Blog Posts

'It is inconceivable that Rabuka was not aware of the existence of that Unit or at very least came to hear of it soon after these events, I cannot place reliance upon his evidence in these matters', Judge R. J. Coventry

18/11/2020

1 Comment

"Sitiveni Rabuka also gave evidence. He stated that at that time he was a Major General and Commander of the Fiji Military Forces. He stated that he was not aware of the existence of a Special Operations Security Unit and, in particular, during the years 1987 to 1990. He stated that if such a formal unit was incorporated it would have to be gazetted. He stated he did not remember signing a Gazette notice to that effect. He stated he was aware of the Taukei Movement but was not aware of GARD nor the Fiji Youth and Students League (FYSL). He stated that he had heard about the burning of the 1990 Constitution and that it was a serious time in the history of Fiji. He had no personal view about the act of burning the Constitution. He stated that any unit which had not been gazetted would be unlawful and unknown. He said there could have been unauthorised instructions given to soldiers by immediate superiors. If such instructions were given the army would take action, unless they had been brought before a civil court...I accept the evidence of Jioji Konrote and Sakiusa Raivoce. In any event there was no real challenge to what they said. It is inconceivable that Sitiveni Rabuka was not aware of the existence of that Unit or at the very least came to hear of it soon after these events, I cannot place reliance upon his evidence in these matters." - Justice Roger Conventry in the case of Dr Anirudh Singh

Rabuka's soldiers were trying to do a 'George Floyd' on Dr Anirudh Singh, for they tied the noose so tight that he could not BREATHE. In return, Rabuka expected INDO-FIJIANS to just lie down and accept his COUPS. Only Indo-Fijian cowards and traitors were willing to give into his terror.
Dr Singh survived to tell his tale, but many Indo-Fijian mothers suffered miscarriages, and never saw their unborns grow up in Fiji.

RAPE of Indo-Fijian mothers and their daughters was so widespread, as documented by Amnesty International

SITIVENI'S CV for SODELPA LEADERSHIP Clothed in Immunity he obtained at the point of the gun in May 1987, he allowed his soldiers to kidnap, beat, and torture his Indo-Fijian opponents late into the 1990s, and later denied that he was aware of the existence of the Special Military Operations Unit whose officers tortured USP academic Dr Anirudh Singh for burning the racist 1990 Constitution of Fiji. The Judge, Roger Coventry, basically ruled that Rabuka was lying after taking into consideration the evidence of Colonel Jioji Konrote, now President of Fiji, and the evidence of Lieutenant- Colonel (now retired) Sakiusa Raivoce. While Dr Singh is still recovering from the appalling barbaric torture and the trauma he suffered at the hands of Rabuka's soldiers, Rabuka was all smiles, with medals glistening from his jacket, receiving Fiji@50 Independence Medal, and is asking SODELPA to appoint him as leader to fight the 2022 Election. Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum's alleged role in the bombings during those dark days arose from Rabuka's COUPS but he (Rabuka) got himself and his soldeirs, immunity. As for Dr Singh who contributed so much to educating Fijians of all races, he has been forgotten. But like the Jews who keep reminding us about the Holocaust, it is our duty to hold Rabuka to account, and say to all Fijians, NEVER AGAIN WE MUST LET LOOSE ANOTHER RACIAL MONSTER ON THE PEOPLE OF FIJI, MASQUERADING AS AN INDIGENOUS NATIONALIST. HE claims 'There Was No Other Way'.

Raivoce

"All five defendants (save for Sotia Ponijiasi, retired in 1997) are still today serving soldiers in the army with no apparent detriment to their careers. There is no evidence that at any time any consideration was given to disciplining or discharging any of them. The first defendant Sotia Ponijiasi was, in fact, shortly afterwards posted overseas with a United Nations Mission, a well sought-after posting."

Singh v Ponijiasi [2006] FJHC 162; Civil Action 371 of 1993 (1 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Civil Jurisdiction

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0371 OF 1993

Between:

DR. ANIRUDH SINGH s/o Charan Singh
Plaintiff

and

SOTIA PONIJIASI
First Defendant

WAQA VAKALOLOMA
Second Defendant

UATE QALO
Third Defendant

ILIESA RAIQISO
Fourth Defendant

SAMUELA KENI
Fifth Defendant

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
Sixth Defendant

Counsel: Mr. F. Haniff for the Plaintiff
Mr. L. Daunivalu for the Sixth Defendant

Dates of Hearing: 1st September and 3rd October 2006
Date of Judgment: 1st November 2006

