"Yes, in the sense the Supervisor of Elections controlled the budget of EC [Electoral Commission]. This man worked under us but we had to seek permission from him to defray costs and meet our expenses. I don’t think that’s appropriate. And also during the course of the elections the SOE in my view did not give sufficient respect to the Commission and also I think he had other bosses … bosses other than the EC." Professor Vijay Naidu
"Well, I think the Solicitor General and the Minister for Elections had some direct role in how the Supervisor of Elections perceived his position and I had issues with regard to that. As can be seen in his decision not to accept the reports and recommendation of the Electoral Commission in relation to the list of candidates that he approved without the
support of the EC."
Professor Vijay Naidu’s interview with Bruce Hill of Pacific Beat, Radio Australia ( more or less verbatim):
VN: “There was a lot of issues relating to the Electoral Decree and the constraints on the Electoral Commission (EC) and the relationship of the Electoral Commission with the Supervisor of Elections (SOE).
Hill: You mentioned conflict of interest.
VN: Yes, in the sense the Supervisor of Elections controlled the budget of EC. This man worked under us but we had to seek permission from him to defray costs and meet our expenses. I don’t think that’s appropriate.
And also during the course of the elections the SOE in my view did not give sufficient respect to the Commission and also I think he had other bosses … bosses other than the EC.
Hill: Can you elucidate on which bosses?
VN: Well, I think the Solicitor General and the Minister for Elections had some direct role in how the Supervisor of Elections perceived his position and I had issues with regard to that. As can be seen in his decision not to accept the reports and recommendation of the Electoral Commission in relation to the list of candidates that he approved without the support of the EC.
He did not give us adequate attention or respect.
Hill: You had some concerns with the Electoral Decree relating to Non Government Organisations and trade union officials.
VN: Absolutely. Provisions in the Electoral Decree forbade non-government organisations that had received foreign budgetary support, from engaging in discussions relating to the elections, convening panel discussions etc etc. And also in [distributing] voter educational material for voter education without approval from the Elections Office and from the Commission.
I was quite perturbed at the way NGOs were treated and in fact, the Supervisor got to FICAC to investigate a set of discussions that the Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF) had instituted in partnership with University of the South Pacific. These sort of things left a very bad taste in my mouth, you know.
Hill: You were on the EC. Anything you could do about it at the time?
VN: The chairman of the Electoral Commission was also investigated. He raised objections to it but was told that FICAC is an independent body and they could do their work independent of the Commission etc etc. It ran its course but nothing came out of it, so I regarded it as a [series] of harassment by State institutions on the directions of the powers that be.
Hill: Did you raise any of these concerns directly with Mohammed Saneem, Supervisor of Elections?
VN: Oh, we had our discussions. You see the elections were on the way and where possible some of the Commissioners raised specific issues and tried to resolve them and this was done but, you know, I can’t say that in every instance the Commission [ was able to do that].
Hill: Where there any positive aspects to working of the Electoral Commission with the Supervisor of Elections?
VN: Oh yeah, I think the most important thing is that we worked together and delivered the general elections. I think that was important and we had raised issues of time constraints that we had throughout elections, serious in terms of different logistical aspects of the elections which are all you know [prescribed in the recent constitution] but which we had recommended needs to be changed.
Despite all the constraints and challenges, I think we delivered overall a respectable election, voting process and outcome.
And I am happy with that.”
VN: “There was a lot of issues relating to the Electoral Decree and the constraints on the Electoral Commission (EC) and the relationship of the Electoral Commission with the Supervisor of Elections (SOE).
Hill: You mentioned conflict of interest.
VN: Yes, in the sense the Supervisor of Elections controlled the budget of EC. This man worked under us but we had to seek permission from him to defray costs and meet our expenses. I don’t think that’s appropriate.
And also during the course of the elections the SOE in my view did not give sufficient respect to the Commission and also I think he had other bosses … bosses other than the EC.
Hill: Can you elucidate on which bosses?
VN: Well, I think the Solicitor General and the Minister for Elections had some direct role in how the Supervisor of Elections perceived his position and I had issues with regard to that. As can be seen in his decision not to accept the reports and recommendation of the Electoral Commission in relation to the list of candidates that he approved without the support of the EC.
He did not give us adequate attention or respect.
Hill: You had some concerns with the Electoral Decree relating to Non Government Organisations and trade union officials.
VN: Absolutely. Provisions in the Electoral Decree forbade non-government organisations that had received foreign budgetary support, from engaging in discussions relating to the elections, convening panel discussions etc etc. And also in [distributing] voter educational material for voter education without approval from the Elections Office and from the Commission.
I was quite perturbed at the way NGOs were treated and in fact, the Supervisor got to FICAC to investigate a set of discussions that the Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF) had instituted in partnership with University of the South Pacific. These sort of things left a very bad taste in my mouth, you know.
Hill: You were on the EC. Anything you could do about it at the time?
VN: The chairman of the Electoral Commission was also investigated. He raised objections to it but was told that FICAC is an independent body and they could do their work independent of the Commission etc etc. It ran its course but nothing came out of it, so I regarded it as a [series] of harassment by State institutions on the directions of the powers that be.
Hill: Did you raise any of these concerns directly with Mohammed Saneem, Supervisor of Elections?
VN: Oh, we had our discussions. You see the elections were on the way and where possible some of the Commissioners raised specific issues and tried to resolve them and this was done but, you know, I can’t say that in every instance the Commission [ was able to do that].
Hill: Where there any positive aspects to working of the Electoral Commission with the Supervisor of Elections?
VN: Oh yeah, I think the most important thing is that we worked together and delivered the general elections. I think that was important and we had raised issues of time constraints that we had throughout elections, serious in terms of different logistical aspects of the elections which are all you know [prescribed in the recent constitution] but which we had recommended needs to be changed.
Despite all the constraints and challenges, I think we delivered overall a respectable election, voting process and outcome.
And I am happy with that.”
PUNCHING ABOVE HIS WEIGHT: Saneem put FICAC onto Young
"The chairman of the Electoral Commission was also investigated. He raised objections to it but was told that FICAC is an independent body and they could do their work independent of the Commission etc etc. It ran its course but nothing came out of it, so I regarded it as a [series] of harassment by State institutions on the directions of the powers that be."
 |  |
