The Fiji government is backing the appointment of the country’s new anti-corruption chief who was under investigation by the office she now heads, which has left Fijians asking questions.

Barbara Malimali — who was also the Electoral Commission chairperson — was revealed as the new Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) commissioner last Wednesday.

Malimali’s appointment, confirmed by the nation’s president on the advice of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) — who report to the Attorney-General — has been slammed as “unbelievable” by one opposition MP, while the opposition leader in Parliament has said it raises “numerous questions . . . that need answers”.

The announcement was causing a stir due to it being unclear if she held the Electoral Commission chairperson role at the time of her appointment — raising concerns about conflict of interest.

But the issue became more critical when Malimali was taken for questioning by FICAC officers on her first day in the job as its boss, sanctioned by the anti-corruption agency’s acting deputy commissioner Francis Puleiwai.

However, the saga became even more bizarre when the government’s chief legal officer and minister responsible for the anti-corruption office, Attorney-General Graham Leung, criticised Puleiwai for not updating him for detaining Malimali.

In a statement, Leung said Puleiwai — who resigned later on the same day Malimali was detained, stating that she would “not be able to work in that institution when we know that a suspect is there” — was “legally obliged” to advise him of the activities of FICAC.

“This matter is particularly sensitive since Ms Puleiwai was herself an applicant for the position of commissioner. She was unsuccessful,” Leung said in a statement.

“As acting deputy commissioner, Ms Puleiwai has no role in the appointment of the commissioner. If Ms Pulewai has a problem with the appointment then, like every other public official or citizen, she has the right of access to the courts,” said.

He said Malimali still “has the responsibilities and powers of Commissioner” despite the investigation and was “entitled to the presumption of innocence”.

“I am concerned with a worrying trend in this country of maligning people based on rumours and innuendo,” he said.

“Trial and conviction by whispers are wrong and must stop. They run against the very grain of decency and fairness, which is the foundation of a society ruled by law. This is not who we are.”

In his statement, Leung defended Malimali’s appointment, saying all five members of the Electoral Commission had written to the Judicial Services Commission “expressing full confidence in the integrity of Malimali and explaining the context of the complaint against her for abuse of office”.

“They say the complaint has no basis. The commissioners are persons of high repute and integrity,” he stated.

He said the issue was “particularly sensitive” because Puleiwai was an unsuccessful applicant for the position of FICAC commissioner, adding her actions were “severely open to question”.

Puleiwai has rejected the suggestion that she had a “vested interested”.

“The only interest that I have is for the rule of law to be upheld.”

On Friday, FICAC put out a statement saying Malimali was back in office and ready to lead FICAC.

“Malimali is back in office this morning, Friday, 6 September 2024 and is ready to lead the commission,” the statement said.

“Malimali stated that she would not let the events of yesterday [Thursday] deter her from performing her duties as prescribed under the law,” it added.

Meanwhile, Judicial Services Commission has condemned the new FICAC chief’s arrest on Thursday, who it says is “a distinguished member of Fiji’s legal community”.

It remains unclear whether the abuse of office investigation against Malimali has been closed.

It is also unclear when Malimali had resigned from her role as the Electoral Commission chairperson.

RNZ Pacific has contact FICAC and the Electoral Commission Secretariat for comment.

Timeline:

Wednesday, September 4:

• Barbara Malimali revealed as the new FICAC commissioner.
• FICAC confirms Malimali is under investigation for an allegation for abuse of office.
• A former Prime Minister and Labour Party leader, Mahndra Chaudhry denounces the appointment and calls Prime Minister Rabuka to intervene.

Thursday, September 5:

• Rabuka tells state broadcaster government has no input in Malimali’s appointment.
• Local media report Malimali is taken in for questioning under orders from FICAC’s acting deputy commissioner Francis Puleiwai.
• Attorney-General Graham Leung weighs in backing Malimali and slams Puleiwai, saying she “must respect that appointment”.
• Leung says Malimali remains in charge despite investigation, which he claims, “has no basis”, according to five Electoral Commissioners who are “persons of high repute and integrity”, and Pulewai’s actions are “severely open to question”.
• Puleiwai resigns, saying she is “not be able to work in that institution when we know that a suspect is there”, adding “I don’t have any vested interest.”
• Opposition leader in parliament Inia Seruiratu calls the turn of events ‘transparency and accountability under fire’, saying the Malimali appointment situation raises “numerous questions…that need answers”.

Friday, September 6:

• Malimali is back in office and tells state broadcaster she would not let the saga “deter her from performing her duties”.
• Judicial Services Commission condemns the new FICAC chief’s arrest on Thursday, who it says is “a distinguished member of Fiji’s legal community”.
• It remains unclear whether the abuse of office investigation against Malimali has been closed as well as when Malimali stepped down from her role as the Electoral Commission chairperson.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Suva lawyer Richard Naidu is a free man after the Suva High Court ruled this week that no conviction be recorded against him.