JUDGMENT

On 24th of October 1990 the plaintiff Dr. Anirudh Singh , left his home to go to work at the University of the South Pacific. He was walking along Rewa Street. Two of the first five defendants were walking along the footpath towards him. One of them struck him in the face and he fell to the ground. Other defendants crowded around as a car sped up from behind. Dr. Singh was gagged with a strip of white cloth and put in the car. His face was then pushed down between his knees. He was told, "shut up, you bastard, or we will kill you".
Fifty dollars was taken from his back pocket. The journey continued for some time with stops and turns. Dr. Singh thought at first that they would be heading for Army Headquarters. He realised after a while that they were not.
Eventually the vehicle came to a halt on an unsealed road. The door opened and he was told "remain silent and do as we tell you to. Keep your eyes closed". He was then blind-folded. He was able to see that he was in a bushy-sided, dirt road somewhere. A hood was pulled over his head and tied around his neck. It was tied so firmly his nose was flattened against his face. He could not breathe normally. He felt as though he was suffocating. The possibility that he was going to be killed was then "a stark reality in my mind". They went over rough terrain with bushes and protruding tree roots. After approximately five minutes of stumbling walk he was pushed into a sitting position and tied up. His wrist watch was pulled away. His hands were tied behind his back with cord. His feet were also tied together. A thicker rope was tied around him and another rope around his neck, which was pulled backwards.
His pockets were turned out or ripped apart and a list of names and telephone numbers he always kept in his shirt pocket was taken. His shirt was ripped leaving his chest bare. The knots of the ropes dug into his wrists and he began to loose sensation in both hands.
Suddenly all around him became quiet. He was told in a stern, low voice "you will remain absolutely quiet, or you will not live. Is that understood?" Dr. Singh replied "Yes".
He was then hit with full force on his left jaw. Another blow landed on his head. He was asked "yes what?" and replied "yes, sir".
Dr. Singh was beginning to feel suffocated and was gasping for breath. He knew he could not last long like that but did his best to exercise enough self control to overcome the sense of asphyxia. He tried to regulate his breathing as best he could.
He then heard a heavy thump as if a large object, like a sand bag, was being dumped on the ground close to him. He imagined that he would be killed, his body weighted with the sand bag and then dumped in the sea. He said "the panic was rising again and this time it seemed uncontrollable".
He could hear conversation in the Fijian language, He heard metallic clicking like guns being checked.
He then felt warmth against his right leg. Dr. Singh realised they had lit a tyre close to him. He was then told "we will roast you alive".
He was then asked a large number of questions about his associates and friends, his activities, the address he gave on an arrival card in Nadi, and other questions. From time to time he was hit and the noose around his neck tightened. His head throbbed and his face "was battered senseless". He had no sensitivity in his hands. He asked for the cords to be loosened. The response was more blows with fists and kicks at his body.
He was asked why he had burnt the Constitution. He replied "because I was opposed to it". He again hit about the head. After a while he heard food utensils being used and one of his captors eating. He stayed in his place for a considerable time until he was able to make out through the dimming light that was afternoon. He heard that one of the landrovers nearby was being used as a means of communication between his captors and others. He had the impression that a vehicle had been used to ferry people backwards and forwards.
About an hour after dark his feet were untied and he was forced to stand up. The knots on his hands were untied. He hands were swollen and numb.
His captors then untied the hood and took off the blindfold. It was not totally dark, half light. He saw that he was sitting in the middle of a tropical wood. The faces of his captors were covered with dark balaclavas and they wore jackets, jeans and gloves. They stood facing him in a menacing pose. They then unleashed more blows upon him. He was beaten to and fro until he felt himself sinking into unconscious. After about five minutes the blows stopped. He felt numb and senseless and hardly able to think. His face was puffed and he thought he had lost the sight of his left eye.
His captors exchanged further consultations in low whispers. He gained the impression that they were "commandos on a mission, they were planning their next action'. He was made to lie on his side and while one stood on his right hand another put his left hand over an exposed route. He thought they were going to cut off his hand. They took a metal pipe and beat his hands. They then did the same with his right hand. His injured hands were then held up by one of his captors and then let drop. His hair was cut off with a pair of scissors. After some more time one of them lit a match and started to burn the cut hair at the tips.
All but one of his captors left and for the first time in approximately eleven hours he felt there might be hope. The remaining captor then told him he was free to go and disappeared into the darkness.
Dr. Singh wondered if this was a trap. He shifted to a new position some yards away and sat down again. He heard a landrover start in the near distance, and then drive away. He stood in the middle of the dark forest, with his face swollen, unable to see through his left eye, his hands swollen and hanging useless by his sides and oozing blood. He managed to make his way until he found a dirt road.
Five days earlier, on the 19th of October, the front page of the Daily Post Newspaper had carried the headline "Hindus Burn Constitution". There was a photograph of several persons burning what was described as "Fiji's New Constitution". The caption continued "at left is the chairman of GARD, Dr, Anirudh Singh ". GARD stood for Group Against Racial Discrimination. The first five defendants, Sotia Ponijiasi, Waqa Vakaloloma, Uate Qalo, Mesa Raiqiso and Samuela Keni were later charged with abduction and causing grievous harm. They had given themselves up to police and made statements admitting their respective involvement in these events.
On the 22nd of November 1990, having pleaded guilty, they were each sentenced to twelve months imprisonment concurrent on each count suspended for fifteen months and fined a total of $340.00 each. One thousand five hundred dollars of the fine was to go to Dr. Singh by way of compensation.
It is not disputed that at the time of these events all five were serving soldiers or officers in the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF). The five defendants have been served with the proceedings in this case and judgment in default of defence entered against them for various torts.
The plaintiff claims against the sixth defendant, The Attorney General, that the state is vicariously liable for the actions of those soldiers on that day. The sixth defendant denies this. This is the principal issue in this case.
I have before me the unchallenged evidence of Dr. Singh. I have also heard evidence from Sitiveni Rabuka, Sakiusa Raivoce and Jioje Konrote. I have an agreed bundle of documents and Saula Koro's affidavit in reply to interrogatories, filed on 4th of July 2006.
In this judgment I am only addressing the issue of whether or not the sixth defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of the first five. The question of damages and other relief will be dealt with separately and, in the case of the Attorney General, if there is an adverse finding. The Fiji Human Rights Commission has made application to be heard on the question of damages if such a finding is made.
It is clear from the dates of the incidents and year of filing of this case that there have been considerable delays in the coming to trial of this action. There is no need for me to go into those matters in this judgment.
Both counsel supplied closing written submissions in which they dealt with the law and the facts. In the context of a master and servant relationship, the plaintiff's counsel cited the dictum of Lord Steyn in Lister and Others v. Hasley Hall Limited [2001] 1 AC 215 at p.223 where he said:
- "Vicariously liability is legal responsibility imposed on an employer, although he is himself free from blame, for a tort committed by his employee in the course of his employment."
Similarly in Marjrowski v. Guys and St. Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] 3 WLR 125, Lord Nicholls stated, at page 128:
- "Vicariously liability is a common law principle of strict, no fault liability. Under this principle a blameless employer is liable for wrong committed by his employee while the latter is about his employer's business. The time-honoured phrase is 'while acting in the course of his employment'. It is thus a form of secondary liability. The primary liability is that of the employee who committed the wrong."
It is not disputed that all five defendants were members of the Fiji Armed Forces at the time of these acts.
The plaintiffs witness Jioje Konrote had been a career soldier for twenty five years. He enlisted in the Royal Fiji Military Forces in May 1966. He finally retired in December 1999. Although he was not in Fiji at the time of these events he testified to the fact that there was a unit known as the "Special Operations Security Unit", (SOSU). He said it was one of many such units set up after the events of 1987. The setting up of such a sub-unit was the prerogative of the Commander, Sitiveni Rabuka. The purpose of the unit was to collect and collate information that was required at that particular time, namely about anything likely to destablise the country, bearing in mind the turbulent period after 1987.
He stated it would be for the unit commanders to select the soldiers they wanted in any particular unit. He continued that part of the training would be in intelligence and information collection and covert techniques. Once information was collected, it would be analysed by members of the intelligence unit to find out if it warranted any further follow-up action or the formulation of any plans.
He stated at that time SOSU did not have any particularly sophisticated equipment, it was usually "the use of eyes and ears supplemented by people coming forward. It would be normal equipment such as radios". Mr. Konrote stated that the members of the SOSU were on call "24 hours a day, 7 days a week".
Sakiusa Raivoce was a Lieutenant Colonel in the army in 1999. He was aware of the existence of SOSU but did not know when it had been set up. He was in a different unit. He was unable to say if it was a covert unit. In cross-examination he agreed that whether or not a person was in any special unit he was not allowed to commit unlawful activities.
Sitiveni Rabuka also gave evidence. He stated that at that time he was a Major General and Commander of the Fiji Military Forces. He stated that he was not aware of the existence of a Special Operations Security Unit and, in particular, during the years 1987 to 1990. He stated that if such a formal unit was incorporated it would have to be gazetted. He stated he did not remember signing a Gazette notice to that effect. He stated he was aware of the Taukei Movement but was not aware of GARD nor the Fiji Youth and Students League (FYSL). He stated that he had heard about the burning of the 1990 Constitution and that it was a serious time in the history of Fiji. He had no personal view about the act of burning the Constitution. He stated that any unit which had not been gazetted would be unlawful and unknown. He said there could have been unauthorised instructions given to soldiers by immediate superiors. If such instructions were given the army would take action, unless they had been brought before a civil court.
In their records of interview at the time Qalo accepted he was a member of SOSU; Keni a member of 'SOS' although he didn't know what it stood for; Raiqiso a member of a Special Operations Unit and Ponijiasi said I charge and gave the orders.
In his affidavit in answer to interrogatories, a currently serving officer, Lieutenant Salo Koro with access to records, at paragraph 9 stated that Sotia Ponijiasi joined the "Special Operations Security Unit" in November 1989 and was the team leader for that unit. Lieutenant Koro continued that the other four defendants were also members of that unit and were not on leave at the times in question.
I accept the evidence of Jioji Konrote and Sakiusa Raivoce. In any event there was no real challenge to what they said. It is inconceivable that Sitiveni Rabuka was not aware of the existence of that Unit or at the very least came to hear of it soon after these events, I cannot place reliance upon his evidence in these matters.
Sotia Ponijiasi was promoted to the rank of Captain in November 1989. He was made team leader for SOSU. In his record of interview to the police he was asked (Question 9, page 40 agreed bundle) what he had detailed defendants two to five to do. He replied
- "It began when I noticed in the Daily Post Newspaper the burning of the Constitution of Fiji. Reading the paper I know that the group was led by Doctor. I see that the students were used to highlight the intention Group Against Racial Discrimination. To my understanding the Constitution was approved by the people of Fiji and the chiefs of Fiji - to burn the Constitution is an act of disrespect to the highest degree to the chiefs of Fiji.
  - "Q10: For what did you detailed these people
  - A: I told them to keep this man - the doctor under surveillance. On Sunday 21.10.90 they returned to brief me of what was required. They were again detailed to watch his house, movement to his work place, informed me by night on Tuesday 23.10.90.
  - Q11: Did you people meet on Tuesday 23.10.90?
  - A: Yes, they gave me a message, his belongings were packed and it appeared that he was about to move somewhere. I told them to keep him under watch during the night until daylight 24.10.90. If he wishes to escape. He has to be stopped. If he refuse he has to be taken by force. I told them if they manage to get hold of doctor I am informed that he be treated for such disrespect act he led.
  - Q12: Did they tell you that they got doctor?
  - A: They rang me about 7.30 a.m. on Wednesday and informed me that they are yet to get doctor. They were told to carry on with the surveillance and to get hold of him if possible."
- This is a translation into English from the original Fijian in which the interview was conducted. This also applies to the records of interview of the other defendants.
The other defendants talk in their interviews about the instructions to keep Dr. Singh under surveillance, the use of a military vehicle and radio equipment, the receipt of orders from Lieutenant Ponijiasi and the reporting back to him of their various activities and sightings.
Iliesa Raiqiso (page 57 of the Agreed Bundle) in his record of interview was asked:
- "Q7: Can you recall on the morning of Wednesday last 24.10.90 where were you on that morning.
- A: I was preparing to execute the task at Rewa Street.
- Q8: Tell me what sort of preparation is that?
- A: On that Friday when the Fiji Post published the burning of the Constitution by Dr. Singh and his team, an instruction was given by my superior officer to be one of the few hunting Dr. Singh and identify his working address and his residential address. The operation started that day.
- ......
- Q19: On Wednesday 24/10/90 tell me what did you and your commander do?
- A: We did not rest and continued tracking and observing the movements and the activities of Dr. Singh. We radioed the result to the military camp.
- Q25: Tell me what treatment made to Dr. Singh when he was detained in the forest.
- A: His hands were tied behind his back and seated under a big tree. We interrogated him about the burning of the Constitution and he admitted leading the group. I reached his shirt pocket and found two pieces of paper. One is a receipt and the other paper written some telephone numbers ... He was punched whenever he refused to answer any questions.
At question 41 of the interview of Uate Qalo (page 71, agreed bundle) he is asked
- 41: What did you do to him whilst holding him up in the bush?
- A: Where tied his both hands around his back and made him sit beside a huge tree. His head and face was still covered. We then started questioning him.
- Q42: What did you ask him in questioning?
- A: We all took part in questioning him as to why they burn the Constitution, who all took part in the burning of the Constitution and some other things we also questioned him which I now cannot remember.
- Q43: Did he respond to what you questioned him?
- A. Yes but it was not clear because his mouth was also covered.
- Q44: Did he mention to you any of his accomplice?
- A: Only that man whose name appeared in the paper namely Praveen and the rest I now cannot remember.
- Q45: Did you do anything to him whilst questioning him?
- A: We only cut his hair and he also got burnt from my cigarette when it fell off from me. His hair which was on the ground was burnt by us and he also got slightly burnt from that.
- Q46: What did you use to cut his hair with?
- A: We used a pair of scissors we took along with us.
- Q47: How long did you keep him in that place?
- A: Until darkness.
- Q48: What happened when it became dark?
- A: We then released him and then told him that he could go.
- Q49: What about you people?
- A. We came back to our car boarded and left to the camp had our briefing before leaving for home."
- The other defendants in their records of interview admit doing various Acts consistent with the allegations of Dr. Singh.
The five defendants were not only making enquiries and gathering information about the burning of the Constitution and those involved but were also enquiring about the address Dr. Singh gave on an arrival card at Nadi Airport.
In an undated statement Brigidier General E.G. Ganilau MC, MSD PSC, Commander the Republic of Fiji Military Forces stated that neither he nor the RFMF ordered nor instructed the activities of "the defendant servicemen in the incident involving the assault on Mr. Anirudh Singh . The assault on Mr. Singh are prohibited acts under the laws of Fiji. This is why they were accordingly convicted by the courts. The RFMF is an institution whose role is to assist the police in the maintenance of law and order. The RFMF cannot, in the course of its employment, authorise soldiers under its command to execute tasks or partake in operations that are manifestly unlawful", (Page 167 agreed bundle).
Lieutenant Colonel Isireli Dugu, in his undated "FIC into the alleged kidnap of Mr. Anirudah Singh" stated:
- "The alleged kidnap of Mr. Anirudah Singh first came to my notice after reading it in the local newspaper (Fiji Times) on the morning of Thursday 25th October, 1990.
- In my capacity as the Commanding Officer of the soldiers alleged to be involved in this unfortunate incident I would like to state here that neither I nor the RPF issued any instruction either verbally or in written form that influenced the cause (sic) of action(s) that these soldiers were accused to have carried out.
