MY APPLICATION TO CONTEST HAD TO BE WITHDRAWN

To all my supporters, friends and family, unfortunately my application had to be withdrawn today due to a delayed delivery by the courier company of my completed original application documents, which I had couriered last week.

I had emailed HQ attaching copies of all the documents contained in the courier as well as the receipt from the courier company. When they submitted my application they were the soft copies I had emailed through last week, which was disallowed.

The original copies of my application documents I sent via courier on Nov 11 2022 were finally delivered to Unity HQ at 1.51pm today.

Obviously, I am very disappointed that this has happened. But as Sir Winston Churchill once said, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

So I have already started to change my strategy and will move to provide all the support I can for Save Narube and the Unity team as it remains my true belief that Save Narube is the person Fiji desperately needs at the helm of country moving forward and I urge all those who were going to give me their vote to please ‘find the courage, choose democracy and vote for change, and give the vote you planned for me to Save Narube and the Unity team

By VICTOR LAL

The dictates of the Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.

In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?

In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.

Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.

Chaudhry and Opposition leadership

On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.

Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.

In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.

The Multi-Party Case and FLP

Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.

In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.

Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.

Precedents and Chaudhry

As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.

In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.

Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.

More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.

The Korolevu Declaration 

The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.

On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’.  In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999).  In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’. 

Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.

Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL.  He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document.  It was not an enactment of Parliament.  His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures.  Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’. 

In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet.  Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’

The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99.  The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.

In President’s Deliberate Judgment.

In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.

Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.

The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.

In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.

And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.

He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.

In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.

 As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.

But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.

* We reduce the fine by $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars so that the fine imposed on the Appellant would be $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars.
*We do not wish to interfere with the sentence in any other respect and affirm the conviction and the other orders in the sentence subject to the variation of the order relating to the imposition of the fine which we have reduced by $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars and dismiss the appeal.
Orders of Court:
(1) The conviction of the Appellant is affirmed.
(2) The fine imposed on the Appellant is $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars.
(3) The other orders in the sentence order are affirmed.
(4) The Appeal is dismissed subject to the variation in the fine.
Hon. Justice S. Chandra
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Hon. Justice S. Temo
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Hon. Justice C. Kotigalage
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, the 8th and current Prime Minister of Fiji came to power in 2007 through a coup. He gave the impression that he intended to unite Fiji. However, the attacks against Hindu Fijians have not stopped. In recent years it has assumed monstrous proportions. Hindu Fijians claim that the latest round of persecutions is being headed by Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. He is the Fijian attorney general and Minister for Economy, Civil Service and Communications.

Prior to his appointment as a cabinet minister following Bainimarama’s party FijiFirst’s general election victory in September 2014, he was the Fijian attorney general and the Minister for Justice, Anti-Corruption, Public Enterprises, Communications, Civil Aviation, and the Minister responsible for Elections under the Bainimarama Government. According to The Economist, the daily functioning of the Fijian government is run by Sayed-Khaiyum. The South China Morning Post describes him as one of South Pacific’s ‘most powerful men’.

But what stands out as the force behind Sayed-Khaiyum is not the blessings of Bainimarama, who handed over power to him temporarily, while he was recovering from heart attack, but a nation far away, Bharat’s neighbor Pakistan. Such is the involvement of Pakistan, that the 2017 elections in Fiji was conducted by a Pakistani company NADRA which is the Pakistan’s National Database Registration Authority. The same company is now being accused of ballot stuffing and election fraud.

Khaiyum engaged NADRA, a Pakistani company, to manage Fiji’s 2018 election system. This is the same company, as reported by the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence, whose top ranking officers helped terrorists and other miscreants obtain fake Pakistan national identity cards [1,2].

Their officials allegedly issued ID cards to militants, including some linked to al Qaeda, in return for bribes as small as US$100. So why did Khaiyum recruit them for their services? There does not seem to have been any public tender issued for such a service. So how was NADRA awarded the contract? And what are the terms of the contract? With all this secrecy, it is feared that dirty tactics and vote rigging were involved in the 2018 elections. This helped Bainimarama to remain in power, despite serious accusations of rigging and fraud.

