteriorating health system and medical services as well as our public road infrastructure are fundamental problems that can only be resolved by a display of sound and sensible leadership.
 
To ignore these fundamental problems would be doing so at our own peril. In Fiji, calling everyone Fijians and saying they enjoy common and equal citizenry doesn’t guarantee fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of the media.
 
It does not guarantee job opportunities based on meritocracy, rendering common and equal citizenry meaningless.
 
These are the challenges we face as a community and as a nation, which unfortunately are not highlighted by the media.
 
This reality may not be grasped by many of our people simply because of limitations in the Constitution and continuation of regressive Decrees that dilute provisions in the Bill of Rights, resulting in the inability of the media to disseminate such information.
 
The derogations in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, regressive Decrees especially those impeding the conduct of truly credible, free and fair elections must be changed in accordance with the recommendations of the Multinational Observer Group (MOG) Report as well as the 2014 Report of the Electoral Commission.
 
And this can only happen if the Fiji First Government changes its confrontational approach in the spirit of goodwill and hope and facilitates the necessary changes through Parliament.
 
We recall the comments of the Prime Minister of India, the late Mrs Indira Gandhi when she visited Fiji in 1981. Mrs Gandhi said: -
 
“Most of us believe in a multiracial and multicultural society, the texture of which is rich in variety and ethnicity. Understandably, in such societies some tensions do arise but in a democratic set-up we must have checks and balances to safeguard the rights of each ethnic group. Hence a greater responsibility develops on leaders to show the way. The task is not easy. In every country there are some who think they have all the answers to the problems that beset us.”
 
Those sentiments are still relevant to Fiji as we strive for a harmonious future based on firm principles of democracy, good governance and economic growth.
 
This is the fundamental challenge facing the current leadership who must not pretend it has the solutions, but make a genuine effort in resolving the concerns in the best interest of the nation.
 
Parliament is the highest court of the land. Parliament must make decisions in the national interest. Narrow and sectarian interests must be discarded.
 
As a party born out of the struggle for dignity and justice of all our people, the NFP will continue the struggle for our beloved nation to once again become a beacon of hope and trust.
 
We wish you a happy, healthy, prosperous and blessed 2017.
 
Authorised by: -
 
Professor Biman Prasad
NFP Leader

BAINIMARAMA'S 2017 NEW YEAR MESSAGE

12/31/2016
My Fellow Fijians, Bula vinaka and a very Happy New Year to you all.

As always, this is a time of celebration as we herald in a new year – 2017. Those celebrations are tempered by the fact that many Fijians have once again lost their possessions and crops in the recent tropical depression. But we can all be grateful that we have been spared the tragic loss of life that accompanied Tropical Cyclone Winston back in February.

Our thoughts and prayers tonight are especially with the families of the 44 Fijians who were killed by Winston. And we ask God to comfort them and give them strength.

New Year is also a time when many of us make resolutions, some of which we keep and others that fall by the wayside. But this year, there is one resolution that as Fijians, we have a solemn duty to uphold. And that is to effectively carry out the task we have been given to lead the world in the fight against climate change. And the threat to our oceans and seas posed by pollution and overfishing.

As many of you know, Fiji has been given the honour by the global community to be President of COP-23 – the United Nations climate negotiations to reduce carbon emissions and arrest the global warming that is triggering extreme weather events like Winston and causing the seas to rise.

As your Prime Minister, I will be guiding the deliberations of almost 200 countries as we gather in Bonn, Germany, in November to continue to seek a more decisive response on the part of the industrial nations. And to set aside funds to enable developing countries such as Fiji to adapt to the changes to their way of life that have been caused through no fault of our own.

In the months before that, I will be travelling the world to forge a consensus on the best way forward. And we will be holding a very important Pre-COP high-level gathering here in Fiji in October before the main Bonn conference the following month.

Tonight, I want to explain to each and every one of you the importance of this mission and why I will be spending so much of my time this year on COP-23 to make it the success that it must be for the sake of every person on the planet. And to explain why it is also crucial that we make a resounding success of the World Oceans Summit – which Fiji is cohosting with Sweden in New York in June.

First of all, I see it as my overriding responsibility as the leader of our nation to secure the future of the Fijian people. To protect our environment, our land and seas, not only for the sake of every Fijian today but for the generations to come.

Nothing is more important than this. Because if we can’t defend ourselves against extreme weather events and the rising seas; if we can’t protect our seas and our marine resources, then all our efforts to develop our nation will be jeopardised.