- I suspect that the burning of the 1990 Republic of Fiji's Constitution by the Students League Association of which Mr. A. Singh played a role, was the event that sparked off the incident.
- This concludes my statement: (page 166, agreed bundle).
The plaintiff's case is not that an order was given to seek out Dr. Singh and because of his part in the burning of the Constitution and his membership of guard and FYSL. The plaintiff's case is there was a covert unit, the Special Operations Security Unit. Its purpose was to carry out surveillance and gather information. This is precisely what they were doing when they abducted Dr. Singh bound and hooded him, assaulted him and interrogated him. The Plaintiff says that the test for vicariously liability is not whether the employer ordered the acts or they were part of the duties of the employees concerned. The plaintiffs say that:
- "The correct approach is to concentrate on the relative closeness of connection between the nature of the employment and the particular tort, and to ask whether looking at the matter in the round it is just and reasonable to hold employers vicariously liable."
This is the dicta of Lord Steyn in delivering the opinion of the Privy Council in the case of Bernard v. Attorney General of Jaimaica [2004] UKPC 47 at para. 18.
In Majrowski v. Guys and St. Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] 3 WLR 125 the House of Lords again adopted the 'connection' test in defining the principles of vicarious liability when Lord Nicholls (at page 128) stated
- "A precondition of vicarious liability is that the wrong must be committed by an employee in the course of his employment. A wrong is committed in the course of employment only if the conduct is so closely connected with acts the employee is authorised to do that, for the purposes of the liability of the employer to the third party, a wrongful conduct may fairly and properly be regarded as done by the employee while acting in the course of his employment."
Reference was made to the cases of Lister v. Hesley Hall Limited [2002] 1 AC 215 and Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v. Salaam [2002] UKHL 48. In the former case the warden of a school boarding house had sexually abused resident children. The question was whether the employers were vicariously liable. In the leading opinion a single ultimate question was posed, namely whether the wardens tort was so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable", (page 230 C). All the members of the House of Lords took the view that the answer was "yes" because the sexual abuse was inextricably interwoven with the carrying out by the warden of his duties in the boarding house.
Lord Steyn at paragraphs 18 and 19 in Bernard (supra) continued thus "Lister is, however, important for a number of reasons. It emphasised clearly the intense focus required on the closeness of the connection between the tort and the individual tortfeasor's employment. It stressed the need to avoid terminological issues and to adopt a broad approach to the context of the tortious conduct and the employment. It was held that the traditional test of posing, in accordance with Salmond's well known formula, the question whether the act is "a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master" is not entirely apt in cases of intentional wrongdoings ... This test may invite a negative answer, with a terminological quibble, even where there is a very close connection between the tort and the functions of the employee, making it fair and just to impose vicarious liability. The correct approach is to concentrate on the relative closeness of the connection between the nature of the employment and the particular tort, and to ask whether looking at the matter in the round it is just and reasonable to hold the employers vicariously liable. In deciding this question a relevant factor is the risks to others created by an employer who entrusts duties, tasks and functions to an employee".
In the Dubai Aluminium case the House of Lords considered the principles in Lister in a different context. The question was whether a solicitors firm, a partnership, was vicariously liable for the fraudulent act of one of its partners who, together with others, had defrauded the Dubai Aluminium Company. Lord Nicolls at page 377 stated:
- "Perhaps the best general answer is that the wrongful conduct must be so closely connected with acts the partner or the employee was authorised to do that, for the purpose of the liability of the firm or the employer to third parties, the wrongful conduct may fairly and properly be regarded as done by the partner while acting in the ordinary course of the firm's business or the employee's employment. Lord Millet said as much in Lister v. Hesley Hall Limited...
  - "... the policy purposes underlying the imposition of vicarious liability on employers are served only where the wrong is so connected with the employment that it can be said that the employer has introduced the risk of the wrong (and is thereby fairly and usefully charged with its management and minimisation)."
At page 248 of Lister, Lord Millet stated:
- "So it is no answer to say that the employee was guilty of intentional wrongdoing, or that his act was not merely tortious but criminal, or that he was acting exclusively for his own benefit, or that he was acting contrary to express instructions, or that his conduct was the very negative of his employer's duty ..."
Were the wrongful acts of these five defendants so closely connected with their functions and duties as members of SOSU that the State can reasonably be held vicariously liable for their tortious actions? Has the employer "introduced the risk of the wrong and is thereby fairly and usefully charged with its management and minimisation"? Could it be said that the evidence is just as consistent with a few soldiers meting out a punishment beating for the act of burning the Constitution? Is there also a policy issue given the context of the actions, as being those carried out by serving soldiers and not by, for example, employees of an ordinary commercial company who took it upon themselves to do these acts? It is, of course, for the plaintiff to prove his case.
The sixth defendant in closing submissions reiterated that the The Attorney General's Office and the Fiji Military Forces have consistently maintained their disapproval of the actions of the five defendants. In two separate and clear declarations the disapproval of the army was made known. The five defendants themselves acknowledged that their actions as complained of were individual and not part of their military duties. Further they were not part of any official duty or taken in furtherance of any lawful authority sanctioned by superior officers.
The sixth defendant cited the case of Hague v. The Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison [1991] 3 ALL ER 733. In this case Hague, a convicted prisoner, claimed damages against the Home Office for assault battery and false imprisonment by some of the prison officers. Lord Bridge, at p.745 stated:
- " ... a prison officer who acts in bad faith by deliberately subjecting a prisoner to a restraint which he knows he has no authority to impose may render himself personally liable to an action for false imprisonment as well as committing the tort of misfeasance in public office. Lacking the authority of the Governor, he also lacks the protection of (the law). But if the officer deliberately acts outside the scope of his authority, he cannot render the Governor or the Home Office vicariously liable for his tortious conduct."
The sixth defendant says this case and dictum are directly in point, even though it came before the authorities of Lister and Others.
The respondents continue that this present case is factually distinct in that the army was not involved at the time in assisting the police with internal security and had no reason to be arresting and questioning people. There were no instructions or directions given to the defendants to undertake any such activity, there were no clear directives on the operations of the SOSU, and their core duties were far removed from illegal abduction and assault. It was submitted therefore there could be no connection between what the defendants did and what they were employed to do.
I find that the following is established on the face of the evidence:
- 1. A unit had been established in the army called the Special Operations Service Unit. It operated independently. It was known to senior commanders.
- 2. Its functions were to collect information generally, conduct surveillance and collect information on anyone likely to destabilise the country and report it back for intelligence analysis. They were entitled to and did use army vehicles and other equipment. They were trained in covert techniques.
- 3. Defendants 1-5 were serving members of the RFMF and members of the Special Operations Service Unit.
- 4. In the days before the abduction of Dr. Singh the five defendants were carrying out surveillance on him and reporting back to their immediate commanding officer.
- 5. All five defendants were aware that Dr. Singh was one of those who publicly burnt the Fiji Constitution.
- 6. All five defendants were involved in the abduction and beating of Dr. Singh.
- 7. Dr. Singh was taken to a remote location bound and hooded.
- 8. Whilst there over a period of approximately twelve hours he was questioned.
- 9. Those questions related to the terms of others who had participated in the burning of the Construction, his in Fiji and overseas, his involvement with overseas organizations and his address on an airport arrival card. A notebook containing names and telephone numbers was removed from him.
- 10. When he failed to answer questions or did not do so satisfactorily he was further beaten.
- 11. Certain acts of humiliation were inflicted upon him. It could be that these were done to elicit answers or as revenge for his act of burning the Constitution or both.
This case is close in character to that of Lister. In that case there was no suggestion that the employer encouraged, condoned or directed any kind of sexual abuse. Nevertheless the acts of abuse were found to be so closely connected with the course of employment that the employers were fixed with vicariously liability. In this case there is nothing on the evidence to suggest that the RFMF directed the acts of abduction and beating.
However, in my judgment, those acts are so closely related to that of the gathering of information that I consider the sixth defendant is fixed with vicarious liability.
The Unit existed to survey and gather information on certain people. Dr. Singh was just such a person. He was under surveillance for a few days before the abduction. When abducted he was asked questions of the kind the Unit would want answers to. When he didn't reply he was beaten. Army vehicles and equipment were being used. Periodic reports were sent back to RFMF headquarters. The defendants were going to and from their army base. There was a failure by the RFMF to take any disciplinary action afterwards in respect of the soldiers, (see below, paragraph 60).
I consider that there is a broad and important policy support for this decision. If any unit of a disciplined force is charged with the gathering of information and watching people then it is most important that that force exercises the greatest diligence and active control over the unit to ensure that the unlawful use of force or other wrongful acts are not employed in its activities. There must exist the clear knowledge that if members of that unit do act unlawfully, then vicarious liability will be affixed to the force itself.
There is a further and equally disturbing aspect to this whole case. Within a few days of this incident and certainly by the time of conviction and sentence senior commanders of the army were well aware of these events. There had been publication in national newspapers. When asked what position would the army take if a soldier was convicted in a civil court Jioje Konrote replied "normally he or she is discharged". Sakiuse Raivoce when asked about this stated" if (a serviceman is) convicted by the civil court, his position in the army will be affected. It depends on the commander, he can be discharged. It depends on the severity. If there is a civil conviction of a serving soldier, then army will look at it and decide what to do... it depends on the severity of the case, (he would) normally he discharged by the commander if they are guilty in a civil case".
Although these men had not been sentenced to terms of immediate imprisonment they had been sentenced to suspended prison sentences for two serious offences.
All five defendants (save for Sotia Ponijiasi, retired in 1997) are still today serving soldiers in the army with no apparent detriment to their careers. There is no evidence that at any time any consideration was given to disciplining or discharging any of them. The first defendant Sotia Ponijiasi was, in fact, shortly afterwards posted overseas with a United Nations Mission, a well sought-after posting.
This failure to take any kind of action against any of these defendants can only be perceived as condonation of their actions by the RFMF. These were not trivial acts of indiscipline. They reflected seriously upon the characters of those concerned. It is difficult to see how any course other than immediate discharge could be followed. This not only reinforces my judgment as far as the question whether or not their activities were closely connected with their ordinary duties, but also reinforces the broad policy reason for affixing vicarious liability to the RFMF.
I do not overlook the nature of the government in 1990, the fact that the 1990 Constitution superseded the 1970 Constitution and that indeed there was a new Constitution in 1997. The sixth defendant did not seek to raise in anyway any legal points arising from this state of affairs.
In closing submissions the sixth defendants counsel also raised a particular provision set out in the Royal (Now Republic of) Fiji Military Forces Act, Cap.81. Section 3 states:
- "The Force shall be charged with the defence of Fiji, with the maintenance of order and with such other duties as may from time to time be defined by the Minister."
The respondents say that the five defendants acts could not in any way be described as fitting within the tasks with which the Force is charged and cannot therefore have been within the course of their employment. They were not done for the protection of Fiji against outsiders, internal defence or civilian tasks usually within the province of the police. There was no question of maintenance of order, since there was no disorder requiring military intervention.
The sixth defendant also cited section 52 of the act which comes in Part VIII - "Legal Proceedings and Offences" and is entitled "Immunities of Soldiers" and reads:
- "52 - (1) No action shall be brought against any officer or soldier for anything done by him under this Act unless the same is commenced within three months after the act complained of was committed nor unless notice of such action has been given at least one month before such action was commenced.
- (2) Any action brought against any officer or soldier for anything done by him under the this act the plaintiff shall expressly allege in his statement of claim that such act was done either maliciously or without reasonable and probable cause or through gross negligence, and if at the trial of such action he fails to prove such allegation he shall be non-suited or a verdict shall be given for the defendant."
It is not disputed that these proceedings were commenced more than three months after the act complained of were committed. The Statement of Claim does refer to acts being done maliciously.
The sixth defendant argues that if the acts that the first five defendants carried out were done under the Royal Fiji Military Forces Act then the plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with section 52 in that the action was not commenced within three months, no notice was given one month before the commencement of the action and the Statement of Claim fails in its pleading to comply with subsection 2. It the acts complained of were not done under the Act then they clearly could not be within the course or service of the five defendants with the military forces.
I do note that this section and its particular provisions have not been pleaded in the defence or raised at any other time. It can reasonably be said that some of the limbs of section 52 are open to attack as being unconstitutional. That has not been argued before me and I make no ruling thereupon.
At paragraph 4 of the defence filed on 16th September 1993 the sixth defendant was at pains to point out that the five defendants' acts were "not acts done as part of their military duties", they were not part of any official duty or taken in furtherance of any lawful authority sanctioned by the Commander of the Fiji Military Forces or any of his superior military commanders", "the acts and or omissions of the first five defendants were so separate and distinct from any official act that they would in law be expected to perform that the Government of Fiji as their ultimate employer cannot be liable vicariously" and "the acts of the first five defendants were prohibited acts by the Law of Fiji, and therefore cannot be within their sphere of employment as members of the Fiji Military Forces".
The sixth defendant in its pleading and indeed in the way their case has been presented has pointed out that the tortious acts committed by the five defendants were not done in the course of their employment or indeed constituted "anything done by [them] under this Act .„". In these circumstances the limitations upon bringing an action as set out in section 52 do not come into play presuming that they are constitutional.
The modern law of vicarious liability clearly recognises that an employee might commit tortious and indeed criminal acts which were not ordered, connived at or condoned by his employer yet the employer be vicariously liable. The question is the "closeness of connection between the wrongful act and the employment".
The parallels between this case and the case of Lister are close. The policy considerations are the same.
There is a distinction between acts done under the Act which were carried out "either maliciously or without reasonably and probable cause or through gross negligence" and acts which are done otherwise then under the Act but are so closely connected to ones that are as to fix the state with vicarious liability.
In these circumstances, I do find that there were tortious acts as pleaded in the Statement of Claim committed by the first five defendants. I do not find that the defence under section 52 of the Royal Fiji Military Forces Act is available to the five defendants nor consequently the sixth defendant. I find that the tortious acts committed by the five defendants were so closely connected with their employment and in particular the functions and purposes of the Special Operations Security Unit that the sixth defendant, representing the State, is vicariously liable for those tortious acts.
Accordingly I give judgment for the plaintiff, I will now hear the application from the Fiji Human Rights Commission to intervene in this case. I will also hear the parties on quantum.

