The jailing of the former prime minister, Laisenia Qarase, for corruption is a personal tragedy for the man who once held the highest elected office in the land. But it is also a powerful lesson for all Fijians that the days of looking after yourself and your kai vata (associates) at the expense of the wider community are over. The pursuit of personal interest and the interests of relatives, extended family, village and province are so ingrained in the national psyche that Qarase seems to have convinced himself there was nothing wrong in what he did. How else to explain the total absence of “remorse or repentance” cited by Justice Priyantha Fernando when he said he had no alternative but to send Qarase to prison.
What he’d done was both illegal and immoral – said the judge – but he wouldn’t acknowledge it. If this was the attitude of a man who moved in the top echelons of corporate Fiji as a merchant banker and company director, then you can be sure the same attitude exists on the part of others. But in a publicly listed and highly profitable company like Fijian Holdings Limited, looking after yourself and those around you while keeping other stakeholders in the dark is corruption. If you do it and the law catches up with you- as Justice Fernando made clear in his judgment – you will invariably wind up behind bars.
Qarase used his position as director of a company specifically set up for the benefit of all I’Taukei to benefit his family and other Lauans. He obtained prized A Class shares for them in Fijian Holdings that paid healthy dividends into their bank accounts. And he did it at the expense of other Fijians, who weren’t able to obtain those shares. As a director of Fijian Holdings, he had a legal obligation to safeguard its interests and those of all its shareholders, not to pursue his interests and those of his kai vata. He had a conflict of interest that he didn’t declare to his fellow directors in FHL, nor to two of the most important institutions in the vanua whose interests he was meant to represent as an advisor – the Fijian Affairs Board and the Great Council of Chiefs.
Simply put, it was a betrayal of the interests of all I’Taukei for the benefit of a few. These were Qarase and his family in the case of the family-owned Q-Ten Investments, the Qarase family and others in the case of Mavana Investments, and a company to which Qarase acted as financial advisor– the Cicia Plantation Co-op Society. They were all allocated Class A shares in Fijian Holdings as a direct result of Qarase using his position to obtain them without telling the other stakeholders that he and they were beneficiaries. He was also present at the board meetings at which dividends were allocated without excluding himself.
Of course, you won’t read about this on any of the websites which support Laisenia Qarase and the SDL. For them Qarase is a martyr, convicted by a “kangaroo court” on behalf of a regime waging a vendetta and trying to remove him from a glorious comeback in the election of 2014. They keep citing the fact that the offences took place 20 years ago, long before Qarase became prime minister, as if this constitutes a legitimate reason not to have launched the prosecution. Yet the means of pursuing such a case were noticeably absent until FICAC – the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption – was instituted after the Bainimarama coup of 2006. FICAC brought the prosecution – not the Director of Public Prosecutions – and it was clearly in the public interest. The facts as outlined in Justice Fernando’s sentencing document speak for themselves.
“You (Qarase) facilitated the approval of the issuance and allotment of Class A shares to the three companies, Q-Ten, CPS and Mavana. It was done in priority to other eligible Provincial and Tikina Counciils, FAB (Fijian Affairs Board) and indigenous Fijian people. In doing so, you failed to disclose your interest and the relationship with the three companies to FHL, FAB or GCC. Your acts were prejudicial to the rights of Provincial and Tikina Councils, FAB and all other indigenous people”.
And so the sword of justice has fallen – guilty of six counts of abuse of office and three of discharge of duty with respect to a property in which he had a private interest. The judge said he had no alternative but to send Qarase to jail based on several previous legal cases that had all involved custodial sentences. These included that of former Fiji Post chairman and current Fiji Times owner, Mahendra Patel. All told, Qarase will spend a year behind bars. His lawyer, Tupou Draunidalo, intends to lodge an appeal on Monday.
Only the most hardhearted Fijian wouldn’t have felt a degree of sympathy as the clearly broken 71-year old embraced his wife, Leba, and his lawyers and was led away to prison. The court was told he is suffering from worsening diabetes and a range of other serious illnesses, his wife has health issues including having suffered a stroke, he’s been deprived of his official entitlements and has five children and 15 grandchildren, some of whom are in his charge. Jail is a terrible fall from grace for someone who led the country, one of its major political parties and was a pillar of his community and the Methodist Church.
But as the judge said, Qarase held high office in the public sector, was a financial advisor to government and the public vested their trust in him. He had a duty to safeguard the interests of the Fijian people but he applied for shares for companies in which he had a private interest. In doing so – Justice Fernando said – he had committed “a gross breach of trust” that warranted “an immediate custodial sentence”. As the former prime minister settles into his cell at Korovou Prison, it’s a time for national as well as personal reflection. Because this is much more than the tragic downfall of one man. Here endeth an important lesson for every public official and every company director in Fiji.
This article has subsequently appeared in the Fiji Sun.
It has also appeared on Pacific Scoop New Zealand.
Sad day for the Lauens, they should look at the late Kamisese Maras record too and they will find the same thing Qarase did
Great piece Graham, I hope Fiji Sun and Times publish this in the public interest so people can wake up and demand better from leaders.
Yes, sympathy for Qarase but greater sympathy for the Fijian masses who have been taken for a ride by many a leader since independence.