Everything depends on our ability to get the world to sit up and take notice of the unprecedented threat we currently face to our way of life.

We must persuade the industrial nations to pursue more radical action to reduce their carbon emissions that are causing global warming. We must get the world to stop degrading our oceans and seas.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. This is not someone else’s problem. It is your problem, my problem. Our problem. And we must do everything possible to forge a strong partnership around the world to fix it.

Our success matters to every person in the path of the stronger and more frequent cyclones we are experiencing. Every family that has lost the roofs to their homes. Every farmer whose crop is damaged or destroyed by floods or drought. Everyone who goes fishing in our waters.

No-one is immune. No-one is exempt. And it is you and your family who I will be fighting for when I crisscross the world in the coming months trying to get my fellow leaders to act. And it is your interests that will be uppermost in my mind when I take the podium in New York in June and Bonn in November to lead the nations of the world in these discussions.

At the same time, I will be giving equal weight to our domestic agenda – our ongoing program of service delivery to the Fijian people, and the continuing reforms that have produced the longest- running period of economic growth in Fijian history. With our increased prosperity, we are connecting more Fijians than ever before to basic services such as water and electricity. And while our roads have again taken a battering from the elements, our road building and maintenance program remains a national priority, including the provision of proper street lighting in urban and rural areas.

And then there are all the other things that have been the hallmark of this Government – strengthening our education revolution; improving access to medical services and the quality of our hospitals; reforming the civil service to make it more efficient and professionally rewarding for those who serve the public; and continuing to refine and strengthen the investment climate in Fiji, which has never been better and is generating the current prosperity that we are determined to extend to every Fijian.

So my New Year message to my Ministers and MPs and the nation’s civil servants is that we must redouble our efforts in 2017 to serve our own people. While at the same time, doing everything we possibly can to fulfill our duty to the world to make COP-23 and the Oceans Summit an unqualified success.

My fellow Fijians, never before in the history of our nation has Fiji been entrusted with such a momentous task. Not only on behalf of ourselves and our Pacific neighbours but on behalf of the citizens of every other low-lying and vulnerable areas of the world.

That a nation of less than a million people has been given the job of forging a plan of action for the entire global community of 7.4 billion people is a phenomenal achievement.

• It recognises the increasing respect that Fiji enjoys – whether it is for our disproportionate contribution to UN Peacekeeping, our capacity-building in our island neighbours, our sporting prowess or the growing collection of Fijian Made quality goods and services that are penetrating markets throughout the world.

• It recognises our leadership role in the Pacific and on behalf of Small Island Developing States everywhere.

• It recognises the progress that we have made here in Fiji over the past decade, and especially the creation of our new democracy.

• And it recognises my Government’s concerted effort to make Fijian voices heard more strongly in the great forums of the world. And especially on the issues on which the well-being, even the survival, of our people depends.

Because of this, Fiji has never stood taller or more proudly in the community of nations. But I must also tell you that the job we are facing in New York and Bonn is immense. And I will need your prayers and your support to carry out the role that has been entrusted to Fiji.

As the year progresses, I intend to keep you fully informed of our progress. But let me give you two simple pieces of information that indicate the scale of the challenge we are facing.

At the Paris Conference on Climate Change at the end of 2015, the nations of the world agreed to reduce their carbon emissions to keep the temperature of the earth well below 2 degrees Celsius compared with that of the industrial age. This was hailed as a landmark achievement, an historic event. Yet even if all the commitments made in Paris are fully implemented, we are told that there is a 50 per cent chance of the global temperature being 2.8 degrees warmer than the industrial age. So we have a momentous challenge before us. And Fiji is pressing for a much more ambitious target if we are to have any hope of resolving this crisis – the 1.5 degree cap contained in the Suva Declaration of 2014.

Here’s another piece of sobering information: We still have a shortfall of as much as 80 per cent in the global financial arrangements that vulnerable countries such as Fiji will need to access to enable us to adapt to climate change. And to build our resilience to cyclones, droughts and rising sea levels. As things stand, the money we need just isn’t there. So we are going to make adaptation funding a core priority of our COP Presidency.

My fellow Fijians, this is a wonderful opportunity for Fiji. The rest of the world is looking to us for leadership and we intend to provide it. Not only at COP-23 and all the negotiations leading up to it but at the World Oceans Summit in June. And I draw great strength and great pride from the fact that I know the Fijian people share that commitment and will be supporting me all the way.

