In sentencing Khan, the then Commissioner John Connors had labelled the 74 year-old Ba lawyer as a "disgrace' and 'reprehensible'; On 4 May 2011, he was prohibited from seeking a practising certificate for 10 years, was struck off the Roll in Fiji and ordered to pay $120,000 in relation to a deed of guarantee which was under consideration during the complaint. In addition Khan was to indemnify the complainant in respect of any monies payable by her. Finally he was to surrender his passport to the Commission to secure payment in respect of these two orders. But the NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL, in allowing Khan to act as a barrister in New Zealand, ruled: "We have looked carefully at the [ILSC] findings against Dr Khan. Dr Khan gave evidence before us which was at variance with some of those findings. Some findings appear illogical or in contradiction to the evidence, as recorded in the transcript of the proceedings. In our view the findings do not pose sufficient risk to outweigh the confidence reposed in Dr Khan by his referees and reflected in his legal career up to 2011."
COUPSPEAK?: What Sahu Khan had told the Fiji Law Society gathering in 2007 on Native Lands in Fiji
A copy of the paper presented to the Fiji Law Society by Sahu Khan clearly stated his belief that Fijians should not be deemed to own 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the lands in Fiji, which have been classified as native land.
Khan argued in his paper that Clause 4 of the Deed of Cession provided: “That the absolute proprietorship of all lands not shown to be alienated so as to have become bona fide property of Europeans or other foreigners or not in the actual use or occupation of some chief or tribe or not actually required for the probably future support and maintenance of some chief or tribe shall be and hereby declared to be vested in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors.”
Khan argued that the only land which was not vested in the Crown are:
* lands as at 10th October 1874 not alienated to the Europeans or other foreigners;
* lands which were as at 10th October, 1874, not in the actual use or occupation of some chiefs or tribe; and
* lands actually required for the probable support and maintenance of some chiefs or tribe.
Khan’s argument went on to say that actual use or occupation must mean those lands which literally occupied or used such as villages and house sites and the small farms or teitei.
He argued that such lands included Nailaga village or Votua village in Ba. But lands in Maururu, Veisaru or Koronubu, which are many kilometres away from the lands which were actually used or occupied are not included in this, saying that all lands that are bare and unoccupied could not be included in the exemption provision.
Khan then further stated that it was important that a determination is made on which lands in Fiji came within the exemptions referred to in Clause 4 of the Deed of Cession before one could even think of determining who shall fall or qualify for the ownership of lands in Fiji.
Khan also slammed the Qoliqoli Bill pushed through by the deposed SDL government, saying that the Bill was discriminatory against foreigners and only favoured Fijians.
Fijileaks: When did Khan fall out of favour with the coupsters who had seized power in December 2006?
A copy of the paper presented to the Fiji Law Society by Sahu Khan clearly stated his belief that Fijians should not be deemed to own 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the lands in Fiji, which have been classified as native land.
Khan argued in his paper that Clause 4 of the Deed of Cession provided: “That the absolute proprietorship of all lands not shown to be alienated so as to have become bona fide property of Europeans or other foreigners or not in the actual use or occupation of some chief or tribe or not actually required for the probably future support and maintenance of some chief or tribe shall be and hereby declared to be vested in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors.”
Khan argued that the only land which was not vested in the Crown are:
* lands as at 10th October 1874 not alienated to the Europeans or other foreigners;
* lands which were as at 10th October, 1874, not in the actual use or occupation of some chiefs or tribe; and
* lands actually required for the probable support and maintenance of some chiefs or tribe.
Khan’s argument went on to say that actual use or occupation must mean those lands which literally occupied or used such as villages and house sites and the small farms or teitei.
He argued that such lands included Nailaga village or Votua village in Ba. But lands in Maururu, Veisaru or Koronubu, which are many kilometres away from the lands which were actually used or occupied are not included in this, saying that all lands that are bare and unoccupied could not be included in the exemption provision.
Khan then further stated that it was important that a determination is made on which lands in Fiji came within the exemptions referred to in Clause 4 of the Deed of Cession before one could even think of determining who shall fall or qualify for the ownership of lands in Fiji.
Khan also slammed the Qoliqoli Bill pushed through by the deposed SDL government, saying that the Bill was discriminatory against foreigners and only favoured Fijians.
Fijileaks: When did Khan fall out of favour with the coupsters who had seized power in December 2006?