More sympathy for Fijian ladies who sit on hard cement at the market to sell and elke out living, come rain or shine; BBQ sellers in town, young Fijian girls prostituting themselves; young Fijian boys dropping out of school, selling drugs and geting into crime.
All the while, corrupt Fijian leaders’ and talatala waistlines get bigger, they send kids to overseas universities, ride around 4WD and enjoy the good life while snootily looking down on the rest.
Leaders like Qarase and Mahen are quite cold hearted and clinical when it comes to looking after self and family and very good actors when it comes to gaining sympathy.
……Qarase’s Legacy Will Live On…..after his sentencing yesterday it has made us Kai-Viti more stronger and more determined to remove the two Puppets…BAINIMARAMA AND HIS SO CALLED GAY FRIEND KAIYUM
a legacy of corruption…of setting himself and kai vata up at the expense of the poor taukei people in the villages and market floors of Viti Levu and elsewhere….of preaching from the pulpit every Sunday as a lay preacher in the Methodist Church telling people “do what I say but not what I do”…
Only stupid Lauan’s like you will want to see his legacy live on
Ulukau
….’Here endeth an important lesson for every public official and every company director in Fiji……’
Is that ‘every’ as in ‘EVERY’ or ‘every’ as in ‘every but not completely every’ or ‘every’ as in ‘every pre-2006 public official and company director, when we won and you lost and we make the rules now’ or ‘every’ as in ‘everyone can wish its every but its not really’…..?
As for 4WD, they don’t know the meaning PAJERO, it means vutulaki in spanish, thats got to show that SOMEONE IS WATCHING and trying to tell us who the culpricks are
As fot the 4WD Meaning..i think the person giving the Spanish meaning may have experienced this. What a Shame for letting the Public Know of your Personal life
KAI-VITI POWER
How the charges are made up
34. I am sure you know this, but I will take you through it anyway. There are three sets of three charges:
– First there are 3 “application” charges – Charges 1,3 and 5 [review charges in detail]. Those are the charges that Mr Qarase abused his office applying for shares in Cicia, Mavana and Q Ten.
– Then there are the 3 “facilitating” charges – Charges 2, 4 and 6 [review charges in detail]. These are the charges that Mr Qarase abused his office by “facilitating approval” of the issue of shares in Cicia, Mavana and Q Ten.
– Then there are three “special property” charges – Charges 7, 8 and 9 [review charges in detail]. These are the charges that Mr Qarase discharged his duties as a director in respect of the Mavana, Cicia and Q Ten shares.
The common factor in all the charges – employed in the public service
35. In all of the charges FICAC says that Mr Qarase was a person employed in the public service. FICAC says he was employed in the public service because:
– he was a director of Fijian Holdings – and
– he was financial adviser to FAB – and
– he was an adviser to the Great Council of Chiefs.
36. Notice the words “and”. FICAC must prove that he was all three of those things. I repeat – all three of those things. FICAC wrote the charge. We didn’t. FICAC says Mr Qarase was a public servant because he was a FHL director, and adviser to FAB and adviser to the Great Council of Chiefs. FICAC must prove that he was all of these things.
Director of Fijian Holdings
37. First of all, as a director of Fijian Holdings was Mr Qarase a public servant? Of course he was not. He was not appointed under any Act or regulations. He was appointed under the Articles of FHL. Remember what is in clause 5 of FHL’s Memorandum of Association:
The holders of the Class B Shares shall be entitled to appoint, through the Minister of Fijian Affairs, 6 (six) of the maximum 9 (nine) directors of the company and the holders of the class ‘B’ shares shall be entitled to appoint the remaining 3 (three) directors.
38. Mr Qarase was appointed by the holders of the B Class Shares through the Minister of Fijian Affairs. So if the B Class Shares were sold to Manubhais tomorrow, the Minister would make the appointment. But he would appoint the directors on behalf of Manubhais. The power is in the shareholder, whoever the shareholder is. The power of appointment is not the Minister’s. He is merely the agent of the B Class shareholders. If Mr Qarase was not appointed by the Minister, he was not employed in the public service. And if you stand back and think about it, it makes no sense. How can a director of a private company be in the public service?
Adviser to FAB
39. Second, as financial adviser to FAB, was Mr Qarase a public servant? The legal definition of a person employed in the public service means a person permanently or temporarily employed – not a consultant, not an adviser – a person employed. Now under that definition you may be a Ministerial appointee, or a Presidential appointee – but first and foremost you must be an employee. Then there are other specific roles that are added to that definition – so they too become persons employed in the public service. It is interesting that one the specially added roles is employees of the FAB. Are FAB advisers added to the definition? No.
40. Mr Qarase was an adviser. That is true. He was paid a fee. That is true. But as I said before, Mr Qarase is paying me a fee as his adviser. But he does not employ me. When these things happened, Mr Qarase was employed by Fiji Development Bank. He was not employed by FAB. Ratu Meli Bainimarama confirmed that in his evidence.
41. FICAC is trying to make technical and complicated arguments about how Mr Qarase was employed in the public service. But common sense tells us that he was not.