High Court judge Justice Daniel Goundar ruled on Tuesday that the charge of contempt scandalising the court against Naidu be dismissed.

He said summons to set aside the judgment that had found Naidu guilty in November last year was by consent and was dismissed as he did not have jurisdiction.

Justice Gounder ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

While delivering his judgment, Justice Gounder said while mitigation and sentencing were pending, a new government had come into power and a new Attorney-General had been appointed.

He said that after the change of government [FijiFirst lost the general election last December], Justice Jude Nanayakkara, who had been previously presiding over the case, had resigned as a Fiji judge and left the jurisdiction without concluding proceedings.

Justice Gounder said the new Attorney-General, Siromi Turaga had taken a different position regarding the proceedings, which he had expressed in an affidavit filed in support of the summons to dismiss the proceedings.

Ruling set aside
Turaga stated that his view was that the proceedings should never have been instituted against Naidu in the first place.

In the affidavit, Turaga said he had conveyed to Naidu that his view was that the ruling of 22 November 2022 ought to be set aside and the proceedings dismissed.

He added that Naidu had confirmed he would not seek to recover any costs he had incurred in defending the proceedings.

Justice Gounder said the Attorney-General played an important function as the guardian of public interest in contempt proceedings which alleged conduct scandalising the court.

Lawyer Richard Naidu’s conviction ruled not to be recorded and the charge of contempt dismissed. Video: Fijivillage.com

He said the position of the Attorney-General had shifted and he was not seeking an order of committal against Naidu.

The judge said Turaga dkid not support the findings that Naidu was guilty of contempt scandalising the court.

He said it had not been suggested that the present Attorney-General was acting unfairly as the representative of public interest in consenting to an order setting aside the judgement.

Facebook posting
Naidu was found guilty in November last year by High Court judge Justice Jude Nanayakkara for contempt scandalising the court.

Naidu posted on his Facebook page a picture of a judgment in a case represented by his associate that had the word “injunction” misspelt [as “injection”], and then made some comments that he was pretty sure the applicant wanted an injunction.

The committal proceeding was brought against Naidu by the then Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

Naidu was represented by Jon Apted while Feizal Haniff represented the Attorney-General.

Rashika Kumar is a Fijivillage reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Police interviewing of FijiFirst Party general secretary and former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has reportedly been suspended but will continue later.

FBC News reports the interview with Sayed-Khaiyum will continue.

The police Chief of Intelligence and Investigations, Assistant Commissioner Surend Sami, told the state broadcaster the suspension is to allow investigators to verify issues and information gathered during the interviews.

FijiVillage reports there was a second round of questioning on Tuesday.

The Minister for Rural, Maritime Development and Disaster Management, Sakiasi Ditoka, had filed a complaint against Sayed-Khaiyum on December 22, for allegedly inciting racial hatred and violence at a media conference in Suva before the coalition government had been formed.

In that conference, Sayed-Khaiyum had claimed stoning incidents highlighted by the police and said that this demonstrated the “divisive character” of the People’s Alliance Leader Sitiveni Rabuka, who is now the Prime Minister.

President told not to take external legal advice
Fiji’s Attorney-General, Siromi Turaga, has told the President he should not take legal advice from the former attorney-general, the former prime minister or from the opposition FijiFirst party.

FBC News reports Turaga saying that he briefed President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere that he must only accept legal opinions from the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

He said no other law firm should be advising on any other matters, and if he is in doubt, the Attorney-General’s Chambers is able to assist the President.

Turaga said that according to the Constitution and the law, any issues dealing with government affairs are to be dealt with by the coalition government and its head, Sitiveni Rabuka.

Complaint lodged against former PM
A human rights activist has filed a complaint against FijiFirst leader Voreqe Bainimarama.

FBC News reports that Surend Sami confirmed the complaint was in relation to statements made on live videos on the FijiFirst Facebook page on January 1 and 4.

In her complaint, Shamima Ali has alleged that Bainimarama’s statements were intended to cause public alarm, anxiety, disaffection, discontent and were made with malicious intent.

Sami said the investigation had now been taken over by the Criminal Investigation Department.

President Katonivere will officially open Parliament next week on Friday, February 3.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Arriving late to court, poor court etiquette and lack of respect are signs that the level of ethics among  Fiji lawyers has dropped over the years, says the Attorney-General.

Attorney-General Siromi Turaga highlighted this during a panel discussion at the Fiji Law Society (FLS) convention at the Pearl Resort in Pacific Harbour on Friday.

He said ethics was a serious issue that needed to be addressed by the society.

“I have seen a lot of lawyers arriving late to court and having no respect at all while causing unnecessary hassle to the procedures and this is a sign of disrespect,” Turaga said.

