The expelled NZ High Commissioner, late Michael Green, cites “Muslim Coup” aspect of 2006 in his forthcoming personal memoir - names sisters Nazhat and Shaista, and Aiyaz Khaiyum; the memoir also claims intimidation and thuggery in Fiji

23/6/2013

A TOP New Zealand diplomat who died last year has left behind a sharply undiplomatic book revealing how Fiji’s military strongman personally threatened “to get him” and describes the regime as one characterised by intimidation and thuggery. Michael Green in 2009 became the first New Zealand diplomat to be declared persona non grata when coup leader Voreqe Bainimarama ordered him out as high commissioner.
The book titled Persona Non Grata: Breaking the Bond – New Zealand and Fiji 2004-2007, will be launched on June 27 at the Victoria University in New Zealand.
According to the website www.cid.org.nz, the Speaker at the event would be Rt. Hon. Winston Peters. Green, who died last year of cancer, writes of the secret advice he was giving Wellington during the 2006 democracy ending military coup. His tough worded criticism of Bainimarama’s “volatile personality” is likely to anger Suva again.
Fiji is “characterised by intimidation and thuggery, arbitrary and vindictive dismissals, abandonment of principles and personal betrayals, official misinformation and media censorship, and the deliberate perversion of state institutions.” Green, watching the conspiring leading to Fiji’s fourth coup, lived next door to Bainimarama. As the crisis deepened, they quietly had New Zealand Police posted to Suva to prepare for “the possibility that an evacuation of citizens.” When police put a radio aerial on the roof of the residence, Bainimarama complained they were spying on him.
By November 2006 Green heard from credible sources that the Fiji Police were planning to arrest Bainimarama for sedition and disobeying lawful orders. Bainimarama instead made a series of demands and threatened a coup.He went to New Zealand on a private visit for the first communion of a grand child but “got it into his head” that New Zealand would arrest him. “He phoned (Defence Attache) Al MacKinnon to him that that, if he should be arrested, his ‘boys’ would be sent over the fence into the Residence to ‘get me’.”The threats were taken seriously and mission families were sent home. Then Foreign Minister Winston Peters told Bainimarama would not be arrested in Wellington. Green said the commander was never interested in negotiations, and pocketed every concession with no reciprocity.
After the coup took place, New Zealand imposed a ban on all regime officials visiting. Bainimarama rang up a high commission official and said “tell your high commissioner to watch out for retaliation.” Green cites a “Muslim Coup” aspect of 2006 in which Nazhat Shameem, a high court judge, and her sister Shaista of the Fiji Human Rights Commission, advised Bainimarama’s secretive military council. Shaista is now a Grey Lynn lawyer. Another Muslim lawyer Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was also involved. “In due course all three were to be beneficiaries of the coup.”
In June 2007 Green made a speech about democracy and the coup and received a call saying Bainimarama did not like it. Then the Junior All Blacks arrived in Suva to play Fiji. Green was invited to sit in President Josefa Iloilo’s tent to watch. It turned out he had a better seat than that given to Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum who were directly behind some New Zealand families “One of the children waved a New Zealand flag throughout the game, while another one shook a big, black rubbery artificial finger every time New Zealand scored.” His expulsion order came soon after: “If my role at the rugby was not the reason for my expulsion, I am sure that it was the precipitant. “ Green said Bainimarama has a long record of getting rid of people who challenged him, stood up to him, or crossed him – or were perceived by him to have done so.
He is not interested in advice or assistance unless it is to sustain him in power or to implement his agenda in its entirety. “He is uncomfortable with the clash of ideas, negotiation and compromise, all critical elements of effectively functioning democracies.”
Green said he doubted Bainimarama would ever deliver on his promises of better governance and genuine democracy. Green said it was plain the Fiji military standards were slipping and its soldiers were old and unfit.Bainimarama had always resisted change or improvement and so the army had a much higher average age than others. Territorials called up during the coup became seriously unwell: “Up to a dozen of them were said to have died.” Sunday Star-Times, New Zealand
Click HERE to listen to Michael Green's wife, Gillian, who talks about their years in Fiji - until the unexpected announcement of Michaels' change in diplomatic status to Persona Non Grata (unwelcome person) in 2007.
See also Russell Hunter and Victor Lal Fiji police chief tried to get Bainimarama arrested in NZ. And Victor Lal, Why Ratu Joni and Green were told to go; also read below Hunter's new Opinion piece, Election 2014: FIJI voters dreaming!
Listen to former NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters on Green's book and Fiji. Click HERE

71 Comments

Kavita Sharma

23/6/2013 02:49:55 pm

Jone Mandraiwiwi and Green used to have many secret meeting at the V.President's office. Green was not kicked out for Rugby but for being noisy and planning plot against Fiji Military. Green gave a very anti political speech at Navua's Vashist Muni Primary.

How can someone say it is a 'Muslim Coup'? How many Muslims are Ministers?
What percentage of Muslims are in Civil Service?

Some people just enjoy in blaming game. Get a life people.

Patel

23/6/2013 03:04:49 pm

Kavita Sharma... It is as if you were born yesterday. It's portrait as a "Muslim Coup" because its a bunch of Opportunists Muslims who control Fiji Today not the foot soldiers and anyone else for that matter. You should take up History lessons. It also appears you are a Regime stooge or a Regime inner circle to have certain information relayed in your comments. If you are NOT; its time to OPEN UP YOUR EYES AND BRAINS

Kavita Sharma

23/6/2013 03:25:35 pm

Patel, I am a History Lecture and believe me my boy I can teach your types of 'Racists' what racism has done so far.
I do not need to support Government of the day to post my opinion and neither do I need information from anyone in this regards.
I read a lot and always keep my eyes and brain open.
I hate racist remarks and comments. So if you want to post your opinion, do it on your own information and stop addressing me for your racist post.