Adviser to Great Council of Chiefs
42. Third, as adviser to the Great Council of Chiefs. Well:
– we all agree that there was a position as FHL director
– we all agree that there was a position of FAB adviser.
and while we say these may not be “public service” positions, at least we agree that those positions exist.
43. But there is no proof of any position as “adviser to the Great Council of Chiefs”. It does not exist under any law. It is not a gazetted position. That is because the position does not exist. It does not exist in law and it does not exist in fact. Full stop.
44. The prosecution will tell you that Mr Qarase made a presentation to the Great Council of Chiefs. In their desperate logic this means he is the “adviser” to the Great Council of Chiefs. Many people have made presentations to the Great Council of Chiefs. Sir Ian Thomson presented to them. Mr Jai Ram Reddy presented to them. Even the Queen addressed the Great Council of Chiefs, in 1982. That does not make them “advisers” to the Great Council of Chiefs. It certainly does not make them employed in the public service. So if there is no position of “adviser” to the Great Council of Chiefs, then, on FICAC’s own charges, Mr Qarase cannot be employed in the public service – and all the charges must fail .
45. So what we are saying to you is that this first, most critical element of all the charges is not proven much less proven beyond reasonable doubt. We say that many doubts have been raised about whether Mr. Qarase was a person employed in the public service. And if that is so, then all the charges fail and the whole case is over. I repeat, FICAC has not proven that Mr Qarase was a person employed in the public service. And each of the nine charges – every single one – says that he was. So if you have a reasonable doubt about this, you must find Mr Qarase not guilty – on all counts. All of them must go.
46. That is what we say. Remember what I said earlier. FICAC is trying to use public law to punish Mr Qarase for exercising private rights. This is just wrong.
Abuse of office – applying for shares charges (1, 3 and 5)
47. Charges 1, 3 and 5 all say that Mr Qarase abused his office by applying for shares in FHL. To prove those charges FICAC must prove these five things:
– First, FICAC has to prove Mr Qarase was a person employed in the public service.
– Second it has to prove that he did an arbitrary act – that is, that he applied for the shares and failed to disclose his interest
– Third it has to prove that he abused the authority of his office
– Fourth it has to prove that he did it for gain
– Fifth it has to prove that others were prejudiced by his actions.
First element – public service
48. First element – public service. We will not go through that again . You have heard why Mr Qarase is not a person employed in the public service.
Second element – arbitrary act
49. Second element – arbitrary act. The leading case law in Fiji tells us that an arbitrary act is an unreasonable act, a despotic act, an autocratic act – in other words, an act that is not reasonable or fair. It has to be something done with evil intent. If I walk to the shop to buy bread that is not, under this law, an “arbitrary act.”
50. Well, Mr Qarase (on behalf of others) certainly applied for the shares. Remember – he applied for the shares. He filled out a form. He asked for shares to be issued to three companies. That is all he did.
51. FICAC has never said it was unlawful or wrong to apply for shares. Mr Weleilakeba made it very clear that these companies were allowed to apply. So did Mr Mar. There was nothing arbitrary, unreasonable or autocratic about that. So what is the case against Mr Qarase?
52. FICAC says he failed to disclose to FHL that he was applying for the shares. But he signed the application form, so that cannot be right.
53. FICAC says that Mr Qarase failed to disclose to FAB that he was applying for the shares. But FICAC never proved that. Ratu Meli Bainimarama just said that he had no written record of disclosure. Honestly – most of us have seen the inside of Government offices. If a record of this was put on file, 20 years ago, how do you think Ratu Meli could find it?
54. Anyway, there are other ways that the FAB would know. Here is one way. The Minister for Fijian Affairs – the line Minister for the FAB, Col Vatilai Navunisaravi – he sat, with Mr Qarase, right there, on the Fijian Holdings board. He was one of the directors who voted in favour of the applications for Cicia, Mavana and Q Ten. He got all the information that the other directors got about the applications. How can anyone say that the FAB did not know?
55. But even then, why should Mr Qarase disclose anything to FAB anyway? Think about it. I am Mr Qarase’s adviser. Q-Ten has shares in Mavana Investments. What if I too want to buy shares in Mavana Investments? I am under no duty to tell Mr Qarase. I have shares, he has shares. It has nothing to do with my relationship to him as his adviser. There is no law that says I must tell him anything. And Mr Qarase was under no legal duty to tell FAB anything.
Third element – abuse of office
56. Third element – abuse of office. Now let us stop and think about this. What office, and what abuse?
(a) Did Mr Qarase abuse his authority as FHL director? There was no rule that a FHL director cannot apply for shares. In fact, the opposite was true. There is plenty of evidence that shows that directors and senior executives could apply for shares. FHL at the time was desperate for them to apply. Mr Mar and Mr Weleilakeba gave clear evidence on this.
(b) Did Mr Qarase abuse his authority as FAB adviser? Well, we heard from Ratu Meli Bainimarama and Ratu Timoci Vesikula that Mr Qarase was an adviser only. He did not have any power at FAB. He gave advice to FAB. FAB could take the advice or reject it. Mr Qarase could not give orders. So Mr Qarase did not have any authority at FAB. If he had no authority, how could he abuse it?
