Stroke of Fate, Stroke of Strategy? Critics want accountability. Lawyers want certainty. Court must choose Patient, NOT the Politician. Richard Naidu legally correct on Police overreach in visiting Khaiyum in hospital

*If the prosecution disputes the medical evidence provided by the defence, the correct approach is: 
​To seek an independent medical opinion or Request the court to order a court-appointed medical assessment.

Aiyaz Khaiyum’s controversial past may be on trial, but his stroke isn’t.

​My encounter with Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum began in the aftermath of the 1987 Sitiveni Rabuka coups, during a time when many young dissidents, including Richard Naidu -and ourselves - were searching for a solution - to peacefully or violently - end Rabuka and his racist i-Taukei thugs reign of terror, violence, looting, beatings, and rape in Fiji. 

---

Over the years, my path intersected professionally and politically with Khaiyum, but we ultimately parted company after the 2006 Bainimarama coup, which he not only supported but came to architect and defend through law and rhetoric.

Since that time, Khaiyum has hounded me at every turn—using state machinery, legal threats, and political pressure—because of my efforts through Fijileaks to hold him and others in power to account. I have become one of his fiercest and most consistent critics, exposing what I believe to be abuses of office, breaches of public trust, and the erosion of democratic institutions under his legal stewardship.

Yet principles must endure even when tested by those who once defied them. If Aiyaz Khaiyum has truly suffered a life-threatening stroke and cardiac arrest, then the question of whether he should be allowed to travel overseas for urgent medical treatment is no longer a political matter—it is a legal and humanitarian one. The courts of Fiji must judge his present medical condition, not his past abuses of power. Justice demands consistency, and if due process is to mean anything, then it must apply even to those who once denied it to others.

We refuse to sink to the low level that the 1987 coupist and once again Prime Minister and Methodist lay preacher Sitiveni Rabuka sank to when he heard that the democratically elected Prime Minister he had deposed in 1987 - Dr Timoci Bavadra - had succumbed to cancer. He felt good that his enemy had gone. His coup was 'right'.

REMORSELESS RABUKA ON BAVADRA'S DEATH: 
​
​'On 3 November [1989] Dr Bavadra died after a long battle with cancer. Rabuka's reaction, he recalls, was to FEEL GOOD that his enemy was gone, for a major obstacle had been removed by his death. Bavadra's death confirmed for Rabuka the rightness of his action in May 1987' -
John Sharpham, Rabuka of Fiji, The authorised biography of
Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka

Selective Scrutiny: The Double Standard in Investigating Medical Absences

SODELPA MP Adi Litia Qionibaravi’s lawyer told the Suva High Court in 2022 that she was unfit to attend proceedings due to having suffered a stroke. The court ordered that a certified medical certificate be filed to substantiate her condition.

Yet this court process proceeded with little drama, no police visits to verify her medical condition, and no prosecutors rushing to the hospital. Contrast that with the treatment of former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum: when he claimed medical incapacity during a pending matter, officers from the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), on the instructions from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), saw fit to show up at the hospital to check on him personally.

Why the double standard?

Both Adi Litia and Khaiyum are high-profile figures. Both cited serious health issues. But only one was subjected to invasive and public verification by enforcement agencies. 

Adi Litia was alleged to have falsely stated that her permanent place of residence was in Ucunivanua, Verata, Tailevu and allegedly obtained $15,480 in parliamentary allowances between August 2019 and April 2020. She was charged with one count each of false information to public servant and obtaining financial advantage.

---

FICAC told the Fiji High Court the nolle prosequi was being filed because of Adi Litia’s medical condition - she had suffered acute stroke.

• ​Richard Naidu is largely correct in his statement, both legally and ethically. 
  

 
1. Police Are Not Medical Experts

Police officers are not medically trained to assess, verify, or interpret a patient’s medical condition. Any assessment they attempt would be:

---

• Legally unreliable,
• Ethically problematic,
• Potentially a violation of patient privacy or medical confidentiality.

​
Legal principle: Medical evidence must come from a qualified health professional, typically through a formal medical report or affidavit.

2. Defence Can Rely on Medical Evidence

If a defendant seeks to vary bail due to medical issues (e.g. illness, hospitalisation), they must provide certified medical documentation. That satisfies the evidentiary burden from the defence.

3. Prosecution Must Respond With Its Own Expert Evidence

If the prosecution disputes the medical evidence provided by the defence, the correct approach is:

• To seek an independent medical opinion or
• Request the court to order a court-appointed medical assessment.

Incorrect approach: Sending police to the hospital to “check” on a patient’s condition informally. This has no probative value and can amount to harassment or interference with patient care.
 
4. Constitutional and Human Rights Implications

There are also possible breaches of:

• The right to privacy (e.g. if police request or access medical records without consent),
• The right to liberty and security of the person (if improper evidence is used to deny bail).

Conclusion
​
Naidu’s argument is sound. If the prosecution wishes to rebut medical evidence submitted by the defence, it must do so through proper legal and medical channels—not by relying on informal, extralegal “checks” by police officers. Doing otherwise undermines due process and the integrity of medical confidentiality.

Shailendra Gopal Raju’s View (Politically Motivated & Legally Flawed):

• Raju frames police actions as “just doing their job” to help DPP oppose bail variation.
• He assumes police can or should “check if Khaiyum was physically incapable”- but this is not their role.
• Even if intentions are legitimate (i.e. to prepare for court), methods must be lawful and procedurally fair.
• He sidesteps legal boundaries around medical confidentiality and due process.
• His argument lacks an understanding of the rules of admissible medical evidence.​

Raju’s language (“only doing their job”, “let the DPP do what is needed”) shows a presumption that Aiyaz Khaiyum is abusing the system—suggesting his view is shaped more by animus than legal principle.

Bottom Line:

• Richard Naidu is right: medical evidence must come from professionals, not the police.
• Shailendra Raju’s justification ignores the legal and ethical constraints on police conduct in a medical context.
• The DPP’s job is not to rely on police impressions but to obtain formal, admissible evidence to challenge or test a bail variation.​

Surah Al-Anbiya (21:107)
“Keitou sega ni talai iko (o Muhamedi) me dua na ka tale, ia mo dua na loloma vei ira na vuravura taucoko.”