My fellow Fijians, 2017 is a year of immense challenge. But I am confident that the Fijian spirit – the Fijian character – is more than a match for that challenge. And, as a nation, we humbly ask for God’s Blessing as we embark on the great crusade that lies ahead.

My wife, Mary, joins me in wishing you every happiness in 2017. And May God Bless our beloved Fiji.

Vinaka vakalevu and Good Night.
 

Making false and/or misleading statements to Committee Members, External Auditors and the European Union (EU)

It is this aspect that caused me the greatest concern and triggered my decision to resign from my role as MFP. As will be self-evident this issue has the potential of exposing FNU to a $6m liability which [Ganesh] Chand and [Narendra] Prasad misled the Council, the Audit Committee, the Financial Resources Committee, FNU’s external auditors and the officials of the EU. This liability has its genesis in the Kiri EU saga and the following is just a snapshot so FICAC can get the gist of this matter.

Between 2006 and 2008 the EU entered into a donor contract with the Government of Kiribati for training and infrastructure. EU also entered into a bilateral contract with then Fiji School of Medicine (FSM), under which FSM was to provide training and supervise the infrastructure projects. The total funding granted by EU for the whole project was some EU$7.28m (F$18m).

The project was completed in 2010 and in the same year the FSM merged with the newly formed FNU. By virtue of s45 of the FNU Decree 2010 FNU was deemed to have taken over the FSM’s bilateral contract with EU and hence liable under the contract for any ineligible expenditure expended from the donor monies.

During early 2013 EU officials in Fiji expressed concerns to Chand/Prasad regarding the ineligible expenditure of some EU$5.8m (F$14m), based on EU auditors report. This amount was later reduced by EU$3.3m after the Kiribati Government engaged its own engineers which certified that the donor funding for infrastructure was properly spent on the buildings, the existence of which they also verified.

This now exposes FNU to the current ineligible expenditure of EU$2.5 (F$6m) for which EU has been seeking credible documentation since 2013. I enclose the chronology of events [ANNEXURE J] which Chand/Prasad gave to the Audit Committee when it “grilled” them about the saga at its 12/8/14 meeting. The Audit Committee had asked Chand and Prasad to resolve the saga and convene an urgent meeting for further deliberation. Both men have failed to do so. At this juncture I again refer FICAC to my submissions of 9/9/14 (Annexure C). That document gives cogent evidence regarding my continuing efforts to get the assistance of Prasad and Anand to resolve the matter, to no avail. Despite knowing the urgency attaching to this case, Prasad went overseas (Solomon Islands) without informing me. He appointed Anand acting Director Finance in his absence. When I asked Anand to provide me documents so that we could provide credible information to EU, this was simply ignored. Upon Prasad’s return Anand complained that I was dragging the chain and hindering the progress to resolve the saga.

Prior to my appointment Anand had major involvement with the Kiri EU saga and had even gone to Kiribati to obtain documents. He also liaised with local auditors in Fiji who had performed certain audits of the Kiri EU project. Despite his extensive involvement and knowledge, he refused to assist me and was overtly evasive when I sought documents about the project that were in his control or possession. One Sanjesh Lal who was initially the Kiri EU Project Accountant at the FSM during 2010 to 2013 also had extensive knowledge of various documentation, but deliberately barred by Chand/Prasad to assist me about the missing documentation pertaining to the ineligible expenditure.

Prasad and Chand have deliberately misled the Audit Committee and the Financial Resources Committee about the severity of the Kiri EU saga and the potential $6m liability to hide their own fraud, incompetence or financial governance obligations. They have failed to inform FNU’s external auditors about this potential liability so that a provision for this amount could have been created in FNU’s 2013 annual financial statements; in the event that the EU ultimately decides to recoup this amount from FNU in terms of the original contract, then the amount is redeemed from the provision and not from FNU’s operational funding.

Alternatively, the amount should have been disclosed in the financials by way of a note as a contingent liability. This will comply with the true and fair view of financial reporting to the FNU’s stakeholders as mandated by the relevant Accounting Standards and the financial reporting laws of Fiji. Either way, Chand and Prasad ought to have made full and frank disclosures to the Audit Committee, the Financial Resources Committee and the external auditors. They have deliberately failed to do so.

