Editor

FNPF pensioners who lost out with the Regime’s illegal restructuring of the FNPF pensions might note that Yash Ghai Commission’s Draft Constitution states in Schedule 6 (Transition Arrangements), Clause 24: Judicial proceedings and other pending matters

that

“(1) Any proceedings before any court, tribunal or commission that had arisen under any law and that had been terminated by order at any time before the General Effective Date, are revived and may be proceeded with under this Constitution”.

I presume this also applies to the Burness/Shameem case.

FNPF pensioners who lost out may wish to go to the Constituent Assembly or influence those persons who are appointed to it, to press for this clause to be retained in the Draft Constitution.

This will no doubt be totally futile, but at least the pensioners can go on record.

Professor Wadan Narsey

Greg Bullard letter:

Dear Legal Practitioners of Fiji,

The reasons for my termination were never given by the Attorney General. This may clarify some of the reasons. Some of my observations overlap and cannot properly be delineated into their own sub-heading. Where this occurs, I will put include both parts that“dovetail”.  Parts 1 and 2 fall into this category.

Part 1.

Resources of the Legal Practitioners Unit (LPU)

During my first week in my role as Head of the LPU, it was clear that the Chief Justice and the Chief Registrar were not interested in adhering to the provision of resources that had been allocated and approved by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in June 2012. The Chief Registrar and Chief Justice were using the allocated staff members for their own purposes.

The staffing model, as approved by the PSC, allowed for 17 staff. The LPU offices had space for 6. There was close to 1000 open files at this point in time. Many of these complaints that I reviewed could be described as vexatious. They appeared to be unresolved to allow the Chief Justice recourse against the named legal practitioners. There was no other obvious reason that these files were still “open”.

Of the 17 staff, I did not get to meet half of them. The Chief Registrar, under the direction of the Chief Justice, had them seconded “elsewhere”. The Chief Justice utilised the legal officers for unrelated tasks. Of the existing staff, there were some new starters. After they had received some basic instruction, they were then moved elsewhere within the Judicial Department. There was no consistency. There was no stability.

The Unit had been allocated 5 legal officers. Two had experience within the unit, whilst  three were new graduates. However, all five were capable and displayed sound legal skills. The three recent graduates were highly intelligent, highly competent and highly motivated.

Four of the five legal officers were often called away to perform “other tasks”, by the Chief Registrar and the Chief Justice. This was disruptive to say the least. The Chief Registrar controlled staff movement. It became evident within a short period of time, that he was setting the LPU up for failure, by not allowing them to undertake their LPU duties on a full-time basis.

The LPU also had access to two offices at the ILSC building for use on hearing days. This was not a problem as the Commissioner only attended the ILSC for hearings. We had no choice but to utilise this space to continue in our tasks. This was stopped in my third week by Commissioner Madigan.

I appreciate that in Fiji things work differently to what I am used to. However, his goes further than mere resources. This to me was a clear undermining of the proper functioning of the LPU by the Chief Justice and the Chief Registrar. Whilst the proper resourcing was seen by the Prime Minister as part of this critical reform, it became clear by the actions of the Chief Registrar and the Chief Justice that they did not share his view.

I recall a meeting with the Chief Registrar and the Chief Justice. I said words to the effect:

What you are asking me to do is like emptying a swimming pool with a cup, in the rain. I can build a pump. 

Their response was:

We want you to use a cup. 

It was at this point that I felt I had been set up to fail. All of my proposals, both administrative and legal, were ignored.  However, I did provide the Chief Registrar, with a “blue print” of what was required to “build a pump”. I sincerely hope he puts these proposals into action.

Further, I requested that I be given an instrument of delegation, to save running even basic correspondence to the Chief Registrar for signing. This was a matter of poor practices and “double-handling” that was affecting the efficiency of the unit. The Chief Registrar asked me to draft the instrument. After consultation with the Chief Justice, this request was declined by the Chief Registrar.  It became glaringly obvious, at that stage, that the Chief Justice was the de-facto head of the Legal Practitioners Unit and my role was basically redundant. This “flies in the face” of the discussions that took place between myself and the Chief Justice, prior to me coming to Fiji. It was clear that the role he described to me was never going to eventuate.

Part 2.

The Secretary of the Independent Legal Services Commission (ILSC)

In my first week on the job, it became clear that we needed to utilise the two offices in the ILSC building as we had insufficient space in the LPU offices to perform our functions and duties, properly.

In my first week, the Secretary of the ILSC, approached myself and two LPU legal officers to inform us that she had matters before the court in the next month. Her concern was that the legal practitioner who was engaged in her matter, had been suspended from practice for five years. She informed us that she had no receipt for monies paid and no bill of costs for work performed. This person (the Secretary of the ILSC) works within the justice system. She has facilitated potential VAT and income tax liability circumvention. A crime in its own right.

I invited her to lodge a complaint with the LPU and informed her that I would send a legal officer to assist her with the drafting of the complaint. I informed her that this would happen within two weeks. She was worried for her own part in the cash payments. I assured her that her willingness to come forward and disclose this fact, would be taken into full account. When two legal officers of the LPU sought to assist her in drafting the complaint she refused. Her verbal complaint to me was noted and ignored by the Chief Registrar. Section 99(2) of the Legal Practitioners Decree 2009, states:

            (2) A complaint under subsection (1) may be made orally or in writing.

The Chief Registrar refused to formalise the oral complaint. Further section 100(1) of the LPD states:

100.—(1) The Registrar may investigate the conduct of a legal practitioner or a law  firm or any employee or agent of any practitioner or any law firm, if the Registrar has reason to believe that the conduct may amount to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct, even though no complaint has been made about the conduct or a complaint made under section 99 by any person or entity has been withdrawn.(emphasis added)

The Chief Registrar refused to invoke his powers under this section.

In my second week on the job (after her initial approach), I approached her to ascertain her willingness to assist the LPU. She informed me that Commissioner Madigan was aware of her potential complaint and the fact that she was the client of the legal practitioner who had recently been before the ILSC, and suspended. This caused me immediate and grave concern, as the Commissioner was clearly conflicted, both as a matter of fact and according to the principles enshrined in the “Code of Conduct” handbook. He should have recused himself from hearing any matter involving this Legal Practitioner.

After this meeting, I received the following letter from Commissioner Madigan. (see attached letter dated 17 October 2012). I had been in the job for 7 days at this point in time.

The letter is a complete fabrication by the Secretary of the ILSC and supported in full by the Commissioner. The conversation involved only myself and the Secretary. There were no witnesses to the conversation.  In the third paragraph of that letter Madigan states:

I am astonished that you should approach my Secretary with an accusation without my leave…..

Commissioner Madigan acted on unsubstantiated hearsay without first discussing the matter with me, thereby denying me any natural justice and procedural fairness. It is clear that he does not understand these principles of justice. Madigan had carbon copied the letter to the Chief Registrar and the Chief Justice. This is a person who is a High Court judge in Fiji, accepting hearsay as fact. His close working relationship with his Secretary gives rise to a clear conflict of interests.  The irony, in this context, is crushing.

Secondly, we were not in court. I do not comprehend the reason for the Commissioner wanting me to seek his “leave” to speak with a complainant of the LPU.

It was at this stage that I realised my position was untenable. The Chief Registrar and the Chief Justice took no action against the Commissioner. It was clear that I was being “isolated”. However, I do not run from adversity.

Later, I gathered evidence to support a recusal application against the Commissioner from hearing any more of the Legal Practitioners matters, as there was clearly a perception of bias through a conflict of interests. I raised the issue with the Chief Registrar, who said words to the effect:

It makes no difference. Madigan is going to find against him (the Legal Practitioner)   in the stay application. What’s the problem?

This conversation took place prior to the hearing of the Legal Practitioners stay application hearing. None of this excuses the actions of the said Legal Practitioner. However, these matters should be conducted with fairness and transparency to the accused and to safeguard the results, that is preventing grounds for an appeal. These concepts appear to be foreign to the Chief Justice, the Chief Registrar and the Commissioner.

The only legal practitioner in Fiji, whose matters the Commissioner should not preside over, is the very Legal Practitioner, in question. Surely another High Court Judge could have been seconded to preside over this matter. Not according to the Chief Justice. I urged the Chief Justice to speak with the Commissioner and ask him to stand down himself, to save him being embarrassed and humiliated, if the LPU were to make the recusal application.

The Chief Justice refused this proposal and vetoed the LPU from making its own application for recusal. My advice and legal analysis were again rejected by the Chief Justice. I was unable to make any decisions pursuant to transparency, accountability and integrity. This overwhelmingly confirmed that the Chief Justice was running the LPU. The Chief Justice controls the legal profession in Fiji. This is a travesty of justice and a shameless grab for power and control by him.

After the above issues unfolded, I withdrew from receiving any more directions of the Chief Registrar (in effect the Chief Justice). Under the terms of my contract  [clause 2 (b)], I was to accept the directions of the Chief Registrar OR the Permanent Secretary for Justice.

Please note, this clause does not state and/or. Legally speaking, it is one or the other and cannot be both.

In my third week, after it became patently clear that my integrity would be compromised if I received any further direction from the Chief Registrar), I presented at the office of Ms Vuniwaqa, the acting Permanent Secretary for Justice. She did not give me any direction whatsoever. I then wrote to the Prime Minister seeking direction from him as I did not know where I stood.

Prior to my departure on 3 November 2012, the Prime Minister was too busy to see me. I informed him in that letter, that I would return to Fiji and present in his office on 12 November for the purpose of receiving further direction as I could not accept the directives of the Chief Registrar and the Permanent Secretary for Justice refused to direct me.

Upon returning to Fiji on 8 November 2012 (at my own expense as the Chief Registrar had not booked my flights), I was arrested at Nadi Airport by Fiji Airways staff/agents and Immigration officials. I was “escorted” to the Melanesian Hotel, in Nadi, by Fiji Airways staff/agents and placed under guard. I was refused the right to contact anyone by any means. I was held for 21 hours.

As my residency status had not been formalised, I had returned to Fiji as an Australian tourist for a two week stay. I intended to watch the Remembrance Day March (my Grandfather gave his life to defend the South Pacific), see the Prime Minister and return to Sydney. I am now banned for life from entering Fiji. No explanation has been given to me for this arbitrary arrest and detention, by anyone. I can no longer holiday in Fiji with my family as I have been doing for many years. My Fijian friends have been taken from me, courtesy of the Chief Justice.

As the Prime Minister and the Attorney General have not responded to any of my correspondence, I have been forced to seek Australian political intervention to secure the return of my barrister’s blue bag (containing my testamurs, my silks, my bar jacket, my jabot, my wig and my laptop computer and bag containing personal documents (approximately $7000 AUD in value). These items are currently housed in the Prime Minister’s Office. I left these items in that location to prevent them from being confiscated on my departure on 3 November 2012.

Please remember, I have no vested interest in supplying this information. It is impossible for me to return to Fiji in any event. I left without my personal property and my contractual entitlements. However, I left with my integrity and honour in tact, which unlike my personal property are irreplaceable.

No doubt this letter will be sent to a blog site. It is the prerogative of any recipient to do what they will with this correspondence. It has been emailed to legal practitioners in Fiji only. I have done this to preserve my undertaking that what happens in Fiji stays in Fiji. These observations, which are gleaned from my role as Head of the LPU are for Fijian eyes only, so you are acutely aware of what is happening in your justice system, if you are not already. They do not form part of the information provided to politicians in Australia.

I expect a great deal of criticism from bloggers. That is fine. I would fight tooth and nail to protect such persons rights to express their views. I have come to appreciate freedom of speech in a more profound way in recent weeks. I would fight to preserve the right for any person to verbally attack this correspondence. We should all enjoy the right to express our views, provided such expressions are objective and lacking in personal and subjective abuse.

Conclusion:

The AG comes in for a lot of criticism. However, a “politician” is only as good as his legal counsel. The Chief Justice is that counsel. Any derision people have for the AG deserves to be levelled at the Chief Justice in equal portion.

In Australia, oversight and the investigative functions thereof,  are often conducted by interstate and expatriated persons. This is done to preserve accountability, transparency and integrity. However, as I discovered in my short stint, Fiji has some highly talented lawyers. There is no need for expatriated judicial officers in Fiji. Those days are over. It appears that those remaining have nowhere else to go and are taking draconian steps to make themselves and their friends, immovable.

Gates and Madigan were the only “jungle bunnies” I encountered in Fiji. It remains to be seen if anyone has the will to stop him.  I will consider my next correspondence (if any) in due course. There are more events that need to be brought under the spotlight of scrutiny.  Gates and Madigan should be brought to account.

All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing.

Greg Bullard

Former Head of the LPU

 

How have things come to this ?, did Frank not bother to read the Ernst & Young Report or did Tappoos friend keep that from him as well ?.

By giving his personal support to this venture he is letting down all the people who believed he was against corruption and incompetence in all its forms.

Perhaps he no longer cares, perhaps there is a plan to give an amnesty for corrupt practice to a select few, or could it be that the shoppers discount and gifts offered are irresistible.

It was once said of one politician that “He would officially open a toilet door if the money was enough” We really hope Frank is not going down that road, we who trusted him and put our faith in him are beginning to think we were made fools of.

To give Frank and Pensioners the opportunity to judge for themselves, click on the following link for an extract of the relevant report
FNPF Penina Tappoo
Greybeard

(A RE-WRITTEN FORWARDED EMAIL FROM THE U.K.)

 I paid good money for my Pension and other benefits. Just because the Government borrowed that money does not make my benefits some kind of charity or hand-out. Gold plated MP pensions, and Civil Service Government benefits also known as ‘health care’, 67 paid holidays, 20 weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days: now that is welfare. And they have the nerve to call me a ‘greedy pensioner’ and my retirement an ‘entitlement! What is wrong with all the people who run this country? Wake up Britain!

 We’re ‘broke’ and can’t help our own pensioners, orphans and homeless etcetera; but spend billions of pounds on G2 events! In the last few months we have provided aid to India, Greece andTurkey. And now Afghanistan and Pakistan – the home of bin Laden. Literally, billions of pounds.

 Our retirees, living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid, nor do they get any breaks – while our government and religious organisations pour hundreds of billions and tonnes of food into foreign countries.

 They call Old Age Security and Healthcare an ‘entitlement’ even though most of us have paid for it all our working lives. And now – when it is time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?

 We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans. This is Great Britain: a place where we have homeless without shelter; children going to bed hungry; and hospitals being closed.

 Britain’s average income families cannot afford dental care. The elderly go without needed medication and have to travel hundreds of miles for necessary medical care with no reimbursement of cost, have vehicles we cannot afford the fuel for. There is a lack of affordable housing. The mentally ill go without treatment.

 Yet! There is a ‘benefit’ for the people of foreign countries with ships and planes lining up for food, water, tents, clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies to transport overseas.

 Imagine if the Government gave ‘us’ the same support that it gives to other countries! Sad – isn’t it?

 A pension is not an ‘entitlement’ – that’s a handout. We worked for our pensions: and we worked secure in the knowledge that we were providing for our old age with our own money. Then the government stole it – simple as that.
So tell us Frank, does it make you feel proud that yours is not the only government stealing from Pensioners ??

 

Dear Croz,

I refer to your commentary on James Anthony’s note to the Constitutional Commission and would like to make a few observations which I hope you will publish on your website: ( Croz did not , so we are)

First of all, a correction – Dr James Anthony is not Felix Anthony’s brother. They may be vaguely related by marriage but there is no actual relationship otherwise. In fact, perish that thought!

Secondly, I myself attended that conference to launch the Pacific Studies Centre at Auckland University 26 or more years ago, to which you referred in your commentary. I had not previously met Dr Jim Anthony and was very interested to hear him speak. He was an icon for many because he had successfully challenged the hegemony of colonialism and capitalism in Fiji in 1959, and was something of a ‘Ned Kelly’ figure. Not many Europeans in colonial Fiji liked Jim precisely because of that, and instead of getting a job at USP, lecturing us (local) students- as he should have done after he earned his PhD, Jim’s application was turned down by none other than the VC at the time, Colin Aikman. Jim certainly would have made a huge difference to our learning because of his unique perspective on Fiji, the Pacific and the world; instead, those of us who attended that university ended up learning about our societies from the colonial perspective- something that Bainimarama, for all his other faults, now rightly condemns as the Australian and New Zealand viewpoint in interviews with Graham Davis and the like. 

But getting back to the Auckland conference, I don’t remember the Maori ‘extremists’ as you call them hijacking the conference as you do. I do recall that some very strong views were expressed about colonial attitudes towards Maori and Pacific Islanders similar to what we had experienced in Fiji. We were ready for that challenging perspective since many felt that even the Pacific Studies programme at Auckland University had been captured by the lavalava-wearing colonial academics who exploited Pacific Island people for their intellectual property. 

Anyway Jim was always defined as an ‘Indian’ (whether he appreciated it or not) so he would have been seen as part of the non- Pacifika group at that conference, and probably also left that session that you referred to. Your recollection of Vijay Naidu being ‘adopted’ by Epeli Hau’ofa though is correct, and Vijay was indeed in that ‘privileged’ position. But young though I was at the time, I found such gestures of patronage to be distasteful- if the Pacific Islanders like Epeli Hau’ofa -a kind man- had to adopt Indo-Fijians as ‘Pacific Islanders’ instead of leaving the room and standing in solidarity with them, this was a sorry saga indeed. Such an assimilationist strategy was even then considered to be objectionable and a violation of international human rights law. Assimilation was imposed on the Maori by Pakeha and we all know the consequences of that on the tax-payer in NZ; the courts have made everyone pay for that colonial insult. I recall that Vijay Naidu stayed because of that ‘adoption’; I was glad to leave the room because the problem was not Indians, as they were not the focus of the Maori ‘extremists’ as you call them (freedom fighters by another term), but the Pakeha at that conference who chose to define what Pacific Studies was all about, and a lot more can be said about that, as you know. 

Jim is no longer an academic as such, since he has now retired, but he is an intellectual and there is a huge difference between the two. Academics remain at universities – intellectuals survive them! Jim still has a lot to offer and is a son of Fiji, better than most. He has a right to comment on what goes on there, as much as anyone else- particularly on the latest developments in the Constitutional Commission- without being the target of a personal attack based on erroneous facts as you have done from the advantageous position of your own blogsite. 

The Constitutional Commission of Fiji made an unpopular decision, judging from the media reports, to have a person like Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi appointed as a consultant when he came to a public hearing in support of a group that formally espoused racist views (to call for a Christian State in Fiji is racist whether or not you can appreciate the nexus between ethnicity and religion in our context). This starkly shows that the Commission is acting ultra vires the terms of reference given to it under section 3 of both Decrees No 57 and 58, notwithstanding the gloss and obfuscation that you and your columnist Alan Lockington, and indeed the Commission, are trying to put on this appointment. No one heard even a whisper of a dissenting opinion on the idea of a Christian State from anyone within that group making those submissions to the Commission and Ratu Joni’s presence there had a chilling effect on the minority ethnic groups. Unless the Commission is operating on another planet or some parallel universe, surely it should find the public opinion somewhat revealing? That kind of complete disjunction from reality is what makes many people agree with the main political parties and trade unions of Fiji (the ‘constituent assembly’ in fact) which, in the unprecedented move of a joint statement, essentially called for the disbanding of the Commission. With such heartfelt collaboration among the main body-politic on some issues perhaps consensus can be reached on others as well, thus obviating the need for former political divisions, and indeed for a Constitutional Commission. The political parties can organize constitutional review themselves and, with goodwill, sort out a new constitution for Fiji. It will certainly save time and money. As a tax payer of Fiji whose taxes are likely helping to pay for the salaries of the Commission and consultants, I must say that it is difficult not to agree with the critical viewpoint. 

Jim Anthony’s statement to the Chair of the Commission puts it rather nicely in my view. He was never known to mince his words in his youth- why should he start now? In a few short, pithy sentences he expressed the sentiments of many in Fiji by holding the now one-sided process of constitution-making up for critical scrutiny. 

Dr Shaista Shameem

Auckland. 30-10-2012