(c) Did Mr Qarase abuse his authority as (so-called) adviser to the GCC? Well, that position did not even exist. You cannot abuse an office and authority that does not exist.
57. Remember, again, the examples I talked about at the beginning:
– An Assistant Commissioner of police used his power over junior police officers for his private purposes. That is abuse of office
– A senior civil servant used his authority over Government funds to make payments to people who gave him bribes. That is abuse of office.
– An officer in charge took home a television set that was supposed to be used as evidence, so he could watch TV on it. That is abuse of office.
58. But when you are just an adviser to the FAB (which we say is not a public service position), how do you abuse your office, just by applying for shares?
Fourth element – gain
59. Fourth element – gain. Now, here we have to apply ourselves carefully. Remember that this is a separate charge of applying for the shares. And there is no gain from simply applying for shares. Anybody can apply for shares. FHL might say no – you get nothing. Even if FHL says yes, you still don’t get the shares. You only get them when you pay the money for them. So where was the gain from applying for the shares?
60. And what was the gain? The companies did not have the shares yet. They didn’t own anything. What was their gain?
Fifth element – prejudice to others
61. Finally, prejudice to others. If you look at charges 1,3 and 5 they say that Mr Qarase’s actions in applying for these shares was an act prejudicial to the rights of Provincial and Tikina Councils, FAB and all other eligible indigenous Fijian people.
62. It is claimed that, just because Mr Qarase filled out three forms applying for shares, that this was an act prejudicial to all the indigenous Fijian people. How could this be? FICAC has to explain this. Because we say that this charge is just a political speech dressed up as a criminal charge. That is FICAC’s problem. That is what FICAC must prove. It must prove that Mr Qarase, in applying for the shares – just applying for them – deprived the provincial councils, and the tikina councils, and the FAB, and the indigenous Fijian people – of rights. FICAC has put up no evidence of this so-called prejudice, except for two letters. I will come back to them.
63. You heard the evidence of Mr Mar – FHL really struggled at the time in question to sell these shares to anybody. Mr Weleilakeba also confirmed that. FHL was desperate to find people to buy these shares. You heard Mr Mar. He said that FHL’s directors were frustrated and downhearted after their campaign to sell shares failed. He said that Mr Cupit and Mr Weleilakeba approved the purchase of shares by the directors and Mr. Mar believed this would give confidence to outsiders to buy them. It is only now, 20 years after these things happened, that FICAC now says Mr Qarase deprived others – deprived every indigenous Fijian – of the chance to own shares.
64. You have got to remember that the FHL of 20 years ago is not FHL of today. You also have to remember that the time in question is when FHL was a private company- it was only later that the shares were listed on the Stock Exchange and there was some demand for them.
65. So what did FICAC do to try to prove prejudice? It produced two letters – just letters – from two people who said they wanted to invest in FHL and were too late. There is no evidence they had the money to invest. There is no evidence, even, that they qualified to invest. Remember, to be a member of FHL, all your members had to be in the Vola ni Kawa Bula (VKB). FICAC did not bring the letter-writers to court to give evidence about any of these things. So FICAC proved nothing. Mr Weleilakeba just waved a couple of letters around.
66. So FICAC says that its two letters are the evidence – the evidence that Mr Qarase, by filling out some forms, deprived every indigenous Fijian of their rights.
67. So you will understand why we say, for all the reasons we have talked about, that charges 1, 3 and 5 are a total failure.
68. Now remember, if you agree with me about even one of those elements:
– about public service
– about the arbitrary act
– about the abuse of office
– about the gain
– about the prejudice
– if you agree with me about just one of those things; or even if you don’t agree with me, but have a reasonable doubt about any of these things – then you agree with me that the charge fails and Mr Qarase should not be convicted.
Abuse of office – “facilitating” charges – 2,4,6
69. Now, we come to the next set of charges, 2, 4 and 6. Let us look at these charges. [review charges in detail]
70. So let us do the exercise again. What are the elements?
– First, FICAC has to prove Mr Qarase was a person employed in the public service.
– Second it has to prove that he did an arbitrary act – that is, that he “facilitated the approval” for the issuance of the shares and failed to disclose his interest
– Third it has to prove that he abused the authority of his office
– Fourth it has to prove that he did it for gain
– Fifth it has to prove that others were prejudiced by his actions.
First element – employed in the public service
71. First one – employed in the public service. We have already made our points on this . So if you don’t believe Mr Qarase was a person employed in the public service, the charge fails.
Second element – arbitrary act
Voting
72. Second element – the arbitrary act. Remember what we said before. The arbitrary act has to have some element of wrongness in it . What is claimed here? It is claimed that Mr Qarase “facilitated approval” of the issue of shares and failed to disclose his interest.
73. Now this is quite important because FICAC has made a very big issue of this. It goes on and on about how Mr Qarase voted for the issue of shares but failed to disclose his interest at the board meeting.
74. First of all, FICAC has to prove that Mr Qarase “facilitated approval.” What does that mean? I looked up the word “facilitate” in the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. It means “to make an action or process possible or easier.”
75. To even move forward on this issue FICAC has to prove that Mr Qarase voted. What is FICAC’s evidence? Mr Weleilakeba – and the minutes he wrote. Now, let us talk about this evidence for a moment.