Apart from FNU’s CEO (s30 (2) FNU Decree), Chand is also its Principal Accounting Officer (s36 (2) FNU Decree). In addition, he is an official member of the FNU Council (s13 of FNU Decree). Section 22 of the FNU Decree imposes a personal obligation on him to perform his duties honestly and in the best interests of the FNU. As FNU’s CEO he must bear the ultimate accountability and responsibility of the Kiri EU scam. Both he and Prasad were active participants in the saga.

Based on the evidence submitted so far, it is incomprehensible that Mr Chand has acted honestly and in FNU’s best interest. The contrary is the case. As the credit card situation shows (see 2.1 above) he and Prasad have abused FNU funds for their own personal gain and have attempted to write off the amounts they owe FNU.

I therefore claim that both men have abused their office and that is a further violation of s139 of the Crimes Decree. Their acts described above is yet again arbitrary which is prejudicial to the rights of FNU in several ways. First, the delaying tactics of Prasad and Chand regarding the Kiri EU saga since 2012 is itself prejudicial in that many of the staff involved have left FNU and the memories of the remaining staff have faded during the time. Then, both men appear to have spent FNU funds unnecessarily in their concerted effort to avoid any liability to FNU to simply protect their impropriety.

FICAC will note from the evidence that Chand/Prasad sought legal opinion from Sherani Lawyers how to avoid the liability. However, the trio were advised that FNU was liable. This was a sheer waste of FNU funds or use of funds for an improper purpose. As already mentioned, under s45 of the FNU Decree FNU was always liable once the FSM merged with it. The Decree clearly states so in lay man’s term. Prasad’s inability to read such a simple statutory provision once again raises serious questions about his competence. FICAC should also note that FNU has its own in house lawyer who could have provided the opinion to the duo.

Thirdly, FNU’s reputation has been seriously damaged by the actions of Chand, Prasad and their cronies. EU may not provide any future donor finding to FNU in light of the Kiri EU saga. This will severely prejudice FNU’s stakeholders, including its current and future students and its bilateral relationship with other Pacific nations or their universities.

Finally, the conduct of Chand and Prasad preventing me to expose their wrongdoing tells its own compelling tale. Both men accuse me of shirking from my responsibility in not resolving the saga, yet refuse to provide me with all the information and documentation that I have been seeking. For example, on 5/9/14 [ANNEXURE K] I emailed Prasad seeking various information that appeared on the chronology that he provided to the Audit Committee. He has refused to provide any of the information I sought, nor provides any cogent reasons for his refusal. This is as odds with his assurance that he gave to the Audit Committee at its 12/8/14 meeting that he and his team (me included) were working tirelessly to resolve the saga.

Referral to the Office of the Prime Minister

I have been advised by some of the employees of FNU that in the past they complained about some of the matters that I have raised in this complaint. However FICAC refused to act and Chand and Prasad later victimised the staff after a FICAC employee revealed their identity to Chand. Whilst I have no evidence to back this up, I am concerned that given Chand’s political clout he has the ability to derail any corruption complaint against him, Prasad, Anand and FNU Council members implicated in this complaint.

It is for this reason I have taken the step in providing a copy of this complaint to the Office of the Prime Minister so that it is accorded proper, genuine and realistic investigation and prosecutorial consideration. The public interest and rule of law demand no less.

Conclusion

I therefore request my complaint be investigated urgently. Please note that my last day as an employee at FNU is 20/11/14 after which I intend to return to Australia. It is therefore in everyone’s interest that FICAC act with all due diligence and promptitude in resolving all the matters raised in this complaint.

Copies of all the relevant documents referred to in the complaint are enclosed. Should FICAC require any further documents or information, please let me know.

Yours sincerely
[SIGNED]
ANDREW M SINGH
Copy to: Josaia Vorege Bainimarama, Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister, 4th Floor, Government Buildings, Suva.

TWO corrections service wardens have been sent home for the alleged rape of a female inmate. Their work contracts were terminated after an internal investigation found them breaching their code of conduct.

It is alleged that the two raped the inmate while she was in custody at the centre last month. The officers of the Corrections Department based at the Vaturekuka Centre in Labasa were sent home on December 17.

Corrections deputy commissioner Joe Kulinidilo confirmed the allegation and disciplinary action was taken following results of the investigation.

"The investigations into this incident have been completed," he said.

"The relevant disciplinary action has been taken against two corrections personnel whose services were terminated on December 17, 2016.

"The matter is now being investigated by the police and they will pursue appropriate action as per the findings of their investigations."