“I’ve also come across a lawyer who had placed her leg on a chair in the courthouse. This was shocking to me.

“Another case is when the court opens, we have young lawyers rushing to the front bench where senior lawyers are supposed to sit.”

He said young lawyers should take their cue from their more seasoned peers.

Lawyers ‘lying in court’
“Ethical is just ethical and as a young lawyer, we learn from our senior lawyers and this is something that senior lawyers need to take heed of,” he said.

“We need to see where we are failing in this area and address it as soon as possible.”

Other senior lawyers on the panel discussion were Shailend Krishna, Shoma Devan, Bhupendra Solanki, Roopesh Singh and John Rabuku.

Shoma Devan said: “It’s sad to note and see that some lawyers are deliberately lying to the court.

“I have personally seen some lawyers blatantly lying to court, misrepresenting facts and being dishonest to their own colleagues.

“The public general perception on lawyers is that ‘we are liars’, but, let me remind you that as lawyers you cannot lie and be dishonest.”

She told the lawyers present that if they ever came across a lawyer who was misleading the judge they should “rise up and inform the judge to keep the record straight”.

Devan said lawyers were required to uphold their values and ethics while in the courtroom.

Pekai Kotoisuva is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration has invited the Commissioner of Police to resign, citing concerns on matters of confidence in him.

Pio Tikoduadua said the commissioner, Sitiveni Qiliho, had, however, asked that the government follow the process of the Constitutional Offices Commission.

Minister Tikoduadua said he respected his decision, and we would let the law take its course.

Brigadier-General Sitiveni Qiliho was formerly in the military and in July 2021 successfully completed studies at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London. He was awarded a postgraduate certificate in Security and Strategy for Global Leaders.

However, the minister added that he had no issue with the commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.

I have invited the Comissioner of Police to resign, citing concerns on matters of confidence.

However, he prefers the process that goes through the Constitutional Offices Commision. I respect that, and we will let the law take its course. pic.twitter.com/WzTXRK33m0

— Pio Tikoduadua (@piotikoduaduafj) December 29, 2022

Border alert
A border alert has been issued by Fiji’s Police Criminal Investigations Department (CID) for Opposition MP and former Attorney-General and Minister for Economy Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

“Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is a person of interest and is currently under investigation regarding a case of alleged inciting communal antagonism,” according to the CID.

It said it had yet to deal with Sayed-Khaiyum who was believed to be in Australia.

It said that according to his travel history, Sayed-Khaiyum had departed Fiji on 26 December 2022.

Meanwhile, Commissioner Qiliho said that was the normal monitoring mechanism of the CID to write to the Border Police to inform it if Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum returned.

Fiji Police CID orders border alert for former Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum @piotikoduaduafj @fijipoliceforce@IBIupdate @PacIsNewsAssn @PACNEWS2 @dfat @MFATNZ @ForumSEC @FijianGovt @AiyazSKFiji pic.twitter.com/UU9DHNhFDv

— Pita Ligaiula (@KaiSawaieke) December 29, 2022

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

FijiFirst party general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum claims they are fighting The Fiji Times and Communications Fiji Ltd — not political parties — in the lead up to the 2022 general election.

He said this while taking a swipe at The Times during a news conference this week at the FijiFirst party headquarters in Suva.

Sayed-Khaiyum claimed the two media organisations were “always parroting” the People’s Alliance and the National Federation Party “without checking the facts”.

“We are not fighting other political parties, we are fighting two mainstream media organisations — Fiji Times and CFL,” he said.

“The Fijian public know that. This is why we have our live Facebook when we have conferences, because we don’t expect these people to do any justification in terms of what we are saying.

“I urge you if you are serious about your profession and the organisation you work for, are independent, not just say ‘independent’.

“The saying goes [that] the proof is in the eating of the pudding.

“We have a seen a continuous propagation by Fiji Times and by CFL, simply parroting whatever the PAP and NFP says without checking the facts; we have a very sad state of affairs today.”

Sayed-Khaiyum cited as an example that when NFP reported the FijiFirst party to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption about placing a banner on the Civic Car Park, The Fiji Times continued to publish commentary from NFP general secretary Seni Nabou.

“They have absolutely no idea of what due process means, they have absolutely no idea, neither Fiji Times nor does CFL have any idea what an independent process means.

“They throw these words around, bending these words around, yet not understanding what [they] mean.”

Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley responded that The Fiji Times was being attacked — “as usual” — for doing its job.

“We strive for fair and balanced coverage of the news, especially now as political parties go into election mode,” he said.

“Understandably the pressure is on the government to respond to statements by opposition parties. We offer them a platform to clarify issues and to make statements.

We refer all opposition party criticism to the government for comment. The government rarely, if ever, replies.

“We are not here to make the government look good. We offer a platform for every party to voice their opinions. Some choose to use it and some do not.”