Critics allege that Bainimarama gave Khaiyum a free hand in return for the victory, and Khaiyum turned all his attention against the Hindu population in Fiji. Not only temple attacks became more frequent, but also Hindu intellectuals are regularly picked up by the police and slapped with false cases.

A recent case in point is a prominent intellectual and National Federation Party Leader, Professor Biman Prasad. He was recently picked up by the police and slapped with false cases. Looking closely at the persecution of Hindus since 2016, the Hindu American Foundation has pointed out several incidents where Hindus were regularly targeted [3,4]. Another prominent case is that of Sharvada Sharma.

Sharvada Sharma, in his capacity as the Solicitor-General for 10 years, loyally served Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. Yes, 10 years. When Khaiyum lost the initial court case that he brought against former SODELPA MP Niko Nawaikula, he blamed it on Sharvada.

Critics believe that Khaiyum then made the following plan: First he used PM Bainimarama to demand Sharvada should resign. Sharvada refused to resign and resisted the bullying attempt. Next Khaiyum used Elections Supervisor Mohammed Saneem to lodge a complaint against Sharvada which got him dismissed. With links to Pakistan, people in Fiji see this as a case of the Islamist brotherhood ganging up against a Hindu.

Sharvada was given the dismissal letter on Diwali day in 2021 last year when he was about to do his main pooja in the evening. Sharvada felt deeply humiliated being given the dismissal letter by Khaiyum’s men when he was about to do Diwali Pooja. Although Sharvada has filed a court case, the judiciary is seen as dragging the case continuously, which is against the 2013 constitution.

Under the 2013 constitution, only the Chief Justice and President can dismiss the Solicitor-General but in this case Khaiyum and Saneem got rid of a top devout Hindu like Sharvada. Critics claim that judiciary and justice system have all been weakened by Khaiyum and his cabal.

Dr. Neil Sharma diligently served as one of the top Health Ministers in the Bainimarama Government from 2009-2014. After winning his seat in the 2014 elections, Dr. Sharma was not included in the cabinet by Khaiyum. Sources claim that Khaiyum was influenced by top FijiFirst donors not to give the health portfolio again to Dr. Sharma because he was strict when it came to food production and its quality.

Khaiyum is alleged to have a single point agenda, which is not to let Hindu intellectuals have any say in the Government, even if it goes against the nation’s interest. With Bainimarama echoing him regularly, it shows who is running Fiji. A case to highlight is what happened in 2015.

In 2015, NFP Leader Dr. Biman Prasad brought a motion to Parliament whereby he called for an increase in health budget to address the rising Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) cases in the country. It was a very good motion and as former Health Minister, Dr. Sharma knew its importance and so voted in favour of the NFP motion. Then Leader of the House, Pio Tikoduadua (now NFP President) sorted this issue out with Bainimarama and all was okay since Dr. Sharma was asked to vote along party lines next time. But Khaiyum got angry and wanted Dr. Sharma out.

Bainimarama had no option but to listen to Khaiyum and on his demand, forced Dr. Sharma to resign. Feeling humiliated at his intervention being ignored, Pio Tikoduadua also resigned. Hence, it is believed that because of Khaiyum’s arrogance, FijiFirst lost 2 good and capable people like Tikoduadua and Dr. Sharma.

In a nation where the government holds a big sway, many believe that temple attacks cannot happen easily without involvement of some central authorities. A few cases of temple attacks highlight the precarious situation facing Hindus in Fiji:

September 2019 — A man broke into a temple in Suva and stole several religious items. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
August 2019 — The temple door and windows at the Kaliamman Temple of Vomo St, Lautoka were broken by vandals. (Chaudhary, 2019)
July 2019 — At least two temples – the Sita Ram Mandir of Calia, Navua and the Hindu Temple at Malolo, Nadi were broken into and donation collections were stolen. (Gopal, 2019; Chaudhary, 2019)
January 2018 — At least one temple near Suva was vandalized, while others in Suva were reportedly also broken into in previous months. (Radio New Zealand, 2018)
December 2017 — The Tirath Dham temple in Nadi was vandalized with racially motivated graffiti, donation boxes were stolen, and murtis (statues of deities) were desecrated with paint poured on them. (Radio New Zealand, 2018)
June 2016 — The Lovu Sangam School on the outskirts of Lautoka and an adjacent Hindu temple were vandalized multiple times, and Hindu symbols and sacred items desecrated. The vandals also wrote messages taunting the school that serves 500 Bharatiya students. (Citizens’ Constitutional Forum, 2016)

In the last few years Hindu activities have been curtailed and Hindu activists have attracted false cases. The public shaming of Hindus who rose to prominence adds to the low morale of Hindus in Fiji where conversion is rampant. Also, the involvement of Pakistan and thereby its ally China calls for much concern in the Pacific nation. It not just endangers the interest of Bharat, United States but also Hindus across the world and Fiji itself.