Police earlier confirmed receiving a report of the allegation at the Labasa Police Station.

Although police spokesperson Ana Naisoro has yet to respond to questions for an update on the investigation, she said the alleged rape happened last month.

It is understood that CCTV footage showed an officer walking out from the inmate's cell while trying to zip up his pants. Source: Fiji Times, 28 December 2016

FIJIFirst Member of Parliament Balmindar Singh has been charged by Police for one count of assault.

Confirming this, Police spokesperson Ana Naisoro said Singh was arrested last Friday night for allegedly assaulting a 30-year-old man of Nadera inside a nightclub in Suva.

Ms Naisoro said Singh was charged and bailed after he had sought medical examination.

She said the MP would be summoned to appear in court at a later date. Source: Fiji Times, 26 December 2016

NATADOLA GOLF UPDATE
------------------------
Was it really worth the many millions dollars budgeted for this tournament???

From: ___________@gmail.com>
Date: 10 October 2016 at 16:02
Subject: NATADOLA GOLF UPDATE

HELLO AGAIN FROM DENARAU TO THE 232 DEDICATED GOLFERS ON MY DATABASE WITH A LOVE OF GOLF IN FIJI.

You have all lived and worked in Fiji, many of you are currently members at Fiji Golf Clubs.

Today is FIJI DAY celebrating forty-six years since Fiji became independent and forty-six years ago since the first golfing tourists came to Fiji.

THE DATABASE HAS GROWN SINCE WE ARRIVED LAST WEEK TO DENARAU.

I MET UP WITH SOME MORE FIJI GOLFING FRIENDS FROM DAYS GONE BY AND WHO ARE HERE WITH A LARGE GROUP OF GOLFERS TO PLAY AN EVENT AT DENARAU WITH RICHARD ELLIS.

Overnight a storm has arrived so let’s hope Richards’s golfers get a game today. As I write to you from here at the Sheraton Denarau we are experiencing hurricane winds and rain.

BACK TO NATADOLA = On the three days we attended the tournament two very charming Fijian ladies on the gate gave me a summary on the paying attendance.

We did not attend the first day Thursday. On Friday eight persons paid an entrance fee, Saturday fourteen persons paid to enter, Sunday twenty-seven persons paid to enter.

Children were free to enter, as were the many volunteers.

Sponsors from Fiji business communities had passes to give away to clients. A coach was available to Denarau residents and hotel visitors to come watch the golf.

Two persons got off the bus from Denarau to Natadola on Sunday.!

Thanks for the many responses to my initial email to you.

Expense to see the golf tournament even tho it was just $10, the money that has been spent when so many Fijian people are still homeless after Hurricane Winston, reference to the FNPF investment participation in not so enthusiastic ways, too far to come down from Suva for the day, rather watch on TV, uncomfortable course to follow players, too hilly and long walks tee to green. These were some of the responses.

The population of Fiji is 900,000 and there are but 1500 members of golf clubs. It was, and always will be, an elitist sport as it is in almost every country in the world.

The promoters at Natadola have sold the idea of Fiji attracting masses of golf holiday tourists from around the world. Fiji Tourism should now take a serious look at this expenditure.

The first golfing tourists arrived in Fiji to play in the inaugural Fiji Open in 1970 sponsored by Air New Zealand.

The promoters were from  New Zealand, myself included. We then trained the FGA and the FPGA over a short period of time to manage and market the event overseas to professional golfers.

The Open winner becomes the champion of Fiji with so many benefits world wide with the title OPEN CHAMPION of the country. The Open was not a commercial enterprise as this Natadola event is. The Fiji Open had no financial support from such as the FNPF or Tourism Fiji. We did however have great support from local industry and from the Fiji Visitors Bureau and Air New Zealand.

At that time the only eighteen hole course was the home of golf in Fiji the Vatuwaqa course in Suva. Local citizens were not permitted to play or join the Fiji Golf Club not so long ago. The first invited local person to join the FGC was Ratu Mara around 1960. There were some very keen and good golfers amongst the locals. Most of them started hitting balls with guava sticks. The caddies at Vatuwaqa would do so early morning and when everyone had gone home after golf.

Scratch golfers Rhamat Ali and Ranga Reddy ( Indian descent ) come to mind, they could not be members at the FGC for many years. They were allowed to play and join the Nausori golf club, built and maintained by the CSR and now in ruins. When I played in the East team in 1961 every member was from overseas, no locals in the team.