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Published with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“My Fiji
I offer a vision which sees this beloved land of ours united in its diversity, forged out of its adversity, and built on trust. I offer you a vision of Fiji which historians will say that, in the midst of tragedy, we found courage and wisdom, and foresight and determination to lead the nation away from the precipice into a prosperous future. I can only hope that my vision for this most wonderful of nations will fulfil its promise. I can only pray that we who have the moment at hand will find the courage, the strength and the determination to let the past be the past and build a nation that will stand not just to 20/20, but down through the centuries.”
— Jai Ram Reddy, 1993

This moment asks a lot of me and all of us. I write these words with a heavy heart but also a sense of great pride and privilege which is only afforded to me because I happen to be the daughter of the lawyer, judge, and Indo-Fijian statesman, Jai Ram Reddy, who died in Auckland last night aged 85.

Historians, political commentators, and analysts will define their narratives about my father. I am a daughter who simply seeks to celebrate and mark his life and legacy with a personal perspective about him, his legal and political career.

I am conscious that many of those who will read this piece are, like me, the descendants of indentured labourers “Girmitiyas”, who were brought from India to Fiji during colonial rule.

Like many of their generation, my grandparents, Pethi and Yenkatamma Reddy were farming folk who wanted a better future for their children. They worked the field and saved with a view to sending their eldest son, Jai Ram, to study law in New Zealand.

Their dreams were realised, and my father was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1960.

Further to his admission to the New Zealand bar, Dad returned to Fiji and enjoyed a long and illustrious career as a lawyer. He was the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Fiji (during the short-lived Bavadra Labour government of 1987) and President of Fiji’s Court of Appeal in the early 2000s.

I never did have the opportunity to observe my father in the courtroom, but I have heard and read much about his formidable advocacy skills and forensic legal mind. His areas of practice were broad, but he was particularly invested in criminal law and practice.

Unwavering commitment
I understand he could be a pit-bull in the courtroom and had an unwavering commitment to his clients.

In 2003, the United Nations General Assembly elected Dad as a member of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). He was based in Arusha, Tanzania, and my son and I visited him in 2007.

He was sitting on a bench comprised of two other international jurists, one of whom was the President of the Tribunal, Judge Eric Mose. The four defendants were military men accused of genocide against the Tutsi population in Rwanda during the early 1990s.

On the day we attended his court room, I distinctly recall Dad challenging one of the Canadian advocates on a technical point to which the advocate responded, “Judge Reddy always asks the difficult questions”. He was considered one of the finest judges there.

As a lawyer, I found the proceedings fascinating and as a daughter, I felt very proud.

Of course, none of us are defined solely by our professional life or public profile and it would feel incomplete not to mention some of my father’s other interests. He loved the odd gamble on the horses and as a young child, I recall being dragged to the Ellerslie races on more than a few occasions.

Dad also loved literature, philosophy, and comedy. Those who knew him intimately will recall his reverence for the prose of William Shakespeare and his uncanny ability to recite Shakespearean sonnets and soliloquies — even when his Alzheimer’s was quite advanced.

Interest in philosophy
As a young, idealistic student, he developed an interest in philosophy and his outlook and perspectives were shaped by both Eastern and Western writers and intellectuals. Possessing a dry, acerbic wit, he enjoyed satire and comedy — particularly the British variety — and was an ardent fan of all things involving Monty Python and other comics of that tradition.

He also liked old Hindi songs but loved ghazals the most. He wasn’t the greatest singer but after a couple glasses of red wine, he would sing along to those old melodies with much gusto at dinner parties. It made him happy.

Like all of us, my father’s life was punctuated by both highs and deep sadness. My dear brother Sanjai’s untimely death was devastating for Dad, as it was for all of us. Despite his own grief, he remained a devoted and supportive father and grandfather to his three surviving children and five grandchildren whilse continuing a demanding role as a jurist at the ICTR.

It cannot have been easy in the circumstances. Dad undoubtedly had an intellectual disposition and for much of his life, his interests and preoccupations were principally cerebral in nature. However, with age, he became less preoccupied with such matters and his renowned social reticence, and “short fuse” receded and was replaced by a person who was more relaxed, emotionally accessible and at ease with communicating on a more personal level.

I will treasure the memory of some of conversations we shared in his later years.

As to his political life, Dad was initially a senator in the early 1970s before his election as Leader of the Opposition in 1977. Politically he was a social democrat with liberal instincts. Throughout his long political career, he argued for equity, social justice, and racial equality.

Vehemently opposed to the death penalty on the grounds it offends the inalienable right to life, he, among others, advocated for its abolition in Fiji. He also supported the legitimatisation of same-sex unions and led the parliamentary debate against French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Committed to multi-culturalism
I suspect; however, my father will ultimately be remembered for his commitment to the values of multi-culturalism and pluralism.