76. Mr Weleilakeba cannot remember if Mr Qarase voted or not. That is not surprising – this is 20 years ago. All Mr Weleilakeba says is that the minutes showed unanimous approval for the resolution.
77. You heard Mr Mar’s evidence. Votes were not actually taken one by one at the board meetings. Everything was just “aye, aye”. Mr Weleilakeba would not know if Mr Qarase voted or did not vote. He just wrote down “unanimously approved.”
78. But even if Mr Qarase did vote, he was one of nine directors who voted. With or without his vote, the decision would have been made. But, but, the prosecution will tell you, maybe the directors would have voted differently if Mr Qarase had declared his interest.
79. Why would they? They already knew about Mr Qarase’s interest. They knew he had signed the application form. They knew about his family shareholding in Q Ten. They knew about Mrs Qarase’s small shareholding in Mavana. They knew Mr Qarase had no shares in Cicia. This is because all the directors got the summary at the board meeting. Just like Stiks Investments, Mr Weleilakeba’s family company. Just like Nabuabua, Mr Mar’s family company. Those applications were approved. What did the directors not know, and what would they have done differently?
80. This is the silly thing about these charges. Nothing was hidden. All the critical information was known. Mr Mar told you this. Even Mr Weleilakeba admitted this.
Disclosing
81. So how does FICAC prove that Mr Qarase did not disclose his interest? It produces the minutes of the meeting in 1992. The minutes say that this decision was unanimously approved. And who took the minutes? Mr Weleilakeba. Remember, this is the same Mr Weleilakeba who was also facing the same FICAC charges as Mr Qarase – but he is no longer facing FICAC charges now. He has escaped going on trial.
82. Mr Weleilakeba can’t remember whether Mr Qarase declared his interest. He just says “if it wasn’t in the minutes, it didn’t happen.”
83. Well, that is not good enough – and it is obviously not true. You saw the minutes – they are mostly only two or three pages. If the only things that happened in the board meeting were in the minutes, the meeting would be over before they could bring in the tea and biscuits. Remember Mr Mar’s evidence – meetings went for 1-2 hours or longer. Remember Mr Mar’s evidence – lots of things happened in those meetings that Mr Weleilakeba did not record. Remember Mr Mar’s evidence – Mr Lyle Cupit, the chairman, only wanted short minutes. Mr Weleilakeba agreed that Mr Cupit only wanted short minutes. That means he did not write everything down.
84. So Mr Weleilakeba’s evidence is plainly wrong. Not everything that happened was in the minutes. They were only short minutes. So what does that mean? That means that 20 years ago, things were said in that meeting that Mr Weleilakeba has not recorded. Mr Mar has already said he declared his interest for the Nabuabua shares – and Mr Weleilakeba did not record it. How many other things did Mr Weleilakeba leave out?
85. We are not asking Mr Weleilakeba to have a perfect memory. Nobody has a perfect memory after 20 years. That is why we say that these charges are dangerous and FICAC should never have brought them. But what we are saying is, that it is possible that Mr Qarase declared his interest. Mr Weleilakeba would not know. He can’t rely on his minutes because they are unreliable.
86. Now, it is true that Mr Mar did not challenge those minutes. And there is no evidence that Mr Qarase did. But Mr Qarase is not on trial for failing to check the minutes. He is on trial for not disclosing. And the prosecution’s evidence on this is thin. It is based on the unreliable minutes of Mr Weleilakeba. We know those minutes are unreliable because of what Mr Mar said.
87. Whose evidence do you prefer? Mr Weleilakeba’s or Mr Mar’s? This is all I want to say about Mr Weleilakeba’s evidence. You must seriously consider that he was previously charged by FICAC regarding similar matters – and now he is not. True, he said in his evidence that he did no deal with FICAC. And he agreed on the stand that his lawyer made representations and he gave a plain statement to FICAC before charges against him were dropped. And so, we believe he would have a much better attitude towards FICAC after the charges were dropped – wouldn’t he?
88. Then there is Mr Mar. He has an impressive record in public and private life. He is a successful company director living far from Fiji. Why would he not tell the truth?
89. Now, I have spent a lot of time on this business of disclosure. That is because FICAC made a big deal of it. But even after all of that, none of this matters. Why?
90. Mr Qarase is not charged for not declaring his interest at the board meeting. If he was, he would be charged under the Companies Act and he would face a possible $1,000 fine. FICAC just says that Mr Qarase did not disclose. Now, this is important. A breach of the Companies Act is a technical breach. If you breach it, you get hit with a fine. You do not go to jail. But the charges that Mr Qarase is facing are charges of dishonesty. They are charges that he either lied, or he concealed, he covered up, his interests in Fijian Holdings. And we know that this is not true.
91. Mr Qarase did disclose. He did not hide anything. He was not dishonest. Mr Mar has given evidence that every director got a written summary of the shareholding of every company applying for Fijian Holdings Shares. They had to get that summary because every shareholder of every applicant had to be in the VKB. That was why Mr Weleilakeba did the work to prepare the summary – in every case.