Now there are three resort courses, Pacific Harbour, Denarau and Natadola. Robert Trent Jones Pacific Harbour ( opened 1975 ) and Denarau  ( opened 1993 ) both more conveniently located then Natadola and continuing to struggle attracting golfing tourists.

Denarau is far and above the main golf course for touring golfers, they stay there and they play there. The facilities are, and always will be, the most varied and convenient.

Natadola is a course golfers may drive down and play from Denarau one day during their visit.  This will cost them quite an amount for the day.

There is a holiday event at Denarau right now where the golfers will visit Natadola for one game during their weeks stay in Fiji, 140 of them.

It has been estimated that 90% and more visiting golfers to Fiji are from New Zealand who do not have a winter escape location in their own country. Australian golfing tourists have tropical Queensland to attract them. Queensland offers hundreds of top golf courses, great weather and attractive golf fees, less than $100 for two persons on a cart at many courses. Japan and China are major tourism targets for Fiji. These people never travel in golf groups, their culture is different from most of us. They will come to Fiji and maybe take a day in their busy three or four day package for a game of golf, rent clubs and other gear, they will not come to Fiji solely attracted by golf.

It will be a major photographic coup for them to just have a game and show their friends against what it would cost to play in their home countries. Americans have Hawaii with amazing courses, probably the best golf holiday destination in the world. International golfers from far away are attracted to New Zealand where there are many amazing world rated courses now.

Fiji Tourism and the FNPF are putting millions of dollars attracting professional golfers to play in this Natadola tournament.

Of course the professionals follow the money and why not, but that’s not what Fiji wants. They want paying holiday golfers. No professional golf events in Australia and New Zealand offer the kind of money Fiji is offering them. Golf is struggling to attract interest around the world since the Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods phenomenon. In New Zealand and Australia courses are closing down due to lack of interest and expense.

How can an isolated location course like Natadola expect to attract the paying numbers they need to maintain such a course. Over the past weekend it was announced that Fiji’s Vijay Singh was going to make major adjustments to the Natadola course: wow! How much more FNPF and Tourism Fiji will he be paid to do this and what guarantee can Vijay give you that more tourists will come.

The developers at Natadola could have given more thought to the location to the Intercontinental hotel. You have to drive quite some way to get to the course from the hotel.

At Denarau the many thousands of holidaymakers staying in the resort can wander over to the golf club in a few minutes. If they do not golf they can sure enjoy the bar and restaurant facilities.

Back to the Golf International

There were masses of children on the last two days bussed in by the promoters from villages to see the two fellows from the Olympic games Sevens team – all children had free entry. The promoters announced a major Fijian children’s exercise showing them how to play golf. Fijian children grow up with rugby and team sports their main love and it will always be. It is no different in New Zealand and Australia. This is wasted money. The Natadola landowners from the village of Sanasana had a large attendance of their people most days bussed in from around 8 k’s away.

I was disappointed at the prize-giving to see the head of the Australian PGA accept a Tabua and yaqona with his golf cap on. Fiji protocol is important to the Fijian people including you my readers. The choir from Sanasana sang a lovely rendition of Isa lei in both in Fijian and English. Brandt Snedeker won and collected a nice amount of prize-money to go with his attendance fee, hotel and holiday expenses for himself and his family.

Congratulations Brandt, you were the event superstar in the field as was Matt Kuchar last year. But for a very few relatively known golfers it always looked like your tournament.

The course is difficult but you handled it. The media stated  “the ubiquitous wind blew every afternoon". I call it a “howling gale” it was the same last year along with torrential rain !!  .. Locals might well nickname the course “Cagidola “

The promoters say 400 million around the world watched the golf event. One of my readers stated “Another Fiji exaggeration“ but this figure was from the promoters, not from the Fijian people. Holidaymakers staying at Denarau came across to the golf club in the afternoon Sunday to watch the event on television, Sorry they were told the golf club TV is not showing the golf event. They only have Sky so they were not part of the 400 million.

Three hugely expensive golf promotions by professional promoters at great cost to the Fijian people. Maybe tourism Fiji will give an account to parliament as to the breakdown of expense.

One huge expense was the advertising billboards and golf magazine full-page advertisements all around Fiji and in New Zealand and Australia promoting the tournament.

