There is NO DIALOGUE but MONOLOGUE from Aiyaz Khaiyum or his FFP MPs, with the Fiji PRESS too scared to publish highly critical views and arguments before Standing Committees - proof from PACIFIC DIALOGUE

STOP BEING SO "SISSY!" - SHOUTS AIYAZ SAYED KHAIYUM TO THE OPPOSITION IN PARLIAMENT AND GETS AWAY WITH HIS COMMENTS. The "Sissy" who betrayed his colleagues in the fight against Sitiveni Rabuka and the 1987 coups and fled to Australia to do "drama studies" only recently was pushing for a BILL to punish those who demean, defame or undermine Parliament

National Federation Party wants Khaiyum to be held to account

Are these Fijian soldiers a bunch of Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum's "Sissies"?

And what about the biggest "SISSY" of all who fled the QEH barracks at the height of the November 2000 mutiny, and is now gallivanting the world as President of COP23 while fleecing Fijians $3,000 nightly in travelling allowance, as if he is entitled to the money. As we pointed out previously, Khaiyum very cleverly made Bainimarama Foreign Minister (dangling $3,000 per night allowance) so he (Khaiyum) could be acting Prime Minister and demean the Opposition in Parliament, calling them Monkeys and Sissies

---

Fijileaks: The submission produced below from Pacific Dialogue was made to the Parliamentary Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Foreign Affairs on Thursday 17th May, last week.  One FFP Government member, Alvic Maharaj, objected and asked that the presentation be stopped because TIME was UP!They were not reported in the Fiji Sun and Fiji Times (very little). The Summary provided to the Media was not published.The Fiji Media is still frightened of Aiyaz Khaiyum. We publish it the public interest.

Opinion

Jone Dakuvula

On 18 May 2017, I presented with Mrs Suruj Mati Nand a Submission to the Parliamentary Committee on behalf of our NGO, Pacific Dialogue.  I note that there is no report of our Submission in your issue of 19/05/17 even though you had received a copy of our submission and a copy was given to your reporter at the hearing.  I am therefore, sending you this summary of our Submission in the public interest so you can publish it as a Letter to the Editor or an Opinion.

• We criticised the penalties for offences in the Bill as too harsh and to steep when compared to similar legislation overseas.
• The Bill lacks a provision on who and how these offences are formulated and the procedures by which they are decided.  For example, who hears the charge of bribery of an MP and who decides the penalty.
• The power to both fine and imprison offenders as these do not exist in similar legislation overseas.
• The formulation of criminal defamation, which is usually a civil wrong that does not attract criminal punishment.  The Bill converts defamation into a crime for which people are fined and imprisoned.
• Under the Australian Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act defamation of Parliament is abolished as a potential crime.

Under the Australian law the Parliament by resolution can only imprison an offender for up to 6 months.

• Under the New Zealand law, all offences committed within the precincts of Parliament are referred to the Courts to deal with.
• New Zealand has only one power of penalty for “contempt of the House” for which the House by resolution makes an Order and can fine up to $1000 only.  This is referred to the Courts to enforce.  In Fiji, the Bill has 13 offences for which the Fiji Parliament can fine the offender between $400 to $100,00 and imprisonment up to 10 years.  Who decides these offences and penalties is not stated in the Bill.
• In overseas legislation, the offences are only those that occur within the precincts of Parliament.  However, this Bill under Section 24 (3) extends the power of Parliament to both fine (between $30,000 to $100,000) and imprison up to 5 years both ordinary citizens and Members of Parliament who utter “words or take action that defame and demean or undermine the sanctity of Parliament, the Speaker or a Committee”.   

The provision is inconsistent with the purpose of Parliamentary Power and Privileges Law that in other countries are about how offences committed within Parliament Precincts and are dealt with, usually by the Courts.

• This is an abuse of the Power of Parliament and threatens freedom of expression rights. 
• The Bill is unconstitutional under Section 17 (3) of the Bill of Right.  It cannot be justified as a “necessary law”.
• Section 24, is also an attempt to retrospectively “legalise” unlawful decisions of the Parliamentary Privileges Committee in expelling the three Opposition MP’s, namely Hon Tupou Draunidalo, Hon Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and Hon Romanu Tikotikoca, trying to make legal in future past illegal decisions.  This is against the rule of law principles and should never be agreed to by law makers in a Parliament. 
• The fact, the suspension of the three Opposition MPs was recommended by the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Committee and passed by majority of MPs on the Government side did not make the resolution “legal” because it was not framed as an amendment to the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act Cap 5 or as a new provision to the Standing Orders of Parliament.

• The Government does not have any power under the current Privileges Act to suspend or expel any Member of Parliament for any period of time, in these cases up to 2 years.  The suspension amounted to expulsion as the Members’ salaries and allowances were deprived and they were not allowed into the precincts of Parliament. The Fiji Parliament, also has no power to punish ordinary citizens who criticise Parliamentarians outside of Parliament.
• The Submission pointed out that the Attorney General, Hon Aiyaz Khaiyum, the Chief legal adviser of the Government, is largely responsible for these illegal expulsions from Parliament and the drafting of this draconian and punitive Bill.  He persuaded the Speaker, Hon Dr Jiko Luveni to refer the cases to the Privileges Committee even though the Speaker had already received apologies from the MPs concerned and had considered the issues resolved.
• There is already in existence a Defamation Act Cap 34 under which Members of Parliament and the Speaker can sue any individual or organization for defamation and that law is adequate.  It only need some updating.
• Pacific Dialogue recommended the Bill be withdrawn and the office of the Attorney General be asked to do more research and come back to Parliament with a much better Bill.
• Pacific Dialogue has a suggested some amendments to the Bill
• Pacific Dialogue also requested the Committee to ask the Government to revoke the expulsion of the three MP’s.

The submission pointed out this had been the recommendation of the Inter Parliamentary Union Conference that Hon Dr Jiko Luveni had attended in 2016 and the Report that has the recommendation is with the Speaker and the Attorney General.

• Pacific Dialogue recommended that the Members responsible for the expulsions of the three Opposition MP’s be ordered to compensate them for their loss of income, humiliation and other injuries to their reputation.
• Pacific Dialogue also asked the Committee to advice the Attorney General, Hon Aiyaz Khaiyum, to reconsider his position as the Chief Legal Adviser of the Government.

 
Jone Dakuvula
Chairman
Pacific Dialogue
Ph: 9469446
 
*You can publish this as it was circulated in Parliament to some members of the Committee and it is protected under Parliament Privilege.

Khaiyum to Privileges Committee: "You did not have to call him a fool."I said. "You could have come up with a smart response like, "Well, we are not as obtuse as you are. "Obtuse means thick, you could have said that, and that is acceptable. She [Draunidalo] said, "Aw, I am not as eloquent as you are" and that is where we left it. I then went and sat down, Mr Chairman, to have my tea."