The Fijian Hindus whose forefathers mostly went to Fiji in the late 19th Century from Bharat, have been under constant attack. While 45% Fijians called themselves Hindus in the 1976 Census, only 27.9 % people are Hindus according to the 2007 census. Most of the Hindu population has strong ties to Bharat and thus an effort is made by Bharat’s enemies in collusion with the Church to convert the Hindus and stop Hindus from staying organized. A series of coups in the last few decades have further moved the nation that direction.
​
With the elections to be held by January 2023, the Hindus who can vote need to organize themselves to stop the intervention of civilizational enemies threatening the existence of the community. A strong Hindu community in Fiji is not just in the interest of Bharat but Fiji as well. How they vote will decide the civilizational existence of the community in the Pacific.

References
1) https://www.abc.net.au/.../pakistani-organisation.../8639384
2) https://www.truthforfiji.com/2017-april-to-june.html
3) https://www.hinduamerican.org/.../human-rights-report/fiji
4) https://hindupost.in/.../hindu-temple-in-fiji-repeatedly.../
Update
Nov 15, 1 PM: Minor edits have been made to the article to improve readability and correct some typos.
Fijileaks: The above is still full of factual errors.

Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is in deep concern regarding a fake article that he says is an attempt by those who have an agenda against his government.

Bainimarama says the article made horrible and false allegations of religious strife in Fiji and yet no political party has come out to criticise it.

The article is on the HinduPost, which is an online digital platform that says it aims to provide the correct perspective on issues concerning Hindu society around the world.

In the article, it is claimed that Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is engaging in war against the Hindus in Fiji through the patronage of the Fijian government and Pakistan.

The article does not have the name of the author who penned the story, and questions sent to HinduPost remain unanswered.

Prime Minister Bainimarama has strongly condemned the article and the attempt to poison Fiji with lies.

“The Fiji I lead does not tolerate antagonism against any faith. Christians, Hindus, and Muslims are all loved, accepted and protected in Fiji, that is the character of our country, that is the security provided by our constitution.”

Bainimarama says Fijians live together, worship in peace, openly celebrate religious festivals, and work together to build the country.

The Prime Minister also raises concern about those who continue to share the fake article knowing that it is all lies.

He adds that what is even more concerning is that people in politics are not standing up for the truth.

“What is really quite sad is that no other politician has condemned this nonsense for what it is, even though they know it is a lie. Ordinary Fijians know exactly who is most responsible for the communal and religious division that nearly tore our country apart in the 1980s and 1990s. “These same people want to drag us back to the darkness.”

Bainimarama says the truth is that in Fiji today, any Fijians of any faith, any ethnicity, any gender, any province, and any physical ability—rich or poor—can rise in this country as far as their talents and ambitions can carry them.

He says that this is his promise to all Fijians and that he has seen it fulfilled during his tenure as Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister also promised to keep his word.

The idea of HinduPost emerged at a media conference conducted by the Hindu Media Forum (HMF) during the inaugural World Hindu Congress 2014.

It was conceptualized and launched in January 2016 by the Hindu Media Forum (HMF). HMF is a forum for elements advocating the interests of the Hindu community, both in the traditional as well as the emerging forms of media, to come together on one platform.

Its site is filled with anti-muslim articles and has rising anti-Muslim sentiments instigated by ultra-right Hindu actors.

We have also sent questions to the Indian High Commission. Source: FBC News

We will be casting our votes on 14 December.

Nine political parties are contesting. Apart from Fiji First Party (FFP), the other serious contenders are Rabuka's People’s Alliance Party, Prasad/Tikoduadua’s National Federation Party (NFP), and Gavoka's Social and Democratic Party (SODELPA). SODELPA has been imploding for some time!

