Blog Posts

'BAU, OCTOBER 1982 and QUEEN ELIZABETH 11, VISIT': GREAT Council of Chiefs meeting on Bau Island laid the foundation for the 1987 COUPS, RACIAL Apartheid, 1990 Constitution and new 'Girmit' for the Indo-Fijians

23/5/2023

The Ra Provincial Council and the Great Council of Chiefs in 1982, through two racist resolutions in Bau, tried to reassure the i-Taukei Fijians of their determination that they should, and always would, rule Fiji.
But they were happy to carry the WHITE MAN (WOMAN) on their shoulders.
Until Bainimarama disbanded them, and told them to 'Go Drink Homebrew Under the Tree', they were behaving like the Supreme Religious Rulers of Iran, terrorising dissident commoner i-Taukei Fijians, Indo-Fijians, and Others who dared to hold them to account.
Most who looted and bankrupted the National Bank of Fiji were chiefs, who had borrowed millions to run their so-called i-Taukei businesses, claiming Indo-Fijians dominated the Fijian economy.
They have NEVER suggested that an Indo-Fijian be nominated as President of Fiji. Instead, they are fighting to designate one of their own provincial tribal chief to replace the current President Katonivere.
The GCC Review Team (mostly from Tailevu, where my maternal family have deep roots) consists of i-Taukei Fijians and a Chinese, GRAHAM LEUNG, even though a re-constituted GGC will also impact Indo-Fijians.

'The Great Council of Chiefs has passed an incredible resolution calling for a constitutional change which, if it occurred, would change Fiji overnight from a democracy to an autocracy, or even a dictatorship. It is a horrendous thought.

For many years Fiji has been held up to the world as a multi-racial society which works-where two races with widely disparate religions, culture and ethnic backgrounds have lived and worked harmoniously for a hundred years.

Now, with a stroke of a pen, a group of our most respected elders and statesmen are prepared to throw all that away and march backwards into the 19th Century and beyond.’
The Fiji Sun Editorial on Bau meeting resolution, 1982

Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief: "I will never forget returning to the original Fiji Sun office in Lami (shut down by Rabuka after the 1987 Coups) from Bau in October 1982, angry, upset, and with a sense of betrayal by the paramount chiefs, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and Ratu Sir George Cakobau following the Ra Provincial Council's obnoxious resolution at the GGC meeting at Bau that political leadership of Fiji must remain in the hands of i-Taukei Fijian leaders.
After all, my father was President of the Tailevu North Alliance Party, and our paternal family were all blue-blooded Alliance Party stalwarts. My uncle had stood against NFP Deputy Leader Mrs Irene Jai Narayan in the 1972 and 1977 elections, and was also the Alliance Party's Lord Mayor of Suva.
As a youngster, I had actively campaigned for Ratu George Cakobau and Ratu Penaia Ganilau for the Tailevu communal and open seats in elections.
How could these chiefs BETRAY our family?
And disenfranchised them from 1990 to 1999, and treated them as second-class citizens.

Hence, when I sat down to write my book on Fiji, I began by condemning the late Brij Lal's thesis that 'Fiji was a success story in race relations that other bi-racial and multi-ethnic societies should emulate'. His book was Politics in Fiji. A prickly soul (RIP), he never saw eye to eye with me afterwards, and shied away from quoting my own writings in any of his voluminous works. As one of the architects of the 1997 Constitution, Brij Lal and the late Jai Ram Reddy gave Sitiveni Rabuka IMMUNITY from prosecution, still in existence in the 2013 Constitution.
Reddy also appeared before the GCC and accorded the GCC unwarranted mandate to be 'Chiefs of all RACES in Fiji'.
In 1986, I had ended my manuscript by predicting that if the Alliance Party, led by paramount chiefs, lost the forthcoming general in 1987, the predominantly i-taukei military would intervene and overthrow the Bavadra government. As predicted, Rabuka executed the two coups.
The publishers had caught cold feet and were holding onto the manuscript until the 1987 elections was over. I had to re-write the book and it was published as Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention.
In the concluding chapter, I had made an impassioned plea to the Chiefs, Thieves and Others:
"The chiefs determined to imprison themselves in the racist garb of supremacy and tradition, and their antagonists, the Fijian Indians (Indo-Fijians), threatening violence and vengeance, both sides must be urged to re-examine the findings of the Royal Commission that investigated Fiji's electoral system in 1975. This Commission had strongly advocated extending national seats in order to defeat the politics of communalism. The chiefs, prejudiced by lack of vision, must, on the other hand, in the months and years to come, realize that 'tradition is a guide, not a jailer', in order to save the country from the calamity that confronts them; the Fiji Indians with a history of rebellion on the sugar plantations and burning political ambitions in their hearts are repeating the lines of Richard Lovelace: Stone walls do not a prison make - Nor iron bars a cage."
I pointed out that i-Taukei Fijians do not realise that what they passionately believe to be their ancient heritage is, in fact, a colonial legacy. As for the future, they have reached that, 'Tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life, Is bound in shallows and in miseries.'
It is to be sincerely hoped, I pointed out, that the i-Taukei will wake up to the fact that although they were given a garden of Eden, living on Fiji Islands, that isolation is bad for the individual; it is infinitely worse for a community or a country.
In conclusion, the Chiefs, I warned, still have a choice today - to borrow the late Martin Luther King Jnr's warning - non-violent co-existence or violent co-annihilation.

As it was widely reported, I was accused of being the second-in-command to the mastermind arms shipper Mohammed Rafiq Kahan in London, tasked with delivering the 60 tons of deadly weapons, and to kill or capture the then RACIST COUPIST SITIVENI RABUKA, to end our sufferings in Fiji.

In our mission, we were assisted on the ground by the late Rewa chief Ratu Mosese Tuisawau, who was charged with instigating armed invasion.

Refusing extraditions, the British courts ruled that Kahan and Others would never get free and fair trials, and the acts were political in nature.

Sadly, the i-Taukei Chiefs, Thieves, and Others never thought that one of their very own - Frank Bainimarama - will disband the Great Council of Chiefs, and tell them to 'Go, Drink Homebrew Under the Tree'.
*We hope the Chiefs meeting on Bau Island have sobered up in the last 16 years and will NEVER again embark on their self-destructive journey, dragging their commoner subjects and Fiji down the abyss.

The RFMF told the Yash Ghai Commission it wanted GCC Abolished

The background to the Ra Resolutions at Bau in October 1982

The Chiefs and the Indians

The Indo-Fijians are all chiefs and no commoners. In the context of Fijian politics, therefore, their political leaders have always found themselves caught in the conflicting traditional, bureaucratic, and charismatic forms of authority in Fiji. The Indo-Fijian leaders had agreed to confer veto power to the chiefs in the Senate during the 1970 Constitutional Talks in London, which meant that for the first time in Fiji's history, the Great Council of Chiefs suddenly enjoyed its say in the mainstream of Fijian politics. In the old colonial days, much of what was deliberated was often decided in advance by judicious consultation between the chiefs and the colonial administrators.

Ironically, in post-independent Fiji it was the very Indo-Fijian leaders who attracted virulent criticism whenever they condemned the 'political chiefs' in the Alliance Party or their traditional institution-the Great Council of Chiefs.

In the 1982 general election the Indo-Fijian leaders were accused of collaborating with the infamous 'Four Corners' programme on elections in Fiji which claimed that the present leaders of Fiji were descendants of the Fijian chiefs who 'clubbed and ate their way to power'. But the most vicious attack on the Indo-Fijian leaders was made in the Senate where one Fijian senator, Inoke Tabua, stoutly defended Ratu Mara, his paramount chief. He warned: 'I want to make it clear in this House that whoever hates my chief, I hate him too. I do not want to make enemies but to a 'Kai Lau' like me, if someone is against my chief he is also against me and my family right to the grave.'

Tabua refused to isolate politics from chieftaincy. Understandably, as Ratu Mara himself had told the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 1982 election that his evidence should be considered and treated in the light of his three main roles in Fiji: 'On the one hand I live, think and act as an ordinary citizen of this State and also as a chief in the Fijian traditional social system. I am also a politician and leader of the Alliance Party, which is closely interested in these proceedings. And, lastly, I am Prime Minister of this State and leader of its government.' It was these three roles that dominated the sentiments and minds of Fijians when it came to passing judgement on the actions of Indo-Fijian leaders during the general election. They invoked their traditional ties with their chiefs to condemn the Indo-Fijian leaders.

The Ra Provincial Council and the Great Council of Chiefs, through two resolutions, tried to reassure the Fijian people of their determination that Fijians should, and always would, rule Fiji. The first tentative step was taken during a meeting of the Ra Provincial Council which resolved that the offices of Governor-General and Prime Minister must be reserved for Fijians and that this should be the subject of constitutional changes, a demand first voiced by Butadroka's FNP in the 1970s.

The Council also proposed that the composition of the House of Representatives should be two-third Fijian and one-third all other races. The Council also resolved that the two resolutions be forwarded for inclusion on the agenda of the Great Council of Chiefs meeting scheduled for November 1982. Council members were of the opinion that the issues should be discussed at the Bau meeting, when the chiefs from the various traditional Fijian confederacies discussed issues of Fijian interests.

Both resolutions were condemned by the Western United Front (WUF) and the NFP, then in a Coalition pact for the 1982 election. The WUF expressed surprise that some Fijians still felt so strongly about the last general election and dismissed as totally unfounded the allegations that the Fijians and their traditional systems had thereby been insulted. WUF also considered that there was nothing derogatory in the 'Four Corners' programme. While linking the programme with the Alliance's involvement with the Carroll team, WUF's general-secretary said, 'Cannibalism was part of life in Fiji in the early days and we Fijians are descendants of cannibals. What is wrong with that? Only powerful chiefs in those days enjoyed on bokolas. I cannot find why some Fijians are annoyed about the Four Corners programme'.

The Great Council of Chiefs moved to endorse the two manifestly racist resolutions thus presenting itself in the eyes of the Indo-Fijian community as the political champion and promoter of Fijian nationalism, as preached by the FNP. The resolutions were finally passed despite the abstention from Ratu Mara and then Deputy Prime Minister, Ratu Penaia, who pointed out that to change the Fiji Constitution required the consent of a two-thirds majority in both Houses. The role of Ratu Mara, who abstained from voting, did nothing to allay Indo-Fijian fears. As an NFP/WUF Coalition statement later charged: 'It should be apparent even to a political novice that the whole exercise was carefully stage-managed to intimidate non-Fijians, especially Indians and the Fijian supporters of the Coalition'.

It also expressed surprise that Ratu Mara had abstained from voting rather than opposing the two resolutions. Ratu Mara replied angrily that he 'was is no way obligated to his political party to say what he did or said in the Council'. It was during the debate on the resolution that trade unionist Gavoka had likened Indo-Fijians to dogs; and Mrs Irene Jai Narayan, branding the Bau resolution as racist, went on to state: 'To liken Indians to dogs…is a grave and unwarranted provocation to the entire Indian community. It is now obvious that those indulging in the abuse of Indians are not reacting to any so-called insults…[but] because the NFP/WUF Coalition dared to challenge for power in the last general election and came within a whisker of wresting it from the Alliance.'

Mrs Narayan further observed: 'It is indeed curious that the controversial motion came up while the Prime Minister claims that the worst insults he received were from Fijians themselves, why the focus of attack and resolution adopted by the Great Council of Chiefs have been designed to rob of the few rights they (Indians) have left to live in the country of their birth.' Clearly, the statement continued, racial policies espoused by the FNP leader, the commoner Butadroka, had found greater favour with the chiefs than had the so-called multi-racial policies of the paramount chiefs leading the Alliance Party.

Another Fijian senator, Ratu Tevita Vakalalabure, warned that unless Indo-Fijians united with Fijians and if what happened in the 1982 general elections was repeated at the next, probably 1987 election, 'Blood will flow, whether you like it or not. I can still start it. It touched me, and also touched my culture, tradition and my people. We have carried this burden too long'. The political maverick Apisai Tora also entered the fray, claiming in Parliament that the action of the NFP in the 1982 election was a show of arrogance (viavialevu) and insults heaped on the Fijian chiefs could only be made by people belonging to the lowest caste (kaisi bokola botoboto). Tora's passionate outburst however came as no surprise to many political observers who had closely followed his political career.

In 1977 he had hit out at the chiefly system in Fiji and said many Fijians were getting 'fed up' with the 'archaic' system, and that Fijian chiefs were using chiefly status to gain and keep power. He had also told another political rally in September 1977 that the Fijian chiefs were out to 'threaten' Indo-Fijians by indirectly telling people not to vote for the then leader of the NPF, Koya. 'Do not subjugate the future of Fiji in the hands of the power-hungry Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. And whatever provocation people are under we do not want any violence in this (1977) election'.

It is not surprising therefore that a decade later the rightful place of the chiefs in the national life of the Fijians again became a burning issue when the Fiji Labour Party went into coalition with the Alliance Party's political arch rivals, the NFP. But it was also to herald the arrival of a military-cum civilian dictatorship following the two military coups in 1987. In fact, the writing was already on the walls, as a Fiji Sun editorial had feared shortly after the Bau meeting in 1982:

'The Great Council of Chiefs has passed an incredible resolution calling for a constitutional change which, if it occurred, would change Fiji overnight from a democracy to an autocracy, or even a dictatorship. It is a horrendous thought. For many years Fiji has been held up to the world as a multi-racial society which works-where two races with widely disparate religions, culture and ethnic backgrounds have lived and worked harmoniously for a hundred years. Now, with a stroke of a pen, a group of our most respected elders and statesmen are prepared to throw all that away and march backwards into the 19th Century and beyond.’

RATU ULUILAKEBA MARA, 'A FUGITIVE FROM LAW' and Nolle Prosequi. Mara is NOT a fugitive from law because he has NOT been re-arrested and charged. He is a FREE MAN under Pryde's 2014 NOLLE PROSEQUI

22/5/2023

0 Comments

UPDATE: DPP concludes No charges to be laid against Ratu Mara

DPP and Nolle Prosequi: No Charges Against Ratu Uluilakeba MARA

In Latin, nolle prosequi* means unwilling to pursue the matter. As the matter stands, the Lauan chief is NOT a fugitive from law because in 2014 Pryde had decided to enter a nolle prosequi in the case.
A nolle prosequi is not an acquittal, so the double jeopardy clause does not apply, and a defendant may later be reindicted on the same charges.
Mara can be re-charged by the DPP but since he is yet to be arrested and re-charged, he is NOT a FUGITIVE from the law. He is a FREE MAN.
*It has emerged that it was suspended DPP Christopher Pryde who had asked Police on 15 March 2023 to inform the Fiji Immigration Department that Mara was 'Person of Interest'.

On 3 October 2014, the former Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Pryde had entered a nolle prosequi* in the Suva Magistrates Court against Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara who was charged with swearing about dictator and coupist Frank Bainimarama and his group in another country (South Korea).
As we had revealed, Ratu Ului was charged after the sour grape MANASA TAGICAKIBAU (a major rank officer), to whom Ratu Ului had expressed his feelings, had reported Ratu Ului to Bainimarama.
Tagicakibau was promoted as Ambassador to China. Ratu Ului fled to Tonga because he was NOT going to be accorded a FAIR TRIAL
*We would like to point out that Ratu Ului was charged with making seditious comments (to Tagicakibau) whereas Brigadier-General PITA DRITI was charged with Inciting Mutiny and was jailed for Four Years.

0 Comments

GREAT COUNCIL OF CHIEFS. Exclusion of non i-Taukei on GCC Review Team (with inclusion of known chiefly sympathiser Graham Leung) will produce a lop-sided REPORT, with GCC becoming an Albatross on Fiji

22/5/2023

STRAIGHT TALK: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief has never shied away in the last four decades from holding the Great Council of Chiefs to account, for many ordinary i-Taukei commoners are caught between Chiefocracy, Democracy, and Tradition.
While there are rumblings in Cakaudrove that the chiefly Father-Son are lording it up in Parliament at the expense of their subjects, many in Namosi are claiming that their CHIEF Ratu Suliano Matanitobua brought disgrace to the PROVINCE by entering Politics and Parliament.
We found a calendar from 1940 (see below) where Namosi was selected by the Fiji Colonial Government as the perfect POSTER VILLAGE.
Today, its reputation lies in ruins, with the province declining to participate in the upcoming GCC meeting, and its paramount chief behind the prison bars, all because he wanted to be Chief and Politician.
Matanitobua was charged with falsely stating that his permanent place of residence was in Namosi Village, Namosi and obtained $38,378.22 between August 2019 and April 2020.

The representative of Yavusa Nabukebuke, Nailili, in the province of Namosi, Ratu Ifereimi Buaserau Camaisala says the new Great Council of Chiefs should not include leaders who are part of a political party.

Ratu Ifereimi says traditional leaders who are part of a political party should resign from their party before joining the meeting this week.

He says this will remove politics from the GCC and also won't allow politics to meddle in the affairs of the iTaukei body.

He also acknowledged the Government for bringing back the GCC, which has not been in existence for the past decade.

Ratu Ifereimi says he understands that Namosi will not be represented at the GCC meeting on Bau Island, however, he says that he will attend the meeting on behalf of his province to show their support for the return of GCC.

He also questions why Ratu Suliano Matanitobua, the high chief of Namosi, is not allowing their province to be represented in this meeting.

He says they understand that Ratu Suliano is in prison and could not attend the meeting, but he could have selected one of his sons to be part of the meeting.

The representative says before, when the Tui Namosi could not attend, one of the men in the chiefly family was selected to be part of the meet. Ratu Ifereimi says they were also not consulted about the decision.

Meanwhile, Minister for i-Taukei Affairs Ifereimi Vasu says the Namosi Provincial Council has followed the protocols.

He says they have visited the Turaga Vunivalu, Tui Namosi Ratu Suliano Matanitobua and during their meeting, they had decided that there will be no representatives from Namosi.

Vasu says the Ministry respects the decision taken by Namosi. Source: Fijivillage News

BORRON HOUSE, 'SINGING A DIFFERENT TUNE'. Borron House TOUR excluded from Ratu Sukuna Day because it needs 'Renovation'. How come Surinamese singers were put up there by Rajni & Ganesh Chand?

21/5/2023

"The tour of the Borron House that was initially planned for the Ratu Sukuna Day celebration has been cancelled. iTaukei Affairs Deputy Chief Executive Officer Josefa Toganivalu says it was one of the places wanted by the organizing committee for the public, especially school students, to see in celebrating the life of the late statesman. However, the property is currently due for renovation."

Fijileaks: How much did it cost the Fijian taxpayers to house the Surinamese Bhojpuri singers at Borron House during the Girmit Day Celebrations? Why were they housed at BORRON HOUSE?
In a private video uploaded on his Facebook, RAJ MOHAN claims they were put up at Borron House by the Coalition government through their contact GANESH CHAND of the Global Girmit Institute.
The singers also gave a private concert at Borron House, and the guests included BIMAN PRASAD.
According to Mohan, even a private dinner for him, his troupe, and over 40 invited guests was held at Borron House.
So how come it is NOT available to the i-Taukei Ministry committee organising Ratu Sukuna Day tour of Borron House?
*We repeat that Prasad, his wife, Ganesh Chand (including USP VC Pal Ahluwlia) must be referred to FICAC and Police for investigation.

Fijileaks: Borron House should never have been used during the Girmit Celebrations because the Borron family profited from the Indian coolies on the Mago Island plantation.

Ratu Sukuna lived in Borron House for a few years until he passed away

BIMAN PRASAD enjoying Raj Mohan's private performance under the gaze of the late President Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau at Borron House

"The tour of the Borron house that was initially planned for the Ratu Sukuna Day celebration has been cancelled. iTaukei Affairs Deputy Chief Executive Officer Josefa Toganivalu says it was one of the places wanted by the organizing committee for the public, especially school students, to see in celebrating the life of the late statesman. However, the property is currently due for renovation."

Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna and Lady Maraia outside Borron House

In the Borron House Library

In the video below, Surinamese singer RAJ MOHAN was given access to private sections of the Borron House which he upload on his Facebook. If so, why are Fijians of all races not allowed into the Borron House or its sprawling gardens on Ratu Sukuna Day?

History Lesson. Ganesh Chand to Raj Mohan:
"The legend has it that the FIRST Fijians (i-Taukei) landed here, at Vuda. They came in canoes etc..."

DEFLECTING SEARCHLIGHT ON GLOBAL GIRMIT INSTITUTE.
Ganesh Chand attacks Mahendra Chaudhry, questioning the Back Pay Out to Bainimarama that was revealed by our Founding Editor-in-Chief in the now defunct C4/5 website.
"So the person who gave today's equivalent of over $300,000 of public funds illegally to a single dictator, is now asking for accountability of funds used for Girmit Events which created an unprecedented unity in Fiji. An educated person would have awaited the audit report on public funds spent. But in the typical destructive style of his (supported by his convicted son, and womanfriend/mistress who writes his press releases, and a few hangers on), he continued with his malicious propaganda. The simple objective was to derail the Girmit Events, to ensure that Indians and Fijians in Fiji remain divided, and show the Finance Minister in bad light." - GANESH CHAND

FIJISTHANI: Girmit celebrations reinforce demand to preserve, promote and pass on FIJI HINDI to our future generations. It also debunks Prasad and others who want 'Girmit Fijisthani' to be removed from Mirchi RADIO

20/5/2023

"The day Indo-Fijian politicians kill Fiji Hindi, they will be killing a part of their history and heritage in Fiji. For no matter where one goes in the world, the moment one hears an Indo-Fijian open his mouth, one immediately asks him: ‘What part of Fiji are you from?’ In a similar vein, India Indians are able to separate us from them solely on the basis of our Fiji Hindi. If the Indo-Fijian politicians and aspiring candidates are too ashamed to speak to us in the language of our coolie forefathers, they should pack their bags and their manifestoes and take the next Air India flight to India, and wait there for the next general election in that country to practice their Shudh Hindi. We don’t need Indian political impostors in Fiji. Such candidates and Indo-Fijian leaders do not deserve our sympathy or votes.
Long live FIJI HINDI."
**Victor Lal, Fiji Sun Opinion Column, 2006**

The historical re-enactment of our past history, songs, suffering and tragedy in the language of our coolie ancestors - Fiji Hindi - during the Girmit celebrations is compelling proof why it must be our primary language in schools and in the day-to-day lives of the Indo-Fijians (and other races) who understand Fiji Hindi.
After all, Biman Prasad's wife Rajni and Ganesh Chand were given thousands of dollars to fly in Bhojpuri singers from Surinam, who we could relate to and understand, unlike the pseudo pompous BJP Hindi of BIMAN PRASAD, MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY and other Hindi speakers.
*We also welcome KHATTA MITTHA BAT, a new book that was released on 11 May, that captures and promotes Fiji Hindi Sayings and Advice.

"Fiji Hindi is a language that arose from Indian indenture and is a source of knowledge and culture for the Indo-Fijian community. The language has a unique mix of Hindi, Urdu, Bhojpuri, English and Fijian vocabulary. As such, documenting it is now critical for language revitalisation efforts, and for supporting its use in communication and education within the Indo-Fijian community in Fiji and abroad." Editors, Khatta Mittha Bat

Fijileaks:
We have grown up saying
Hutel: Hotel
Kantaap: Cane-top means slap or linked to beating
Geng: Work -Gang

Khatta Mittha Bàt: A New Book Preserving Fiji Hindi Sayings and Advice

Khatta Mittha Bàt has been produced by Farzana Gounder, Nikhat Shameem, and Jennifer Khan-Janif to help preserve and promote the Fiji Hindi language.

The book contains a collection of Fiji Hindi kahawat and advice, most linked with the evolution of Indo-Fijians as Girmit descendants and inheritors of a Girmit Hindustani identity and culture.

Fiji Hindi is a language that arose from Indian indenture and is a source of knowledge and culture for the Indo-Fijian community. The language has a unique mix of Hindi, Urdu, Bhojpuri, English and Fijian vocabulary. As such, documenting it is now critical for language revitalisation efforts, and for supporting its use in communication and education within the Indo-Fijian community in Fiji and abroad.

The book launch event was held at the University of Fiji, Samabula Campus on May 11, 2023. The book was launched by the chief guest Ambassador Robin Yarrow.

The book, which is published by the University of Fiji together with the Greenhouse Studio, is now available for purchase.

The book's editors acknowledge the contributors, including photographers, writers, artists, friends, family, muses, community members and participants of their orthography workshop in Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand in May 2020. They are also grateful to UNESCO New Zealand for providing financial support for the workshop, which allowed them to trial and further standardise the Fiji Hindi orthography that was then used in the book.

The book's sayings cover core areas of wisdom, perseverance, identity, hope, respect, and resilience, and weave their way through the language's unique humour and irony along with the community’s history. The book includes the equivalent English meaning for each kahawat to provide greater understanding of context and flavour and for the enjoyment of a wider audience.

Khatta Mittha Bàt is an important step in documenting and promoting Fiji Hindi. The book's editors hope that the script used in this book will become widely adopted in the Indo-Fijian community and serve as an additional means of communication. Documenting Fiji Hindi allows linguists to study its unique features, grammar, and vocabulary, providing insights into the nature of language and how it evolves over time. It is a source of knowledge and culture for the Indo-Fijian community, containing unique information about their history, customs, and traditions.

"We are incredibly excited to share this book with you and hope that you will join us in celebrating the rich culture and history of Fiji Hindi. Khatta Mittha Bàt is a must-read for anyone interested in learning more about our language, remembering those who coined these sayings and honouring our community that speaks it," said the editors.

To get a copy of Khatta Mittha Bàt, please visit the University of Fiji Bookshop, Saweni or the University of Fiji online store. It is also available in Kindle version.

Fijileaks: We have fought against the imposition of HINDI over Fiji Hindi, a plantation Hindi that attests to our girmit history in Fiji, starting in 1879

Several potential voters wrote to me complaining that instead of speaking in the everyday Fiji Hindi to them, the candidates have been making speeches in Shudh (Standard/Correct) Hindi, a language a vast majority of the Indo-Fijian voters hardly understand.

A similar spectacle has been displayed during Question Time and Talk Back programmes on Fiji TV. I decided to watch the appearance of Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi of the Fiji Labour Party, Bimal Prasad of the National Federation Party, Shiu Ram of COIN Party and Dildar Shah of the National Alliance Party on these two programmes.

Again, a pathetic reoccurring pattern, as if Vayeshnoi, who is contesting the Nadroga Indian Communal seat, was reading a script out of the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita. When, all he was trying to do, was to explain his party’s manifesto (for which there is no Fiji Hindi word).

The other three were equally guilty, and at times I felt sorry for Shiu Ram, who even resorted to English to make his point, instead of opting to speak the language of the Indo-Fijian masses, and over 30 per cent of taukei Fijians – Fiji Hindi.

What is wrong with speaking Fiji Hindi? Are they ashamed of the language of their coolie forefathers? Why are these Indo-Fijian candidates contesting the Indian communal seats when they are by commission or omission, speaking to the voters in the language of ‘Mother India’.

For God’s sake, even Indian candidates, despite belonging to different political parties, speak in the 700 different dialects and languages to their prospective voters in India. A regional aspiring candidate in Madras will be speaking in Madrassi, and even the Communist candidate in Bengal will be pouting his Maoist and Stalinist propaganda in Bengali. The Italian-born Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party, also speaks in a Hindi language which is understood by the vast majority of the voters.

More importantly, the candidates in Bihar would be speaking in Bhojpuri or Awadhi, from which the corrupt version of Fiji Hindi has originated in our country. So why can not our own aspiring Indo-Fijian politicians speak the language of their people?.