The gatekeepers advised around forty-nine people in total actually paid entrance the last three days!! The Fiji flag has been flying at all major televised golf events in America for many years. The US Open, the PGA, The Masters and so many more tournaments where Vijay Singh has been playing and still is. Millions of golfers around the world watch these events.

Fiji tourism should consider a TV advertising slot at these events showcasing the Pacific Harbour Pearl course, Denarau and Natadola, all very attractive to view courses. I suggest that tourism Fiji has accountability from the promoters if they are to continue.

This particular tournament conflicted with another event on the Asian tour which was a mistake. The Australian promoters should have a contract that guarantees they attract a certain number of golf visitors to Fiji. They after all are being paid a substantial fee for a promotion with no guarantees to their Fiji sponsors.

Inbound tourist operators to Fiji along with the dedicated golf holiday companies from the Pacific and overseas should be invited to a seminar in Fiji such as IGATO the International Association of Golf Tour
Operators. They meet around the world each year and develop golf tourism. This could only be a good promotion for Fiji.

Happy golfing from Denarau where the rain and wind thunders down, you can’t walk out in it – too dangerous right now.

- Vidhya Lakhan
President
Pacific Games Council
c/-Fiji Olympic House 17 Bau Street
GPO Box 320 Suva, Fiji Islands
Mobile (679) 999 8439
Fax (679) 330 1647

www.pacificgamescouncil.com
email: vplakhan@gmail.com

"We hope that the allure of Fiji in August along with a prime position in the world, golf schedule will again ensure a quality field of Professionals competing in the fourth edition of the Fiji International."

"We also look forward to welcoming holiday makers to experience the Fiji International, which is Fiji's biggest and most prestigious sporting event. Fiji international has over the past three tournaments attracted a large number of visitors to our shores, who are interested in golf. In fact our visitor numbers during the tournament month (October 2016) saw an increase in arrivals by 6.5% (or 73,595), proving that Fiji has grown as a golfing destination since the inaugural Fiji International," added the Hon. Minister.

The move to August will see the Fiji International, which is co-sanctioned by the European Tour and ISPS HANDA PGA Tour of Australasia, played in a less congested part of the global golf schedule which will help the event secure another strong field.

"Now that the Fiji International is on the European Tour schedule we took a more global approach to scheduling," said Peter O'Malley, Chairman of the PGA of Australia.

"We believe the August date will better enable some of the leading European Tour players to include the Fiji International on their playing schedules."

"The three stagings of the Fiji International have produced excellent champions in Steven Jeffress (2014), World Number 20 Matt Kuchar (2015) and World Number 27 Brandt Snedeker (2016) and we are looking forward to seeing who will emerge the champion in August 2017."

The 2017 Fiji International will also be the first time Vijay Singh's redeveloped holes 1-6, 8, 9 and 11 -16 at Natadola Bay Championship Golf Course will be played by the Professionals.

"The date of the Fiji International will coincide with the reopening of Natadola Bay Golf Course following the changes currently being made under the design of Fijian Golf legend, Vijay Singh," said Basil Scaffidi, Managing Director of SEL, the promoter of the Fiji International. 

For more information please visit fijiinternational.com

About the Fiji International
To be held from 17-20 August the Fiji International will be played at Natadola Bay Championship Golf Course which boasts breathtaking views of the Coral Coast and is home to the Natadola Beach Land Estate. 

Enticed by the tropical destination, the Fiji International has attracted some of the world's best golfers since its inaugural staging in 2014 including Fijian hero and three time Major champion Vijay Singh, 2016 champion Brandt Snedeker, 2015 champion Matt Kuchar, Steven Bowditch, Boo Weekley, Nick Price, Robert Allenby, Heath Slocum, Liang Wenchong, and Anirban Lahiri.

In 2017, the Fiji International continues to have a global presence confirming its position as an integral tournament in the South Pacific region, with the tournament being co-sanctioned by the European Tour and ISPS HANDA PGA Tour of Australasia.

A Pacific paradise, the Fiji International also boasts some of the most unique hospitality options in world golf with the par-3 4th hole providing the perfect vantage point to watch the golf, whilst socialising on the beach.

More than just a golf tournament, the Fiji International aims to leave a lasting legacy for golf in the Pacific region, with the PGA of Australia supporting initiatives to introduce and grow the game in Fiji.

The Fiji International is proudly supported by the Fijian Government, Tourism Fiji and the InterContinental Fiji Golf Resort & Spa as the official resort of the tournament until 2017.