Rohit link

23/6/2013 03:48:49 pm

Kavita, who care if you are a history lecturer - sounds to me like you are full of revisionist history. Both Green and Kavita are right, this was a Muslim supported coup and you can clearly see the benificaries including Aiyarse, his aunt Nur Bano Choro, the ugly sisters, Aslam voda-choro, and their whole families. Quick run to them for some crumbs, you so ignorant.

Parasites in Paradise

3/7/2013 12:47:38 am

Kavita, you say you are a lecturer???? Islam is a religion not a race. Where do you teach?. As for Green's claims, test them for yourself.

Shameem sisters, ASK, NOW count how many Muslim people have been promoted since 2006 and you start to see the pattern .

I hate racism too. I also hate cronyism and nepotism.

Bury you head in the sand.

Kavita Sharma

23/6/2013 03:56:10 pm

Rohit, so you do believe in Christ? Did he taught you through his word of God - The Bible to practice racism?
You are pointing fingers at four people, but your fifth finger is pointing at you - your own self.
Go and read the scriptures again, God will speak to you because you need it now.

May god guide you out of hatred and teach you the wisdom of love .

Suva lawyer

23/6/2013 05:58:01 pm

Can't see how it is a Muslim coup when the first order of business with the Independant Legal Services Commission was the investigation of lawyers many of whom are Muslims, and most notably related to Nazhat and Shaista Shameem.

Shamshudin Sahu Khan is Shaista Shameem and Nazhat Shameem's uncle. He has been disbarred.

Then there's Haroon Ali Shah who has also been disbarred.

Then there's Mehboob Raza who was very nearly disbarred.

Western Wreckers Ltd, one of the prominent Muslim import companies, lost its Government contracts and became the subject of an investigation for its role in the wider corruption involving Ports if Entry and Customs clearance yards in Lautoka and here in Suva.

For her part Shaista Shameem left Fiji for New Zealand after her contract with the Fiji Human Rights Commission was not renewed by this Government, whilst Nazhat Shameem was not reappointed as a Judge after March 2009.

Kavita Sharma

23/6/2013 08:19:12 pm

Thank you Suva Lawyer, that was a sound-proof slap on the faces of those who have been making irrelevant allegations on Shameem sisters. If they were involved, they would have been sitting in the higher government office.
Lets rest our case here.

Patel

23/6/2013 10:45:46 pm

Really Suva Lawyer or is it "head in the Sand" Lawyer.. selective memory indeed... Can you now tell us how many persons of low qualifications and of Muslim faith hold High offices of Government and Government statuary Bodies..... Can you also tell us how many business people of Muslim faith is benefiting from this coup...and really truly who holds the balance of power in this Regime..and Kavita Sharma "Slap in the face" really???? The truth will surely be revealed and it would be not surprising if most of the core decision makers of this regime (the silent movers) are of Muslim faith... starting from the Military High Office.... but then I could be right????? ONLY TIME WILL TELL

ask

23/6/2013 10:49:43 pm

ohohoho I like your idea of sound proof kavika...just like...well if Bainimarama did commit treason, he would not be ruining the country as he is now...that's what they teach at USP law school?? omg

Professor

23/6/2013 10:54:53 pm

are u a lawyer seriously???
surprised you have not be disbarred like the doc.
just wait until democracy returns and these treasonous sisters will go the same way like their uncle.
I can give u an insight why Raza was targeted...because he openly opposed Nazi becoming a judge because she did not qualify....and Raza has been proven right...the madam has proven to be the most corrupt unethical and deceitful and incompetent judge ever.

Suva lawyer

24/6/2013 12:11:59 am

Instead of firing blanks why don't you name the Muslims you reckon are of "low qualifications" Patel and let us then start on talking about something substantive instead of the hullaballoo with little much else (by way of solid material) you seem intent on. Just because you are adept a throwing mud does not make your allegations any more coherent.

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 12:19:03 am

Professor, you talking about Raza? OMG, ask him why he was removed by Rabuka. Slack ass, he does not know his job. He is jealous of Nazhat Shameem because.....................................ask Professor, if he has the guts, he will tell you the truth.

Suva lawyer

24/6/2013 12:36:05 am

Look at the substance, not the rhetoric.

Raza was not "proven right". It was Judge Connors reasoning which was found wanting/ defective.

The appeal Raza made against the Judgement of Judge Connors is that it was erroneous on the part of Judge Connor to have found that he (Raza) was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct for failing to lodge a caveat with the Registrar of Titles to protect the complainants interest in the property which was the subject of the fraud perpetrated by Sahu Khan when there was no way Raza could have reasonably been expected to lodge such a caveat based on the timeline of transactions involved.

Judge Connor had found that Raza caused the loss of the complainants interest because he failed to lodge a caveat which would have prevented the judgement being lodged against that Title, which judgement put the complainant in the position that eventually led to her complaint being lodged.

Justice Basanayake found that there was no way Raza could have lodged the caveat anyway because the Transfer which he had lodged was rejected by the Registrar of Titles and the Judgement only came to be filed 4 months later. Meaning effectively that the interest which was supposedly being transferred under that Transfer was not accepted by the Registrar of Titles as a valid transferal of an interest which could be registered, hence whether Raza could have lodged a caveat under those circumstances is at best debatable.