When reflecting on his political legacy, I am cognisant of how urgent and prescient my father’s brand of politics might feel given the rise and global reach of ethnic nationalism and identity politics. Dad firmly believed that leadership in the Fijian context required moral courage, an empathy for “the other” and an acute appreciation of how history and context shaped the political and social fabric of the country.

It is through him; I developed an understanding of the importance of adopting a pluralist approach and working across the political aisle for the greater good of all communities in Fiji.

Similarly, I developed an appreciation of how the colonial legacy of divide and rule cultivated and fostered the deep racial divide, mistrust and communalism which have featured so tragically in Fiji’s political landscape. An appreciation of context is obviously so important, but Dad’s message was that we all share a collective responsibility to reflect, critique and overcome the historical legacies, structures and values which impede the art of empathy and compromise.

Following the military coup of 1987, my father had the singular honour of being the first Indo-Fijian to be invited to speak to the Great Council of Chiefs. It was a seminal moment as Fiji was on the precipice of ratifying a progressive new constitution. In that speech, he talked about the respective fears and interests of both the indigenous Fijian and Indo-Fijian communities.

He also spoke of the importance of power-sharing in the context of a politically and socially fractured Fiji following the military coups in 1987. I quote Dad’s final words from that speech:

“In one of his nation’s darkest hours, that courageous and visionary leader, Franklin Roosevelt, said, and I quote: ‘to some generations much is given; of other generations much is asked. This generation has a rendezvous with destiny.’

“Much was asked of Ratu Cakobau’s generation of Chiefs. Much is asked of this generation of Chiefs. Much is asked of us all.

“Let us therefore gather our courage and set ourselves united to the finishing of the noble task to which our history, our heritage and our motherland now call us. This generation must keep its rendezvous with destiny. And to future generations, much will be given.”

Defining moment squandered
From the perspective of many, that defining moment was squandered and the tragic events which have taken place in Fiji over the past two decades speak volumes. I know how profoundly disappointed my father was that his vision of an inclusive society was mercilessly rebuked by what he described as “narrow-minded partisanship”.

Of course, another military coup then took place, and the rest is history. Notwithstanding those events, may the arc of history bend towards that rendezvous he spoke of on that hopeful occasion.

May his dream of a fully democratised Fiji be realised and let it be a Fiji with fair and accessible rights to political representation, education, and economic parity for all its people.

On this saddest of occasions, it feels fitting to conclude with a quote from that great, visionary civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King Jr:

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right”.

Rest in Peace my dear father.
Om Shanti
Gole ena vakacegu

Helen Nalina Reddy
London

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

If anyone is wondering why the Fijian media hasn’t reported the details of my reporting on Grubsheet Feejee of the Prime Minister’s secret role in the sacking of the Solicitor-General, his alleged action in shutting down a police drug investigation into a close family member, or his Attorney-General’s alleged behaviour in inviting his female staff to give him massages in his hotel rooms on overseas trips, it is because they are terrified of the AG’s draconian 2010 Media Industry Development Decree and the very real prospect of prosecution.

The following is what can happen to any Fijian news media outlet that Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum decides has breached the terms of the decree, which became legislation on the return to parliamentary rule in 2014 and has had the effect of gagging the media and preventing it from reporting stories that are genuinely in the national interest.

As you can see, the national interest is not defined in the legislation, which means the AG effectively decides what is in the national interest.

And if he thinks that it is not in the national interest for allegations against him and the PM to be aired in the local media, then he can use the law against any organisation that republishes my disclosures.

Fortunately, I am beyond his reach but these stories go untold for anyone without the internet.

[MED 22] CONTENT REGULATION:

The content of any media service must not include material which—

(a)is against the public interest or order;
(b)is against national interest; or
(c)creates communal discord.

[MED 24] OFFENCES RELATING TO CONTENT REGULATION:

A breach of any of the provisions in or under section 22 … by a media organisation shall constitute an offence and the media organisation shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or in the case of a publisher or editor to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

The details of what I reported are in my Secrets and Skeletons: The Inside Story.

But how tragic it is that accessing the work of journalists outside Fiji is the only way the Fijian people can gain information on anything remotely approaching the truth about what is really happening in their country.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Nauru president Lionel Aingimea has accused Fiji of being “divisive” over its refusal to pay its share of funding for the 12-nation regional University of the South Pacific, saying the institution needs every member country to pay their contribution.

Aingimea said all Pacific island country members of USP were present and voted overwhelmingly to support the offer of a new employment contract to vice-chancellor and president Professor Pal Ahluwalia.

Professor Ahluwalia is now based at the USP campus in Samoa after Fiji unilaterally deported him and his wife Sandra in early February.

Aingimea, delivering a ministerial statement in Nauru’s Parliament this week, said there was ongoing contention about Fiji withholding its grant agreement due to the USP council decision to renew Professor Ahluwalia’s contract in spite of opposition by Fiji.