92. So every director knew exactly what Mr Qarase’s interests were in Q Ten. Every director knew that he had no interests in Cicia Plantation. And if Mrs Qarase had any shares in Mavana at the time, the directors would know.
93. Did Mr Qarase hide behind another person? No. Did he have a secret connection with another company that he did not tell FHL about? No. Mr Qarase hid nothing. There has never been evidence – not even from the FICAC star witness, Mr Weleilakeba – that Mr Qarase hid anything.
Third element – abuse of office
94. Now, the third element – abuse of office. Remember the exercise we did before:
(a) FHL director? How did Mr Qarase commit abuse of office as a FHL director? If he failed to declare – and remember, that is not proven – that is not abuse of office. That is simply failing to declare. That is why you get a maximum $1,000 fine, not three years in jail.
(b) FAB adviser? Remember what we said. Mr Qarase had no power at FAB. Therefore he had no authority. Therefore he had no authority to abuse
(c) GCC adviser? – no office – therefore no authority – therefore no authority to abuse.
Fourth element – gain
95. So we go on to the fourth element – gain. Now, this is very important. This is no longer just an application for shares – they are being issued now. But this is not gain. This is exchange. It is shares being issued at full price, in return for money. The shareholders are paying for them. The shareholders used their savings, pension fund or communal fundraising to meet the 20% equity required by the FDB for a loan. Like any other borrower. No special treatment. There are shares and those shares are producing dividends. But how did this gain arise? Is this a gain from abuse of office? No it is not. It is a gain from investing. All the shares issued were paid for in full. No favours were done. Everything was above board. For FICAC to prove gain, FICAC must prove that the gain came from the abuse.
96. For example, if you are a civil servant and you take a bribe for destroying a file, then you have abused your office – and you have gained by the abuse. If Mr Qarase was an employee of the FAB and had asked for a favour and been given shares for a discount, that would be a gain by abuse. But if he simply helped private investors, who paid the full amount for their shares, their gain does not come from abuse of office. It comes from investing their money. It does not come from any failure to disclose to FHL or FAB or the GCC.
97. This is why these charges are so complicated and confusing. FICAC is trying to turn a crime meant for civil servants into a crime involving shares in a private company. It does not work.
Fifth element – prejudice to others
98. Finally, prejudice. We discussed this before . Who was prejudiced? Was it the entire indigenous Fijian race? What is the proof of this? We know from the evidence – Mr Mar’s evidence, Mr Weleilakeba’s evidence – that nobody wanted FHL shares at this time. The proof of prejudice is only the two letters Mr Weleilakeba waved around – and for the reasons I have already given you , those letters prove nothing. lDo we say something about how the representative of every Fijian in the VKB, the Minister for Fijian Affairs sat on the FHL Board and he was privy to all that Mr. Qarase was privy to at the Board and he had a direct official line of communication to the GCC and the provincial councils. And if he and the other Fijian leaders did not do their job to encourage investment in FHL, it could not be laid at the feet of Mr. Qarase who was disciplined and visionary enough to encourage the shareholders of the three companies to take a risk with their savings, pension fund, fundraised monies to invest in FHL]
99. So for those reasons, we say that the “facilitating” charges are not made out. Now, I repeat – if you agree with me or if you have a reasonable doubt about even one of those elements:
– about public service
– about the arbitrary act
– about the abuse of office
– about the gain
– about the prejudice
– if you agree with me – or even if you don’t but have a reasonable doubt about just one of those things – then you agree with me that the charge fails, and Mr Qarase should not be convicted.
Charges 7,8,9 – special property
100. Now we turn to the last three charges. Let us go through them [charges reviewed]. These charges are actually quite difficult to understand. It took me a long time just to work out exactly what FICAC was trying to say in them.
101. One of the problems with these charges is that we don’t really know what FICAC has said that Mr Qarase has done wrong. The charges seem incomplete. It is almost as if FICAC lost interest in the charges half-way through writing them. Mr Qarase is charged with “discharging his duties”. Of course you are not usually prosecuted for discharging your duty. So what does FICAC mean? It is not for us to guess what FICAC means. It is for FICAC to tell us what it means and for FICAC to prove what it means. FICAC has not done that. So perhaps these charges fail even at first reading.
102. But even if FICAC can show us what it means, it must prove that Mr Qarase discharged his duties in some criminal way.
Qarase applied for shares in Cicia, Mavana and Q Ten.
He “facilitated approval” of the issue of the said shares.
Qarase was a director in all 3 companies.
Cicia had whopping 400,000 Class A FHL shares
In Mavana Qarase and wife had 200,000 shares
Q-Ten Investments Qarase family had 200,000 FHL shares
This is insider trading and gross conflict of interest.
Court reporter, you should be asking why one family is hogging all these class a shares (the how is obvious) and where do the Fijian masses go instead of wasting time trying to justify an obvious case of corruption.
Graham Davis
Posted July 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM
“Voter”, it is not cause for celebration. It might surprise you to know that I personally would have preferred for Laisenia Qarase to have stood in the 2014 election and faced the judgement of the people rather than the judgement of a court. And in any event, it’s a real shame that any Fijian national leader is indicted for acting corruptly because it brings the country into disrepute.