Since 2018, FFP government has withheld Fiji's contribution to USP. All other parties have campaigned to pay what Fiji owes. Most of us would like to see a change of government because of the government’s refusal to pay its contribution which stands at FD$85 million.

As preposterous as it may sound, it means that eight small member countries such as Tokelau (pop. 1,400), Niue (1,600) and Tuvalu (11,300) are subsidising Fiji, having the largest population with nearly a million people!

Despite five independent investigations confirming corrupt practices by the former Vice Chancellor and President (VCP), and confirming the current VCP’s report on the corruption, the government continues to shield the former VCP and his supporters.

Through its domineering presence in Council, the government lobbied hard to terminate the current VCP, Dr Ahluwalia’s contract. When Council rejected it, the government unprecedentedly deported Dr Ahluwalia and his wife Gestapo-like. It declared them persona-non-grata in the same shameful manner as the late pre-eminent Pacific Historian Dr Brij Lal and his family.

With Council’s support, USP is being run from Samoa Campus, home of current Chancellor (Head of State Tuimaleali'ifano) former mother and daughter Pro Chancellors (Fetaui and Fiame Naomi Mata'afa), and VCP Professor Ahluwalia.

There are three serious implications of the Fiji debt.

First, institutional utilities and student services are likely affected as maintenance and upkeep of buildings and facilities are compromised.

Second, the growing vacancies across a number of academic, professional and support staff will not be filled quickly, thereby increasing the work-load of an already overstretched staff.

This is exacerbated by the protracted delays in the issuance of work permits to expatriates and regional staff from member countries such as Tonga and Solomon Islands.

Staff shortage threatens availability and variety of programmes (e.g. Pasifika orientated programs in Governance, Law, Social Sciences, Climate Change, Engineering, MBA etc), erosion of quality of teaching and research output.

The third and most critical is the obvious collateral damage to the education of students (35,000 to 40,000 in 2022) and 50 years of capacity building with an alumni of 60,000 plus across the globe.

For USP to continue as the premier university to nurture and realize the spirit of Pasifikan regionalism, a change is necessary.

In 2018, the FFP narrowly won by 150 votes. A groundswell of support is evident for Rabuka’s Peoples Alliance Party (PAP), and Prasad/Tikoduadua’s National Federation Party (NFP). To make the change and ensure USP’s survival, make your vote count.

Voting is at the polling stations shown on the voter registration card. For iTaukei voters intending to travel to the islands and villages before 14 December, before traveling, check the polling station shown in your voter registration card and avoid disappointment.

WE must turn up and not waste OUR votes on FFP, smaller parties and independent candidates.
​
God Bless Fiji and USP.
Rev. 135 Nov. 2022.

The government is not in a position to misuse taxes just because somebody is putting political pressure on them, says FijiFirst General Secretary Aiyaz-Sayed-Khaiyum.

He made this comment during a campaign meeting last night after he was asked by a University of the South Pacific student why the government’s annual grants to the university are on hold.

The environmental science student claimed that they have not been able to go on field trips or even conduct laboratory work because they have been advised by USP that they do not have enough money to fund certain school projects.

In response, Sayed-Khaiyum says that the government had requested an independent investigation be conducted after allegations of financial discrepancies were raised by the University’s pro-chancellor and the chair of the audit risk committee.

“We’ve said this so many times, we’ve said it in Parliament-our Prime Minister has said it but they are not doing it so they are saying, don’t vote for FijiFirst and unfortunately, there is a lot of propaganda going on around it so I urge USP students through you, you can be their spokesperson now to go back and tell them what’s the reason.”
Sayed-Khaiyum claims that USP still has funds; thus, they are making such remarks to students about the financial status of the university because they want the students to feel aggrieved, blame the government, and then refuse to vote for FijiFirst.

FijiFirst Leader Voreqe Bainimarama says the government is aware of the concerns raised by Fijians about bias in the media and the lies and misinformation spread by their opponents.

“Their lust for power is so great that no lie is too low for them.They even lie about how many people going to FijiFirst meetings.Why? Because they are afraid. They know that the majority on this country wants what is best for families and future generations, something they can never deliver.So they lie and lie and lie some more.”
​
The two leaders say they’ve felt the support of Fijians everywhere they’ve gone, and they’re grateful because FijiFirst is the only party with a plan, principles, and a track record of success.