He said Fiji’s Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, had expressed disapproval of the decision of the council

“This disapproval was voiced in the Fiji Parliament sitting of 19 August 2021.

“Honourable Speaker, USP as a regional university does not belong to any one country.

Responsibilities of members
“Responsibilities of the institution are borne by its members.

“Needless to say, there were a lot of statements that were issued by many bodies and people who went against what Fiji’s A-G stated in Parliament.

“In summary of the USP’s council actions, I state that in a democratic environment, where respect and honour is paramount, the USP Council and employer of the vice-chancellor discussed and voted for his re-instatement.”

President Aingimea, former chancellor of USP, said the re-appointment of Prof Ahluwalia was supported by officeholders, staff and student unions.

In August’s Parliament sitting, reported in The Fiji Times, Sayed-Khaiyum said Fiji did not accept Professor Ahluwalia as the vice-chancellor of USP and that it would not provide any funding or assistance to USP as long as he remained in this position.

BDO report tabled in Nauru Parliament
The Fiji Times reported on Saturday that Fijian academics in the former USP administration had been implicated in a 2019 report into mismanagement and corruption at the regional university that was tabled by President Aingimea in Nauru’s Parliament this week.

Known as the BDO report, Aingimea said it showed serious breaches of university processes and procedures resulting in the loss of millions of dollars of member government and donor funding.

Aingimea said the report showed clear violation of university rules, unethical conduct and gross financial mismanagement by the previous university administration.

He said one particular academic was mentioned more than 100 times in the report.

She was investigated after being awarded a five-year contract, three cash bonuses and one-step increment that was not aligned with the university’s recruitment standards.

Aingimea said the report was then used to review the university’s procedures and implement reforms so mismanagement, corruption, fraud and financial irregularities were not repeated.

Moving forward, Aingimea urged USP to develop strategies to ensure it remained financially sustainable.

Most trying times at USP
Aingimea said that during his year-long tenure as chancellor ending in June 2021, he was faced with the most trying times in the history of the regional university.

“Our unity as a region was being severely tested.

“My tenure was marked by having to deal with challenges including the covid-19 pandemic on USP, a severe funding crisis, and the deportation of the vice-chancellor and president (VCP).”

Questions on Aingimea’s comments sent to Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama had received no response.

Contacted on Friday, Professor Pal Ahluwalia said he was in a meeting and that he would respond.

USP Staff Association president Dr Elizabeth Fong said the association had called for action to be taken on the report’s findings.

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fijian Media Association president Stanley Simpson says a journalist who asked Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to respond to comments made against him by opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad have acted responsibly.

He made the comment in relation to a question posed by a Fijivillage journalist to the AG about Professor Prasad’s statement that Sayed- Khaiyum should separate his ego from his ministerial job during a press conference on Sunday.

The AG’s response to the journalist was, “So you see again, responsible media organisations would simply not report what somebody utters even if it’s nonsensical and try and get a response from us.”

Simpson said the backbone of any democracy was “an independent, strong and responsible media”.

“They inform, critique, analyse and stimulate debate that is vital to the democratic process,” he said.

“In this regard, the media was asking the Attorney-General to respond to a statement made by an elected Member of Parliament and political party leader, Biman Prasad.

Media ‘behaved responsibly’
“The FMA’s stand is that the media behaved responsibly in seeking a comment from the AG to the statement made against him by Biman Prasad.

“To not report Biman Prasad’s statement would have been irresponsible.

“To not seek a response from the AG would have also been irresponsible. Both are elected representatives of the people.

“The media acted responsibly in endeavouring to inform the people of the views of their elected members of Parliament on a political issue.”

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s “petulance” has become tiresome and unnecessary, says prominent lawyer and advocate Graham Leung.

He made the statement in response to Sayed-Khaiyum’s criticism of lawyers in the Court of Disputed Returns case restoring Opposition MP Niko Nawaikula to the electoral roll last week.

Sayed-Khaiyum claimed that the lawyers in the case “did not do a good job” arguing the case, after the court ruled that the Supervisor of Elections had “acted wrongfully and unlawfully” in removing Nawaikula from the National Register of Voters (NRV).

Leung said the Attorney-General’s comments were unprofessional.

“As leader of the bar, to be publicly criticising lawyers that are party to litigation where he is a defendant, frankly, his petulance has become tiresome and is unnecessary,” he said.

“If the Attorney-General wishes to be respected in the legal profession and beyond, he should start showing respect. Throwing a tantrum when you lose a case is not what we expect from the Leader of the Bar.”

Leung said Sayed-Khaiyum appeared to be criticising the lawyers in his own department.

Support for MP’s case
Leung, who represented Nawaikula in the case alongside Jon Apted and Simione Valenitabua, said they represented their client to the best of their abilities.

“We did what we were asked to do, which was to support his case for reinstatement to Parliament.