As Nemani Bainivalu, a University of the South Pacific Hindi graduate, and later a cultural assistant with the National Reconciliation Unit, had once pointed out, only 20 percent of Indo-Fijians can read and write their formal language.

Many Indo-Fijians cannot even read their holy books written in the Khadee Bolee dialect, and pass on religious teachings by word. I am not suggesting that Sudh Hindi be replaced in our education system, or that everyone should be writing novels like Dauka Puran by Professor Subramani of the Department of Literature and Language at the USP.

What I am protesting against is the gibberish Shudh Hindi that is being shoved down the throats of Indo-Fijian voters who are struggling to ‘swallow’ the words. The election message and manifestoes of the political parties would be better understood if the Indo-Fijian candidates resorted to the conversational Fiji Hindi at the hustings. It will also help bring the taukei Fijians into the campaign, especially the 30 per cent who speak the language, and many others who have a smattering command of it.

It must be made very clear to Indo-Fijian candidates that despite the teaching of Shudh Hindi and Urdu in schools, Fiji Hindi is an integral part of the identity and culture of the Indo-Fijian population. It is unique to Indo-Fijians in the world. The day Indo-Fijian politicians kill Fiji Hindi, they will be killing a part of their history and heritage in Fiji.

For no matter where one goes in the world, the moment one hears an Indo-Fijian open his mouth, one immediately asks him: ‘What part of Fiji are you from?’ In a similar vein, India Indians are able to separate us from them solely on the basis of our Fiji Hindi.

If the Indo-Fijian politicians and aspiring candidates are too ashamed to speak to us in the language of our coolie forefathers, they should pack their bags and their manifestoes and take the next Air India flight to India, and wait there for the next general election in that country to practice their Shudh Hindi. We don’t need Indian political impostors in Fiji.

Such candidates and Indo-Fijian leaders do not deserve our sympathy or votes.

Long live FIJI HINDI.

The Hindi Parishad Fiji is calling on Fijian Broadcasting Corporation for one of their radio stations, Mirchi FM to discontinue broadcasting in Fiji Hindi while FBC CEO, Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum says that as a commercial radio station, they have made a commitment to try to connect to as many people as possible because all Indo-Fijians in Fiji speak Fiji Hindi.

The Hindi Parishad Fiji Assistant Secretary, Vigyan Sharma says they are extremely dissatisfied on the use of Fiji Hindi on Mirchi FM and is concerned with the levels of public outcry.

Hindi Parishad Fiji is made up of various faith based Hindi speaking organisations. These include Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji, Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji, TISI Sangam, Gujarat Society, Hanuman Chalisa Pariwar, Hindi Writers Forum, Hare Krishna Movement, Sai Sanstha, Fiji Sevashram Sangha, Global Organisation of People of Indian Origin, The Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee Fiji, Shree Sanatan Dharam Brahman Purohit Sabha of Fiji , Ramcharitmanas Fiji , Fiji Hindu Society, and Hindi Teachers Association.

They believe that Fiji Hindi is a spoken dialect which is spoken informally in social settings and at home and on any formal platform, individuals are prompted to speak in a standard language.

They say that Mirchi FM did not consult any Hindi language stakeholders nor any public consultations were held.
They also say that it was very disappointing to note that FBC’s talk back show, Aaina on the 21st of last month only featured a panel who were in support of Fiji Hindi and callers were deliberately cut short or interrupted.

The Parishad also say that they are very concerned about the growing tensions on social media and are distancing themselves from any form of racial, political or hare statements made by any individuals.

Vigyan Sharma also says the roots of the diverse set of religious beliefs, traditions and philosophy of Hindus were laid during the Vedic age, and most of the religious scriptures are written in standard Hindi. Sharma says the general feeling of the followers of Hinduism is that Hindi is associated to religion and form an integral element of their identity as it directly connects them to their roots, and therefore must be protected and promoted.

FBC CEO, Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum says the decision to switch to Fiji Hindi on one of their radio stations has been done at the behest of their listeners.

He says the station started to experiment Fiji Hindi more than a year ago and during that year, they did not receive a single complaint in regards to this.

Sayed-Khaiyum says that social media is not the correct indicator of acceptance and there are many factors to consider such as fake profiles and political and group agendas.

He says that at the Regional Hindi Conference, Fiji Hindi was accepted by eminent authorities in linguistics as a bonafide language.

Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum says it is nonsensical to associate language and religion.

SHOE-STRING GLOBAL GIRMIT INSTITUTE: With barely hundreds in its account, how did TRUSTEES (Rajni and Ganesh Chand) get thousands from BIMAN PRASAD for international conference. INSIDER DEALING?

19/5/2023

Fijileaks: Did Prasad advance GGI thousands of dollars without any prior check of its financial status?
Where did GGI get the funds from (it hardly has cash in the bank) to fly, house, feed and entertain the participants to the two-day international conference at the USP? Did Prasad advance the money?
We publish the GGI audited financial statements for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Where is the 2022 financial statement? From the audited reports it is clear that the financial statements were prepared on 24 January 2023, a month before GGI was re-registered?
Did Prasad's wife and her co-trustee Ganesh Chand have insider information about the Coalition's girmit* celebration holiday?
*We repeat: FICAC and Police must get involved and Prasad MUST STEP ASIDE as Finance Minister.
SASHI KIRAN of NFP must also be questioned over the funds.

*There is something really rotten in the 'House of Global Girmit Centre'. On 22 February 2023, Rajni Chand and Ganesh Chand informed the Registrar of Titles that two trustees Anand Chand (USP) and Jagnath Sami appointed on 21 May 2017 had dropped out, and the two 'Chands' and Hirdesh Sharma were re-confirmed as the three GGI Trustees on 13 May 2023. Despite the muddle, the Registrar approved the application the next day, on 23 February 2023. What the hell is 13 May 2023?

Anand Chand

Sharma

Sami

2022 AUDIT REPORT MISSING. We argue that the Registrar should NOT have approved the re-registration despite the GGI being de-registered in February 2022. The four years audit reports (2018, 2019, 2020, 21) were certified by UMESH PRAKASH of G. Prasad & Associates with the customary qualifications. To avoid repetition, we have not included their signatures to the reports for 2019, 2020, and 2021. All four reports are signed by Prakash and counter-signed by Rajni and Ganesh Chand on the same day - 24 January 2023, and filed on 22 February 2023.

The GGI Financial Statements for 31 December 2018

The late Brij and Padma Lal (right) library at the GGI with $40,000 worth of donated books

Padma Lal donated $1,000

MYSTERIOUS DONOR 'SHAWKAT' DONATED $1,000.
Was 'Shawkat' A B M Shawkat Ali, Professor of Data Science at University of Fiji? Between September 2018 and February 2019, he was Data Science consultant at the Fiji National University. In 2018, Ganesh Chand is the principal donor, $7,592 (cash) and $1,000 in kind. HIRDESH SHARMA, along with Rattan Prakash donated $3,354 worth of furniture and fittings. Is Rattan Prakash, the same with Fiji Indian Association, New Zealand?

Rattan
Prakash

The GGI Financial Statements for 31 December 2019

Who is Ratu G Prasad?

The GGI Financial Statements for 31 December 2020

C. P. Dulare, the former VC, University of Fiji was one of the speakers

The GGI Financial Statements for 31 December 2021

SHAILENDRA SINGH, Head of Journalism at USP.
Recently, he blasted both the USP and the academics for their “genuine lack of interest” in the two-day international Global Girmit Conference.

“This is not the first conference at our doorstep with poor attendance. Attendance is not only a student problem but staff problem as well. Besides one or two glorified token appearances here and there, nothing much else. Apart from work commitment, there seems to be a general lack of genuine interest, which is a pity in terms of understanding the fabric of society that you are working in, and being paid to bring about improvements to.”

BONDED GIRMITIYAS and BOTANY BAY CONVICTS in AUSTRALIA. Fury erupts over USP Vice-Chancellor Ahluwalia's comparison of Girmitiyas contribution to modern Fiji with Botany Bay CONVICTS and CRIMINALS

19/5/2023

In his keynote speech to the Rajni Chand-Ganesh Chand Global Girmit Institute sponsored two-day international conference at USP, Ahluwalia had compared the Girmitiyas contribution to the development of modern Fiji with that of the Botany Bay Convicts and Criminals who, he claimed, laid the foundation for the development of modern day Australia.
'What a silly comparison and an insult to our Girmitiya forefathers', howl many to us after his full speech was uploaded to YouTube recently.
About 162,000 male and female prisoners (criminals, convicts, prostitutes etc) were rounded up in England and from other parts of the British Empire and sent to Botany Bay in Sydney, Australia, between 1788 and 1868.

FIJI HINDI FAUX PAS: In his keynote speech Ahluwalia also incorrectly claims that Fiji Hindi is the only surviving Girmit Hindustani.
It is NOT true as SARNAMI has done heaps more to protect itself including legislation. There were a few Surinam delegates who would have been annoyed. The other Girmit* Hindustani are dying or dead.
Ahluwalia is yet to answer a series of questions we have raised regarding USP academic Rajni Chand and her trusteeship of the Global Girmit Institute, and if USP benefitted financially from hosting the two day international conference where he was keynote SPEAKER.
Meanwhile, as FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry repeated his call for a criminal investigation into the GGI, GANESH CHAND has gone berserk on his Facebook page.

ONE OF THE FIVE GGI TRUSTEES: This Sami was one of the five trustees with Rajni, Ganesh, Hirdesh Sharma, and Anand Chand who formed the GGI in 2017. On 22 February 2023, the three Trustees, while re-registraring the GGI, informed the Registrar that 'Sami now resides in NZ for notable periods of time and has expressed a wish to withdraw from the trusteeship from 2023'.

RICHARD NAIDU on NFP's 2016 Suspension, 'Nothing in Political Parties Decree – or in other legislation – restricts NFP’s MPs from taking their seats in Parliament because of purported suspension of NFP under s.19'

18/5/2023

Indeed the Political Parties Decree affirms, in more extreme circumstances of suspension, the right of suspended party MPs to take their seats and

To deprive MPs of the right to take their Parliamentary seats would in any event deprive their constituents of their political rights, not a matter to be lightly undertaken.

Yours faithfully

MUNRO LEYS
Richard Naidu
Partner

GLOATING AT FFP'S SUSPENSION WHEN IN 2016 NFP WAS MOANING

From Fijileaks Archive, 4 February 2016

You have given notice to NFP to remedy its “breach” of the Decree under s.19(2). You have then purported to suspend NFP under s.19(3).

The power to suspend is exercised under s.19(3). That provision says that you may (emphasis added) suspend the registration of a political party to enable that political party to remedy the breach. In other words, it is a decision to be exercised in your discretion, to achieve a specified purpose. You do not have to suspend a political party.

As an accountable public officer, please explain:

(a) why you exercised your discretion to suspend NFP - clearly a decision to its detriment - without first giving it an opportunity to be heard on that decision, in accordance with the rules of natural justice

(b) why, given that the purpose of suspension is to enable [the] political party to remedy the breach, you thought that suspending NFP would achieve that. The power to suspend is not to punish.

It is to enable compliance. Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that you are right about the breach. NFP can remedy the breach just as easily when it is not suspended.
*So why did you suspend it? How would suspension “enable” NFP to remedy this particular breach?

The registrar has accepted the audited accounts produced by the party. The National Federation Party (NFP) will be back in Parliament when it sits next month. This is after the party’s suspension was lifted with immediate effect in an announcement yesterday. Registrar of Political Parties Mohammed Saneem confirmed that the audited accounts produced by NFP had been accepted. “The suspension has been lifted with immediate effect and the registrar has accepted the audited accounts produced by the National Federation Party.” “The NFP has also provided us a copy of public practice of the said auditor who audited the accounts,” he said. Mr Saneem also confirmed that the NFP had also been notified. “We will notify the general public that the suspension of the National Federation Party has been lifted.” NFP leader Biman Prasad immediately hung up when contacted by Fiji Sun for comments yesterday. The Fiji Sun, 19 February 2016.

The High Court has today ruled that the Supervisor of Elections and Registrar of Political Parties Mohammed Saneem was correct in suspending the National Federation Party last year.

While delivering his ruling on the appeal filed by NFP regarding the earlier suspension of the party High Court Judge Justice Lyone Seneviratne said that NFP’s appeal is dismissed and the appellants have been ordered to pay the Registrar of Parties $2,000 as costs of the appeal within 14 days from today.

The Registrar of Political Parties had suspended NFP from functioning as a political party under the powers conferred upon him by section 19 of the Political Parties Decree on the ground that the NFP had failed to comply with provisions that the auditor who certified that party’s accounts submitted by the NFP did not have a Certificate of Public Practice.

Justice Seneviratne stressed that it is a statutory requirement that every chartered accountant must hold a Certificate of Public Practice to enable him or her to offer services to the public.

He says that this is not a mere technical requirement but it is a statutory requirement.

The judge says that the decision of the Registrar of Political Parties that NFP was in breach of the Political Parties Decree is correct.

Justice Seneviratne says discretion is conferred upon the Registrar to suspend a party enabling it to remedy a breach.

He says that one may argue that the Registrar could have directed NFP to correct the error in accounts without suspending its operation. The judge agrees that the Registrar could have merely asked NFP to correct the error but since the Registrar has acted within the powers conferred upon him by the statute, the court cannot interfere with his decision.

National Federation Party v Supervisor of Elections [2017] FJHC 121; HBM38.2016 (16 February 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT SUVA APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Miscellaneous No. HBM 38 of 2016

In the matter of the Political Parties (regulation, Conduct, Funding and Disclosure)
Decree 2013
AND
In the matter of specific decisions of the Supervisor of Elections in his capacity as
Registrar under the Decree

BETWEEN

NATIONAL FEDERATION PARTY, a political party whose head office is at 124
Princes Road, Tamavua, Suva.

FIRST APPELLANT

AND

DALIP KUMAR of No. 39 Kula Street, Samabula, Suva, Operations Manager,
in his capacity as Registered Officer of the First Apellant.

SECOND APPELLANT

AND
BIMAN CHAND PRASAD of No. 152 Sekoula Road, Laucala Beach Estate,
Suva, Politician.

THIRD APPELLANT

AND

JAGNATH SAMI of No. 22 Chameli Street, DrasaVitogo, Lautoka, retired
Chief Executive Officer.

FOURTH APPELLANT

AND

THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS in his capacity as Registrar under the Decree,
of 59-63 High Street, Suva.

RESPONDENT

Counsel : Mr. J. Apted for the Appellants
Ms. S. Chand with Ms. Prasad for the Respondent

Date of Hearing : 21st November, 2016

Date of Judgment : 16th February, 2017
JUDGMENT

[1] The appellants filed this appeal challenging the legality of the following decisions of the respondent dated 01st February 2016;

(a) the finding that the 1st appellant was in breach of section 26(2) of the Political Parties (regulation, Conduct, Funding and Disclosure) Decree 2013 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Decree’].

(b) the decision to suspend the first appellant under section 19(3) of the decree.

(c) the decision that (in the notice dated 1stFebruary, 2016) during its suspension the first appellant cannot operate, function, represent or hold itself out to be a political party.[2] Section 26(2) of the decree provides as follows;

The accounts of every political party shall be audited annually by an auditor certified by the Fiji Institute of Accountants and shall be submitted to the Registrar within 3 months after the end of each financial year, who shall publish the accounts in the Gazette and in the media, and the costs of any such publication shall be paid by or recovered from the political party.

[3] The respondent suspended the 1st appellant from functioning as a political party under the powers conferred upon him by section 19 of the Decree on the ground that it has failed to comply with the above provisions [section 26(2)] in that the auditor who certified the accounts submitted by the 1st appellant did not have a Certificate of Public Practice.

[4] Section 19 of the Decree provides as follows;
(1) The Registrar may deregister a political party if the political party-
(a) has contravened the provisions of this Decree;
(b) does not promote free and fair nomination of candidates;
(c) does not adhere to any written law relating to the nomination of candidates;
(d) obtained its registration in a fraudulent manner; or
(e) has instigated or participated in the commission of an offence under this decree.(2) The Registrar shall, before deregistering a political party –
(a) Inform the political party, in writing, of the particulars of the breach or contravention;
(b) Inform the political party, in writing, of the intention to deregister the political party; and
(c) Direct the political party to remedy the breach or contravention within 60 days or otherwise show cause why the party should not be deregistered.(3) The Registrar may suspend the registration of a political party to enable that political party to remedy the breach specified in the notice issued by the Registrar under subsection(2).

(4) A political party that has been suspended under subsection (3) shall not be entitled to any of the rights and privileges specified under this decree.

(5) The Registrar shall deregister a political party which has not remedied the breach or contravention or complied with the Decree as required by the Registrar under subsection (2).

(6) The Registrar shall deregister a political party which has been declared to be a prohibited organisation under the provisions of any written law.

(7) The Registrar shall deregister a political party if the majority of the members of the political party apply to the Registrar for voluntary deregistration of the political party.

(8) If a political party is deregistered by the Registrar under this section, the Registrar shall publish a notice of the deregistration in the Gazette and in the media.

[5] Section 27(5) of the Decree provides:

(5) Where a political party commits an offence under this Decree, the Registrar shall have the power to –
(a) issue a warning and require the political party to conform to this Decree within a specified period; or
(b) suspend the registration of the political party for a period not exceeding 12 months.[6] The learned counsel for the appellants based their appeal on six grounds of appeal. However, there are two main grounds of appeal arising out of the arguments which I will now consider. They are;

Whether the respondent was correct in suspending the 1st appellant political party without first giving it an opportunity of being heard as required by the rules of natural justice?
Whether the respondent is correct in concluding that the auditor who certified the accounts of the 1st appellant should in law be a holder of a Certificate of Public Practice?

[7] Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) is one of the basic principles of Rules of Natural Justice. Before arriving at a finding affecting a person’s substantive rights in a judicial or quasi- judicial hearing, it is a fundamental principle that the party whose rights are at stake must be given a fair hearing.

[8] There are instances where the courts have relaxed this rule in certain administrative actions which are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial.

[9] For a long time the courts have, without objection from Parliament, supplemented procedure laid down in legislation where they have found that to be necessary for this purpose. But before this unusual kind of power is exercised it must be clear that the statutory procedure is insufficient to achieve justice and that to require additional steps would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the legislation. (Wiseman v. Broadman [1971] AC 297).

[10] In Particular it is well-established when a statute has conferred on anybody the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the courts will not only require the procedure prescribed by the statute to be followed, but readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural safeguards as will ensure the attainment of fairness. (Lloyd v. McMahon [1987] UKHL 5; [1987] AC 625 at 702).

[11] It is clear from the provisions of section 19(3) of the Decree that the purpose of suspending a political party from registration is to enable such party to remedy the breach specified in the notice.

[12] In enacting these provisions the legislature has not disregarded the common law principles of natural justice. Section 19(3) of the Decree does not deal with the substantive rights of the appellants. It gives power to the Registrar to suspend it while making provisions to hear the political party before deregistering it. The procedure to be adopted in deregistering a party, which affects the substantive rights of the party and its members, is clearly laid down in the decree which requires the Registrar to inform the relevant party, give them an opportunity to remedy the breach or to show cause why the party should not be deregistered. Since the appellant has acted within the scope of the legislation it cannot be said that his decision to suspend the 1st respondent temporarily is in violation of the rules of natural justice.

[13] Section 22 of the Fiji Institute of Accountants Act (Cap 259) provides as follows;

No member of the Institute shall have the right to offer his services to the public under the designation of "chartered accountant", unless he is the holder of a certificate of public practice issued in accordance with rules made under the provisions of this Act.

[14] The learned counsel for the appellants brought to the attention of the court certain provisions of other legislations where it is specifically stated that auditors or chartered accountants must be holders of Certificate of Public Practice to act as an auditor and submitted that since there is no such requirement in the Decree the accountant who certified the accounts did not require the Certificate of Public Practice to certify the accounts of the 1st appellant and the respondent was wrong in suspending the party on that ground.

[15] The requirement to have a Certificate of Public Practice to offer services to the public is not a mere rule or regulation to manage internal affairs of the Fiji Institute of Accountants. These regulations have been made under and in terms of a statute of the Parliament. Therefore, it is an imperative statutory requirement that every chartered accountant must hold a Certificate of Public Practice to enable him or her to offer services to the public. For the mere fact that section 26(2) of the Decree does not contain such a requirement, the provisions of section 22 of the Fiji Institute of Accountants do not become redundant. Therefore, the decision of the respondent that the 1st appellant was in breach of section 26(2) of the Political Parties (regulation, Conduct, Funding and Disclosure) Decree 2013 is correct.

[16] Discretion is conferred upon the Registrar to suspend a political party enabling it to remedy a breach. In the instant case the Registrar exercising the discretionary power conferred upon him by the statute decided to suspend the 1st respondent party temporarily.

[17] The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence that the 1st appellant political party had knowledge that the accountants who certified the accounts did not meet any professional requirement. Whether the 1st appellant was aware that the accountants who certified its accounts did not possess a Certificate of Public Practice is within the exclusive knowledge of the appellants. On the other hand as I have already stated it is not a mere technical requirement to have a Certificate of Public Practice to offer services to the public. It is a statutory requirement. Whether it is technical or otherwise the 1st appellant is bound to comply with the statutory requirements. When the accounts of the 1st appellant is certified by an accountant who does not possess the qualification required by law such accounts cannot be said to be in conformity with the imperative requirements of the law. The appellants should have inquired whether the accountants, who certified their accounts, possessed a Certificate of Public Practice before obtaining their services.

[18] One might argue that the registrar could have directed the 1st appellant to correct the error in the accounts without suspending its operation. I agree that he could have merely asked the 1st respondent to correct the error but since the respondent has acted within the powers conferred upon him by the statute (intra vires) the court has cannot interfere with his decision.

[19] The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent in deciding to suspend the 1st appellant and to declare that it was not entitled to any rights and privileges of a political party breached the constitutional rights of the 2nd to 3rd appellants guaranteed by sections 17 (freedom of expression), section 18 (freedom of assembly), section 19 (freedom of association) and section 23 (political rights) and 3rd appellants rights under section 23(3)(d) of the Constitution which is “to hold office, if elected”.

[20] The respondent suspended the 1st appellant party in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statute. It cannot be said that such a decision has the effect of depriving the members of that political party of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Every citizen is entitled to enjoy the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, political rights and to hold office if elected subject to the laws of the country. The Constitution does not confer freedom upon any citizen to violate the law of the land in the guise of exercising constitutional rights. Therefore, the allegation that the respondent violated the constitutional rights of the 2nd to 4th appellants is without merit.

[20] The last paragraph of the letter sent by the respondent on 01st February, 2016 informing the 1st appellant its suspension from operating as a political party, reads as follows;

Please take notice that in accordance with section 19(4) of the Decree, a political party that has been suspended under section 19(3) shall not be entitled to any of the rights and privileges specified under the decree. Given the above, NFP is not entitled to any of the rights and privileges as a political party during the period of suspension.

[21] In this letter there is nothing to say that the 1st appellant cannot operate, function, represent or hold itself out to be a political party. What is contained in this paragraph is not a decision of the respondent but a mere reproduction of section 19(4) of the Decree. It does not contain any finding of the respondent. However, in the notice sent by the respondent on 01st February, 2016 it is stated that a political party that has been suspended under section 19(3) cannot operate, function, represent or hold itself out to be a political party. Once a political party is suspended there is no such political party in existence before the law during the period of suspension and therefore it cannot operate as a political party whether the respondent states so in his notice or not. In the circumstances I see no error in the letter and the notice sent on 01st February, 2016 by the respondent to the 1st appellant.

[22] For the reasons given above I hold that there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants. Accordingly, I make the following orders;

The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.
The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent $2000.00 as costs of this appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of this judgment.

Lyone Seneviratne
JUDGE
16th February, 2017.

BALANCE THE BOOKS: Sorry, the remedy lies for the FFP to sort out its financial mess as required by Aiyaz Khaiyum's own Political Parties Act. We had decided to hold onto his long rambling letter to Election CHAIR

18/5/2023

Fijileaks: A Copy of Khaiyum's letter was sent to us via VIBER message. He should take it on the chin and sort out the FFP financial mess. Strange, he is reading the law on PPAct when he had failed miserly to interpret the law on membership of the COC that led to him being barred from Parliament.

Acting Supervisor of Elections Ana Mataiciwa says she is doing her job according to the law after deciding that the FijiFirst Party, New Generation Party, We Unite Fiji Party and All People’s Party be suspended for 30 days for contravening Section 26(2) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding & Disclosures) Act.

The Chair of the Electoral Commission, Mukesh Nand confirms he has received a letter from the FijiFirst (In Suspension) General Secretary, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum asking the commission to review the party’s suspension by Acting Supervisor of Elections, Ana Mataiciwa. Nand says the commission will meet later to discuss this however the date of the meeting cannot be confirmed.

*The office of the Speaker of Parliament says in light of the suspension of the registration of the FijiFirst Party, all 24 MPs are not entitled to take part in the proceedings of Parliament or any committee of Parliament for the duration of the suspension of the registration of the FijiFirst Party. This follows the correspondence received from the Acting Registrar of Political Parties informing the Parliamentary Secretariat that the FijiFirst Party has been suspended with immediate effect from Wednesday, 17th May 2023. All 24 MPs of the FijiFirst Party cannot be entitled to any pay from Parliament for the duration of the suspension. This also means that all 24 MPs are precluded from participating in all related activities such as representing Parliament in meetings, workshops, seminars, conferences, assemblies, and so forth, for the period of suspension until the suspension of the registration is lifted. (Source: FijiVillage News)

From Fijileaks Archives

BORDERING ON CONSPIRACY: As acting Police Commissioner CHEW says Ratu Ului is 'Person of Interest', finger is pointing to Rabuka's anti-LAU faction who want to scupper Mara's installation as the TUI NAYAU

17/5/2023

The question that acting Police Commissioner Juki Fong Chew and Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration PIO TIKODUADUA must answer is why Ratu Ului was allowed to enter Fiji on 4 April and 8 April, and was allowed to leave the country for Tonga, if an order had been issued against Ratu Ului Mara on 15 March 2023?

As we know, there is on-going friction between Rabuka and the Mara clan who have accused the 1987 Coupist Rabuka of sullying the character of the late President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara by accusing him of being the instigator behind the 1987 COUPS.
As to the 15 March 2023 letter published by GRUBSHEET, which claims that Ratu Ului is still a wanted man in Fiji, or at least he was when the Director of the CID, Loraini Seru, issued the border alert letter, the question that acting Police Commissioner Juki Fong Chew and Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration PIO TIKODUADUA must answer is why Ratu Ului was allowed to enter Fiji on 4 April and 8 April, and was allowed to leave the country for Tonga.
* Ratu Ului's first trip home was on the strength of the letter from Department of Immigration that he perceived as the green light followed by the Nolle Prosequi letter which Ratu Ului's lawyer secured a copy from suspended DDP Christopher Pryde himself.
As for PITA DRITI's conviction, we must bear in mind that the regime judge PAUL MADIGAN had overturned the NOT GUILTY VERDICT of the three ASSESSORS and had jailed Driti for FIVE YEARS.
Brigadier-General Aziz Mohammed was the initiator of the plot to remove Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and Frank Bainimarama but was NOT charged.
Coupists Rabuka and Bainimarama are hiding behind the IMMUNITY that Rabuka obtained for himself and future TREASONISTS in 1987.
*Pity, the PLOT to remove the Bainimarama-Khaiyum DICTATORSHIP had failed, for they went on to oppress Fijians of all races for 16 YEARS.

Source: Grubsheet

From Fijilelaks Archive, 14 February 2022

<<Previous

Forward>>