Partners with FRIEND FIJI:

To sustain its poverty alleviation initiatives in under-served communities in Fiji, FRIEND works with a number of national and international donor partners. These include:
​

• USAID

In response to the massive job losses, across all sectors caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided funds through a 2.5 year project entitled “Covid-19 Livelihoods Support Project”. This project aims to enhance livelihoods and create income generating opportunities for vulnerable communities in Fiji’s western division, focusing on those in the tourism and related sectors. The grant will support value addition and utilize marketing opportunities through the existing FRIEND network.

• Irish Aid

The Irish Aid – In country Micro Projects Scheme [ICMPS] has provided funds to assist single mothers, small scale farmers and youth. They will be assisted with backyard garden setups using our 9 x 9 model for food security and income generation.

• European Union

Through its three year Social Mitigation Support Programme, the EU offered a grant of 2.8 million Euros to fund FRIEND’s GROW initiatives in backyard poultry, cash cropping, beekeeping and the youth employment network. The EU also funded FRIEND’s new Food Production Centre and Seed Bank. The GROW project was run from 2012-2014 working with families in sugar cane belt areas as part of the EU Social Mitigation Support Program.

• AUSAID

The Australian Government Overseas AID Programme has provided core funding as well as project funds since 2005. Australian Aid money has been used for community governance, livelihood support, and crop rehabilitation as well as disaster mitigation and adaptation programs.

• NZAID

The New Zealand AID Programmehas provided funds for various FRIEND initiatives such as community governance and rehabilitation, education and disaster management programs.

• Canada Fund

The Canadian Government AID agency funds various initiatives making money available for a number of Income Generating Projects by donating food dryers, a paper processing machine and Virgin Coconut Oil extractors.

• Motibhai Group of Companies

The prestigious Motibhai Group is a marketing partner taking on the distributorship and merchandising of Friend’s Fiji Style® products in the local market.
​
Our other valued partners include:

• Secretariat of the Pacific Community
• Foundation for the People of the South Pacific International
• European Union Education Sector
• Asia Pacific Ladies Friendship Society

FijiFirst General Secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum claims the National Federation Party proposed candidate Sashi Kiran was using FRIEND Fiji for her political advancement while Kiran asks whether Aiyaz really thinks that all these people’s money, kindness and hard work, was just for people who voted NFP.

While speaking outside the Saint Stephens building after the FijiFirst Party filed their candidate nominations, Sayed-Khaiyum says a number of NGOs in Fiji are in a position of using the NGO facade to further a political agenda.

He says that has now manifested with Sashi Kiran being nominated by NFP.

He adds he does not know if they have done their nomination but when they do, they will announce Kiran as a candidate and this is the manifestation of that.

He alleges they used people on the ground in the rural areas and the message was that they did not give ration to those who openly supported FijiFirst.

Sayed-Khaiyum adds we cannot have people who lead NGOs have that kind of attitude and seeing she is simply trying to just get attention by trying to appeal to a certain number of vote banks.

Meanwhile Kiran says when Sayed-Khaiyum tries to play politics with FRIEND, he does not insult her, he insults all of FRIEND’s workers, volunteers and all the people who gave the organisation millions of dollars in money and goods to help people affected by the COVID-19 outbreak while Sayed-Khaiyum was nowhere to be seen and he left Dr James Fong to do all the talking.

Kiran says after December 14th, no one will worry about Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

Kiran adds Sayed-Khaiyum and his party are the past and NFP is the future.

She further says who cares what Sayed-Khaiyum thinks anyway. Source: Fijivillage News

Fiji’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Christopher Pryde, responded to a Radio NZ story on Fiji MPs’ fear of facing sedition charges for voicing dissent by making the grand statement that “no one in Fiji risks facing sedition charges for voicing dissent”.

How reassuring to the gullible in Fiji and abroad but how utterly unbelievable to those who know what has gone on in Fiji during Christopher Pryde’s stint in high places in Fiji’s legal system.

How conveniently does Pryde forget that Fiji Times publisher (Hank Arts) and Editor in Chief (Fred Wesley) have been facing sedition charges not even for “voicing dissent” but for a Letter to the Editor by a Fijian reader, published in the Fijian vernacular Na Lalakai,  and deemed by the DPP to be seditious in nature.   It was not the publisher or editor “voicing dissent” but someone else who was expressing their opinion through a Letter to the Editor.

How disgraceful that the same DPP’s Office under Pryde has been dragging the prosecution of that that case out for more than two years totally trashing the time honored maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied”.

Or is Pryde mindful of his employer’s strategy that having the Fiji Times owners, publishers, editors and journalists facing some ongoing charge year after year will encourage Fiji times to bnot perform its “watchdog” role on the government of the day, that any good media ought to be doing?

The public should remember Christopher Pryde’s rise to fame under an illegal military dictatorship. He  was appointed as Solicitor General in 2007 after the the 2006 military coup, and in 2009 also appointed as Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Justice, Electoral Reform and Anti-Corruption.

Then in 2011, he secretly made himself useful to Khaiyum when the Bainimarama Government was in the process of unlawfully terminating by military decree the contracts that FNPF had with its pensioners and unilaterally reducing their pension rate.

A certain economist (Professor Wadan Narsey) who had prepared the economic statement for the Burness/Shameem case and had publicly “voiced dissent” against the illegal actions by the Bainimarama Government, FNPF Board and management, was taken in for questioning by the Criminal Investigations Department of the Fiji Police, for alleged “sedition”, his home was searched for seditious material, and a computer and phone taken away for further investigation.
​
Under questioning at the CID office in Suva Street in the company of a lawyer (from the firm of Hanif-Tuitoga) the economist had taken along, he interestingly learnt that a certain Christopher Pryde had been formally involved in the meetings with Khaiyum, that led to the CID investigation of the potential sedition charges against this economist.

Interestingly, the economist learnt that Christopher Pryde had requested that “others” be seen to initiate the sedition charges since he was PS Justice. It was only later that Christopher Pryde was was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions.

Radio NZ International should ask Christopher Pryde whether he was involved in initiating “sedition” charges against Professor Narsey who had “voiced dissent” to the Bainimarama Government’s illegal trashing of FNPF pensioners’ contracts.

Radio NZ International should ask Christopher Pryde why he has not seen fit to pursue charges of sedition against those who openly committed treason and sedition in Fiji in 2006 and 2009 when they abrogated the 1997 Constitution approved unanimously by the Fiji Parliament.

Radio NZ International should ask Pryde why he never sought to prosecute those military personnel under whose authority five CRW soldiers were taken from police custody at the Nabua Police Station after the 2000 mutiny, and tortured to death that very same day (as verified by a magistrate).

Radio NZ International should ask Christopher Pryde why he has not prosecuted those responsible for the other unlawful deaths in military and policy custody after the 2006 military coup.

Radio NZ International should ask Christopher Pryde why he has not persevered with the prosecution of a certain Minister whose driving led to the death of a poor pedestrian.

Christopher Pryde may make as many grand statements as he likes, but his prejudices are not very far from the surface to those who have a longer memory than the intimidated media in Fiji or those abroad, like Radio NZ International.

Christopher Pryde will be remembered in Fiji’s history as yet another expatriate “Flotsam and Jetsam” who drifted into Fiji waters, eagerly serving and benefiting from illegal military coups and governments with little respect for basic human rights or freedoms, while making grand heroic pronouncements.

Sadly, Fiji has no shortage of these expatriate Flotsam and Jetsam which drift to our illegal shores, rapidly rising through eager service to illegality and immorality, while trashing our human rights.
​
All kudos to international media, like Radio NZ International, for not bowing to the evil forces in Fiji which have succeeded in controlling, oppressing and suppressing local media.

Director of Public Prosecutions, Christopher Pryde has categorically rejected, what he calls, the unsubstantiated and defamatory allegations made by the Police Commissioner Brigadier General Sitiveni Qiliho that the decision not to charge National Federation Party Leader, Professor Biman Prasad was made other than on the sufficiency of evidence.

This comes after Qiliho raised concerns in a press conference yesterday about the DPP’s decision.

Pryde says the Office of the DPP are the legal advisors to the police and it is not good enough for the Police Commissioner to conduct what can only by regarded as a self-serving trial-by-media where he cuts and pastes parts of the police file for the benefit of the media.

Pryde asks what does Qiliho hope to gain from this extraordinary display of petulance.

He says this is not a personal matter for him and is a matter of professionalism.

The DPP says the questions for the Police Commissioner now are why, given the high-profile nature of the case, did the Police Commissioner not send the file in the usual way to the Office of the DPP for advice and instead bypass the ODPP and make unhelpful and prejudicial statements to the media by linking the present case to another unrelated case.

He says the Commissioner must also be asked if the Police Commissioner is not prepared to take legal advice from the ODPP whose role it is to provide legal advice to the police, from whom did he take legal advice. Pryde says unless the Police Commissioner is able to satisfactorily answer these questions, it is difficult to know how the public can have any confidence in the Police Commissioner to deal with these matters properly.

He says the public can however be assured that the ODPP will not file cases in court just for the sake of it or to please someone or to send a message and adds they will only ever file charges in court that meet their stringent evidential threshold test and on that the public can be assured.

Pryde further says Qiliho is mistaken about a number of key aspects of the criminal justice system in Fiji and does not appear to understand the respective roles of the police and the ODPP in the criminal justice system.

He says at his press conference, the Police Commissioner suggested that the ordinary Rajesh or Pauliasi would not be given the opportunity by the DPP to make representations to the ODPP but this is factually incorrect.

The DPP says even when suspects or accused persons are not legally represented, they will respond to their representations by immediately calling for the police file to review the charges.

He says the Police Commissioner will be able to confirm the number of times in a week those requests are made.

Pryde says in Prasad’s case, the Director Summary Prosecutions for the Fiji Police brought the file to the ODPP for an opinion and he was advised to submit the docket formally to the ODPP so that a due and proper assessment could be conducted.

He says the file was then allocated to a legal officer in the usual way to write a legal opinion.

The DPP says around the same time, his office received a letter of representation from AK Lawyers, Professor Prasad’s law firm where the letter was forwarded to the legal officer to consider along with the evidence from the police file.

He says the legal opinion was then vetted by the manager and the recommendations not to charge were forwarded to me for decision.

Pryde says he read the legal opinion, the recommendations from the manager, and the representations in the defence lawyer’s letter and the legal officer and the manager had considered all of the evidence including the credibility of the complainant and how her evidence would come out under cross-examination.

He says he agreed with the two legal officers that the evidence the police had obtained did not meet the evidentiary threshold and therefore would not be likely to result in a conviction.

Pryde says contrary to what the Police Commissioner stated, the ODPP did not seek representations from Professor Prasad’s lawyers and the representations were sent to him by letter as is the standard practice amongst criminal defence lawyers.

He further says also mistakenly, Police Commissioner seems to think it appropriate for him to consult the complainant but this is not the way the system works.

He says her evidence was already contained in the police file and it is not appropriate to contact the complainant in these circumstances and the only time they would contact the complainant would be at a witness conference and with a police officer after charges have been filed.

Pryde says therefore, considering the evidence and any available defences, the decision was made to direct the police not to file charges and this was communicated to the Director Summary Prosecutions, as well as formally in writing to the police.

The DPP says later in the day, he was surprised to receive a call from the Police Commissioner in a very agitated state where he told him that he had to charge and could not understand why he would not and accused him of making a decision to favour NGOs or some other miscellaneous human rights groups.

Pryde says he spent considerable time attempting to explain his reasoning to him and why the charges would not succeed.

He says they cannot ethically file charges in court that are unlikely to succeed due to the lack of evidence on one or more of the essential elements of the offence.

He says it is not their role to throw anything at the court for the court to decide and it is incumbent upon the ODPP to analyse the evidence carefully so that the courts are not burdened by cases that do not meet the evidential threshold for a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Pryde says this is the standard test in every comparable jurisdiction and there was nothing irregular in the way in which this matter was handled.

He says the police acted appropriately by investigating the complaint and obtaining statements where they cautioned the suspect and made a decision to grant him bail to appear in court pending finalisation of the charges.

The DPP says the ODPP, likewise, handled the matter in the usual way respecting the appropriate protocols and at no time was the evidence assessed with regard to politics or the status of the suspect.

He says it is quite extraordinary that the Police Commissioner should make such allegations unsupported by any evidence.

Questions have been sent to the Fiji Police Force. They are yet to respond. Source: Fijivillage News

Dear Commissioner of Police and the Honorable AG, 

I am a resident of Davuilevu Housing, Laqio Rd. I write this e-mail with great frustration with the Nakasi Police whom I have called on several occasions, but they have not bothered to attend to my complaint, nor have they lodged my complaint in their report book. 

Commissioner of Police 
​
Sir, there is an incomplete abandoned house located in Kitu road, this is the second left turn after you enter Laqio road. The said house is the second one on the right after you enter Kitu road, color pink built on piles and incomplete. The owner a lady has passed on and now this house is a hub for young youths who drink and make noise whole night, I also suspect that they do drugs there and also plan for house break ins. They are also the lot behind a lot of grab and runs which goes unreported because of the behavior of the Nakasi Police who don’t bother to attend to any of these complaints.

I myself have called the police on numerous occasions reporting of suspected drug dealing, noise, trespass as well as violence whereby young girls suspected to be prostitutes are beaten up at this premises very badly but the Nakasi Police were no where to be seen. I also called them later to ask for my report number only to be told that no such report was entered into the report book. This just goes on to show the caliber of police officers we have in the force to serve us commuters in our time of need. Furthermore, many catastrophes such as home invasions, grab and run, violence or even murder could be avoided if the Nakasi police constantly petrol this area or conduct raids to make an arrest with evidence on site, but again this may never eventuate without your intervention Sir.

The community policing of the force seems to be sleeping, I say this because apart from young adults I have also seen students frequenting this house which indeed is very scary as these students are the future of our nation and having to indulge with the wrong crowd is setting a bad precedence for them. These students have started to display rowdy behavior as they go around asking for money or stealing coconuts from houses, its just a matter of time when they escalate in their crimes just because of the fact that the Nakasi Police are lazy in conducting their duty. I ask for you intervention on this matter not only for the residents but also for the wellbeing of the youths. 
 
 Housing Authority 

Sir like I have mentioned above, this house is abandoned and partially completed. From my findings the owner has passed on sometime back and now this said premises is causing a lot of nuisances for the neighboring residents who are also you customers from my understanding. Thus, kindly requesting the housing authority to do an investigation on the status of this premises and intervene on this crowd from using this premises as a place for drinking, drugs, prostitution etc as we the residents of kitu road would like to live with dignity and free of fear and you as the managing authority in terms of housing and development need to ensure of this please. The said house is the second one on the right after you enter Kitu road, color pink built on piles and incomplete possibly an illegal development with no owner at the moment. Your intervention as housing authority would do wonders for the safety and security of the residents who have started to live in fear of these rowdy youths. 
 
Nausori Town Council 

Dear Sir/Madam, your intervention like the rest would also do wonders for the residents. This said house seems like an illegal development which is now incomplete with a lot of building materials and waste lying around. The house itself not being stable since its incomplete and poses a risk to the neighborhood as we are now in the cyclone season and should one make its way into Fiji, this house will not be able to sustain itself and cause injuries and damage to the other residents which becomes an unnecessary burden and cost for the neighborhood since the owner is not around, in this case no one to gain compensation from. Furthermore, there are about 6 long coconut trees located on this premises, with no owner around we cant request anyone to cut these trees, and since in kitu road the houses are located very close to each other, these trees could prove detrimental to the neighbors homes which mind you would cost a lot of money to re-build in these hard times. The grasses are also overgrown with rubbish dumped everywhere around this house. The said house is the second one on the right after you enter Kitu road, color pink built on piles and incomplete. Your intervention of some sort would be highly appropriated as Davuilevu comes under the Nausori town council boundary. 
 
Honorable AG 

Sir, I have copied you in this e-mail because I believe with your intervention this issue would be rectified soon. The attitude of the Nakasi police is unwanted and many residents continuously have been calling them to report the matter but to no avail, it has come to a point where they have given up on the police. Thus, kindly requesting your good office to intervene on this matter and hear the voices and cries of us citizen’s living in Kitu road Davuilevu housing. 
 
Yours Faithfully 
Dorsami Naidu.