Excellent article Graham, thanks. Here was a guy like African nations leaders filled his pockets while the countrys interests came second. He clearly benefited from the racial divisions by impressing his lot he was fighting the other side for them. That other fella slimey Mahen who also told his people he was fighting the other side for them while filling millions in his pocket.
Both were ready to have another go at it after 2014 elections ! No wonder both were getting together to object to the new constitution. Clear case from both – divided country suits them politicly and financially . HOPE THAT OTHER CROOK MAHEN IS NEXT
I agree with Graham Davis and Manney but please can anyone explain why our leader Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum defended Mahen Chaudhry until he left Cabinet, and condemning Victor Lal repeatedly for exposing Mahend’s tax details, and even kidnapping and deporting Russell Hunter, the former editor and publisher of Fiji SUN for publishing the tax details.
A lawyer friend recently told me that on behalf of FIRCA he had filed court actions against Victor Lal, Russell Hunter and the Fiji Sun in 2008 on the instructions of Khaiyum in an effort to stop the tax story?
I wonder why Frank and Aiyaz were protecting chorwa Mahend and his millions that he was hiding in the overseas bank accounts?
Why they did not want the fraud to be disclosed to the Fiji public and the outside world?
After all, they were all “Directors of the Nation” after the 2006 coup, making collective decisions?
So when did the $20,000,000 loan from Government to FHL kick in and when was it converted into a grant? And whose government passed the grant. Smells fishy!
In the final analysis, GREED quite clearly was the cause of Laisenia Qarase’s downfall.
@Court reporter
Qarase did not declare his interest and was found quilty. Ethically it was the wrong thing to do. If he had invested his own money I would say ok. But he influenced the GCC then influence the FDB to lend money then influenced the FHL to approve shares.
Your arguing the technicality as to whether he was public servant seems irrelevant. Ethically he was wrong. Legally he has been found guilty by the court. I suggest that you take your arguments to the next higher court. In my eyes he’s guilty.
Sa da vakaloloma na itaukei. In 1997 I tried to buy some shares from FHL but was told to go to Union Trust. Those shares were hard to come by. Little did I know what was happening. I now definitely feel reaped off.
The Court Reporter, The Immigration Officer, The Passport Officer….me suspect you are the same person.
Therefore go and CIN CIN yourselves.
Qarase and Mahen Chaudhry were different in their approach to many things but thought alike when it came to using political office to feather their nests. Who knows, they might even end up sharing a cell!
Everyone seems to forget that Qarase was the main man who put Kunatuba in jail.The latter has served his time and has now become a better person today.”What goes around comes around” To LQ, ENJOY YOUR STAY at Her Majesty’s 5- star hotel with free accomodation and 3 squares a day!
mahen “$3million man” chaudhry get my vote because:
MPC is Fiji ke Robin Hood (collects from rich in name of poor, keeps for himself).
MPC is anti-nepotism (sneakily appointed in-law Sahida, who is a top toilet cleaner, to senate) .
MPC is tough on tax dodgers (does not declare his income in Aust account)
MPC is anti-corruption (uses state funds to renovate personal property)
MPC is against feathering the nest (uses his party position to raise $3m, banks it in personal account)
MPC is generous with heart of gold (gifts beti $50k)
MPC is champion of the poor (poor do not see cent he raised in their name)
MPC is honest (raised $3m under false pretences)
MPC is magician jadu tona (for a while made $3m disappear)
MPC supports democracy (when it suits him – supported 2006 coup)
MPC leads FLP in transparent manner (covertly appoints toilet man sachida senator against party directive; disciplines those who question decision)
Please add to the list…
@courtreporter 6.37 3.8.12
Graham Davis
Posted July 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM
“Voter”, it is not cause for celebration. It might surprise you to know that I personally would have preferred for Laisenia Qarase to have stood in the 2014 election and faced the judgement of the people rather than the judgement of a court. And in any event, it’s a real shame that any Fijian national leader is indicted for acting corruptly because it brings the country into disrepute.
……………………………………..
I don’t get it?
Is Davis saying that we should not expose our leaders to judgement . They are more equal then us. Their shame is our national shame.
Preserve the hypocrisy , “the way the world should be”. This precious post independence and colonial legacy, so badly tarnished, but being restored by Bainimarama, at any moral cost it seems.
Fitting I suppose, to place that trophy back on that mantle, burnished with plenty of hypocritical spit and plenty of polish with GD’s rag the Sun.
Oh now I see the logic, Qarase the crook and Bainimarama the crook, both standing for elections.
Even playing field, yaarh!
Are you listening AK, drop charges against MPC, this will even up the odds for you.
Oh, sorry, no that’s not it, lets not shame our country.
Come on judge, 12 months, exactly 365 days, 40.555 days per charge.
Oh thanks, we get it, you think he’s innocent, or pretty much, buuuuut, you had to get him out of the elections. Anyway, nothing new there, as obvious as Chand’s dogs balls .
Hey, “Patch”, “Pirate” or whatever your name. You Chands dog? lets go down memory lane and watch “Ben Hur” at the Lilac theatre.
“It’s Waimanu road, mongrel”
“You got that right, Patch, good for you, you see the road so clearly”.