“As far as we are concerned, the Solicitor-General and his legal team conducted themselves admirably.

“This is the same team that the Attorney-General relies on to do the ‘heavy lifting’ in his chambers and we can only empathise with them that they appear to have been used as a scapegoat for how the case turned out.”

In a press conference in Suva last week, Sayed-Khaiyum said counsel for the Supervisor of Elections and Nawaikula did not do a good job.

“None of the counsels actually listened to the proceedings with the submissions that were made, none of them talked specifically about the implications of not having the correct name registered and one name registered,” he said.

“The implications of any constitutional breaches, nobody talked about that. The Constitution says, specifically under Section 52, that there should be free and fair elections.

“So how can one have free and fair elections if you have the ability to register your name more than once?”

Jale Daucakacaka is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The University of the South Pacific staff and student unions have condemned Fiji Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s claim that a new USP contract offer to the vice-chancellor is illegal, saying he has “misled” the Fiji public with a “baseless” statement.

The unions also said he had shown “total disrespect” for the governing USP Council which represents 11 independent regional governments, donors, staff, students and alumni in the Pacific.

In a joint media statement, the Association of USP Staff (AUSPS), University of South Pacific Staff Union (USPSU) and the USP Student Association (UPSA) said today Fiji had the highest number of representatives on the council and was “given ample opportunity by the pro-chancellor and chair of council to share its views” under democratic process.

Fiji was decisively out-voted in the council. A new Samoa-based contract was offered to Professor Pal Ahluwalia who had been abruptly deported along with his wife in February in a widely criticised action.

“In essence the Fiji members of the council failed to convince other members of the council regarding their views on the issues under discussion and now calling a decision illegal and questioning others that are within the purview of the august body,” said the media statement signed by AUSPS president Elizabeth Reade Fong, USPSU president Taris Vacala, and USPSA president (Laucala) Lepani Naqarase.

“This press release serves to rebut as baseless the statements of the AG [Attorney-General] and the Fiji representatives to the USP Council who have reported council outcomes to him.”

Citing many of the university’s governing documents — including the university charter — the statement said: “The council is well within its rights and has determined that the VC/P will be located at the Samoa campus. This was voted for by a clear majority.

‘Within due process’
“The same is applied to the continuation of salary of the VC/P on his deportation by the council at its February 16, 2021, meeting at which the chair of council and chair of the Audit and Risk Committee were not present due to ‘conflicts of interest’ which led to their earlier and continued recusal from council deliberations.

“All of this was within due process. The members must accept that the council has the right to determine whether a conflict of interest exists.”

The statement added that only the University Council could appoint and remove a vice-chancellor.

Sayed-Khaiyum told the Fiji Parliament last week that Professor Ahluwalia’s reinstatement was illegal, reports The Fiji Times.

In response, the university stated its priority during these challenging times was learning and teaching delivery and it wished not to comment further.

The university stated the governing body of the regional institution was the USP Council.

Speaking on the university’s annual report for 2018, Sayed-Khaiyum said the appointment was illegal because it was not in accordance with the university’s charter.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Amid a mountainload of work this week in the [Samoan] Attorney-General’s Office – as the caretaker government’s lawyers look over the constitution for ways to “delegitimise” Monday’s Parliament swearing-in of Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) party members – Attorney-General Savalenoa Mareva Betham-Annandale still finds time to issue another press release accusing the Samoa Observer of misinformation and “attempting to control the narrative”.

Savalenoa didn’t agree with the story titled “A.G. seeks interim orders to stop new Govt. transition” which was published on the front page of the Wednesday, 26 May 2021, edition of the Samoa Observer.

The story reported on plans by the Attorney-General’s Office to go to the Supreme Court to stop the transition of the new government, as the office was of the view that the swearing-in ceremony of FAST party members conducted outside the Parliament chamber, but within its precinct, on Monday afternoon is illegal.

However, the Attorney-General said the story is misconstrued and her Office didn’t seek an interim order to stop “new government transition”.

Instead, Savalenoa, says her Office filed two applications in the Supreme Court on Monday and Tuesday this week to declare that “the FAST purported swearing in as unconstitutional and unlawful”, and an ex-parte notice of motion is “seeking interim orders to stay and suspend the legal effect of FAST purported swearing-in as it is unconstitutional and unlawful”.

So can an English teacher tell us the difference between our article reporting on “plans by the Attorney-General’s Office to go to the Supreme Court to stop the transition of the new government” and the overall goal of the two Supreme Court applications which the Attorney-General specifically makes reference to in her press release?

Isn’t the ultimate objective of both the Attorney-General’s office-filed applications for declaratory orders and an ex-parte notice of motion about stopping the FAST party headed by Fiame Naomi Mata’afa from forming government?

