Fijileaks: With appointing power vested in the acting DPP, comes responsibility and common sense, which seems to have deserted Tikoisuva. Or is she indulging in some Yellow Ribbon program in appointing Rabuku who has a conviction and a fine against him as a LAWYER? |  |
In the Matter of a reference by Cabinet for an opinion from the Supreme Court concerning the interpretation and application of Sections 105(2) (b), 114(2), 116(4) and 117(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji [2024] FJSC 20; Miscellaneous Action 0001 of 2024:
"Mr John Rabuku is not qualified to hold the office of Director of Public Prosecutions because he is not qualified to be a judge, as required by section 117(2) of the Constitution. He is not eligible for judicial appointment by virtue of the disciplinary proceeding disqualification in section 105(2)(b) because he was sanctioned for professional misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding." |  |
The Italian Job? John Rabuku had not defended his appointment as acting DPP or his sanction for professional misconduct before the three Supreme Court judges, raising the troubling question whether there was a plan in place for Nancy Tikoisuva to appoint him as Deputy DPP?
CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY!
*We may recall that Graham Leung had returned to Fiji from the Cook Islands and was suddenly singing Sitiiveni Rabuka's praise, and is now the Attorney-General of Fiji. GOD HELP FIJI
*BLOODY 2000 MUTINY: It was just a pimple on the backside of Fiji's inglorious coup history. Come on, FORGET it, for it happened 22 Years ago. Maybe, Suva lawyer GRAHAM LEUNG should donate the $130,000 in fees that he received to flood victims. We may recall that the former Fiji Law Society president Leung was the Judge Advocate of the Court Martial panel that had tried the 20 soldiers convicted of mutiny in relation to the Speight coup of 2000.
*The Suva lawyer had been commissioned as an Army officer, with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Before Leung’s appointment a row had broken out between Bainimarama and the Minister for Defence Josefa Vosanibola over the payment fees of $130,000 to Leung, with Bainimarama arguing that the payment to Leung was being made from the Army budget (still to be audited) and that the Ministry of Home Affairs had no say in the payment.
They have debased our young democracy. Mr Rabuka’s day or reckoning will come, if not in this life, then in the next.
He will carry this heavy burden forever.
Love him or hate him, Mr Rabuka is an integral part of the Fiji story.
I truly believe that the Rabuka who was responsible for 1987 is a changed man. He has apologized for his role in those events.
He was forgiven by the leader of the NFP the then leader of the largest Indian party, Jai Ram Reddy and together they worked to produce the 1997 Constitution which led to equality of Fiji’s races and the formation of a genuine multiracial cabinet.
Mr Reddy was a victim of the 1987 coup but he set aside his personal hurt and feelings in the wider national interest. This act of statesmanship destroyed his political career.
If Mr Reddy was able to collaborate with Mr Rabuka, that is good enough for me.
In February 1990, the then president of South Africa, FW de Klerk, took the fateful decision to release Nelson Mandela who later became President.
Mandela was later to form a political partnership with his arch enemy although their political views were diametrically opposed at one stage.
What President Mandela has taught the world is that it is possible to forgive one’s political enemies and work together for the common good.
Fiji has had 14 years of one party rule.
The record of government during that period has been dismal – unprecedented levels of poverty, decrepit infrastructure as evidenced by frequent water cuts and power outages, diminution of human rights, extraordinarily high levels of external debt and mismanagement at all levels.
Democracy needs to be refreshed and reinvigorated from time to time.
Any government that is in power for too long tends to become arrogant, complacent and authoritarian. They stop listening to the people.
The coming elections this year provides voters a chance to have more of the same, or the choice of a new government that has the ability to take Fiji out of the wilderness.
None of the parties or their leaders are perfect. All of them have weaknesses, just as they have strengths.
None of us are perfect. That is the nature of being human.
The electoral system in the Fiji Constitution is skewed and unfair.
A political party or candidate cannot qualify for a seat in Parliament unless they win at least 5% of the votes cast.
That is a very high bar and which many candidates and small parties will be unable to reach.
Some other opposition leaders have outstanding records, but regrettably the electoral system places them in a disadvantageous situation.
Reviewing the current political landscape, I believe Mr Sitiveni Rabuka is the leader who will best be able to take Fiji forward and bring the changes that Fiji needs at this time.
He is humble and compassionate.
He is a leader that listens.
He has learnt from his past mistakes.
He has the experience of being a former head of government.
I trust him.
The founders of Mr Rabuka’s party give me confidence that if they win a majority of seats in the general elections, Fiji will have a government that is kinder, gentler and more inclusive.
He will carry this heavy burden forever.
Love him or hate him, Mr Rabuka is an integral part of the Fiji story.
I truly believe that the Rabuka who was responsible for 1987 is a changed man. He has apologized for his role in those events.
He was forgiven by the leader of the NFP the then leader of the largest Indian party, Jai Ram Reddy and together they worked to produce the 1997 Constitution which led to equality of Fiji’s races and the formation of a genuine multiracial cabinet.
Mr Reddy was a victim of the 1987 coup but he set aside his personal hurt and feelings in the wider national interest. This act of statesmanship destroyed his political career.
If Mr Reddy was able to collaborate with Mr Rabuka, that is good enough for me.
In February 1990, the then president of South Africa, FW de Klerk, took the fateful decision to release Nelson Mandela who later became President.
Mandela was later to form a political partnership with his arch enemy although their political views were diametrically opposed at one stage.
What President Mandela has taught the world is that it is possible to forgive one’s political enemies and work together for the common good.
Fiji has had 14 years of one party rule.
The record of government during that period has been dismal – unprecedented levels of poverty, decrepit infrastructure as evidenced by frequent water cuts and power outages, diminution of human rights, extraordinarily high levels of external debt and mismanagement at all levels.
Democracy needs to be refreshed and reinvigorated from time to time.
Any government that is in power for too long tends to become arrogant, complacent and authoritarian. They stop listening to the people.
The coming elections this year provides voters a chance to have more of the same, or the choice of a new government that has the ability to take Fiji out of the wilderness.
None of the parties or their leaders are perfect. All of them have weaknesses, just as they have strengths.
None of us are perfect. That is the nature of being human.
The electoral system in the Fiji Constitution is skewed and unfair.
A political party or candidate cannot qualify for a seat in Parliament unless they win at least 5% of the votes cast.
That is a very high bar and which many candidates and small parties will be unable to reach.
Some other opposition leaders have outstanding records, but regrettably the electoral system places them in a disadvantageous situation.
Reviewing the current political landscape, I believe Mr Sitiveni Rabuka is the leader who will best be able to take Fiji forward and bring the changes that Fiji needs at this time.
He is humble and compassionate.
He is a leader that listens.
He has learnt from his past mistakes.
He has the experience of being a former head of government.
I trust him.
The founders of Mr Rabuka’s party give me confidence that if they win a majority of seats in the general elections, Fiji will have a government that is kinder, gentler and more inclusive.
Fijileaks: Jai Ram Reddy might have destroyed his political career (he was rejected at the poll) but he returned to his successful legal career, becoming President of the Fiji Court of Appeal, and later a Judge on the International Tribunal on Rwanda. Instead of holding Rabuka to account for crimes against humanity, he was sending Rwandans to prison.
*As for Mandela and d'Klerk, they went on to carve lucrative political careers, one becoming President and the other his Vice-President. That is what Reddy had hoped for in 1999, to serve as Rabuka's deputy, informing us that Fiji was NOT ready for an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister. It seems NFP's Biman Prasad is replaying the same music in 2022.
*Reddy, Rabuka, Mandela and d'Klerk's were no Mahatma Gandhi, who died penniless and without power or property. Like Mandela, d'Klerk and Reddy, Gandhi was a lawyer. Where is Jai Ram Reddy? Sitiveni Rabuka is a wolf in a fake Tapa Cloth, remote controlled by his handlers until the election is over.
“We went through the process when we advertised the position and we got applicants,” she said. “There was a very small group of applicants, and we followed that due process and the recommendation has come to have him back to the office.” | HAPPY TO BE BACK. RABUKU AND TIKOISUVA OUTSIDE DPP OFFICE IN SUVA |
From Fijileaks Archive, 25 November 2021
Purpose of disciplinary proceedings and sanctions
Commissioner Justice Kulatunga said the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against SURESH CHANDRA was to protect the public interest and that the Commission acted in the public interest
Former Fijian Electoral Commission chairperson and lawyer Suresh Chandra has been fined $500,000.
Mr Chandra was found guilty of six counts of professional misconduct by the Independent Legal Services Commission for failing to reconcile funds totaling $2.139 million. ILSC Commissioner Justice Gihan Kulatunga found Chandra liable for five out of the six professional misconduct charges.
He was a partner of MC Lawyers and the trustee of the MC Lawyers Trust Account no. 9101000000175 kept at Bank of Baroda, Suva branch.
Between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2019, Chandra, being the principal of the law firm MC Lawyers and the Trustee of MC Lawyers trust account, failed to ensure that trust monies kept in MC Lawyers trust account were not used for unauthorized purposes and failed to properly supervise and monitor all transactions made from MC Lawyers trust account and by reason of such failure the said trust account had an unreconciled amount of $2 million. He failed to properly supervise and monitor all transactions made from MC Lawyers trust account and by reason of such failure the said trust account had an unreconciled amount of $2.139 million, failed to maintain and/or keep proper accounting records and authorized withdrawals from MC Lawyers trust account by signing on 25 incomplete drawn cheques, which resulted in unauthorized withdrawals to be made from the said trust account.
Justice Kulatunga said it was proved that Chandra had acted in violation of Section 82 (1)(b) of Legal Practitioners Act in respect of the Trust Account of MC Lawyers kept at Bank of Baroda.
He said the Commission found that Chandra committed professional misconduct arising from his failure to supervise the Trust Account and signing incomplete cheques which caused an unreconciled amount of $2.139 million of client trust funds inter alia due to unauthorized withdrawals.
Purpose of disciplinary proceedings and sanctions
Commissioner Justice Kulatunga said the purpose of disciplinary proceedings was to protect the public interest and that the Commission acted in the public interest
Mitigation
In mitigation, Chandra submitted that he was 69 years old and was admitted in Fiji as a practitioner on March 31, 1992.
He had joined civil service on December 29, 1973 and held office inter alia as Registrar of Titles, senior legal officer at the AttorneyGeneral’s chambers, chairperson reform of Registrar of Titles office, chairperson of Electoral Boundaries Commission, chairperson of Electoral Commission.
Commissioner’s remarks
Justice Kulatunga said Chandra had clearly acted in violation of his basic obligation as a solicitor. He said the maintaining with due diligence the funds of the clients held in the trust account was a primary
obligation of a practitioner and was the trustee of the said funds.
He said Chandra’s misconduct included the failure to properly supervise his staff and amongst other things, providing a large number of signed incomplete trust cheques to the employee.
The Commission noted that Chandra claimed to have reimbursed the sum of $468,768.27 and according to his submission and documents; it appeared that a sum of $70,000 was recovered from the previous employee and the said balance was lying to the credit of the trust account which Chandra claimed he would forego.
Orders of the Commission:
■The name of Chandra is struck from the roll of the practitioner’s held by the Chief Registrar.
■ It is directed that the law firm MC Lawyers ceased to operate as or engage in legal practice with immediate effect.
■Chandra pay a fine in the sum of $500,000 to the Chief Registrar. If and when such a fine is paid, the Chief Registrar is hereby directed and ordered to pay the said sum to the credit of the Trust Account of MC Lawyers or to otherwise utilize the said sum to meet and settle the sums due to the clients of MC Lawyers.
■ Pursuant to Section 124 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2009, the costs payable by Chandra towards the reasonable costs incurred by Chief Registrar is summarily assessed in the sum of $2000.
Mr Chandra was found guilty of six counts of professional misconduct by the Independent Legal Services Commission for failing to reconcile funds totaling $2.139 million. ILSC Commissioner Justice Gihan Kulatunga found Chandra liable for five out of the six professional misconduct charges.
He was a partner of MC Lawyers and the trustee of the MC Lawyers Trust Account no. 9101000000175 kept at Bank of Baroda, Suva branch.
Between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2019, Chandra, being the principal of the law firm MC Lawyers and the Trustee of MC Lawyers trust account, failed to ensure that trust monies kept in MC Lawyers trust account were not used for unauthorized purposes and failed to properly supervise and monitor all transactions made from MC Lawyers trust account and by reason of such failure the said trust account had an unreconciled amount of $2 million. He failed to properly supervise and monitor all transactions made from MC Lawyers trust account and by reason of such failure the said trust account had an unreconciled amount of $2.139 million, failed to maintain and/or keep proper accounting records and authorized withdrawals from MC Lawyers trust account by signing on 25 incomplete drawn cheques, which resulted in unauthorized withdrawals to be made from the said trust account.
Justice Kulatunga said it was proved that Chandra had acted in violation of Section 82 (1)(b) of Legal Practitioners Act in respect of the Trust Account of MC Lawyers kept at Bank of Baroda.
He said the Commission found that Chandra committed professional misconduct arising from his failure to supervise the Trust Account and signing incomplete cheques which caused an unreconciled amount of $2.139 million of client trust funds inter alia due to unauthorized withdrawals.
Purpose of disciplinary proceedings and sanctions
Commissioner Justice Kulatunga said the purpose of disciplinary proceedings was to protect the public interest and that the Commission acted in the public interest
Mitigation
In mitigation, Chandra submitted that he was 69 years old and was admitted in Fiji as a practitioner on March 31, 1992.
He had joined civil service on December 29, 1973 and held office inter alia as Registrar of Titles, senior legal officer at the AttorneyGeneral’s chambers, chairperson reform of Registrar of Titles office, chairperson of Electoral Boundaries Commission, chairperson of Electoral Commission.
Commissioner’s remarks
Justice Kulatunga said Chandra had clearly acted in violation of his basic obligation as a solicitor. He said the maintaining with due diligence the funds of the clients held in the trust account was a primary
obligation of a practitioner and was the trustee of the said funds.
He said Chandra’s misconduct included the failure to properly supervise his staff and amongst other things, providing a large number of signed incomplete trust cheques to the employee.
The Commission noted that Chandra claimed to have reimbursed the sum of $468,768.27 and according to his submission and documents; it appeared that a sum of $70,000 was recovered from the previous employee and the said balance was lying to the credit of the trust account which Chandra claimed he would forego.
Orders of the Commission:
■The name of Chandra is struck from the roll of the practitioner’s held by the Chief Registrar.
■ It is directed that the law firm MC Lawyers ceased to operate as or engage in legal practice with immediate effect.
■Chandra pay a fine in the sum of $500,000 to the Chief Registrar. If and when such a fine is paid, the Chief Registrar is hereby directed and ordered to pay the said sum to the credit of the Trust Account of MC Lawyers or to otherwise utilize the said sum to meet and settle the sums due to the clients of MC Lawyers.
■ Pursuant to Section 124 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2009, the costs payable by Chandra towards the reasonable costs incurred by Chief Registrar is summarily assessed in the sum of $2000.