On that basis Justice Basanayake acquitted Raza on that count.

The decision is sound because the normal practice is to lodge a caveat to protect an equitable interest, prior to lodgement of a Transfer. However once that Transfer is lodged it is shown on the Title (even if not registered because its been returned for corrections) and it is basically notification of an interest, albeit not a registered notification but notice nevertheless of a pending interest.

In this situation the legal interest purportedly being transferred under that Transfer was itself dubious and had not accepted by the Registrar of Titles.

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 12:22:11 am

Professor also prove your allegations against Nazhat Shameem of being unethical and corrupt. Lets hear it on this blog. Don't just bark, provide evidence of what you said in this regards.

suva lawyer

24/6/2013 12:43:55 am

Herr Professor, Sieg Heil !

Ther've all guilty (by default, by association, by religion, bloody hell who cares ? a muslim is a muslim is a muslim...as long as the square peg can be fitted into the round hole).

To the gas chambers !

professor

24/6/2013 12:27:32 pm

suva lawyer, are u really a lawyer???
omg...read what u posting to before u start blabbing on. very impressive dissertation about nothing. talk about being off point saraga. you and kavika stop being ostriches and calm down before u both bust ur buns and ur brains fall out.

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 01:48:27 pm

Professor sounds like John Apted - phufta saraga! You really need to give evidence to support your allegations - do not run away from the topic.Name one incident where you can prove Nazhat Shameem to be 'corrupt, unethical, deceitful and incompetent judge'. If you do not have evidence, just piss off.

Editor, Fijileaks

24/6/2013 03:04:06 pm

Dear Kavita Sharma

We would be very grateful if you could temper your abusive language in the future.

suva lawyer

24/6/2013 02:17:01 pm

If that is all you have "Professor" then keep wallowing in the mud. Throwing it seems to be your forte. How dirty are your hands ?

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 03:15:54 pm

Oh I forgot this is 'his/her' Blog. Pardon me

Villager

24/6/2013 03:33:46 pm

Great book - as seen by a diplomat. Probably wrong in making generalisations about Muslims but accurate in all others ie Shammem sisters coup involvement etc....
All signs are there that there will be no elections and that a confrontation is looming....
Likely scenario is a rebellion within army and ensuring conflict will see Fijians rampaging throughout Suva and other centres as discipline forces break up ............
All those on side of Bainimarama whether real or perceived are now targets ,,,,,,,so let the games begin guys,,,,,,

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 03:35:51 pm

Hey Astrologer, you sound scary man!

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 04:23:15 pm

Another dog barking here and another parrot making unnecessary noise here: put some evidence - especially for Nazhat Shameem!. Dr Sahista Shameem wrote a lengthy report in favour of the take over - ok her involvement was there in that sense ONLY - that was her view regarding take over. Nazhat Shameem was not even re-appointed as Judge, how can one say she had a hand in advising Military Council??? If she had, she would have been appointed as Chief Justice!

Professorri

24/6/2013 03:40:04 pm

Lets walk back to 2006. Honourable lawyers, professors and lecturers. So, is Bainimarama guilty of treason?

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 03:52:29 pm

Even Form 3 students know that such decisions are not made by Professors, Lecturers or Lawyers.
Let the Court do it's job.

Professorri

24/6/2013 06:59:25 pm

Dear lecturer Kavita Sharma, The court did its job in 2009. It declared Bainimaramas regime illegal. It upheld the 1997 constitution. So now lts all answer this as a Form 3 student. Is Bainimarama guilty of treason?

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 07:37:59 pm

There is appeal after all judgments up to Supreme Court. Don't you know what happened after 2009 judgment?

Professorri

25/6/2013 06:00:01 pm

tell us what happened. We are in Form 3 mode at the moment.

DavidR

24/6/2013 09:12:18 pm

Kavita, you seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing. VB should have used the supreme court to appeal, but alas no, like in everything else he took the short, ILLEGAL way out. The coup was to save his hide, abrogating the cnstitution and courts was to save his hide. And everything he has done up till now has been to save his hide. And we the taxpayers are paying for him to save his hide. Ridiculous.

Kavita Sharma

24/6/2013 09:35:08 pm

That's what I said David, he did appealed - by abrogating the Constitution! He chose his choice of court to appeal.

What do you mean 'like to argue for the sake of arguing'?
When people like you can not argue, they select another name just to jump in and out.

DavidR

24/6/2013 11:02:08 pm

What idiotic logic is that Kavita?! I,am having some trouble following the wave of your argument but in any case, if he was so dissatisfied with the then govt, why not like every other politician, run for govt and stand in election back then?

Professor

24/6/2013 11:26:05 pm

...Kavika, what jibberish is this?
"...That's what I said David, he did appealed - by abrogating the Constitution! He chose his choice of court to appeal."
u didn't heed my warning and ur buns have busted and the little that's left of ur brain has dribbled out....lol

Kavita Sharma

25/6/2013 12:38:58 am

So you feel the pain now Professor/David? Go back to your rooms, St. Giles people are looking for you .

professor

25/6/2013 07:31:38 am

kavika, ur abusive mouth,...u sure u not nazi, ...same temperament, if cant win an argument, bad mouth the opponent and get someone to beat them up....I guess u forgot that she beats up aslam lots of times, and she swore and affidavit bad mouthing another judge so she could interfere in a judicial process and was told in no uncertain terms that she had no business there, and a judge who advises an army to do an illegal act, and cunningly decides to stay out of the judiciary because her kids were going to be kicked out of England but professes to be the guru in ethics and domestic violence and judicial independence.....etc....