It is incredulous seeing Savalenoa getting so worked up over a newspaper article – when the judiciary of which she is part and partial of and swore an oath to protect – continues to be ridiculed and kicked around like a football by the very people she continues to report to and represent in Court.

At the end of the press release, the Attorney-General claims that the “misinformation” by the Samoa Observer is this newspaper’s “attempt to control the narrative of what is actually happening”.

The charge by Savalenoa that this newspaper is attempting to “control the narrative” of this week’s events is ridiculous, especially when millions around the world, thanks to social media and Samoa’s mainstream media (including this newspaper), saw how the caretaker government locked the Parliament in breach of the Supreme Court orders, in an attempt to stop the swearing-in of the XVII Legislative Assembly.

Can the Attorney-General tell us where she stands on the decision by the Head of State, His Highness Tuimaleali’ifano Vaaletoa Sualauvi II, to overlook the Supreme Court’s orders in relation to the convening of the Parliament on Monday?

And was the Attorney-General privy to the decision by the Head of State to breach the order of the Supreme Court by suspending the convening of the XVII Parliament on Monday?

The honourable thing for Savalenoa to do a week or two ago, when it became obvious that the caretaker Prime Minister Tuila’epa Dr Sa’ilele Malielegaoi and Head of State would disregard the orders of the Supreme Court, was to resign, to not only protect the integrity of her office but to show citizens and the world that as a lawyer she cares about the rule of law and our democratic foundations.

But it has become obvious in the last week or so that she has chosen to walk a path which has coincided with the trampling of Samoa’s 59-year-old constitution – the very document that gives breath and life to her title and office as the Attorney-General of Samoa – and in the same vein witnessed the attacks on the Supreme Court and breaching of its orders without lifting a finger.

Attorney-General: how much more damage do our institutions that are key in the administration of justice in Samoa have to sustain before you step in and start upholding the constitution and the values it stands for in line with the responsibilities of your office?

But then we remind ourselves that we are not within the “secret whisper” circle with the caretaker Prime Minister, to afford ourselves the privilege of making judicial appointments such as the Chief Justice, and then turn around and cry wolf every time a court ruling goes against us and our interests.

Remember him talking during his press conference the other day of bringing in foreign judges because he didn’t trust the locally-constituted bench and accused them of favouritism?

It makes you wonder how much more does this country of under 200,000 people have to dance to Tuila’epa’s music simply because he didn’t like a court judgement.

There is no doubt that this constitutional crisis has left our judiciary battered and the long term-effect of the loss of public confidence in our courts and the rule of law will not augur for the future of this nation.

It is why the memo sent out by the Samoa Law Society on Wednesday –- which reminded all lawyers who are members of the society of their “fundamental duties” as practitioners of the law and as barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court –- could not have come at a better time for the legal profession.

On the last page of the memo, the Samoa Law Society states in one of the paragraphs: “The danger of course, is that when the public is misinformed (inadvertently or otherwise) about the efficacy and value of the judicial process, the respect for the institution of the courts and the rule of law is lessened, and we are one step closer to anarchy and lawlessness.”

We continued to be in awe of the steadfastness of the Chief Justice, His Honour Satiu Sativa Perese and his justices as well as the judges of all levels of the courts in the face of adversity.

But the responsibility of upholding the rule of law does not just belong to His Honour and his justices as well as the judges and lawyers, but everyone who swore an oath to this nation, including the caretaker Prime Minister, the Head of State and the Attorney-General.

The Samoa Observer editorial on 28 May 2021. It has been republished here with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa’s Attorney-General has recalled a scathing media release questioning the integrity of the country’s judiciary.

The release demanded that the judges appointed to hear an election appeal be disqualified because of, it was claimed, the judges’ alleged potential conflicts of interest and potential favouritism.

“There is now substantive evidence before our office that is questioning the appearance of impartiality and integrity of the judiciary presiding over this matter,” the statement said.

The release added that it was also apparent that the FAST party leader was a close relative of the Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese.

But last evening, a brief statement was sent out in the Attorney-General’s name, which said the release was not authorised and apologised for what it called an unfortunate situation.

Tuila’epa offers dialogue with FAST – but still wants new poll
Samoa’s caretaker prime minister said he and his Human Rights Protection Party had held out “an olive branch” to the majority Faatuatua I Le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) Party so that the political impasse could be resolved.

On his weekly TV3 programme, Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi reached out to FAST’s leadership for a dialogue to resolve matters.

But it came with a caveat – if the HRPP withdraws petitions in the courts, and FAST does so too, the country can go back to the polls.

“That is what it is now, and it is not hard trying to resolve what’s happening. We can easily withdraw our petitions from the court and we should go back to the polling booths,” said Tuila’epa.

That is despite FAST winning the April 9 election by a single seat.

Tuila’epa added that the last resort was the court, but with the recent judgements by the judiciary HRPP did not believe in their independence anymore.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz