Highly placed sources in Prime Minister's Office inform Fijileaks that after observing COUPLE's dalliance in Panama on taxpayer funded trip to UN Ocean Conference, Rabuka has concluded that they will have to go to avoid another KAMA SUTRA scandal that has dogged him all his life. *They had flatly denied having any affair when Rabuka had confronted them in the Prime Minister's Office in Fiji but they fell out of favour when he closely observed their dalliance in Panama recently."Grubsheet learnt in mid February from one of our readers that David Toganivalu had been approached to replace Christopher Pryde as DPP. It prompted me to write to the Deputy Prime Minister, Biman Prasad on February 21 asking if these reports were true. Prasad came back telling me that he had asked the Attorney General, Siromi Turaga, about the reports and the AG had responded that it was "bullshit". That was a LIE." - DAVISMinister for Home Affairs, Pio Tikoduadua says there is no cause for concern after the suspension of the Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Pryde.By GRAHAM DAVISPio Tikoduadua is just plain wrong. There is a great deal for the Fijian people to be worried about over the suspension of the DPP, Christopher Pryde, four years into a seven year contract.
|
CONVICTION MOST FOUL: On 16 May 2007 Justice Nazhat Shameem jailed RUPENI NAISORO and SENIVALATI RAMUWAI to life imprisonment after two of the three assessors found Ramuwai guilty of murder as charged. All assessors found Naisoro guilty as charged. |
*Naisoro and Ramuwai were found guilty of brutally murdering a 17-year-old carrier driver NAVNEET KUMAR (son of Seet Kumar Singh) in Korovou, Tailevu, on 29 April 2005. The trial heard that $100 was stolen from Kumar, he was punched until he fell down and then hit with a knife in the head and upper body. There were multiple blows with intent to kill. Kumar was thrown into the Wainikavula River. When it appeared that he was not dead but trying to get out of the other side of the creek, he was held under water and drowned. The knife was left at the scene of the stabbing. Justice Shameem sentenced the two accused to life imprisonment as required by law but did not fix a minimum sentence to be served before release on parole.
*On 20 August 2007, Senivalati appealed against his conviction, and a year later, on 9 August 2008, Naisoro followed with his appeal, arguing that Shameem had erred in law and in fact in not addressing and/or directing the assessors that the fact that he (Naisoro) had refused an offer of immunity was a matter for the assessors to take into account.
*Then on 12 August 2009 Naisoro swore an affidavit saying that four years after the murder it had come to his attention that a new team of officers was carrying out further investigations, and that a person unconnected with him and Senivalati had confessed to the murder of Navneet Kumar.
*On 22 September 2009, ASP Rupeni Raqa swore an affidavit which included as follows: 'That since the 18th of April 2009, a TIMOCI RAVURABOTA had confessed to a Church Group in the name of Waimaro Methodist Church Reconciliation Prayer Team that he himself had murdered the deceased Navneet Kumar at Korovou, Tailevu, on the 29th April 2005." In 2010, Ravurabota pleaded guilty before Justice Salesi Temo and was subsequently jailed for murder. It turned out that both Raburobota and Kumar had attended the Tailevu North College from Form 3 to Form 6, and knew each other. The then 17-year-old Ravurabota had robbed and murdered his former classmate so he could use the money to attend the Coco Cola games at the National Stadium.
* As expected, on 12 March 2012 the Fiji Court of Appeal freed both Senivalati and Naisioro on appeal against their convictions based on Raburobota's confession and conviction.
*The acquitting Judge William Marshall ruled that the two accused were victims of miscarriage of justice.
*Later, the two unsuccessfully sued the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General and in the process Naisoro, in November 2018, moved that his lawyer Simione Valenitabua no longer represent him, for by now Valenitabua was 'in partnership with David Toganivalu who wanted me to implicate Ramuwai in the [Kumar murder] and in return that I would be granted immunity'. Valenitabua informed the FJCA that he was withdrawing from the case.
“As lawyers we are able to tell straight away if our clients are guilty of an offence or not. In Rupeni’s case I believed he was innocent from the very first day. From the outset he kept saying he did not do it. |
Naisoro v Commissioner of Police, FJCA 238, 30 November 2018
*That after everything that has transpired up to this point I [Rupeni Naisoro] now have some reservations with my solicitor and in the way he has been conducting my case.
*That he is in partnership with David Toganivalu . Mr. Toganivalu was the DPP officer who prosecuted the State case against me.
*This same Mr. Toganivalu had approached me when I was out on bail for the above murder charge and wanted to negotiate that I turn State witness against Sainivalati Ramuwai, the 1st accused (2nd appellant) and implicate him in the said murder trial and in return that I would be granted immunity.
*That I flatly refused because I knew nothing about the case and if I testified against Sainivalati Ramuwai, the 1st accused that would tantamount to perjury and my lying on oath. I immediately made it known to him to proceed and charge me for the offence anyhow which did happen.
*That now it so happens that since he and Mr. Simione Valenitabua are in partnership both of them will have had “put their heads together” to discuss my appeal without a doubt.
*For as long as my file is in that office Mr. Toganivalu will always feel uncomfortable with my case since my conviction in which he was the State prosecutor was set aside by the Court of Appeal and he will always feel guilty of his attempts at turning me into a State witness to lie under oath.
*That I am now beginning to wonder how it is that I lost my civil claim case before Brito J as it is a fairly straight forward case after I wrongfully spent 2 years in remand and was serving 2 years out of a life imprisonment sentence before the real perpetrator above name confessed to the killing.
*With Mr. Toganivalu now in partnership with Mr. Simione Valenitabua and because of the supposed conflict of interest my imagination into how my case was lost is now beginning to run wild”.
The most important evidence on 13th October 2011 comes from the fact that the full statement under caution of Timoci and his response to being charged was read to him in court. Under oath he then said that every answer was correctly recorded, that he had signed at the time in a number of places and that all the facts in his answers were true. He had not been threatened, hit or improperly pressured by ASP Rupeni Raga in any way. He agreed that he had pleaded guilty before Justice Salesi Temo on 16th February 2010. The facts in the statement of facts agreed with the prosecution and Defendant were read out and Justice Temo asked if he admitted the facts and after Timoci Ravurabota said "yes" Justice Temo wrote in the Record "facts admitted".
"I am Timoci Ravurabota of Nailega village. District of Namalata in the province of Tailevu. I am only known by the name Timoci. I live with my parents at Nailega Village. I am not married. I am not employed other than assisting my father with farming. My level of education if Form 6. In 2005 I attended Form 6 at Tailevu North College. It is true that I told Kuliniasi Vunikedra and Inosi Turagalada that I murdered Navneet Kumar in the year 2005 near Matacula Village. I murdered Navneet within the period of time from 8.30 pm on Friday 29th April 2005 to 4.15 pm on Saturday afternoon on 30th April 2005. No one assisted me in murdering Navneet. I murdered him alone. I killed him by stabbing him repeatedly on his neck, face, upper chest and his head with a kitchen knife before I forced him underwater in the Wainikavula River until he was dead. I then put his body under the roots of a tree which was underwater so that the body does not float. The kitchen knife I used to repeatedly stab Navneet belonged to my mother Venaisi Bolaciri which I brought from home that day Friday 29th April 2005 at about 6.00 pm. It is a small knife with a brown handle and it is marked with the letters 'IL'. 'IL' is my younger brother's name Inoke Lavaisiga. My mother put these initials on the knife. I can still very well remember that knife but the blade is bent where I stabbed Navneet's head. I have been handed a knife and I recognise that I used (it) to repeatedly stab Navneet. Her identification marks is still there. After I stabbed Navneet I left the knife near Wainikavula Creek which is the place where I killed Navneet. I still remember the exact place at the Wainikavula Creek where I put Navneet's body after killing him. I can show that place to the police. I know Navneet Kumar very well since we attended Tailevu North College from Form 3 to Form 6. I was in Class 602 while he was in Class 601."
After the above Timoci Ravurabota was asked by ASP Rupeni Raga about his plan to rob and kill and what happened. Timoci Ravurabota replied:
"First of all, the Coca Cola Games was to be held at the National Stadium on Friday 29/4/2005 and Saturday 30/4/2005. I was still in form 602 at Tailevu North College at that time and I was camping with our village rugby 15 team at our Village Community Hall beginning from Monday 25/4/2005 for the rugby game to be played on Saturday, 30/4/20005 against Dritabua, a team from Naivicula. I asked my mother to give my admission fee to the Coca Cola Games and she gave me only $20.00 which is not enough to pay my fare, food and admission fee to the National Stadium in Suva. On Friday, 29/4/2005, the beginning of the school break, at about 7.00 pm, I walked alone to Korovou town. I was wearing a dark blue long trousers with side pockets with a brown round neck t/shirt. I was bringing with me my mother's kitchen knife which was pocketed inside my trouser's side pocket. I was planning to rob Dharmen by threatening him with the kitchen knife. I remembered meeting Samuela Qiotagane in Korovou town. We played billiard together before we came to the bus stand that goes to Suva where we were just yarning. It was dark and lights were switched on in Korovou town. I was looking for Dharmend, carrier driver but I didn't see him. Whilst I was yarning with Samu, the kitchen knife fell off from my pocket and Samu saw the knife, he then advised me in Fijian 'Qarauna Vinaka, ke raica na ovisa ni o kauta tiko nai sele ena taoni, ena vesuki iko' which when translated means 'Be Careful, if a police officer sees you carrying a kitchen knife in town, you will be arrested'. I picked up the knife again and put it back into my trouser's side pocket. Samu is one of my close friends, we attended form 3 and 4 together at Tailevu North College. During our conversation with Samu, at about 8.00 pm or after 8.00 pm, I saw Navneet Kumar driving their white liteace van to Korovou town through the road that goes to Tailevu North College. I saw Mrs Torika Vateitei sitting in the front seat of the van. The van then driven by Navneet Kumar then went up Nawiwaivusa Road. I crossed to the other side of the road and followed Navneet Kumar's van. I stopped Navneet Kumar's van near Master Peni Saukarawa's house along Nawiwaivusa Road. Navneet stopped and there was no other passenger inside the van. I opened the back passenger door of the van and told Navneet to take me to Burerua and I was seated at the back seat. When we (were) approaching the Korovou town main road, I told Navneet Kumar not to allow anyone to see me because some gang were looking for me. Navneet then advised me to go underneath the seat, which I did. The reason he told me to get down underneath the seats because the van will stop in town. He did stop in town, and I believe he was talking with an Indian guy, I recognised the voice to be of Gyan Prasad because we also attended Tailevu North College. I heard Gyan Prasad talking from the passenger side window and they were talking in Hindustani, and I can only understand that Navneet was telling Gyan that he wanted to buy a CD radio for his lorry. Gyan wanted to go for a ride but Navneet told him that he's going for another pick up job. After a short while, we then drove out again and I remained underneath the seat until I felt that the lights of the town faded and we have passed the Doctor's government quarters. Just after we passed the government quarters, I saw a lorry coming towards Korovou town, but I don't know who was driving it. We drove passed Burerua village and was about to reach RKS, then we return until we reached a drain just passed the junction that goes to Matacula village, I then told Navneet to stop. While stopping there, I saw a white twin cab coming with its light flicking, when it was about to reach us, then slowed down, then drove passed us after Navneet flickered his van light. I don't know the owner of the lorry as well as the registration number. Navneet's van lights was still switched on. I then got off then walked around the back of the van then came to the front at Navneet's side (driver's side). I took out the kitchen knife from my pocket and placed the blade on Navneet Kumar's neck and told him to get off the van. I saw him getting all the money from under the seat and handed it all to me, even before I asked him for money. I took the money and put it inside my trouser's pocket. He wanted to give me his mobile phone as well but I refused it. I removed the knife from his neck and I held the collar of his t/shirt from the back, then pushed him in front of me as we were following the road up to Matacula. After a while, we went through under a fence near a hill. After going under the fence, I then released the collar of his t/shirt because the place was bushy. A little bit further, he ran down the slope until I caught him again down the slope. I again got hold of his collar and we walked until we reached some Ivi trees, where I punched him until he fell to the ground. At that time, I started to stab him on his neck, upper chest including his head and his hands when he tried to stop the knife. Whilst I was stabbing Navneet Kumar, his mobile phone rang and at the same time someone was calling out to Navneet. I then threw Navneet to the river believing that he is dead. Then I saw him trying to come up again to the other side of the river, I then jumped down to the river and got hold of Navneet and submerged him until he was motionless. I knew that he is really dead, I then put his body under the roots of trees in the water, then I swam out of the water. I knew that when I stabbed his head, the kitchen knife blade bent, I just left the knife there. I did not take his mobile phone, it was still with him. I believed that I killed Navneet Kumar at 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm. Navneet was wearing a white t/shirt with a black long trousers. I think his t/shirt fell off at the place I repeatedly stabbed him. After killing Navneet, I ran towards Matacaucau, the night was so dark I didn't know where I was running. I recalled climbing a tree and when I looked back, I saw Tom's light and I followed the light until I almost reach Tom's house, I came down and crossed the road to Deepwater. I cross the Waibula river and followed along the back of the houses near the Bilo Road. I again crossed the Waibula river, and up the Daya Ram Tyre Repair, I then followed the Nabilo road until I reached the Kings Road, up to the PWD Depot, then went to the village. I reached home at about 5.00 am on Saturday, 30/4/2005. I changed my clothes and put my long trousers and t/shirt at the back of the double wall of our old store. I just laid down inside our kitchen when my mother woke up to cook. I think I laid down for only 5 minutes when I got up again to walk with the rugby 15 team to Korovou town. I well remembered that when I just laid down, the police from Korovou Police Station arrived in their lorry at my uncle Bolalailai's house. I didn't know what they came there for."
"I am Timoci Ravurabota of Nailega village. District of Namalata in the province of Tailevu. I am only known by the name Timoci. I live with my parents at Nailega Village. I am not married. I am not employed other than assisting my father with farming. My level of education if Form 6. In 2005 I attended Form 6 at Tailevu North College. It is true that I told Kuliniasi Vunikedra and Inosi Turagalada that I murdered Navneet Kumar in the year 2005 near Matacula Village. I murdered Navneet within the period of time from 8.30 pm on Friday 29th April 2005 to 4.15 pm on Saturday afternoon on 30th April 2005. No one assisted me in murdering Navneet. I murdered him alone. I killed him by stabbing him repeatedly on his neck, face, upper chest and his head with a kitchen knife before I forced him underwater in the Wainikavula River until he was dead. I then put his body under the roots of a tree which was underwater so that the body does not float. The kitchen knife I used to repeatedly stab Navneet belonged to my mother Venaisi Bolaciri which I brought from home that day Friday 29th April 2005 at about 6.00 pm. It is a small knife with a brown handle and it is marked with the letters 'IL'. 'IL' is my younger brother's name Inoke Lavaisiga. My mother put these initials on the knife. I can still very well remember that knife but the blade is bent where I stabbed Navneet's head. I have been handed a knife and I recognise that I used (it) to repeatedly stab Navneet. Her identification marks is still there. After I stabbed Navneet I left the knife near Wainikavula Creek which is the place where I killed Navneet. I still remember the exact place at the Wainikavula Creek where I put Navneet's body after killing him. I can show that place to the police. I know Navneet Kumar very well since we attended Tailevu North College from Form 3 to Form 6. I was in Class 602 while he was in Class 601."
After the above Timoci Ravurabota was asked by ASP Rupeni Raga about his plan to rob and kill and what happened. Timoci Ravurabota replied:
"First of all, the Coca Cola Games was to be held at the National Stadium on Friday 29/4/2005 and Saturday 30/4/2005. I was still in form 602 at Tailevu North College at that time and I was camping with our village rugby 15 team at our Village Community Hall beginning from Monday 25/4/2005 for the rugby game to be played on Saturday, 30/4/20005 against Dritabua, a team from Naivicula. I asked my mother to give my admission fee to the Coca Cola Games and she gave me only $20.00 which is not enough to pay my fare, food and admission fee to the National Stadium in Suva. On Friday, 29/4/2005, the beginning of the school break, at about 7.00 pm, I walked alone to Korovou town. I was wearing a dark blue long trousers with side pockets with a brown round neck t/shirt. I was bringing with me my mother's kitchen knife which was pocketed inside my trouser's side pocket. I was planning to rob Dharmen by threatening him with the kitchen knife. I remembered meeting Samuela Qiotagane in Korovou town. We played billiard together before we came to the bus stand that goes to Suva where we were just yarning. It was dark and lights were switched on in Korovou town. I was looking for Dharmend, carrier driver but I didn't see him. Whilst I was yarning with Samu, the kitchen knife fell off from my pocket and Samu saw the knife, he then advised me in Fijian 'Qarauna Vinaka, ke raica na ovisa ni o kauta tiko nai sele ena taoni, ena vesuki iko' which when translated means 'Be Careful, if a police officer sees you carrying a kitchen knife in town, you will be arrested'. I picked up the knife again and put it back into my trouser's side pocket. Samu is one of my close friends, we attended form 3 and 4 together at Tailevu North College. During our conversation with Samu, at about 8.00 pm or after 8.00 pm, I saw Navneet Kumar driving their white liteace van to Korovou town through the road that goes to Tailevu North College. I saw Mrs Torika Vateitei sitting in the front seat of the van. The van then driven by Navneet Kumar then went up Nawiwaivusa Road. I crossed to the other side of the road and followed Navneet Kumar's van. I stopped Navneet Kumar's van near Master Peni Saukarawa's house along Nawiwaivusa Road. Navneet stopped and there was no other passenger inside the van. I opened the back passenger door of the van and told Navneet to take me to Burerua and I was seated at the back seat. When we (were) approaching the Korovou town main road, I told Navneet Kumar not to allow anyone to see me because some gang were looking for me. Navneet then advised me to go underneath the seat, which I did. The reason he told me to get down underneath the seats because the van will stop in town. He did stop in town, and I believe he was talking with an Indian guy, I recognised the voice to be of Gyan Prasad because we also attended Tailevu North College. I heard Gyan Prasad talking from the passenger side window and they were talking in Hindustani, and I can only understand that Navneet was telling Gyan that he wanted to buy a CD radio for his lorry. Gyan wanted to go for a ride but Navneet told him that he's going for another pick up job. After a short while, we then drove out again and I remained underneath the seat until I felt that the lights of the town faded and we have passed the Doctor's government quarters. Just after we passed the government quarters, I saw a lorry coming towards Korovou town, but I don't know who was driving it. We drove passed Burerua village and was about to reach RKS, then we return until we reached a drain just passed the junction that goes to Matacula village, I then told Navneet to stop. While stopping there, I saw a white twin cab coming with its light flicking, when it was about to reach us, then slowed down, then drove passed us after Navneet flickered his van light. I don't know the owner of the lorry as well as the registration number. Navneet's van lights was still switched on. I then got off then walked around the back of the van then came to the front at Navneet's side (driver's side). I took out the kitchen knife from my pocket and placed the blade on Navneet Kumar's neck and told him to get off the van. I saw him getting all the money from under the seat and handed it all to me, even before I asked him for money. I took the money and put it inside my trouser's pocket. He wanted to give me his mobile phone as well but I refused it. I removed the knife from his neck and I held the collar of his t/shirt from the back, then pushed him in front of me as we were following the road up to Matacula. After a while, we went through under a fence near a hill. After going under the fence, I then released the collar of his t/shirt because the place was bushy. A little bit further, he ran down the slope until I caught him again down the slope. I again got hold of his collar and we walked until we reached some Ivi trees, where I punched him until he fell to the ground. At that time, I started to stab him on his neck, upper chest including his head and his hands when he tried to stop the knife. Whilst I was stabbing Navneet Kumar, his mobile phone rang and at the same time someone was calling out to Navneet. I then threw Navneet to the river believing that he is dead. Then I saw him trying to come up again to the other side of the river, I then jumped down to the river and got hold of Navneet and submerged him until he was motionless. I knew that he is really dead, I then put his body under the roots of trees in the water, then I swam out of the water. I knew that when I stabbed his head, the kitchen knife blade bent, I just left the knife there. I did not take his mobile phone, it was still with him. I believed that I killed Navneet Kumar at 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm. Navneet was wearing a white t/shirt with a black long trousers. I think his t/shirt fell off at the place I repeatedly stabbed him. After killing Navneet, I ran towards Matacaucau, the night was so dark I didn't know where I was running. I recalled climbing a tree and when I looked back, I saw Tom's light and I followed the light until I almost reach Tom's house, I came down and crossed the road to Deepwater. I cross the Waibula river and followed along the back of the houses near the Bilo Road. I again crossed the Waibula river, and up the Daya Ram Tyre Repair, I then followed the Nabilo road until I reached the Kings Road, up to the PWD Depot, then went to the village. I reached home at about 5.00 am on Saturday, 30/4/2005. I changed my clothes and put my long trousers and t/shirt at the back of the double wall of our old store. I just laid down inside our kitchen when my mother woke up to cook. I think I laid down for only 5 minutes when I got up again to walk with the rugby 15 team to Korovou town. I well remembered that when I just laid down, the police from Korovou Police Station arrived in their lorry at my uncle Bolalailai's house. I didn't know what they came there for."
Fijileaks: If this unwarranted and taxpayer fraud economic summit goes ahead, Prasad should recommend the delegates bring their own homemade vegetarian gyozas to the Grand Pacific Hotel in Suva
Fijileaks: It is time we scrapped the so-called national consultations and economic summits where a bunch of failed economists, wannabe economists, and Prasad's economist lackeys, including the chair of his Financial Review Committee, the convicted Suva lawyer and others will be wearing two sets of matching underwears, sulus, shirts, skirts, and sandals for cocktails, morning teas, lunches, afternoon teas and dinners, and gorging on Japanese sushi.
*Prasad must put his party's and the other Coalition parties economic manifestoes together and present to the people of Fiji his BUDGET to sort out the financial woes the people are moaning about.
*The so-called economic geniuses can send their financial papers via e-mails to the voodoo economic professor who allegedly couldn't run three taxis that operated from Kundan Singh outlet.
*How can he run Fiji's economy?
*It is time we gave him TWO FINGERS for abusing $360,000 that he has set aside to promote and entertain his economist buddies at GPH.
The gutless TRAITOR should SLASH the RFMF's $100M BUDGET
MEANWHILE, SODELPA Management Board Meeting Paper No.11 to discuss on 14 April, 'Who defied the MB directive in the voting for the position of Speaker and the Prime Minister in Parliament'
*This is unprecedented. So the contract was initially for 3 months until March 31 at $160,000 which has expired and now they want it extended because to date only Pita Wise and Pramesh Chand have got jobs while the rest are awaiting the results of the PS interviews. |
Fijileaks Fact Check on Rabuka's Transitional Team:
*The transitional team is made up of PAP Office staff /supporters and failed election candidates (like Pramesh Chand) and they are not established civil servants.
*From the recent Fiji Sun report, it is obvious that it is a consultancy group hired by the Coalition Government not only to promote its image but also to advise the PM on the appointments and movements of senior officers (PS, Departmental Heads, Ambassadors).
*This is unprecedented. So the contract was initially for 3 months until March 31 at $160,000 which has expired and now they want it extended because to date only Pita Wise and Pramesh Chand have got jobs while the rest are awaiting the results of the PS interviews.
*This is highly irregular for a group from a political party (which has formed a coalition with 2 other parties to be able to govern), to be advising Rabuka on postings and reshuffling of civil servants when the PSC and its Chair are already in place.
*Does this not remind us of how the FFG outsourced the payment of salaries and perks of its Cabinet Ministers, including payment of consultancy fees to Nur Bano Ali’s company from 2009 (when Aiyaz Khaiyum took over as Finance Minister from MPC) to 2014, just 3 or 4 months before the elections that year.
*This was really criminal because Ministerial salaries were normally being paid from the Treasury like all public servants at no extra costs to Government but here Nur Bano Ali must have been paid no less than $20 million dollars consultancy fees annually for 6 years.
*So, this Coalition Government is no different from its predecessor. And worse it has destroyed the political neutrality and independence of the Public Service Commission by opening the door for PAP and the Opposition FFP (first time since independence) to nominate the 5 members of the Commission (3 Government and 2 FFP). Accordingly, appointments and promotions in the public service will now be determined not only by merit and qualifications but also on political affiliation.
*Hence, this “transition team” sounds suspicious to us as it is the first time ever a new Government in Fiji has put in place at the PM’s Office to do what exactly?
Surely, existing Permanent Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries in the Public Service are well trained to handle. Rabuka didn’t have such a team when he walked into his PM’s office after winning the 1992 elections, nor did the past Governments of Qarase and Chaudhry. So why now ?
* Bainimarama's ’s former Secretary to Cabinet Yogesh Karan (who replaced Pramesh Chand) was there all the time after the elections and only got transferred by Chairman PSC Luke Rokovada to the Ministry of Sugar and Multi-ethnic Affairs as its new PS.
*Karan could, with Rokovada, have helped in setting up PM’s new Cabinet Office staff while waiting for appointment of his successor before his transfer. *There were other Permanent Secretaries in other Ministries who could have been assigned temporarily to the PM’s Office to assist.
*There was actually no need to hire a transition team whose head is Peter Wise and who has since been appointed acting Secretary to Cabinet and Pramesh Chand as acting PS of PSC?
*Where is the lady who was PS for PSC?
*We assume that Wise and Chand were also being paid from the transition team budget of $160,000 until their acting appointments were made when their salaries would be paid for by their departments.
WELCOME TO FIJI'S NEW ANIMAL FARM
*The former FLP Attorney-General, the late ANAND SINGH (RIP), had claimed to us that he and another political colleague of his were taken up to the Nabua military barracks in 2011 and bashed up by balaclava clad bodyguards of the then Prime Minister for hours. Tikoitoga led the balaclava clad hit squad that assaulted the two former FLP political colleagues at the Officers Mess |
*The former FLP Attorney-General, the late ANAND SINGH (RIP) had claimed to us that he and another political colleague of his were taken up to the Nabua military barracks in 2011 and bashed up by balaclava clad bodyguards of the then Prime Minister for hours before they were confined in the RFMF Front Gate Security cells for 48 hours to allow their wounds to heal and before they were interrogated daily for two weeks at CID headquarters.
*During the two weeks at CID headquarters, Pita Driti, Uluilakeba Mara and Mohammed Aziz were also being interviewed simultaneously, and separately, for their alleged attempt to remove Aiyaz Khaiyum as Attorney-General.
*Aziz, of course, was later released while Driti was convicted and jailed but Mara managed to escape to Tonga.
* Tikoitoga led the balaclava clad hit squad that assaulted the two former FLP political colleagues at the Officers Mess in 2011 when he was Land Force Commander.
*Two weeks later he was promoted by Bainimarama as his new RFMF Commander, perhaps as a reward to carrying out the brutal assaults.
*Now, Tikoitoga is back, and he was recently photographed witnessing the appointment of army deserter Tarakinikini as Fiji's PR to the UN.
*Those close to the Coalition claim Tikoitoga is earmarked for posting to PNG, for he is allegedly close to Rabuka and PAP VP, Colonel Matt Mataitini, who retired from the UN (Security Section).
*As for Tarakinikini, he was never a UN diplomat and after retiring from the UN as a mid-level official on security matters, he was allegedly working as a security guard at a New York shopping complex.
A highly reliable source told Fijileaks:
"Why should a person (Tarakinikini) who disappeared from this country under a black cloud of scandal for well over 20 years and upon return is immediately rewarded with a top multi-lateral diplomatic post ? Why should the taxpayers fund such a person? Military cronyism at work again under the current leadership. God help the poor people of Fiji and hardworking professionals who invested all their profesional years living here and building up this country and would have made a far better and effective representative in presenting Fiji's interest at the UN. I hear from the grapevine that former retired RFMF Commander Tikoitoga who was FFG’s Ambassador to Ethiopia and PNG is earmarked to be appointed and posted as Ambassador to PNG later in May/June. SLR (Rabuka) revives his coup culture."
From Fijileaks Archive, 3 December 2020.
The Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka is hiding behind the IMMUNITY that he granted to himself in the 1990 and 1997 Constitution (endorsed by the NFP leader, the late Jai Ram Reddy). The IMMUNITY continues in the 2013 Constitution, and protects Coupist Bainimarama's torturers.
*In 1987, ANAND SINGH found himself at the receiving end of the Father of Coups, SITIVENI RABUKA, whose fanatical racist Tonton Macoutes, and the security forces, were leaning hard on him. Based in Lautoka, he had been briefed to defend a fellow Lautoka lawyer Haroon Ali Shah who was being held without charge apparently in connection with the arms that had been shipped into Fiji.
*He was also liasing with New Zealand lawyer Christopher Harder who had been hired to defend a group of Rotumans who had threatened to breakaway from Fiji rather than accept Rabuka's treasonous coup.
*There was also Rabuka's Internal Security Decree under which he was rounding up his opponents and throwing them into military prisons because GOD had whispered into his ears. As Harder records, 'Anand Singh was having a rough time. The security forces were leaning hard on him, his office and home had been broken into twice in the preceding week. Never before had it been broken into. He was representing six of those charged with the gun affair and needed a hand'.
*The harassment and threats continued until the racist Rabuka got his way but in a sweet irony he was defeated in 1999, and the same Singh went on to become Chaudhry's Attorney-General, only to be cruelly cut short by Rabuka's copycat George Speight.
*That is why we find it SICKENING when we see or hear Rabuka's 'B*ll greasers' pushing him to lead SODELPA into the 2022 election. This racist destroyed so many lives and has inflicted untold suffering on the likes of Singh and Others.
*To quote Harder again, 'Anand was nervous as we entered the Natabua Prison. He was a sensitive fellow struggling to survive where there was real oppression...'
*May Anand Singh's soul rest in peace.
*As for SITIVENI RABUKA, he can rot in political hell. He does not deserve our sympathy nor our support.
*Rabuka lit the racial fire for Singh and others to be held hostage by George Speight. He had unleased Coup Culture in Fiji. Only really DEMENTED people will advocate Sitiveni Rabuka for Prime Minister in 2022.
*What kind of a society are we trying to create - that it is normal to recycle DICTATORS to rule Fiji. Might as well, have another four years of Bainimarama-Khaiyum Dictatorship until a new crop of leaders emerge to consign dictatorship into the dustbin
From Fijileaks Archive, 5 September 2013
*We were somewhat shocked at the speed with which the Public Service Commission dealt with the confirmation of the appointment of Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini as PRUN (Permanent Representative to the UN) since the applications according to the advertisement closed on the 22 March, which made us wonder if the process of selection adopted by the Commission was thorough enough and transparent in order "to give respect and equal opportunity to every applicant" for the post of PRUN.
* Doesn't the appointment of Tarakinikini remind us how Mohammed Saneem had been convicted by the Fiji High Court for gross insubordination in the 2014 elections and yet Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum defied the High Court decision and recommended to the Fiji Constitutional Services Commission that Saneem's contract be renewed without even carrying out any disciplinary proceedings against him following his court conviction.
*In Tarakinikini's case, at least there should have been an inquiry on his role in the 2000 coup and his High Court conviction as an army deserter. So, Bainimarama and Khaiyum's legacy of lies or my way or the highway continues under Rabuka's Coalition government.
*Meanwhile, we noticed that Tarakinikini even turned up at the memorial service of the late Ratu Epeli Ganilau at the RFMF Barracks, with no attempt to march him off the military grounds or for Commander Jone Kalouniwai to order his detainment for DESERTION.
*Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief: In 2011, Tarakinikini had declined to co-operate or answer questions for the book that I was working on, based on highly confidential military documents and other sources, regarding his role in the formation of the CRW Unit, the events in Parliament in 2000, and the overthrow of the Chaudhry government by George Speight. To Speight and CRW mutineer Shane Stevens credit, both through my personal contacts, provided answers from behind the confines of the prison walls.
*Filipo Tarakinikini's UN appointment is another evidence of the complete i-Taukeinization of Fiji that Coupist Sitiveni began in 1987, and now assisted by the NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD who is silent as a political church mouse. During the elections he was screaming, Transparency and Accountability. Shockingly, no one is SPEAKING UP for Indo-Fijians and other non i-Taukei races.
*Why should we expect Prasad and his side-kick Poster Boy, RICHARD NAIDU, to remind us of the 2004 Fiji Supreme Court judgment against Tarakinikini that ruled that the former army colonel was a DESERTER.
*In Naidu's case, despite waiting for sentencing, the Suva lawyer is running around Fiji, asking taxpayers, on how his master Prasad should run ECONOMY.
*There is widespread perception, and gossip around grog bowls, that Naidu will be the latest beneficiary of the Coalition government - his conviction swept under the carpet, for why else he is so brazenly running around Fiji as chair of FRC?
*We will soon publish the Options that Naidu has regarding his CONVICTION
Fijileaks: We were somewhat shocked at the speed with which the Public Service Commission dealt with the confirmation of the appointment of Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini as PRUN (Permanent Representative to the UN) since the applications according to the advertisement closed on the 22 March, which made us wonder if the process of selection adopted by the Commission was thorough enough and transparent in order "to give respect and equal opportunity to every applicant" for the post of PRUN.
*Additionally, we wonder why the process of shortlisting applicants for the post of PRUN was not given to the same recruitment agency working with the PSC to shortlist the 700 applicants for the 11 PS positions, especially since there has been a lot of adverse public reactions in the social media to the initial acting appointment of Tarakinikini.
*At least the Commission would have avoided being accused of employing double standards in the appointment of Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Missions, both of which appointments require the concurrence of the Prime Minister.
*The normal PSC procedure for the appointment of Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Missions (if not handled by Recruitment agencies) is that when the deadline for the applications is closed, the PSC would then vet and evaluate each candidate.
*Once the short list is drawn up in order of merit and preference, the PSC would then refer the list to the PS for Foreign Affairs (in respect of Ambassadorial applications) for his views and comments on each candidate.
*Then the list comes back to the PSC for the Directorate of the Personnel Division to carry out their usual vetting process (including police clearance) and upon completion of that exercise, they submit their findings to the SPS who will then put up his recommendations and short list to the PSC Chairman for consideration by the Commission.
*After the Commission has made its decisions, the Chair or the SPS will then seek the endorsement of the PM to the proposed appointments by the Commission.
*It is a normal procedure for the Commission to submit to the PM a short list of at least 5 candidates, in order of preference, whom they consider eminently qualified and suitable to be appointed for each individual post.
*This process gives the PM greater freedom and transparency to select anyone from among the five candidates presented to him by the Commission rather than deciding on one single candidate which can smack of nepotism, graft, etc.
*If he is unhappy with all the candidates recommended then the post is re-advertised.
*Meanwhile, we noticed that Tarakinikini even turned up at the memorial service of the late Ratu Epeli Ganilau at the RFMF Barracks, with no attempt to march him off the military grounds or for Commander Jone Kalouniwai to order his detainment for DESERTION.
Tarakinikini v Commander Republic of Fiji Military Forces [2004] FJSC 8; CBV0007.2003S (21 May 2004)IN THE SUPREME COURT, FIJI ISLANDS
AT SUVA
CIVIL APPEAL NO: CBV0007 OF 2003S
(Fiji Court of Appeal Civil Action No. ABU0049 of 2002S)
BETWEEN:
LT. COLONEL FILIPO TARAKINIKINI
Petitioner
AND:
1. COMMANDER REPUBLIC OF FIJI MILITARY FORCES
2. RATU JOSEFA ILOILO – PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
Respondents
Coram: Hon. Justice Daniel V. Fatiaki, President of Supreme Court
Rt. Hon. Justice Thomas Gault, Judge of Supreme Court
Hon. Justice Keith Mason, Judge of Supreme Court
Hearing: Friday, 14th May 2004, Suva
Counsel: Mr. K. Muaror, Mr. S. Matawalu for the Petitioner
Capt. A. Bale and Lt. Col. M. Aziz for the 1st Respondent
Mr. S. Banuve for 2nd & 3rd Respondents
Date of Judgment: Friday, 21st May 2004
AT SUVA
CIVIL APPEAL NO: CBV0007 OF 2003S
(Fiji Court of Appeal Civil Action No. ABU0049 of 2002S)
BETWEEN:
LT. COLONEL FILIPO TARAKINIKINI
Petitioner
AND:
1. COMMANDER REPUBLIC OF FIJI MILITARY FORCES
2. RATU JOSEFA ILOILO – PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
Respondents
Coram: Hon. Justice Daniel V. Fatiaki, President of Supreme Court
Rt. Hon. Justice Thomas Gault, Judge of Supreme Court
Hon. Justice Keith Mason, Judge of Supreme Court
Hearing: Friday, 14th May 2004, Suva
Counsel: Mr. K. Muaror, Mr. S. Matawalu for the Petitioner
Capt. A. Bale and Lt. Col. M. Aziz for the 1st Respondent
Mr. S. Banuve for 2nd & 3rd Respondents
Date of Judgment: Friday, 21st May 2004
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/web-capture-2-4-2023-95222-www-bing-com_orig.jpeg)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Process for resigning a Commission in RFMF
(3) The Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is responsible for:
(a) making appointments of members of the Forces;
(b) taking disciplinary action against members of the Forces; and
(c) removing members from the Forces.
(4) The Parliament may make laws relating to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.”
(a) all regimental claims have been paid;
(b) he is aware of any outstanding public claim against the officer;
(c) there is any objection to resignation being sanctioned;
(d) there is any special reason why such officer should not serve in the Reserve of Officer.(Amended by Order 7th October 1970*)
(2) Where an officer is permitted to resign, the resignation shall not take effect, unless otherwise ordered by the Governor General, until the acceptance is notified in the Gazette. (Amended by Order 7th October 1970*.)
(3) A regular officer who has been trained at Government expense at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, or at any other Commonwealth Military College or Academy who applies to be posted to the Reserve of Officers or to resign his commission shall refund to Government the following amounts:
Within one year of being commissioned.............. $1,000
Within two years of being commissioned ............ $ 800
Within three years of being commissioned .......... $ 600
Within four years of being commissioned ........... $ 400
Within five years of being commissioned ............ $ 200”
(Inserted by Regulations 29th July 1952 )
....
The ... regulation requires a resignation to be considered by and commented on by the commanding officer of the officer who wishes to resign his commission. The commanding officer must forward it on to the Commander, whose obligation it is to submit it to the President. In both cases it can be assumed that information will be forwarded which will enable a decision to be made.
The decision must reflect the circumstances. It is plain that bearing in mind the history that a serving officer may not resign without permission and the wording of the regulation shows that the decision is not one which is automatic.
In such case the person making the decision must be provided with the necessary information to enable the decision to be made and to be one which will not impede the effectiveness of the armed forces. It is no doubt for that reason that the regulation contemplates that the resignation will be forwarded through the chain of command.
A chain of command is an important matter in the armed forces and this is reinforced by the necessity for a considered decision to be given in the case of the resignation of a commissioned officer.”
I have received your letter of resignation dated 27th February 2002. I have carefully considered your request and have decided that first you must return home as scheduled.
You will appreciate that my desire to have you returned is based precisely on the outcome of the formal Board of Inquiry conducted by Lt. Col J. Evans on the alleged participating by some members of the RFMF during the events of May 2000. It is for this reason alone that your presence is imminent to provide answers to these allegations.
You must understand that the interest of the Nation and in particular the RFMF is foremost and it is my intention to have the investigation completed as soon as possible.
In view of the above reasons, your request for release is not approved.
a. The investigation into the May 2000 coup;
b. The extension of my contract with UNDPKO;
c. My resignation;
d. The allegations against me;
e. Command.
....
My Resignation
With all due respects, your response to my resignation aims to cast doubt on me and is evasive and manipulative in avoiding issues. It says nothing of substance and is silent on the issues I raised as some of the reasons prompting my resignation. Sec 194 (2) (b) of the constitution provides me the absolute right to resign from the Force. I exercised this right in my letter of resignation dated 27th February. My resignation was formally accepted once received by you. Therefore it is effective no later than 18th March 2002 as that is the date of your reply.
....
Conclusion
I have defined five independent issues that have contributed to my resignation. In that I have explained that:
(ii) An Order that Certiorari do issue quashing the said decision of the First Respondent.
(iii) An Order that the First Respondent be estopped from denying that the Applicant has properly been cleared of all allegations during the investigations conducted by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces and Fiji Police Force in terms of the letter of the Prime Minister dated 19th January 2001 to the Secretary General to the United Nations.
(iv) An Order that Mandamus do issue requiring the First Respondent to transmit the Applicant’s resignation to the Second Respondent for his decision.
(v) Damages
(vi) Costs
(vii) Further or other relief as to this Honourable Court seems just and expedient.
The Judge also considered it appropriate to rule that the response of the Commander to the first letter in so far as it indicated that the application was being declined was not within the parameters of regulation 21 because such a decision was a matter for the President. It was because of that conclusion that the Judge issued an order for certiorari in respect of what he saw as a decision which the Commander was not empowered to make.
There has been no criticism of the procedures adopted in respect of the second letter other than perhaps by implication. That relates to the observation that investigation of the alleged conduct of Lt Colonel Tarakinikini is not a valid reason for refusing to accept the resignation.
We should make it clear we do not necessarily concur with the Judge in this conclusion. The material which the Commander makes available to the President must reflect all matters of concern to the Commander of the armed forces and will include the existence of material which may relate to conduct affecting the armed forces and their responsibilities to the State which it is appropriate to draw to the attention of the President.”
Since the first letter never found its way to the commanding officer the procedures were never set in train and we note that there were reasons why it may have not been appropriate for the Commander to send the first letter to the commanding officer bearing in mind the contentious material contained in the application. It was not a mere request for the resignation to be considered.
In the event whatever the consequences of the correspondence which occurred with respect to the first letter this was all overtaken by the second letter which was submitted by the Commander to the commanding officer. Having been received back with comments from the commanding officer it was then forwarded by the Commander to the President as contemplated by regulation 21.
In those circumstances we cannot see that there was a need for an order quashing the decision of the Commander with respect to the first letter since what occurred was in relation to an attempt to resign which had never reached the stage where any decision was required, whatever the Commander may have purported to do.
Nor was there any need for an order for certiorari as the procedures contemplated by regulation 21 were complied with in respect of the second letter. Certiorari was not appropriate where the preceding formality of reference to the commanding officer had not been complied with.”
Resolution of such a claim and entitlement to damages depends upon the filing of pleadings which define precisely the basis of the claim. There are no such pleadings in this case. The award of damages also depends upon the establishment of the right to recover them by evidence which has been the subject of appropriate testing.
There is no material in the case as recorded which could provide a justification for the granting of damages in respect of the tort referred to bearing in mind its establishment depends upon a proof of malice appropriate to the allegations concerned. It is wholly inappropriate for any such exercise to be conducted on the basis of affidavits.”
President of Supreme Court
- These are the reasons for the Court’s decision, announced at the conclusion of the hearing, to refuse special leave to appeal.
- The petitioner sought to challenge the order of the Court of Appeal which upheld an appeal from the High Court and made consequential orders that we set out below.
- The petitioner, Lt. Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini was first commissioned in the then Royal Fiji Military Forces in 1981. By May of 2000 he held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF). On 19 May 2000, he was purportedly appointed chief of staff by those responsible for the May 2000 coup under the leadership of George Speight. This led to investigations against him later that year for alleged involvement with the coup plotters. The petitioner has always denied any complicity in those matters.
- The petitioner was released on secondment to take up a 12 months United Nations posting abroad, such release being supported by the Prime Minister and approved by the Commander of the RFMF. He left to take up his appointment in March 2001.
- Later that year further allegations about him were released to the public. He contends that he has sought a full public inquiry into the events of the May 2000 coup as it affected his professional and personal situation. RFMF refused an extension of the United Nations secondment beyond the initial 12 months term.
- The petitioner has remained abroad. However, he has sought to resign his commission. The proceedings from which this appeal is brought were commenced in May 2002 and involve complaints and a claim for damages relating to the way in which RFMF has dealt with his application to resign.
The Process for resigning a Commission in RFMF
- Before addressing the facts it is convenient to set out the statutory framework as to resignation of a commission in RFMF. What follows is a summary of the detailed reasoning of the Court of Appeal. We do not understand it to be contentious.
- At common law an officer holding a commission in the armed forces is not free to resign at will (see generally Hearson v. Churchill [1892] UKLawRpKQB 125; [1892] 2 QB 144, Marks v. The Commonwealth [1964] HCA 45; [1964] 111 CLR 549).
- Section 112 of the constitution continues in existence the RFMF established by the Constitution of 1990. That section also provides:
(3) The Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is responsible for:
(a) making appointments of members of the Forces;
(b) taking disciplinary action against members of the Forces; and
(c) removing members from the Forces.
(4) The Parliament may make laws relating to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.”
- Pursuant to s.67(b) of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Act (Cap.81), the Minister may make regulations providing for the terms of service and appointment, duties, promotion, seniority, transfer, leave, resignation and release from service of officers. The presently relevant regulation is Reg. 21 which provides:
(a) all regimental claims have been paid;
(b) he is aware of any outstanding public claim against the officer;
(c) there is any objection to resignation being sanctioned;
(d) there is any special reason why such officer should not serve in the Reserve of Officer.(Amended by Order 7th October 1970*)
(2) Where an officer is permitted to resign, the resignation shall not take effect, unless otherwise ordered by the Governor General, until the acceptance is notified in the Gazette. (Amended by Order 7th October 1970*.)
(3) A regular officer who has been trained at Government expense at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, or at any other Commonwealth Military College or Academy who applies to be posted to the Reserve of Officers or to resign his commission shall refund to Government the following amounts:
Within one year of being commissioned.............. $1,000
Within two years of being commissioned ............ $ 800
Within three years of being commissioned .......... $ 600
Within four years of being commissioned ........... $ 400
Within five years of being commissioned ............ $ 200”
(Inserted by Regulations 29th July 1952 )
- The reference to the Governor General in this regulation should now read as a reference to the President.
- The Court of Appeal held (at p.19) that s.112(3) of the Constitution was not affected by s.194(5) thereof in its application to the petitioner. Regulation 21 is the statutory framework within which the petitioner’s rights touching his decision to seek to resign are to be determined.
- The Court of Appeal pointed out that:
....
The ... regulation requires a resignation to be considered by and commented on by the commanding officer of the officer who wishes to resign his commission. The commanding officer must forward it on to the Commander, whose obligation it is to submit it to the President. In both cases it can be assumed that information will be forwarded which will enable a decision to be made.
The decision must reflect the circumstances. It is plain that bearing in mind the history that a serving officer may not resign without permission and the wording of the regulation shows that the decision is not one which is automatic.
In such case the person making the decision must be provided with the necessary information to enable the decision to be made and to be one which will not impede the effectiveness of the armed forces. It is no doubt for that reason that the regulation contemplates that the resignation will be forwarded through the chain of command.
A chain of command is an important matter in the armed forces and this is reinforced by the necessity for a considered decision to be given in the case of the resignation of a commissioned officer.”
- As indicated, the correctness of this analysis by the Court of Appeal was not questioned in this Court.
- On 27 February 2002 the petitioner tendered his resignation from RFMF with effect from 21 March 2002. He wrote (from New York) to the Commander, RFMF. The lengthy letter contained a deal of historical and explanatory material and it referred to recent telephone conversations between the Commander (Commodore F. V. Bainimarama, the first respondent) and himself. The letter (hereafter referred to as the first letter) clearly expressed the writer’s intentions to tender to the Commander his resignation with effect from 21 March 2002.
- As the Court of Appeal pointed out, the letter made no reference to Reg.21. Nor had it followed the procedure contemplated by the regulation, which (read fairly and in light of military practice) contemplated that a letter of resignation would be submitted in the first instance to the officer’s immediate commanding officer, who had the right and obligation to include material relevant to considering whether or not the resignation should be permitted, when forwarding the application to the Commander for transmission to the President.
- The Petitioner’s commanding officer at the time was Lt. Colonel Waqavakatoga.
- The Commander’s reply on 12 March 2002 was in the following terms:
I have received your letter of resignation dated 27th February 2002. I have carefully considered your request and have decided that first you must return home as scheduled.
You will appreciate that my desire to have you returned is based precisely on the outcome of the formal Board of Inquiry conducted by Lt. Col J. Evans on the alleged participating by some members of the RFMF during the events of May 2000. It is for this reason alone that your presence is imminent to provide answers to these allegations.
You must understand that the interest of the Nation and in particular the RFMF is foremost and it is my intention to have the investigation completed as soon as possible.
In view of the above reasons, your request for release is not approved.
- The petitioner made a lengthy reply to the Commander in a letter of 21 March 2002. The letter contains material explanatory of the petitioner’s role in the May 2000 coup and complains about the injustice of the RFMF’s decision not to permit the extension of the United Nations contract. On the subject of the resignation it said this:
a. The investigation into the May 2000 coup;
b. The extension of my contract with UNDPKO;
c. My resignation;
d. The allegations against me;
e. Command.
....
My Resignation
With all due respects, your response to my resignation aims to cast doubt on me and is evasive and manipulative in avoiding issues. It says nothing of substance and is silent on the issues I raised as some of the reasons prompting my resignation. Sec 194 (2) (b) of the constitution provides me the absolute right to resign from the Force. I exercised this right in my letter of resignation dated 27th February. My resignation was formally accepted once received by you. Therefore it is effective no later than 18th March 2002 as that is the date of your reply.
....
Conclusion
I have defined five independent issues that have contributed to my resignation. In that I have explained that:
- My resignation letter dated 27th February is, and has been since that date both lawful and irrevocable....”
- The petitioner’s claim in this letter that s.194(2) (b) of the Constitution gave him an absolute right to resign is not correct, as the Court of Appeal pointed out.
- Indeed, the petitioner appears to have recognised this early in the piece, because he wrote to the President and Commander in Chief of RFMF on 8 April 2002 complaining that his application to resign should have been transmitted to the President under Reg. 21. This letter was copied to the first respondent. On 22 April 2002 the petitioner’s legal advisers also wrote to the first respondent, referring to Reg.21 and calling upon the Commander to transmit the original letter of resignation to the President with the Commander’s comments on the matters set out under Regulation 21(1)(a)-(d). (The lawyers appear not to have recognized that the Commander was not the petitioner’s immediate commanding officer at the time.)
- On 28 April the petitioner wrote to the Acting Commander, RFMF, Lt Colonel Naivalurua confirming his intention to resign with effect from 21 March 2002. We refer to this as the second letter.
- On 2 May 2002 the first respondent directed that the Application for Resignation of Commission be actioned (affidavit of first respondent sworn 5 June 2002, par 12 (m)).
- On 10 May 2002 the letter of 28 April 2002 was forwarded by the Acting Commander to Lt. Colonel Waqavakatoga, the petitioner’s commanding officer. Lt. Colonel Waqavakatoga treated that letter as a letter of resignation delivered under Reg.21. On 31 May 2002 he submitted to the Acting Commander his “submissions and sanctions” in accordance with Reg. 21. In his affidavit of 5 June 2002, the first respondent indicated that the submission would be forwarded to the President “with sanctions”. This was done.
- These proceedings were commenced by Ex Parte Application under Part 53 of the High Court Rules on 13 May 2002. The Application seeks the following relief:
(ii) An Order that Certiorari do issue quashing the said decision of the First Respondent.
(iii) An Order that the First Respondent be estopped from denying that the Applicant has properly been cleared of all allegations during the investigations conducted by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces and Fiji Police Force in terms of the letter of the Prime Minister dated 19th January 2001 to the Secretary General to the United Nations.
(iv) An Order that Mandamus do issue requiring the First Respondent to transmit the Applicant’s resignation to the Second Respondent for his decision.
(v) Damages
(vi) Costs
(vii) Further or other relief as to this Honourable Court seems just and expedient.
- The President has taken no action pending the resolution of these proceedings. But this is not the subject matter of any complaint in the proceedings, which are focussed on the decision of the Commander evidenced by his letter of 12 March 2002.
- The Court of Appeal recorded that counsel were unable to indicate that Lt Colonel Tarakinikini had been disadvantaged by the second letter (of 28 April 2002) activating the procedure rather then the first (of 27 February 2002). The reasons for this become clear when it is recognized that (1) the orders of the Court of Appeal (see below) leave the petitioner free to litigate his claim for damages stemming from allegedly tortious conduct involved in the non-processing of the first letter; (2) the petitioner has always been at liberty to forward submissions directly to the President, and has done so; and (3) the stream of correspondence between the petitioner and his lawyers on the one hand and the President, members of government and superior officers on the other hand (only some of which we have referred to) shows that the later correspondence almost invariably incorporated reference back to the original letter of resignation. In short, there has been no impediment to the petitioner having the full text of his initial letter of resignation placed before whomever he wished.
- The primary judge (Byrne J) concluded that the petitioner had made it abundantly clear in his first letter that he intended to resign; and that the first respondent had knowingly failed to forward the letter to the President in terms of Reg 21. In what were described as interim orders, his Honour granted a declaration quashing the first respondent’s decision refusing to approve the notice of resignation and he directed that certiorari was to issue for that purpose. The Judge also found that requesting the petitioner to return for a further investigation without charging him with complicity in the events of May 2000 was “unreasonable in the ‘Wednesbury’ sense and arbitrary”. It was held that the petitioner had a right to claim damages for the tort of misfeasance in public office, but the Judge wished to hear further submissions before giving any decision as to the amount. No order in the nature of mandamus was made.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the respondents’ appeal.
- The Court held that the problems in this case have largely arisen because the procedures contemplated by Reg 21 were not followed in respect of the first letter and that consideration of this obscured the fact that the second letter did result in the contemplated procedures being followed.
- The Court recognized that the first letter indicated an intention to resign, but that matters were complicated by the petitioner including a great deal of material some of which was critical of the Commander to whom the letter was addressed. The petitioner further complicated the situation by addressing his letter to the Commander which delayed the procedures contemplated by Reg 21 since the letter would have had to be passed on to his commanding officer to obtain any comments relevant under the provisions of the Regulation.
- The Court of Appeal did not disagree with the primary judge’s characterisation of the first letter as a letter of resignation. But it was pointed out that the trial judge’s reasons had not referred to the fact that the procedures contemplated by Reg 21 had not been followed as regards that letter. The Court said (at 16-17):
The Judge also considered it appropriate to rule that the response of the Commander to the first letter in so far as it indicated that the application was being declined was not within the parameters of regulation 21 because such a decision was a matter for the President. It was because of that conclusion that the Judge issued an order for certiorari in respect of what he saw as a decision which the Commander was not empowered to make.
There has been no criticism of the procedures adopted in respect of the second letter other than perhaps by implication. That relates to the observation that investigation of the alleged conduct of Lt Colonel Tarakinikini is not a valid reason for refusing to accept the resignation.
We should make it clear we do not necessarily concur with the Judge in this conclusion. The material which the Commander makes available to the President must reflect all matters of concern to the Commander of the armed forces and will include the existence of material which may relate to conduct affecting the armed forces and their responsibilities to the State which it is appropriate to draw to the attention of the President.”
- The Court then addressed and rejected a submission by the present first respondent to the effect that Reg 21 had been overtaken by provisions in the Constitution. This conclusion is not under dispute in this Court.
- The orders by way of judicial review that had been granted at first instance were overturned by the Court of Appeal, essentially on discretionary grounds. The debate about the first respondent’s conduct referable to the first letter and the first respondent’s answering contentions based upon the petitioner’s own departures from due procedure were held to be hypothetical as regards these heads of relief. The nub of the reasoning was that (pp 20-21):
Since the first letter never found its way to the commanding officer the procedures were never set in train and we note that there were reasons why it may have not been appropriate for the Commander to send the first letter to the commanding officer bearing in mind the contentious material contained in the application. It was not a mere request for the resignation to be considered.
In the event whatever the consequences of the correspondence which occurred with respect to the first letter this was all overtaken by the second letter which was submitted by the Commander to the commanding officer. Having been received back with comments from the commanding officer it was then forwarded by the Commander to the President as contemplated by regulation 21.
In those circumstances we cannot see that there was a need for an order quashing the decision of the Commander with respect to the first letter since what occurred was in relation to an attempt to resign which had never reached the stage where any decision was required, whatever the Commander may have purported to do.
Nor was there any need for an order for certiorari as the procedures contemplated by regulation 21 were complied with in respect of the second letter. Certiorari was not appropriate where the preceding formality of reference to the commanding officer had not been complied with.”
- The Court of Appeal refused the order or declaration as to the Commander being estopped from denying that the petitioner had properly been cleared of all allegations during the investigations conducted before his departure to the United States to take up his post with the United Nations. The Court observed that an evidentiary basis for such a declaration had not been established. The Court also doubted that the proceedings were an appropriate vehicle for such a form of relief.
- Mandamus in regard to the transmission of the first letter was refused on discretionary grounds on the basis of inutility, given that the second letter had been referred to the President.
- As to the claim for damages, the Court held:
Resolution of such a claim and entitlement to damages depends upon the filing of pleadings which define precisely the basis of the claim. There are no such pleadings in this case. The award of damages also depends upon the establishment of the right to recover them by evidence which has been the subject of appropriate testing.
There is no material in the case as recorded which could provide a justification for the granting of damages in respect of the tort referred to bearing in mind its establishment depends upon a proof of malice appropriate to the allegations concerned. It is wholly inappropriate for any such exercise to be conducted on the basis of affidavits.”
- The Court of Appeal made the following orders:
- The appeal is therefore allowed and the order quashing the decision of the Commander, the first appellant, is itself quashed there being now no need for any such order.
- The order for certiorari is quashed.
- There is a direction that outstanding matters be remitted to the High Court with a direction that on the present state of the proceedings no order for damages can be made and that no such order can be made in the absence of pleadings defining the basis of the claim and a hearing to resolve contested facts. Consideration will need to be given by counsel as to whether or not the present proceedings form an appropriate vehicle for the resolution of outstanding issues with regard to damages.
- The petitioner submitted that the issues raised in this Court are matters of great or public importance, thereby attracting a grant of special leave within s.7(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Act.
- At several points in the written and oral submissions the petitioner sought to focus upon the importance of his allegations that the Commander’s conduct towards him provoked his tendered resignation. Alternatively, he contended that there is great or public importance in bringing to a head and resolving once and for all any suggestion made against him concerning alleged complicity in the May 2000 coup. The petition also contained a number of unverified allegations and assertions against the Commander and others.
- It must be stated firmly that these proceedings are not the venue for airing or determining these and other grievances. These are appellate proceedings involving a challenge to the orders of the Court of Appeal. These orders were made in resolution of particular issues agitated in the Court of Appeal. In turn, these issues arose out of the particular proceedings in the High Court.
- We have already drawn attention to the relief sought in the unamended initiating process in the High Court. With the exception of the estoppel declaration (that was properly rejected in the court below) it focusses upon the first respondent’s conduct as Commander in his 12 March 2002 response to the first letter of resignation. By the time of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal at the very latest, these issues had been confined to the operation of Reg 21 as regards the Commander’s response to the petitioner’s first letter of resignation.
- Counsel for the petitioner was pressed repeatedly at the hearing to formulate the legal issue presented in these proceedings at their current stage. He had difficulty in doing so, for understandable reasons.
- At one level, the petitioner sought to attract a grant of special leave by submissions of the broadest generality. He referred to the role of the armed forces in this country, the rule of law, and the importance of following due procedure in relation to a recurring matter such as applications to resign from the RFMF. The Court recognizes the importance of these matters, but it remains essential for a petitioner to demonstrate how they are engaged by the particular facts in the context of the particular legal issues raised in the particular proceedings.
- At another level, the written submissions of the appellant raised a number of purely factual disputes, mainly involving the interpretation of particular letters or the drawing of inferences as to the intentions of writers of those letters.
- The public law issues raised by the petitioner in so much of the proceedings as relates to judicial review were all focused upon the conduct of the first respondent in relation to the first letter. The letter clearly evidenced the petitioner’s intention to resign. But it did not invoke Reg 21; it went beyond the subject matter of resignation; it was not forwarded through the petitioner’s immediate commanding officer; and it was overtaken by other events well before the proceedings were commenced.
- These other events were the clarification involved in the second letter and initiation of the formal and due processing of that letter all the way to it being placed before the President accompanied by additional material compiled in accordance with Reg 21.
- We agree with the petitioner’s submissions that a letter of resignation need not be in any specified form, and that it is sufficient if a letter discloses a clear intention to resign. We would point out that acceptance of these submissions makes it impossible for the petitioner to insist that his only formal intimation of intention to resign was in the first letter.
- In the upshot, the petitioner’s entitlement to have his application to resign dealt with in accordance with Reg 21 was acknowledged and put into effect by RFMF before the Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review was filed. The Court of Appeal was, in our view, clearly correct to refuse relief by way of judicial review directed at the first respondent’s initial response to the petitioner’s first letter. There was simply no utility in such relief. Indeed it would have been counter-productive in light of the fact that the second letter had been processed correctly and put before the President in circumstances where the petitioner had not been refused the right to put his story before the President.
- The interpretation of the letters of 27 February 2002 and 12 March 2002 raises no matter of general or public importance. The orders of the Court of Appeal leave open the right of the petitioner, in a properly pleaded case, to pursue damages based on the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Application filed in May 2002 was never a proper vehicle for determining contested issues of malice and damages that formed part of this aspect of the petitioner’s claim in tort.
- Before parting with the petition, we indicate that it became unnecessary in the circumstances to consider the respondents’ application to dismiss the petition on various formal and procedural grounds.
- We also point out that the respondents’ submission that s.7(3) of the Supreme Court Act should be read as imposing cumulative requirements before special leave may be granted is rejected. The subsection is to be read as if “or” appeared after par (b) thereof.
- Certain observations were made by the Court of Appeal which have either been misunderstood by the parties or with which we are not inclined to agree. Since the proceedings may conceivably go further in relation to the pending claim for damages for misfeasance in public office and since there is utility in any event in clarifying certain matters, we add the following comments.
- First, the Court of Appeal noted the submission by counsel for the Commander that the presence of material critical of the Commander’s own conduct in the first letter of resignation would have relieved him of the duty to forward it along with the other requisite material to the President had it been received from the petitioner’s commanding officer accompanied by the latter’s “comments and sanctions”. Later, in a passage at pp 20-21 that we have set out above, the Court noted that there were reasons why it may not have been appropriate for the Commander to send the first letter to the commanding officer bearing in mind the contentious material contained in the application. As presently advised, we see no reason why a letter of resignation cannot contain such material as the person concerned considers relevant to his or her application. If it includes information or comment critical of a superior officer that is pertinent to the application, so be it. If its content or tone is inappropriate in the circumstances this might conceivably expose the applicant for resignation to justified criticism, but he or she would remain entitled to have the application dealt with on its merits.
- Secondly, we agree with the comments by the Court of Appeal (at pp 22) recognizing what is effectively the corollary of the first point. Since Reg 21 confers no automatic right to resignation and since the President (on advice) is undoubtedly to consider the application in light of the information accompanying it in accordance with Reg 21 and the public interest, it follows that there seems nothing wrong with the applicant’s commanding officer and/or the Commander providing such further information as is thought relevant to the proper consideration of the application. The application of the principles of natural justice was not raised before us, either generally or in particular reference to the petitioner’s circumstances. Like the Court of Appeal (p 21), we do not wish to comment on it in the absence of submissions.
- Thirdly, we observe that nothing in these proceedings raises any issue as to the procedures involved in or the outcome of the President’s consideration of the application.
- The President has not formally addressed the application pending the determination of these proceedings, and it is understandable why no complaint has been raised on that account.
- Reg 21 undoubtedly gives an applicant for resignation an entitlement to have his or her application processed and considered within a reasonable time. It is in no one’s interest that it should be left outstanding indefinitely.
- The Court reserved the question of costs. There is no reason why they should not follow the event. We so order.
- The petition for special leave to appeal is refused with costs.
President of Supreme Court
Fijileaks: There is something really rotten in the state of Fiji. Sadly, no matter how valid is Chaudhry's chiding of Prasad, most political leaders have their own skeletons that the Fijian public are fully familiar with in Fiji, and abroad. In Chaudhry's case, and in the eyes of the law, he stands convicted of foreign exchange currency violations, and as the convicting judge reminded him:
"If the funds had been brought into the Fijian Inland Revenue at the time when they were paid by India into the accused's accounts, a time when they should have been; then the economy of this nation would have benefitted from having these funds in the current account and that benefit would have accrued to all Fijians. The only way to compensate the nation for the failure of the accused to comply with the law is to impose a large fine on him to bring money back into the revenue. Should he not pay that fine then he must serve a term of imprisonment in default."
Fijileaks: We have made our position very clear. It is appalling that Suva lawyer RICHARD NAIDU who has been found guilty of scandalizing the judiciary, and is waiting to be sentenced, is going around Fiji recording submissions from the public for his Fiscal Review Committee.
*Before the convicting Judge was forced to flee to Sri Lanka, he was waiting for Naidu's team to make submissions in mitigation.
*Sorry, not every conviction under the FFP government was politically motivated. The NFP and the Coalition government have convinced the gullible public that their 'Poster Boy' is a victim of the machinations of 'Bainimarama's Boy' - Aiyaz Khaiyum.
*On the FRC we have one EDWIN CHAND, the son of NFP stalwart PRAMOD CHAND. Lately, Pramod Chand's brother Dalip's bus company was calling on the FRC in Labasa to review student's bus fares.
Edwin Chand is nephew of Dalip Chand. Edwin is also Fiji Football Association Vice-preisdent from the North of Fiji
A bus operator, Dalip Chand and Son Limited, is pleading with the government to take into account the review of school students’ bus fares. Managing Director, Rohnil Chand made the plea at a public consultation with the Fiscal Review Committee at the Labasa Civic Center yesterday. Chand says they are almost running at a loss, as school students pay only half fare and the seat capacity has decreased from 86 to 60 per trip.
“We take students with 50% the half fare, bus fare. It is very hard, in a 60-seater bus … we take students with half fare. Before, the bus seating capacity was adult 60 and school students was 86. Nowadays, school students cannot sit 86.”
Chand says most of the time, expenses are greater than income, and they would have to fork over money from their other businesses to cater for their bus operation. He says the price of fuel due to global supply chain issues and maintenance due to road conditions make it even more difficult to operate. Chand says it is for these reasons that they have not been able to expand their business, as they cannot earn enough income to purchase more buses. He acknowledges the e-ticketing system but calls for tighter enforcement. Dalip Chand and Son Limited has a total of 93 buses in operation in Vanua Levu. Source: FBC News
“We take students with 50% the half fare, bus fare. It is very hard, in a 60-seater bus … we take students with half fare. Before, the bus seating capacity was adult 60 and school students was 86. Nowadays, school students cannot sit 86.”
Chand says most of the time, expenses are greater than income, and they would have to fork over money from their other businesses to cater for their bus operation. He says the price of fuel due to global supply chain issues and maintenance due to road conditions make it even more difficult to operate. Chand says it is for these reasons that they have not been able to expand their business, as they cannot earn enough income to purchase more buses. He acknowledges the e-ticketing system but calls for tighter enforcement. Dalip Chand and Son Limited has a total of 93 buses in operation in Vanua Levu. Source: FBC News
“What we want to know is how you are planning to address the critical issues facing us. Don’t ask us “Where is the money” (Fiji Times 31 March). Your job is to find it and get on with fixing the problems. You were elected to do so.”
FLP leader MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY to BIMAN PRASAD
Actually, Ministerial statements under Standing Order 40 should be on a public matter of national importance. These statements need not be unduly lengthy, and must be made to inform Parliament and the people what the government proposes to do to resolve the issue – exactly what the Minister has failed to do.
Labour is inclined to agree with Fiji First Member Jone Usamate’s reaction that the Minister should cut out the ‘litany of woes’. “You have decided to be in the hot seat… you have to learn to prioritise and do the things that need to be done,” he admonished.
“That is good advice. After all, the Minister knew exactly what he was getting into when he made big promises during the election campaign.
“ He knew about the $10b debt, he knew of the huge sums to be found to fix up the nation’s vital infrastructure such as roads, water supplies and the deteriorating state of our health services. He knew that there was a lot of wastage and over-spending by the Fiji First Government.”
“In fact, Minister Prasad is now sounding exactly like the Bainimarama government– blaming the previous government for the current woes of the nation.
“Minister, you were elected by the people to find solutions not to keep restating the problems. We all know the current state of the nation. There is no need to sing the same old tune over and over again.
“What we want to know is how you are planning to address the critical issues facing us. Don’t ask us “Where is the money” (Fiji Times 31 March). Your job is to find it and get on with fixing the problems. You were elected to do so,” said Mr Chaudhry.
Labour is inclined to agree with Fiji First Member Jone Usamate’s reaction that the Minister should cut out the ‘litany of woes’. “You have decided to be in the hot seat… you have to learn to prioritise and do the things that need to be done,” he admonished.
“That is good advice. After all, the Minister knew exactly what he was getting into when he made big promises during the election campaign.
“ He knew about the $10b debt, he knew of the huge sums to be found to fix up the nation’s vital infrastructure such as roads, water supplies and the deteriorating state of our health services. He knew that there was a lot of wastage and over-spending by the Fiji First Government.”
“In fact, Minister Prasad is now sounding exactly like the Bainimarama government– blaming the previous government for the current woes of the nation.
“Minister, you were elected by the people to find solutions not to keep restating the problems. We all know the current state of the nation. There is no need to sing the same old tune over and over again.
“What we want to know is how you are planning to address the critical issues facing us. Don’t ask us “Where is the money” (Fiji Times 31 March). Your job is to find it and get on with fixing the problems. You were elected to do so,” said Mr Chaudhry.
From Fijileaks Archive
[email protected]
ARCHIVES
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
October 2012
September 2012