Kavita Sharma

25/6/2013 11:22:55 am

You call yourself Professor? You are actually a kindergarten drop out.

When I asked you to provide one incident on this blog to justify your allegations against Nazhat Shameem, you went talking about stupid things. Read all post on this blog. You are only making allegation and you do not have any sentence as evidence. Who was the judge against whom she swore affidavit and when?
If you have an answer, post it or else get back to your room at St. Giles. Allegations without evidence - rubbish

Court Recorder

25/6/2013 04:15:42 pm

Fiji judiciary is a fragile institution because of coup culture
February 13, 2009 | Filed under: School Of The Week | Posted by: newsroom

Written By : VICTOR LAL. Part Three

On 20 May 2000, the day after the Speight coup at Parliament House, Ratu Rakuita Vakalalabure was sworn in as Minister for Justice and Attorney General in the purported Speight Government in a ceremony in Parliament House in front of television cameras.
On 6 August 2004, Justice Nazhat Shameem sentenced Vakalalabure to six years imprisonment after the assessors found him guilty as charged with offences contrary to s.5(b) of the Public Order Act of taking engagements in the nature of an oath to commit a capital offence in that, not being compelled to do so, he took an engagement in the nature of an oath purporting to bind himself to commit treason.
On 3 November 2004, his appeal along with four others charged with him, was dismissed by the Fiji Court of Appeal.
Vakalalabure later applied to the Supreme Court for special leave. The legal arguments were set to be heard before the then Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki, and Justices Kenneth Handley and Robert French but Justice French was suddenly taken ill and had to return to Australia. Justice Fatiaki, in exercise of the powers conferred by s.128 of the Constitution of the Supreme Court Act, appointed Justice Michael Scott as replacement. On 17 October 2005, the application for special leave was argued before the Supreme Court with Justice Scott as a member of the panel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court invited further submissions from the parties regarding a particular issue that had arisen during the course of argument. It otherwise reserved its decision.
What follows next is contained in the Supreme Court judgment of Justices Mark Weinberg, Keith Mason and John von Doussa in Vakalalabure v State [2006] FJSC 3; CAV0003U.2004S (1 May 2006).
On the morning of 18 October 2005 Justice Shameem opened her newspaper and read in it that Justice Scott was one of the three judges that had sat on the appeal.
She wrote at once to CJ Fatiaki drawing attention to the fact that she strongly objected to Justice Scott sitting on an appeal from any of her judgments. This was because, in her words, Justice Scott had “expressed continued hostility” towards her in the past, and that “such hostility has not ceased”. She made it plain that the basis of her concern was actual, and not merely apprehended, bias.
The letter sent by Justice Shameem to CJ Fatiaki concluded: “I bring this to your attention so that arrangements can be made to hold a hearing de novo (anew) before a fresh panel of judges. This will avoid the embarrassment that will accompany a formal application for recusal.
I bring this to your attention in the best interests of the judiciary, and am prepared to discuss this with you personally this afternoon…The principle to be protected here is the absolute impartiality of the judiciary. Indeed if public confidence in the judiciary is to be maintained, then that absolute impartiality must be protected at all costs.”
She also provided copies of this letter to both Justices Handley and Scott. Nonetheless, Justice Scott took no step to recuse himself.
The following day, CJ Fatiaki responded to the letter sent by Justice Shameem.
In a minute addressed to her, he outlined the circumstances under which Justice Scott had come to sit as the third member of the panel hearing the petition in the present matter. Justice Fatiaki pointed out that two grounds only had been argued in support of the petition.
The first concerned an allegation of ostensible bias on the part of one of the assessors at the trial. By not calling upon the respondent in relation to that ground, the Court had made it plain that there was no merit in the point.
The second concerned the possible application of the time bar contained in s 54 of the Penal Code to a prosecution under s 5 of the Public Order Act, “having regard to the fact that the prosecution in the present case had been commenced more than two years after the offence”.
The Chief Justice noted that it was this second ground that concerned the Court, and that it was this ground that had led the Court to request additional written submissions to be filed.
CJ Justice Fatiaki said that it was understood that both Justice Shameem and the Court of Appeal had relied principally upon a decision of the English Court of Appeal in R v Jones [2003] 1 WLR 1590 in holding that the prosecution of the petitioner had not been time-barred.
He noted that, after the Court of Appeal had upheld the prisoner’s conviction, the House of Lords, in Regina v. J [2005] 1 AC 562, had reversed that decision. The CJ said that this meant that the case before the Supreme Court took on a different complexion from the case as presented previously.
Justice Fatiaki concluded his minute by expressing the hope that his explanation of what had occ

Court Recorder

25/6/2013 04:22:26 pm

Justice Fatiaki concluded his minute by expressing the hope that his explanation of what had occurred would set Justice Shameem’s mind at rest.
Plainly, according to Justices Weinberg, Mason and von Doussa, it did not. Justice Shameem replied in writing later that day, restating her concerns. She said: “Thank you for your prompt reply to my memorandum of 18th October 2005.
I accept all the contents of your memorandum in particular that Mr. Justice French became suddenly ill and that you did not wish to inconvenience overseas counsel.
However the issue is not one of convenience, with respect. It is of the impartiality of the court.
Any judgment this court delivers may be quite correct in law. However when it is delivered by a court which has on it a member who lacks impartiality, it lacks validity. Indeed, the public at large, and not just the litigants, has a right to an impartial court.
I have placed sufficient information before you which, in my respectful opinion, would lead any reasonable tribunal to disqualify itself.
The papers contain an admission of actual hostility by Scott JA towards me. The effect is to deprive the court of jurisdiction in any matter concerning my decision, whether the points argued were dealt with by me (and the Court of Appeal) or not.
The test is one of reasonable apprehension of bias, held by an informed observer at the back of the courtroom. My position remains unchanged and I am constrained to advise you that unless a new panel is constituted to hear the appeal, I will be making a formal application for recusal.”
Justice Fatiaki replied the same day. His memorandum was important, and Justices Weinberg, Mason and von Doussa, set it out in full:
“Hon Justice Shameem. Thank you for your further memorandum of today’s date. It is a matter of considerable regret on my part that you are not satisfied with my explanation in yesterday’s letter. As you will be aware Section 2 of the Supreme Court Act 1998 provides that the Court is to be constituted in accordance with my directions. In the situation suddenly created last Friday by Mr Justice French’s decision to return to Australia immediately, I re-exercised this power in relation to Ratu Vakalalabure’s case and reconstituted the Court with Justice Scott as the third member. The Court as reconstituted sat and heard the oral argument, so that it is now part heard. I have no power of my own motion to direct a re-hearing or to reconstitute the Court for this purpose.
You will also be aware that any application for a Judge to stand aside should be made, in the first instance, to the Judge concerned. I have no power, at this stage, to remove Mr Justice Scott from the case, on the ground of ostensible or actual bias, assuming such a ground could be established.
Needless to say no such application was made or foreshadowed by either of the parties to the petition during the hearing before the Supreme Court on Monday.”
This memorandum from the Chief Justice prompted Justice Shameem to instruct solicitors to arrange for a summons, together with a supporting affidavit sworn by her, to be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court.
The affidavit sworn by Justice Shameem commenced by noting that she had been the trial judge in the matter of Ratu Rakuita Vakalalabure, then before the Supreme Court.
She said that she had only discovered that Justice Scott had been a member of the bench hearing the appeal from reading the Fiji Times of 18 October 2005. She said that she wished to place evidence before the Supreme Court that would demonstrate actual, and apprehended, bias towards her, on the part of Justice Scott.
She deposed to a series of statements and other acts on the part of Justice Scott that she claimed demonstrated his continuing hostility towards her. Indeed, she alleged that Justice Scott was similarly biased against Justices Gates and Byrne.
It is important to appreciate that she accused Scott JA of “actual malice” towards her, said Justices Weinberg, Mason and von Doussa.
The Registrar, acting upon instructions from the Chief Justice, referred the summons and affidavit in support to Handley J who was, of course, a member of the panel that was, by then, part heard in this proceeding.
This was done pursuant to s. 11 of the Supreme Court Act.
That section confers upon a single judge of the Supreme Court the right to exercise any power vested in the Court itself not involving the decision of an appeal or reference.
Justice Handley considered the matter and, on 21 October 2005, gave a “Direction” to the Registrar.
After briefly reviewing the case, Justice Handley ruled as follows: “…Furthermore a judicial officer is not a necessary or proper party to an appeal from his or her decision, or to any appeal to a Court of final appeal from an intermediate court of appeal.
It is unheard of for a Judge to intervene, or seek leave to intervene in such an app

Court Reporter

25/6/2013 04:26:07 pm

It is unheard of for a Judge to intervene, or seek leave to intervene in such an appeal, even in a case where his or her judgment is severely criticised, or he or she is said to be disqualified for actual or ostensible bias.
See for example R v. Bow Street Magistrate ex parte Pinochet, (No.2) [2000] 1 AC 119 where Lord Hoffmann’s participation in Pinochet (No.1) was challenged for ostensible bias. Mr Young (of Young and Associates, Lautoka) was heard by me in Chambers this morning in support of the competency of the proceedings.
He attempted to distinguish the present case from the general position affecting the standing of judicial officers in appeals from their decisions because of the great public importance of cases being heard by the Supreme Court free from any actual or ostensible bias.”
Justice Handley continued: “…The public interest in question is understood, and it relates to a matter of very great importance, but an individual member of the public has no standing to enforce that right in proceedings in which he or she is not a party.
“It [is] a fundamental principle of English law that private rights can be asserted by individuals, but that public rights can only be asserted by the Attorney-General as representing the public… And just as the Attorney-General has in general no power to interfere with the assertion of private rights, so in general no private person has the right of representing the public in the assertion of public rights. If he tries to do so his action can be struck out.”
He went on to state: “In a very clear case, such as this, the action can also be stopped by the Court at the threshold. I am therefore completely satisfied that the proposed summons is incompetent to the extent that it would be vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process if it were filed.
In the extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances of this case the Court is entitled to reject the documents and to decline to allow them to be filed, and I will direct the Registrar to return them to the solicitors with a copy of this ruling… I therefore direct the Registrar to reject the document, refund the filing fee (if any), and return the papers to the solicitors for the applicant.”
Justice Shameem, being dissatisfied with Justice Handley’s direction, then filed an application to review that decision. That application was filed on 28 October 2005.
And, once again, the issue of bias would be heard before the Supreme Court

l To be continued.

The views expressed are those of Victor Lal and not that of the Fiji Sun. E-mail: [email protected]

Professorri

25/6/2013 06:02:26 pm

Lecturer Kavita Sharma. What do you mean when you say "he did appealed". I would have said "he did appeal" but since you are the lecturer and I am just a Form 3 student, please teach us.

Kaviat Sharma

25/6/2013 06:43:01 pm

It is called typing error! There is vast difference between typing error and making allegations. If you ever went to school, you will understand.

commodore

25/6/2013 06:45:46 pm

This Kavita Sharma aka Suva Lawyer is none other than Siffat Khan blogging from CHEN BUN YOUNG and Associates Lautoka desperately trying to save her mother's tattered reputation. Nazhat Shameem is looking for an escape strategy and she has none so its desperation now on the part of her family members throwing stones in every direction.

Kavita Sharma

25/6/2013 07:01:39 pm

NOW who is this 'Siffat Khan'?

Strangely, when people do not have evidence, they want to shift on to another topic.

OMG

25/6/2013 10:33:13 pm

oooo Commodore, your post confirms the rumour that Chen is now pro regime...or maybe he's always been pro regime who knows...seems odd when he was president of the law society during the Rabuka (?) coup, he demanded Sir Tim step down as CJ for apparently taking sides with the Rabuka government.
funny how lawyers change sides like the madam depending on the politics.

Bole

25/6/2013 08:36:45 pm

Kavika read lewa Siffat Khan is Nazi's daughter

Kavita Sharma

25/6/2013 09:32:33 pm

Oh thank you Bole, I tell you it would have been an honour for me to have been born to Nazhat Shameem.
On the same note if I am 'Siffat Khan' daughter of Nazi as you say Bole, I must also defend my aunt dear - the great Dr Syster Shameem!
What evidence you guys have against my aunt Syster? She only wrote a bulky report as the Director of Human Rights Commission in favor of 2006 take-over. So what! What was wrong if she thought this was right thing to do because she was offered AG's post. Anybody would fall for such offer, what do you think?
Commodore thank you for reminding that I was so mean only to defend Nazhat Shameem - my 'mummy'. I promise you Commodore taht from now on I will also defend my aunt Syster - the great traitor Syster.

Professor

25/6/2013 10:20:58 pm

Thank you Court Reporter for enlightening Kavika the lawyer. God help Fiji if this is the calibre of young lawyers in Fiji now. I hope u can understand the evidence. do you need an explanation that judges do not advise governments and particularly to advise a government to do an illegal act...and that the domestic violence decree (the one she explains to all police officers and women in Fiji) applies to her too? I guess u must be satisfied of the evidence because u have now shifted back to defending ur aunt Shyster.
Reporter, can u please enlighten Kavika as well on why Shyster had done an untruthful amateurish and unethical report.
On second thoughts, why waist time on this ostrich?

Kavita Sharma

25/6/2013 10:26:29 pm

Professor, you are the biggest idiot. The above published by your goodself is from Victor Lal - the childish journalist who thinks his the best..

Professor

25/6/2013 11:13:41 pm

isa Kavika, u r beyond help.
DavidR was right. u argue for the sake of arguing and u resort to abuse when you cant win the argument. I hope u don't do that in court, except in Naziz court of course.
What Victor Lal wrote is mostly quotes from the judgment of the Supreme Court, you know the highest court in the land and from well respected Australian judges.
And maybe you should learn to write like Victor does then u wont sound so idiotic.
Just in case u didn't get it...the judge (not Victor) said:..."...In the extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances of this case the Court is entitled to reject the documents and to decline to allow them to be filed, and I will direct the Registrar to return them to the solicitors with a copy of this ruling… I therefore direct the Registrar to reject the document, refund the filing fee (if any), and return the papers to the solicitors for the applicant."
That meant that it was the first time ever as far as the record cases went (in Fiji and in the world), that a judge (Nazi) would try to stop another judge (Scott) from hearing an appeal on the first judge's (Nazis) decision on the basis that the other judge (Scott) was actually biased against her.
Talk about an insecurity and inferiority complex and a bitch to boot.
that's why I asked whether u r Nazi herself Kavika.
And by the way, despite that clear lesson in judicial and legal ethics, Nazi did not learn a single thing from the dressing down.

Judge

26/6/2013 01:29:04 am

Let me explain this. I was the clerk with Criminal Registry during the above issue was raised. Bale who was AG and Mr Fatiaki who was the CJ during that season used to be very close friends. Bale wanted to get the people jailed for 2000 coup out of prison and he needed Mr Fatiaki to help- him. Judge Scott was brought in because he did not had good relationship with Judge Shameem and Judge Gates.Let me also highlight this that Justice Ward objected Judge Scotts appointment as a Appeals Court Judge because he was disqualified from hearing Judge Shameem and Judge Gates\s appeals. When Judge Shameem filed objection , she filed it on the above grounds that Judge Scott was never allowed to hear her appeal and Judge Gates's appeal then why he is being assigned this matter which was Judge Shameem's appeal. But as far as I understand although I am also not a lawyer however by my experience at the court registry, I would say if Judge Shameem would not have filed that Affidavit then all those Speight supporters such as Rakuita would have not been sent to prison. It was because of that Affidavit, CJ Fatiaki had to upheld the conviction.
As far as I am concerned I will never support removal of any elected government. It was wrong in 1987, it was wrong in 2000 and it was also wrong in 2006. Thank you.

DavidR

25/6/2013 11:29:43 pm

Going by Kavita's posts its almost like reading something from a bipolar. Best we stay right away from those rantings.

Kavita Sharma

25/6/2013 11:53:24 pm

Professor John Apted using the word 'Bitch' was not warned by Editor. Thats biased. This blog is set up to display anti Muslim attitude, thats biased.
What so called court reporter has posted is is made up and not on record - what would you call it, that word is not in my dictionary. If i was Nazhat or her daughter who is also a lawyer according to Commandore, I would have given you proper legal answers but unfortunately I am not from Legal Profession.
What from Victor's article has been posted here is half truth according to the High Court Registry where I went to find out this afternoon. So have some shame in yourself and do not try to defame someone by lies. You do not have proper and correct evidence, do not try to generate one.

Fiji Judge

26/6/2013 02:04:06 am

Kavita, you say the following: "Professor, you are the biggest idiot. The above published by your goodself is from Victor Lal - the childish journalist who thinks his the best."

If I am not mistaken, Victor Lal and Nazhat Shameem were (and still are) close friends - for how else Victor could have got that highly secretive Judicial Services Commission documents to reveal how Anthony Gates became Chief Justice. Girl, or Boy, Kavita, it seems you ain't have read anything from Victor Lal. I see that posting from Court Reporter says Part Three - Where is Part One and Two, Four and Five? I found Part Five:

Fiji judiciary is a fragile institution because of coup culture – (Part Five)
February 20, 2009 | Filed under: Fiji News | Posted by: newsroom

Written By : VICTOR LAL. Like previous coups, the 2006 coup once again brought to the surface the seething tensions within the judiciary to breaking point.
A judicial power struggle erupted when, on 4 January 2007, a meeting was held in the Judges’ Common Room in Suva, which was chaired by Justice Gordon Ward, the then president of the Fiji Court of Appeal.
Some judges were absent, including Justice Anthony Gates, who was out of the country.
At this meeting, there was discussion about the absence of the Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki and the legal and constitutional basis for it. The previous day, on 3 January 2007, the military had requested Fatiaki to go on leave to allow for an inquiry into numerous complaints about the judiciary.
He was informed that if he refused to go on leave Commodore Frank Bainimarama would remove him from office immediately. In these circumstances, Fatiaki reportedly agreed to go on leave, only to re-emerge on 18 January 2007 in his office to claim that he was still the Chief Justice of Fiji.
He later left his chambers, and recently resigned with a $275,000 payout.
The summary of the minutes of the 4 January 2007 meeting, written down by Justice Ward from memory and circulated to his fellow judges, reveals that it was agreed that, “The Courts should continue to sit and to be administered in the same manner as before the military takeover on 5 December 2006 and the Chief Justice’s agreement to go on leave”.
Their duty as judges was to ensure the Courts continued to function for the public. Justice Ward had however expressed concern at the meeting that the military was making orders in relation to the internal administration of justice.
Concern was also expressed at the manner of Justice Fatiaki’s removal, with one local judge suggesting that they should state their opinion that this step was unconstitutional and was concerned that a failure to do so could leave the public with the view that the judiciary had accepted it.
At the meeting, two Court of Appeal judges discussed possible methods of appointing an Acting Chief Justice, for which they said there was a need. In the course of the meeting Justice Ward suggested that the Judicial Services Commission be bypassed and that if executive power was returned to President Iloilo, it may be possible for him (the President) to make an acting appointment in order to overcome this impasse, and on the basis of a consensus of judges.
It was agreed that a further meeting be held to include the absent judges on Monday the 15 January 2007. The meeting ended at 12.30. At 3pm Commodore Bainimarama announced that he had returned executive powers to Ratu Iloilo, and Bainimarama was then sworn in as the interim Prime Minister of the country.
On 5 January 2007 the acting Chief Registrar was called to the Military Strategic Command and told that the interim arrangements of the Chief Justice to appoint Justice Ward to administer the judiciary were to be disregarded.
Another judge told a fellow judge the next day that the meeting of the judges of 4 January 2007 was in breach of the Memorandum of Understanding agreed to by the High Court judges in 2002, and that in his opinion the judges had learnt nothing from the crisis of 2000.
He told his fellow judges that he had spoken to Justices Ward and Gerard Winter and had warned them to refrain from expressing any views about the legality or legitimacy of the new political order in Fiji. As a result of the strong views expressed by the judge, there were no further meetings of the judges.
On 15 January 2007 the Interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum called Justice Nazhat Shameem saying that he was calling her, as she was the most senior substantive puisne judge of the High Court at the time after the CJ. He advised her that he had a discussion with the then President of the Fiji Law Society Davenesh Sharma about the need to appoint acting CJ.
The rest is history, as I have pointed out in a previous article (5 march 2007), and based on the minutes of the Judicial Services Commission, how Justice Gates came to be appointed in his current position.
Justice Shameem’s critics would later claim that she was neither Chief Justice no

Fiji Judge

26/6/2013 02:11:26 am

Justice Shameem’s critics would later claim that she was neither Chief Justice nor Acting Chief Justice and was not therefore qualified to chair the JSC meeting or to vote, a charge which I have disputed in another column. In any event, as president of the Fiji Court of Appeal, Justice Ward could not have also constitutionally acted as CJ following the coup

SHULLOOMULLOO

2/7/2013 07:29:34 pm

Madam justice Kavita , I didn't say your daughter was a lawyer,did I. You have let the cat out of the bag,so your daughter is also a lawyer aye? Hope she's not as conniving as you and untrustworthy either.

Commodore

26/6/2013 02:09:51 am

Look at the horizon Kavita and friends.....the dust is rising from the army galloping towards your defeat and beheading and putting your heads on a pole down Victoria Parade............au voir !!!!

OMG

26/6/2013 06:26:47 am

The Judge who was the clerk at the registry. are u sure u not the toilet cleaner that kavika consulted for her proof the Victor Lal made up the story?? thank God u not a lawyer either.
how can u make so many assumptions??
And so what if the judges have good or bad relations or they sleep with each other as some of the current judges do???
the point is it is not for the judge herself to complain. it is for the lawyers, and in this case neither side had seen fit to complain.

Judiciary Board

26/6/2013 01:26:55 pm

Commodore and OMG - both talk like Dr Sahista Shameem!

Fiji Sun Reader

26/6/2013 01:45:34 pm

Kavita Sharma

I suggest you spend a month in the Fiji Sun office reading hundreds of opinion columns, commentaries etc that Victor Lal wrote over a twenty year period for that paper. Sadly, the new editor and publisher Peter Lomas has removed all of them from Fiji Sun's archive section so we are not able to help you. Instead of telling us to spend time at St Giles, I suggest you spend your time at the Fiji Sun office. If you still cant absorb any of Victor's commentaries than I suggest book yourself at St Giles. Please stop being childish and ignorant. I have seen you commenting on other blog sites!

Kavita Sharma

26/6/2013 02:19:06 pm

Hey Dr Syster Shameem, you still in Fiji? You need to do lot of praying. I do not read Victor Lal's garbage. You read it, who cares what he is writing, he is not a saint that he has to be believed every time he piss. Ask Victor how he got news from judiciary? Of-course you and Ex Judge Marshall were his closest friends - remember or you want ,me to elaborate on that?

26/6/2013 02:32:16 pm

elaborate pls we cant wait

Kavita Sharma

26/6/2013 03:38:34 pm

There is 23 pages article coming up soon on this issue regarding Dr and Marshall's Petition. Sit and wait to read

Editor, Fijileaks

26/6/2013 04:22:00 pm

Dear Professor

As Kavita Sharma has pointed out, please refrain from calling people "bitch" and that applies to all of you. So far we have allowed free comments instead of approving it beforehand. We hope you all will not abuse the freedom to comment, and also we hope the comments will be constructive to generate serious debate on many issues facing our beloved and blessed island

Professor

26/6/2013 06:20:40 pm

would take Victor Lal more seriously than the self serving Marshall and Shyster, seriously Kavika, evidence not self serving lies.

RONIN

26/6/2013 08:46:13 pm

How long did that 23 pages take you to write Kavita?

Tax Watcher

27/6/2013 12:55:16 am

If we are to believe this Kavita woman or man (whoever it is), in 2008 Victor Lal also made up Mahendra Chaudhry's tax story - that the FLP leader was hiding two million dollars, away from Indo-Fijian victims of George Speight's coup, in Australian bank accounts. That time Mahend denied having the money, sued Victor and Fiji Sun, and is now on trial for tax evasion - admitting he had the money but claiming that it was given to him by India to relocate to Australia! I look forward to Kavita's 23 pages of materials against Dr Shameem

DR supporter

2/7/2013 03:04:07 pm

no tax watcher, the 23 pages is not against the doc. its the docs and marshalls self promoting so called petition of one with two dishonest and unprincipled sisters behind it.

POLICE ARCHIVES

2/7/2013 06:09:32 pm

The report from the Judge is eye opening and I personally didn't find it self promoting for either of the sisters. I think we all need to see the reality and read the reports in detail to stop these nonsense attacks on these women.I believe once you have read and remembered who did what ,you will realise who the culprits were and are. I was in the Police team photographing the two Shameem households during the middle of 2006 and only saw the silver army car(nissan cefiro) frequent the home of Aslam Khan in Nararo street.
The house in Suva Point rarely had any visitors apart from the usual relatives of the household. Our archival pictures will attest to this when required in future. We have numerous photographs of the army Commander from our vehicle parked down Nararo street visiting as well as the vehilce of Mr Sayed Khaiyum which was seen at the residence on a very regular basis. We were tasked to find and photograph the "hidden advisers" by the police commisioner and the PM's office

abc123

4/7/2013 12:43:52 pm

you have just confirmed the role of the sisters in advising and advancing franks coup.
as for marshall, u will have to ask what was his agenda...self promotion and destroy anyone in his way. it obvious from what he wrote. so mr policeman, do the real investigative work rather than just perving at pictures and reading the words...look behind the photos and read between the lines because criminals don't just present the evidence in your face unless they are dumb and these criminals are not dumbos...just cunning thieves and cheats.

5/7/2013 07:51:39 am

so there is photographic circumstantial evidence that the madam was at the time in 2006, a judge of the high court, advising kaiyum and Bainimarama to carryout a coup which is now proven to be illegal and unjustified.
Now the madam is telling judges and policemen and lawyers to be ethical and so forth. how hypocritical and unethical. the madam must have forgotten her
fundamental legal ethics...judges don't advise anyone including governments AND especially advising someone to carry out an illegal act.

Professorri

8/7/2013 04:08:20 pm

Its becoming clearer, by the post, that Kavika Sharma is none other than Nazhat Shameem. But you all knew that. Its up to Kavita to deny this. Regardless of all the commotion here, one thing is clear, and that is, the judiciary in Fiji is in tatters, as much as the reputation of them key players are. What is the remedy?

The expelled NZ High Commissioner, late Michael Green, cites “Muslim Coup” aspect of 2006 in his forthcoming personal memoir - names sisters Nazhat and Shaista, and Aiyaz Khaiyum; the memoir also claims intimidation and thuggery in Fiji

Leave a Reply.

[email protected]