(R.J. Coventry)
JUDGE

1 Comment

SITIVENI RABUKA'S CV for SODELPA Leadership: 'The Fiji Broadcasting Commission shall consist of a chairman who shall be a Fijian, and he/she shall be registered in “Vola ni Kawa Bula”. We screaming at KHAIYUMS

17/11/2020

1 Comment

The Khaiyum Brothers are where they are because of the racist thug who seized power from Dr Timoci Bavadra at the point of a gun - hiding behind balaclavas - and now wanting to lead Fiji again under false pretense that he is transformed man. He should renounce his IMMUNITY. The difference between Rabuka and Bainimarama is one carried out his coup in the age of internet and the other when there was no internet, mobile phone or FACEBOOK. But Rabuka and his 10 'Faceless' men in balaclavas have left behind enough evidence to cart the
SODELPA leader Sitiveni Rabuka off to The Hague

Broadcasting Commission (Chapter 105) Amendment Decree 1987

THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI

DECREE NO. 15

BROADCASTING COMMISSION (CHAPTER 105) AMENDMENT
DECREE 1987 (NO. 15)

IN exercise of the powers vested in me as the Commander and Head of the Military Government, I hereby make the following Decree:

1. This Decree may be cited as the Broadcasting Commission (Chapter 105) Amendment Decree 1987 (No. 15) (hereafter the Decree).

2. The Broadcasting Commission Act (Chapter 105) (the Act) is hereby amended in the following manner:

(a) By adding to section 2 the following additional term:

“Fijian” means a person who shall be regarded as Fijian if, his father or any if his earlier male progenitors on the male line is or was the child of both parents who are or were indigenous inhabitants of Fiji and his or her name is eligible to be registered in the “Vola ni Kawa Bula”. Such eligibility shall be determined and or confirmed by the Native Lands Commission.

(b) Delete section 3(2) of the Act and insert in lieu thereof the following:

“Section 3(2) The Commission shall consist of a chairman who shall be a Fijian, a Deputy Chairman and not less than six other members all to be appointed by the Minister and of whom fifty percent are to be Fijian.”

3. This Decree shall come into force as from the 28th October 1987 with such consequential effects as shall give force to the amendment proposed.

Dated this 27th day of October, 1987.
COLONEL SITIVENI LIGAMAMADA RABUKA, O.B.E. (Mil.)
Commander and Head of the Fiji Military Government

1 Comment

PITA WAQAVONOVONO on SITIVENI RABUKA'S Outburst: 'WEAK Leaders can't control their own SODELPA supporters - FOCUS on them'

16/11/2020

4 Comments

"He didn’t have to respond since the comments on my personal facebook page do not have the same destructive characteristics as the people in his faction who attack our leaders, campaign aides, family members and even our Party General Secretary. He should focus his attention there. Their views cause conflict. Their lies and unchecked posts are absolutely UNACCEPTABLE, and the Leader that they propose loses credibility if he can't control their Stupidity...By the way, I am waiting for Rabuka's phone call, regarding a complaint I made in May regarding a FBC article that claimed that he attended a Management Board meeting where sexist and racist comments were shared - I was informed by the Party Leadership that he is to call me." - Pita Waqavonovono

WEAK LEADERS CAN'T CONTROL THEIR OWN SUPPORTERS
Bula Vinaka

Ben Daveta sent me that link sometime yesterday, a few minutes later I heard it over the radio. FBC news piece showing the Opposition Leader attacking me and calling me to stop stirring up conflict. Other members of the Party have reached out to me in support. I just want to make it clear, Mr Rabuka is speaking about my facebook status regarding his votability.

He didn’t have to respond since the comments on my personal facebook page do not have the same destructive characteristics as the people in his faction who attack our leaders, campaign aides, family members and even our Party General Secretary. He should focus his attention there. Their views cause conflict. Their lies and unchecked posts are absolutely UNACCEPTABLE, and the Leader that they propose loses credibility if he can't control their Stupidity.

As for me, I was asked to declare my views on Rabuka by Rabuka and a few others in the Party, since I don’t belong to any faction in the Party. I did just that. I responded with historic facts and recent electoral results.

Please note, that SODELPA is currently undergoing a process to choose a leader. We have 4 persons vying for the position. Behind these 4 persons are very passionate campaigners and supporters. Right now, I don’t support any of them, although I am leaning towards one or two of them. So expect many words to flare up, hurtful things to be said, and more news articles. In the end, like all democratic political parties, we rally behind the chosen leader, whoever that is! I believe that Fiji will ultimately group around the candidates that they believe in in 2022

The interest for SODELPA is growing. More younger voters are showing up to our meetings and constituency AGM’s. Young People below the age of 40, are now the majority of members in the Party. We must celebrate these developments as it shows a Party that is growing into the future. These voters want solutions to Job Creation, Just Wages, and better education opportunities.

And by the way, Hon. Rabuka must have been misinformed. The selection committee for our Party Leader, is an independent committee that cannot receive submissions from non-applicants. Their terms of reference requires them to make independent analysis on each candidate without any of the usual leanings. By the way, I am waiting for Rabuka's phone call, regarding a complaint I made in May regarding a FBC article that claimed that he attended a Management Board meeting where sexist and racist comments were shared - I was informed by the Party Leadership that he is to call me.

In the meantime, since you are all fixed on my ‘past’ resignation from SODELPA as my sign of protest, can I remind you that Rabuka himself, has resigned from SODELPA 4 times and we love him all the same. So please, Focus on the issue at hand – prepare for the selection of a Party Leader and clean up the messaging from your crowd Mr Rabuka.

AND BY THE WAY - THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, WE ARE PICKING A CANDIDATE FOR PARTY LEADER, NOT THE NEXT POPE. We all fall short of the perfect Christian and Leader!
SODELPA all the way!

RABUKA's supporters accused of posting materials against his rivals

4 Comments

BRIGADIER-GENERAL (Self-Promoted) SITIVENI RABUKA'S Coup File: We hope among the documents in his CV for job as SODELPA Leader are files that have bred successive Coups, AMNESTY for Torturers in Fiji

15/11/2020

1 Comment

The Social Democratic Liberal Party leader Sitiveni Rabuka has fired back at former Party Youth Leader, Pita Waqavonovono. This comes after Waqavonovono launched an attack on Rabuka for being a proposed candidate for the party’s leadership position. SODELPA is to have their election later this month and Waqavonovono has shown discontent with Rabuka’s application for re-nomination. Waqavonovono says Rabuka failed the party last election and should not be given a chance. The leader of SODELPA says Waqavonovono should raise his concern with the right people. “This selection will be done by a panel and he should go and talk to them rather than talking to incendiary because the management board has gone ahead with the decision the interview will be done.” Rabuka says he has submitted everything needed from a candidate, saying he feels he is still fit for the role. “We were told to bring in a medical report and I have done that, and if that medical report is not good enough then I don’t know, we cannot go outside the requirements given to us by the secretariat.” Waqavonovono says Rabuka has been a failed politician since 2000 and he doesn’t see any change coming. Others vying for the position includes Viliame Gavoka, Aseri Radrodro, and Ro Filipe Tuisawau. The selection for leader and deputy leader will be made during the party’s AGM later this month.

Fijileaks: During the 1987 Rabuka coups, Ro Filipe Tuisawau's father, the late Ratu Mosese Tuisawau, was so sickened by the wholesale rape, torture, beatings and harrassment of Dr Timoci Bavadra's supporters, both ethnic Fijians, Indo-Fijians, including Others, that he was willing to arm his supporters to overthrow the Rabuka regime - for he and others were not prepared to see the birth of Fijian 'Adolf Hitler' in the South Pacific. Ratu Mosese, an advisor to Dr Bavadra, was among the 21 charged with conspiring with others to import arms and ammunition illegally into Fiji and to instigate an invasion.
Again, one saw similar allegations levelled against the deposed Prime Minister, the late Laisenia Qarase. Bainimarama claimed that Qarase had sought military intervention from Australia and New Zealand in the days leading up to the 2006 coup. In 2008, while giving evidence in the High Court over his dismissal as Prime Minister, Qarase admitted he spoke to then Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his New Zealand counterpart Helen Clark on possible military assistance - not military intervention. The lawyer for the Bainimarama interim regime alleged Qarase's Home Affairs Minister had recommended military intervention in a paper that was disucssed by Fiji's National Security Council, which Qarase chaired. Qarase denied any knolwedge of the paper dated 28 November 2006. Rabuka's coups opened up the spectre of foreign invasion

ON 22 May 1987, the current SODELPA leader Rabuka, now wanting another crack at the job, got himself IMMUNITY from Prosecution for his treasonous coup, to enable him to terrorize and hold Fiji's population under his military boots and the guns. On 13 January 1988, he got it also for his military foot soldiers, so to enable them to continue with their rapacious reign of terror and violence. In some instances, Indo-Fijian women suffered miscarriages after his military thugs made midnight raids. He extended the immunity to scores of hardened native Fijian criminals he had released from prison to march onto Government House to persuade his traditional chief and then Governor-General Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau to cave into his demands to disenfranchise Indo-Fijians and urban native Fijians, and to ensure Dr Bavadra never returned as PM. The criminal thug in uniform, and guns, got his way but at a great cost to Fiji, spawning in its wake counter terror and bombings to teach him a lesson. The Immunity he granted to himself and his soldiers continues in 2020. Frankly speaking, Frank Bainimarama's 2006 Coup is like picnicking on Nukulau Island, in comparison to Rabuka's racially motivated and blood-curling coups. From outside, looking into Fiji in 1987, one thought the Nazis were running amok in the country. There is enough in his FILE to bundle him off to The Hague For Trial for Crimes Against Humanity
YOU ARE WELCOME TO READ HIS CV FOR LEADER OF SODELPA

Fijileaks Editor: The former Chief Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaqa's unpublished affidavit on us that denies Justice Daniel Fatiaki helped draft the Justice Decree 2000. But what is of interest is his revelation how Bainimarama had in his hand a copy of Judiciary Decree which Sir Timoci recognised straighaway as identical to Rabuka's 1987 Decree

THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI

FIJI JUDICATURE DECREE 1987

DECREE NO. 4

[LEGAL NOTICE No.2]

IN exercise of the powers vested in me as Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji, I hereby make the following decree:

1. This Decree may be cited as the Fiji Judicature Decree 1987.

2.-(1) There shall be an Judicial Advisory Committee which shall consist of three persons, one of whom shall be the Chairperson and one other than the Attorney-General. They shall be appointed to the said Committee by the Commander and Head of the Interim Fiji Military Government.

(2) The Solicitor General of Fiji Interim Military Government shall act as Secretary of the Judicial Advisory Committee.

3. The Judicial Advisory Committee may, with the consent of the Head of the Fiji Interim Military Government, by regulation or otherwise regulate its own procedure and, subject to its rule of procedure, may function notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership or the absence of any member.

4. The Judicial Advisory Committee shall be empowered to make appointments to the following judicial offices:

(1) Chief Justice;
(2) President of the Court of Appeal;
(3) Vice President of the Court of Appeal;
(4) Justice of Appeal;
(5) Puisne Justices of the Supreme Court of Fiji.

5. The Judicial Advisory Committee shall be empowered to make appointments to the following offices:

Central Agricultural Tribunal
Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court
Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court
Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court
Solicitor-General
Crown Solicitor
Chief Legal Draftsman
Principal Legal Draftsman
Senior Legal Draftsman
Senior Magistrate
First Class Magistrate
Second Class Magistrate
Third Class Magistrate
Principal Legal Officer
Senior Legal Officer
Legal Officer

6.-(1) Subject to this and any other Decree, any Court of Law, authority or office which was established, any appointment which was made, and any other thing whatsoever which was done before 25th September 1987 in pursuance of any provision of the Constitution of Fiji 1970 Cap. 1 shall be dissolved and all appointments made shall be removed and declared vacant pending appointments by the Judicial Advisory Committee.

(2) The Courts of Law and appointments with respect to which this section of Decree applies are the Supreme Court of Fiji and the Court of Appeal and the judges who held office in those Courts as at 25th September 1987.

(3) The offices of Chief Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar are hereby declared to be not affected and preserved in respect of their incumbents by virtue of this sub-section of this Decree.

7. There shall be a Supreme Court of Fiji which shall have unlimited original jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil or criminal proceedings under any law and such other jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred on it by this Decree or any other Decree.

8. The judges of the Supreme Court shall be the Chief Justice and such number of puisne judges as may be prescribed by the Executive Council.

9.-(1) The Chief Justice shall be appointed by the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji acting after consultation with the Executive Council and the Judicial Advisory Committee.

(2) The puisne judges shall be appointed by the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji acting after consultation with the Judicial Advisory Committee.

(3) Persons eligible for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court of Fiji must:

(a) hold or have held judicial office at 1east equivalent to the office of a judge of the Supreme Court of Fiji in any country outside Fiji but within the Commonwealth or such other country as the Judicial Advisory Committee deems appropriate; or

(b) is qualified to practise and has practised as an advocate and has been so qualified for not less than five years in such Court.

(4) Computation of the period of qualification for the purpose of the preceding subsection shall include any period served as a judicial officer in addition to any time spent as a qualified practitioner as defined in subsection 9 (3) of this Decree.

(5) During any vacancy in the office of Chief Justice or the office holder is unable for whatever reason to perform the functions of his office, then until an appointment has been made or the Chief Justice has resumed office, those functions shall be performed by such one of the puisne judges of the Supreme Court as the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji, acting after consultation with the Executive Council, may appoint for that purpose.

(6) Where a person so appointed is not a puisne judge notwithstanding the resumption or assumption of office and the functions of Chief Justice, he may continue to act as a judge of the Supreme Court for so long as it may be necessary to enable him to deliver judgment or do anything in relation to proceedings that were commenced before him.

(7) During any vacancy in the office of puisne judge for whatever reason or where the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji is advised by the Chief Justice that the state of business in the Supreme Court requires a temporary increase in the number of judges; then the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji may appoint persons qualified for appointment as acting judges of the Supreme Court on the recommendation an after consultation with the Judicial Advisory Committee.

Provided that any such appointment shall despite expiry or revocation still enable that appointee to deliver judgment or do anything that may be necessary in relation to the proceedings that were commenced before him.

(8) Judges of the Supreme Court shall hold Office until attaining retiring age on which they shall vacate office. Where judges have attained retiring age they may continue in office for so long thereafter as may be necessary to enable judgment to be delivered or to do any act in relation to proceedings commenced before him prior to attaining retiring age.

(9) The retiring age of judges of the Supreme Court is sixty (60) or such other age as the Executive Council may determine from time to time. Where the retiring age is altered to the extent that it alters the age at which judges of the Supreme Court shall vacate office, it shall not have effect in relation to judges where it occurs after their appointment unless they consent to it having effect.

10.-(1) Judges of the Supreme Court shall be liable for removal from office only for-

(a) inability to perform the function of his office whether from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause;

(b) misbehaviour.

(2) Removal of judges from office shall only occur in accordance with the provisions of this Decree. Where the question of his removal has been made at the request of the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji, it shall be done by referring the matter to a tribunal to be set up after consultation between members of the Executive Council excluding the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji.

(3) The Tribunal referred to above shall be a body consisting of a Chairperson and not less than two other members, selected by the Executive Council in consultation with the Judicial Advisory Committee from among persons who have held judicial office at least at the Supreme Court level in Commonwealth countries; or such countries as may be deemed appropriate or from retired Fiji Supreme Court Judges.

(4) The Tribunal shall enquire into the matter and report on the facts together with a recommendation and advise the Executive Council whether it should order removal of the judge. Upon being so advised the Executive Council shall act in accordance with the advice. Pending the conduct of the inquiry and its recommendations the judge so affected shall be suspended from office, such suspension to be revoked forthwith on receipt of the Tribunal's recommendation that no action be taken for the removal of the judge.

(5) Where the recommendation to refer the conduct of a Judge is made by the Chief Justice then the same provisions will apply as appear above save for the implementation of the Inquiry and the suspension from office and if necessary the removal shall be by and under the hand of the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji.

11. A judge of the Supreme Court of Fiji shall not enter upon the duties of office until he has subscribed the oath of allegiance and due execution of office as are prescribed by Schedule 1 to this Decree.

12. There shall be a Court of Appeal of Fiji having such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred on it by this Decree or any other Decree.

13. The Justices of the Court of Appeal shall be-

(a) the Chief Justice;
(b) the President of the Court o Appeal;
(c) the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal;
(d) such Justices of Appeal as may be appointed under the next following section.

14. The Justices of Appeal shall be appointed by the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji acting after consultation with the Executive Council and the Judicial Advisory Committee.

15. A person shall not be qualified to be appointed under the preceding section unless he is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

16. A Justice of Appeal shall not sit as a judge of the Court on the hearing of an appeal-

(a) from any decision given by himself or any decision given by any Court of which he was sitting as a member; or

(b) against a conviction or sentence if he was the judge by or before whom the appellant was convicted.

17. During vacancies of positions for any of the Justices of Appeal for whatever reason the provisions relating to vacancies on the Supreme Court referred to in subsections 9 (5), (6) and (7) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Court of Appeal.

18. A Justice of Appeal shall vacate his office upon the expiration of the period of appointment to that office. Such period shall be not less than 3 years. It is further provided that an appointee may continue in office for as long as may be necessary to enable him to deliver judgment or do anything required in relation to proceedings commenced before him.

19. A Justice of Appeal may be removed from office only for:

(a) inability to perform the function of his office, whether infirmity of body or mind or any other cause;

(b) misbehaviour.

20. The procedure for removal of a Justice of Appeal shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Decree as set out in Section 10 and shall apply mutatis mutandis to Justices of the Court of Appeal.

21. A Justice of Appeal shall not enter upon the duties of his office until he has taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance and the due execution of his office as is prescribed by schedule 1 to this Decree.

22. The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to supervise any civil or criminal proceeding before subordinate Court and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that justice is duly administered by any such Court.

23. An Appeal to the Court of Appeal shall lie from decisions of the Supreme Court in the following cases –

(a) as of right from final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings;

(b) as of right from final decisions given in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Section 22 of this Decree;

(c) in such other cases as may be prescribed.

24. The Court of Appeal is the final Court of Appeal.

25. –(a) This Decree is to remain in force until otherwise ordered or modified by later Decree;

(b) This Decree may be cited as the Fiji Judicature Decree 1987 and shall apply throughout Fiji;

(c) This Decree shall be deemed to have come into force on 25th September 1987.

Dated 3rd October 1987.

COL. SITIVENI LIGAMAMADA RABUKA, O.B.E. (Mil.)
Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji

_____

SCHEDULE 1

I ............................................... do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Commander and Head of the Interim Military Government of Fiji, its heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God (To be omitted in affirmation).

1 Comment

DOUBLE DONOR: Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum's Wailoaloa apartments builder breached the Donation Decree by donating twice in 2018. HE donated $10,000 as Shailendra Paliachi KUMAR and $5000 as SHALEND TULSI

15/11/2020

1 Comment

Double donation in 2018

After weeks of meticulous examination, we have come to the conclusion that the TULSI CONSTRUCTION OWNER, who is building Ela Gavoka and Aiyaz Khaiyum's expensive Wailoaloa apartments, breached Khaiyum's Donation Decree by donating TWICE in the same year. On 3 October 2018, he donated $10,000 to FFP under SHAILENDRA PALIACHI KUMAR.

* Earlier, on 26 January 2018, like other South Indian donors, he donated $5,000 under SHALEND TULSI. Like the name LUVENI, his father's name is TULSI RAM. We were able to make the connection by consulting the TISI Sangam Members Official Register list. The sign board for Khaiyum's Wailoloa apartments states the contractor is TULSI CONSTRUCTION.

* We, therefore, call on FICAC to investigate our claim, as well as our revelation about DICKSON(M) PENG, who double donated in 2014.

We also call on FICAC to ascertain if Shailendra/Shalend/ Paliachi/Tulsi's WIFE, SHIVANGI PALIACHI and their daughter SWETA SHIVANI KUMAR actually personally donated to FFP. On 22 October 2018, Shivangi donated $10,000 and Sweta donated $5,000 (10/11/2018). On 4 July 2014, double donor Shailendra Paliachi Kumar had donated $5,000 to the party.

Whether by design or rather by accident, one can see from our Fijileaks database of the donor lists that WELLA PILLAY deployed the same tactics, donating as WELLA and also as VADIVELU PILLAY. He and his family donated thousands of dollars to the party. Wella/Vadivelu Pillay, however, did not DOUBLE DONATE in same year. Our data base also points to him as one of four major collectors of funds from the donors without having been identified as the FFP receiver. We, however, call on FICAC to investigate whether Wella/Vadivelu, as statutory board member, breaced DECREE by donating thousands of dollars to the FIJIFIRST Party

Shailendra Paliach Kumar/ Shalend Tulsi with Aiyaz Khaiyum and Parveen Bala

Fijileaks to THE PEOPLE OF FIJI, including to FijiFirst Party Donors

1 Comment

HAPPY DIWALI: When the sound and fury of Diwali Firecrackers and the Lights Go Out, the Bavadra family and his political supporters will still be in DARK on identity of COUPIST Sitiveni Rabuka's 10 Balaclava Soldiers

14/11/2020

1 Comment

Friday, December 29, 2006

VICTOR LAL, The Fiji Sun

Rabuka’s 1987 terror regime: A Warning

“Every time we shrug when we hear of another midnight raid, the cries of terrorized women and children, then somewhere in Fiji another potential [Klaus] Barbie [The Nazi Butcher of Lyon in France] is getting a start in life,” said the former Methodist communications secretary in 1987, the Reverend Akuila Yabaki, now head of the Citizens Constitutional Forum.

He was speaking out against the reign of terror and torture practised mostly against the Indo-Fijian community by Sitiveni Rabuka, his military henchmen, prominent chiefs, and the dreaded and racist Fijian taukei foot soldiers following the 1987 coups.

Now, nearly twenty years later, we are beginning to hear the first ripples of ‘torture tactics’ by the military against the pro-democracy supporters. But let us hope and pray that Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s military will not go down the road that Mr Rabuka took his troops, chiefs, and taukeists like Apisai Tora to achieve his objective of ‘Fiji for the taukei Fijians’. The first casualty was the media when Mr Rabuka launched his coup on 14 May 1987. In an editorial on 15 May, the old Fiji Sun asked: “What right has a third-ranking officer to attack the scared institutions of Parliament? To presume he knows how best this country shall be governed for the good of all? The answer is: NONE. The people must decide their own future: not self-promoting dictators and not a Council appointed by and presided over by Lieutenant-Colonel Rabuka. But was he encouraged by others to act? And if so, who were they?”

We now know who they were, and many of those are still around, in positions of influence and authority. Most of them were prominent paramount chiefs, civil servants, church leaders lawyers, magistrates, judges, and fallen politicians They were indigenous Fijians, some of whom, and their offspring, are today hiding from the military in a great game of hide and seek following the 5 December coup. The former governor-general and Mr Rabuka’s paramount chief Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, made it easier for Mr Rabuka to crush civil disobedience by warning that the civilian-cum military regime would not hesitate to use emergency powers it had under martial law.

On 15 May 1987, shortly after the Fiji Sun editorial, the Ministry of Information directed the Fiji Times and Fiji Sun to cease publication. The RFMF occupied Radio Fiji. The same day armed soldiers’ ejected staff of both the two newspapers from their offices, and foreign journalists were questioned by the RFMF. In a sickening spectacle, the raid on the Times office was led by one of its own reporters and army reservist E. T. Volavola in full combat gear carrying a rifle and backed up by a squad of troops. Mr Rabuka announced a Council of Ministers (COM), which was dominated by ex-Alliance Party Ministers (including Ratu Mara who had lost the election to Dr Timoci Bavadra).

Mr Rabuka said his military regime was in full control and the people had accepted the coup, and called on the international community to recognise his regime. He said he had abrogated the Constitution and the regime would govern Fiji by decree. He brushed aside the demands of the Council of Churches “in the name of Christianity” to release the MPs he had kidnapped and was holding as hostages, and “surrender to the sovereign authority of the land”, and restore “our duly elected government”.

He instead moved into deposed Prime Minister Dr Bavadra’s office. But when the Fiji Sun questioned Mr Rabuka’s right to occupy high office, he threw the general manager and one of the directors, who was also President of the Fiji Law Society, in the same prison cell as that occupied by Dr Bavadra. The Sun was singled out for severe maltreatment. Sadly, most of the harassment and intimidation was carried out against the Indo-Fijian journalists, for after all; Mr Rabuka had executed the coup to give Fijians the control of Fiji.

Some Fijian journalists, therefore, switched sides, and became Mr Rabuka’s propagandists, reporting on their Indo-Fijian colleagues and their families. In the end, the Fiji Times agreed to operate under partial military censorship, while the old Fiji Sun was forced to cease operations in the country after it published allegations that Mr Rabuka had bought a house in Suva favoured by wealth Indo-Fijians and expatriates, on a 100% mortgage from a prominent Alliance politician. In the end, some of Fiji’s best Indo-Fijian journalists were forced to emigrate or seek political asylum abroad. Some of us were not only on Mr Rabuka’s hit list but even had our passports confiscated, ending up overnight from being citizens to wandering international refugees.

The next group that Mr Rabuka and his cronies targeted were his political opponents. Shortly before the coup the taukeists firebombed the law offices of Jai Ram Reddy, now an International Criminal Court judge. The late Sir Vijay Singh was detained and his passport seized, prompting him to ask: “What kind of normalcy is [Ganilau] thinking about when things like this happen.”

Dr Bavadra’s spokesman and current Suva lawyer Richard Naidu was arrested and detained on different occasions, he was chased and beaten up by Taukeists, and finally had his Fiji nationality revoked, and ordered to leave the country for New Zealand. Another legal adviser of Dr Bavadra, John Cameron, had his work permit withdrawn after he filed civil suit against dissolution of Parliament, and had also filed claim with the Supreme Court on behalf of a client harassed by the RFMF, seeking a declaration that State of Emergency and 1987 Emergency Regulations were unconstitutional. Among judges arrested included Justices Kishore Govind and Rooney, including Chief Magistrate Howard Morrison. Even the Police Commissioner, an Indo-Fijian Pramesh Raman, whose job M Rabuka had applied a week before the coup, was taken into custody. Several Indo-Fijian lawyers and academics were also taken into custody, mostly on legal advice of some Fijian lawyers.

Although the vast majority of victims were Indo-Fijians, some prominent Fijians like Amelia Rokotuivanua and Dr Steven Ratuva came in for rough treatment. The two were “lectured” by Lieutenant Pio Wong on how to be “true Fijians” and Dr Ratuva had spells in detention, and at one point the military allegedly tried to poison him with the prepared food it had brought to his house. In 1986 he had claimed in a paper that the RFMF’s only function lay in internal repression or as a conduit for chiefly advancement. He had also suggested that “intermarriages between the sons and daughters of chiefs (including the chiefly officers in the army) helps to consolidate the chiefly comprador clique which ensures the perpetuation of nepotism and inequality in Fijian society”.

On 25 September Mr Rabuka carried out his second coup. Violence and intimidation was encouraged, and a group of escaped prisoners were escorted by the military to march to the Government House to demand pardons. When the GCC refused to recognise Mr Rabuka as president, he declared Fiji a republic, declared himself the head of state and no longer recognised the GCC as such. However, on 5 December he agreed to hand over power to the new President Ratu Penaia and the Prime Minister Ratu Mara. Mr Rabuka took charge of Home Affairs, the CJ returned to the bench, Sailosi Kepa was recalled as High Commissioner from London to take over as Minister for Justice and A-G, and Berenado Vunibobo became Minister of Trade and Commerce. Dr Bavadra retorted: “It is a military government in a civilian cloak.”

The international community resumed trade and diplomatic links with Fiji. Australia conferred Mr Rabuka legitimacy by announcing that it was recognising Fiji as a state rather than the government of Fiji. Ratu Penaia granted Mr Rabuka and his close circle of oppressors, questionable amnesty, and the Fijians introduced apartheid against the Indo-Fijians. Ratu Penaia also formally signed new Internal Security Decree, giving army power to shoot to kill anyone found with illegal arms that resisted arrests. As Minister for Internal Security, Mr Rabuka had extraordinary range of powers, which violated international standards of human rights, including the detention of any person for two years; order restriction of movement, freedom of expression, employment, residence or activity; prohibit the printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation or possession of any written material, and prohibit its communication through worth of mouth etc.

And yet Mr Rabuka was free to publish his book “There was No Other Way”. But no criticism of his book was permitted, and one USP Indo-Fijian lecturer who dared to criticise it, was detained and severely beaten up. My own critical counter-book Fiji: Coups in Paradise was banished from the bookshelves of Fiji. As Mr Rabuka plunged the economy into a decline, he was offered $50,000 from an Australian publishing company as a retainer for his book and a TV documentary. The RFMF, commenting on brief detentions and harassment said, “Due to the current conditions everyone is suspect until proven innocent”. Mr Rabuka went on to become the Prime Minister and chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs on the bandwagon of nationalist and racist ideology, an ideology which Commodore Bainimarama claims he wants to stamp out once and for all.

If that is so, let us hope that he will not follow in the footsteps of Mr Rabuka, for many of my own family members still bear the scars of Mr Rabuka’s storm troopers on their chests, and so do many other citizens from the 1987 and 2000 coups. The Indo-Fijians, in 1987, were beaten, forced to stand in sewage pools, and subjected to other forms of humiliating punishments.

The vast majority of Fijians remained silent to the oppression and racism in their midst. In fact, many joined in its continuation for the next ten years.

But freedom, as former military strongman Mr Rabuka found out only very recently (after he was successfully defended by the President of the Fiji Law Society, Mr Sharma, on inciting mutiny), is a cherished and inviolable right.

1 Comment

DAYALS AND DONATION: In 2014, PRAKASH, MANJULA and JAY DAYAL donated $30,000 to FijiFIRST Party. In 2018, the FAMILY made no political donations; that year Prakash Dayal was told to pay $2m + in tax to FRCA

13/11/2020

0 Comments

In 2014, the FijiFIRST Party received over $2million in donation, mostly from BIG Company directors, their wives, sons, daughters, and even staff

Business Woman of the Year winner Manjula Dayal(middle), flanked by husband Prakash Dayal and Acting Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Minister for Economy Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum during the Women in Business Awards at the Grand Pacific Hotel on May 20, 2017

JAY
DAYAL

Manjula Dayal with
Frank Bainimarama

After a three-day hearing in October 2018, Fiji High Court Tax Tribunal had ruled that PRAKASH DAYAL pay FRCA $2,252,234.68 in requisite
income tax and penalties for the year 2014 plus $1,000 court cost. PRAKASH DAYAL had objected that FRCA had erred in law and in fact in assessing that: (a) The monies paid by Dayals (Fiji) Artesian Waters Limited (Artesian) and Dayals Saw Millers Limited (Sawmillers) to the Applicant (Prakash Dayal) were dividends. (b) The Applicant had used the said monies to personally acquire the life insurance policies. (c) The Applicant intended to maximize his wealth from returns of the investment
"At the end of the day I am satisfied that the whole exercise was to enable the Applicant (Prakash Dayal) to receive the princely sum of $4M without him paying the requisite tax on it...In the result the Application for Review filed on 3 March 2017 is dismissed and I shall make the following orders: (1) The Respondent’s Decision (income tax and penalties) for the sum of $2,252,234.68 for the year 2014 to be paid by the Applicant is affirmed. (2) The Applicant shall pay the Respondent the costs of these proceedings summarily assessed at $1,000" . - Judge David Alfred
Ms Laisa Bainimarama, principal auditor with the objection and review team at FRCA told the Tax Tribunal that its role is to handle objections and review objection applications. The review here was for the end of 2014. She said penalties are imposed specifically on tax shortfalls where there are false or misleading statements. Revenue has the jurisdiction to treat substance over form and to treat something as dividend. This is a concept used in tax jurisdictions. $4M was recorded as an advance and it was invested in an insurance product by the Applicant (Prakash Dayal) and his wife (Manjula Dayal) for the benefit of their children. No additional information was available to make it to be seen as an advance. Other than in financial statements there was no other information about these large amounts.

Judge Alfred

"It cannot be denied that to describe the payments as loans for investment on the company’s behalf is at variance with the truth. It would be like describing chalk as cheese. The Applicant (Prakash Dayal) advised by accountants, auditors and no doubt tax lawyers knew full well he was receiving moneys from the company which would have been objectively described as dividends. But he chose to assert to the very end that they were not dividends..."
Justice David Alfred, 18 December 2018

0 Comments

NO FANTASY DONATION: FANTASY Island Resorts Director and Aiyaz Khaiyum's Buddy ABBAS ALI and three of ALI's business associates donated $50,000 to FIJIFIRST PARTY - Japanese couple among donors

13/11/2020

0 Comments

* On 27 June 2014, ABBAS ALI DONATED $10,000 to FijiFIRST Party Head Office. Four years later, on 26 April 2018, ALI and his Board Members Saiyad Hussain, Fumiyo Kayano and Masatoshi Kayano donated $10,000 each. Total: $50,000. There are no receipts nor who at FijiFIRST Party received these $40,000. We call on FICAC to investigate whether the Japanese couple actually donated to FijiFIRST PARTY. The 2018 donations were made on the same day.
* Also, we notice that the record of shareholders and directors on the company's website do not match with Fantasy Island's company records. On the website, Abbas Ali is listed as the sole director but company records reveal that there is another director with him: SAZIA SHAINAZ. She is also listed as Company Secretary.
Also, sources in the Ministry of Lands have claimed to Fijileaks* that Ali, a good friend of both Khaiyum and Faiyaz Koya, has development leases near Enamanu and Wailoaloa in Nadi for only 40 acre Crown land but he has allegedly illegally developed over 90 acres - 50 acres extra, and they wonder if the dismissal of ASHNEEL SUDHAKAR as Lands Minister is related to his (Sudhakar's) alleged refusal to rubber stamp the extra 50 acres of Crown Land?

Qiliho and his wife Esther's land and house on Fantasy Isle

0 Comments

GRAHAM DAVIS on Diwali, Firecrackers, and Fiji Sun screaming 'Uproar': 'The most plausible beneficiary is FFP government and in particular, the Attorney-General Aiyaz Khaiyum, 'His fingerprints are all over this saga'

12/11/2020

1 Comment

Fijileaks: We had also entered the 'Uproar' condemning Lynda Tabuya for having the temerity to suggest that the Hindus should celebrate their Diwali on Monday, and not on Sunday, for Government has designated Monday as Public Holiday in Fiji. We pointed out that if Sunday was so holy for her and her Fijian Christians of all races, why was she jumping up and down in Hong Kong on a sigatabu day, dressed up in rag dress, made out of Fiji Times newspaper cuttings. Sadly, most Hindus have no choice but to fill up Diwali coffers of businessmen who are FFP donors.
Sitiveni Rabuka, in his Diwali message, to his fellow Fijian Citizens and Countrymen in Fiji and Abroad: '
"Before sharing my Diwali message I would like to reiterate the gist of what I said which was aired by FBC News on the 11th November 2020 that I do not agree, nor has the Party authorised comments made by Honourable Lynda Tabuya regarding Diwali. SODELPA as a multi-racial party and its core value is to embrace and respect the right of individuals and freedom of religious association as enshirned in the 2013 and the Party Constitution...Happy Diwali"

1 Comment

TRADING Places at MIDLIFE Investments Ltd: 'It was resolved that Latifa Khaiyum who has resigned as Director of Midlife be accepted and Adi Ela Cagimaira Konifereti Sayed-Khaiyum be accepted as Director-Secretary..'

11/11/2020

1 Comment

COMING: Main Contractor TULSI CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD family DONATED Thousands of Dollars to FijiFIRST Party but Legal or Illegal?

From Midlife Investments Ltd company records it is clear that Khaiyum's mother only relinquished her share on 30 November 2019. In his Declaration of Assets (1 October 2018) for the 2018 Election below, as we pointed out previously, there is no mention of his mother's share that she had held in the company. In the same Declaration, he did not bother to declare any value of the two companies, Midlife and Abide Ltd

The change in directorship details for Midlife Investments Ltd was filed by SUNIL SHARMA, senior partner with Nur Ali Bano, of PKF aliz pacific.
Both of them donated to the FijiFIRST PARTY

JUST LOOK AT THE ANNUAL RETURNS: ALL FILED on 23 APRIL 2015 when Midlife Investments Ltd was incorporated on 15 August 2006

OFFICE OF
THE OPPOSITION LEADER
Parliament House
SUVA

29th October, 2015

The Chairman
Electoral Commission
Election Office
Suva.

Dear Sir,

Re: False Declaration of Assets & Liabilities

Further to my letter to you dated October 28th and delivered to your good offices this morning, I advise that I have come into further information related to the matter of the false declaration of Assets & Liabilities of Hon Khaiyum.

I refer to point 7 of the attached FICAC findings quote ‘it became evident that the property in question was purchased by and is owned by Midlife Investment Limited (MIL) being a legal person via a mortgage valued at $80,000 and an equitable contribution of $20,000 by Hon Mr Sayed-Khaiyum. Therefore it is apparent that Hon Khaiyum has not understated the value of the asset in his declaration dated 24th February 2015 in which he had a conditional equitable interest value of which is in fact lesser then the amount declared. In fact the asset he owns as far as MIL is concerned are the 99 shares in it’ unquote

I believe that FICAC has erred because from a search carried out this morning we have been able to establish the following:-

Ownership of Midlife Investments Limited CO 19010 Incorporated on August 15th 2006. Based on Annual Returns for 2006 and 2007 filed on April 23rd 2015, it shows that Hon Sayed –Khaiyum owns 99 shares and Latifa Khaiyum owns 1 share. Hon Khaiyum is also company secretary. Therefore Hon Khaiyum owned 99% of the Midlife Investments for the past 9 years including its assets. He was also Company Secretary and Director.
In the annual returns of Midlife Investments Limited for 2006 and 2007 the liability listed is $80,000 which is the amount borrowed by the company from National Bank of Fiji T/A Colonial National Bank Mortgage No 593803 on 29 August 2006 and discharged on August 19 2008 No 708225, negating absolutely FICAC’s claim that Hon Khaiyum’s interest in the asset was not the majority interest.
The facts are now clear. When Hon Khaiyum declared Lot 13 as his asset, he owned 99% of it through his equitable contribution of $20,000 and ownership of 99% of the shares in Midlife Investments Limited.
Furthermore, via the transfer certificate No 593802, Hon Khaiyum and Midlife Investments Limited paid $100,000 for Lot 13 on August 29th 2006 and that is the value of the property and not the $80,000 he stated in his declaration.
By declaring it to be worth $80,000 in 2015, 9 years after he purchased it for $100,000, Hon Khaiyum committed an offence.
To be clear, my complaint is not about the value of the asset being overstated or understated; as FICAC determined, my complaint is that Hon Khaiyum made a false declaration plain and simple.

In addition, Hon Khaiyum committed another offence by failing to furnish information about his 99 shares referred to in FICAC’s letter as being held by him in Midlife Investments and his returns from 2006 to 2014 now confirm, he also failed to declare his 99 shares in Latifa Investments Limited and all of these are required to declared by the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Decree 2013.

I have instructed my staff to provide you with copies of all of the documents obtained from the Registrar’s office this morning.
Yours Sincerely,

Hon. Ro Teimumu Kepa
Leader of Opposition

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

RAPE of Indo-Fijian mothers and their daughters was so widespread, as documented by Amnesty International

RABUKA's supporters accused of posting materials against his rivals

Fijileaks to THE PEOPLE OF FIJI, including to FijiFirst Party Donors

In 2014, the FijiFIRST Party received over $2million in donation, mostly from BIG Company directors, their wives, sons, daughters, and even staff

Qiliho and his wife Esther's land and house on Fantasy Isle

COMING: Main Contractor TULSI CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD family DONATED Thousands of Dollars to FijiFIRST Party but Legal or Illegal?

The change in directorship details for Midlife Investments Ltd was filed by SUNIL SHARMA, senior partner with Nur Ali Bano, of PKF aliz pacific.Both of them donated to the FijiFIRST PARTY

JUST LOOK AT THE ANNUAL RETURNS: ALL FILED on 23 APRIL 2015 when Midlife Investments Ltd was incorporated on 15 August 2006

editor@fijileaks.com

The change in directorship details for Midlife Investments Ltd was filed by SUNIL SHARMA, senior partner with Nur Ali Bano, of PKF aliz pacific.
Both of them donated to the FijiFIRST PARTY