*Basically, the three Supreme Court judges (having taken Judicial Oath and presiding under the 2013 Constitution of Fiji) have been tasked to rule whether the Fiji Court of Appeal judge Alipate Qetaki and acting DPP John Rabuku's respective appointments are legal or breach S105(2)(b) of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji.
*If they rule that the two were not eligible for appointment, then by implication, it follows that Filimoni Vosarogo found guilty not once but three times for professional misconduct, cannot be appointed the Attorney-General of Fiji.
Fijileaks: We are of the firm opinion that lawyers found guilty by the Independent Legal Services Commission do not qualify to take up judicial positions.
*We cannot cherry-pick one case from another by arguing that Qetaki and Rabuku's cases were less severe than, for example, Suresh Chandra's, who was found guilty last year and struck off from the roll of the practitioner's held by the Chief Registrar
*Also, arguing that a breach is not the same as guilty is ridiculous.
It is like calling a Rose by Another Name.
*As for Aiyaz Khaiyum and Mohammed Saneem, their bid to be intervenors makes a mockery of the legal process. Saneem never qualified to be the Supervisor of Elections under the law, and Khaiyum had inteferred in Suresh Chandra's position as Chair, Electoral Commission.
*Unfortunately, Fiji has been deprived of hearing from Khaiyum, on the identity (identities) of those who drafted the 2013 Constitution of Fiji.
 |  |
 |  |
From Fijileaks Archives
Fijileaks: We wonder why the Solicitor-General Ropate Green had to hire a private law firm lawyer (Feizal Haniff of Haniff Tuitoga, and formerly with Munro Leys) to represent the S-G?
BOOT OUT: We find it alarming that the two above Judges remind us how the United States Constitution came into existence and yet have no qualms about sitting in the Supreme Court to interpret a section of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji
*The Respondent (John Rabuku) faces one allegation of Professional Misconduct, contrary to section 83(1)(g) of the Legal Practitioners' Decree 2009. The particulars of the allegation are stated to be that:
"Mr. John Rabuku, a legal practitioner, failed to respond to a complaint lodged by one Janette Kapio within the time stipulated in the notice issued by the Chief Registrar pursuant to section 105 of the Legal Practitioners' Decree and thereafter failed to respond to a subsequent reminder notice issued by the Chief Registrar pursuant to section 108(1) of the Legal Practitioners' Decree which conduct was a contravention of Section 108(2) of the Legal Practitioners' Decree 2009 and was an act of professional misconduct."
ILSC ruling on JOHN RABUKU, 30 July 2013*With that background of the severity of the offending and the calling into question the suitability of a member of the profession ignoring both legislative stipulations and a request from the Regulatory Head of the Profession, a great deal of anxious thought was given to this Respondent's dereliction of duty and its consequences. |  |
*He appeared before the Commission displaying a complete lack of remorse and quite arrogantly sought to shift blame for his non compliance on to the nefariousness of his client.
*Utter disdain for one's client, no matter what be the reason, does not absolve a practitioner from failing to answer the Chief Registrar's enquiries in respect of that client.
*The Commission regards this practitioner's failure to respond as very serious indeed and having found the allegation established on the practitioner's own admission, would make the following orders by way of penalty.
ORDERS
*The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.
*That the Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of three months from the date of this judgment.
*The Respondent is fined the sum of $500 to be paid to the Independent Legal Services Commission, such fine to be paid by 30th of August, 2013 and failure to pay by that date will result in a further two months' suspension of his practising certificate.
30 JULY 2013
JUSTICE PAUL MADIGAN
COMMISSIONER