@ Mongrel,
“It’s Waimanu road, mongrel”
I understand that this is in reference to my father who was killed in Waimanu road and you being “It’s Waimanu road, mongrel” would somehow champion and condone what happened in April 1975.
And you think I will jump up and down because of that eh mongrel.
I have moved on and he is in GOD’s hand. Along the way I have had more i-Taukei
brothers and sisters on my side than you probably have in your own province….and that’s where your gripe is.
And take this mongrel, I have no hatred toward you. I just pity you and hope that someday good sense will prevail and you will be unleashed of your prejudices. You may not agree with me but may want to read a lot more of Komai’s blog….there is much learning in that.
I know it hasn’t been a one way street…..and in my lifetime a lot of injustices have been done by the Indo-Fijians towards the I-taukeis as well…I know that and for that I apologise.
This is the very reason we need to stick together and fight injustices… It will not end tomorrow but we need to start somewhere.
My personal belief is that the foundation has been laid and it is up to us to strengthen and build on it.
Come out in the open and let the corrupt elements be afraid…..and they should.
There is so much work to be done.
Kind Regards
Court Reporter with all the things you have outlined it appears from what you have written you have a fair amount of knowledge of the legal issues involved here. My question is what about the “inside of trading ” that took place here? Secondly if all you say is correct and then why the hell didn’t Qarse hire an experienced lawyer? Draunidalo is still we behind the ears especially for a case of such magnitude, and since you write with such knowledge and authority why not you-you sound like a lawyer? Truth is Qarase became so confident of his moves he went as far as the Agriculture Scam , but hold on there is still more to come with the main Qarase boy -Bakani coming before a Judge! He is one of the chief ‘movers’ in the scams that were going around and also involves the buying and selling of shares!
It is not enough to be Christian in name, but in deed also.
We have too much of the former, not enough of the latter.
Hogging a-class FHL shares for self and family is hardly Christian.
How does this behaviour fit with the so-called, sharing-caring Fijian communal system anyway?
It’s the same old trick – elites talk up culture while in practice do things un-cultural.
It is the same with Christianity.
It is a tool used to prop up an elite, exploitative, parasitic structure.
history: afta 87 coups, govt under rambo, gave $$ thru FDB for i-taukei development. Qarase was md @ fdb – the $$ was provided for the purposes of encouraging i-taukei get into ‘business’. Waililakeba (secretary of FDL) and qarase worked together – converting some of the shares into his own name, son, wife and Q-ten. This $$ were soft loans to the provinical councils, so they could buy shares in FHL, and the dividends would be their operating income.
Q used his position to convert what should have gone to the i-taukei for himself/family. the loans were then converted to grants and the grants were made irrecovable and written off, by Qarase thru FDB accounts.
The humilation in jail playing marbles with his mate george speight will live in his mind forever. what was sweet then is now very bitter. q wont be able to stand for elections in 2014. end of the road for him. dont forget Q rang howard to ask him to raid fiji!!!
if frank had not taken over in dec 2006, fiji would now have no money in FNPF, govt would be a puppet of Aust n NZ, mining coys, world bank, IMF, asian bank, etc and their would have been blood shed between the two major races in fiji as the cronies would create diversions so that no one would look at them.
he took what belonged to the i-taukei for himself. the qoilqoli bill, and release of the 2000 coup perpertrators would have walked free – including some chiefs, but they were “used’ by others and race problems was the main thrust. George had sold the mahogny stocks to an american coy for less than half-its value and wanted the coy to deposit $$ into his bank acct in Aust, but he got caught too and did the coup in 2000. Qarase was made PM, by Frank, who later removed him.
One can fool some people, but they cant fool everyone all of the time. The sentence is very lenient.
the printed matter in Fiji is much to be desired – there were/are no problems between the major races but all the hype by the then editor of Fiji Times (FT which should be turned into a mesuem of hate provocation), Vijendra kumar, supported the TAUKEI movement, Rambo, and all the others and now wants to stir up the race relations issues again. that is why Frank kicked those journos out – as they were inciting racial hatred.
please remember qarase stole from his own i-taukei – nothing to do with indians taking the vanua. live together like sister and brother.
Since Court Reporter brings up the claim that there was difficulty selling shares of Fijian holdings , Yeh might be correct mate problem was one of Qarses’ mates was organising the buying & giving advise to his classmates to buy hugh amount of shares in Fijian Holdings and i mean huge! This same mate of Qarases when he realised the shares up right up there in the sky did a smart move, called up his class mates to sell, yes sell their shares as Fijian Holdings was on the way down. You wanna guess who bought the SHARES? Don’t need to be a genius! The con was on from the word go but as ususal things get to catch up on you and no one has relly investigated this end of those silent moves by Qarses mate! Theres more to this than meets the EYE. Still have question how come Qarase didn’t get an experinced lawyer for his court case, You have the likes of Qoroniasi Bale , Jai Ram Reddy, Ratu Jone Madraiwiwi, Tui Savu in Australia . If your arguments laid out above is correct you could have assisted Qarases Lawyer instead of sitting on the sideline and now making a running commentry after all are you saying all the 3 assessors were wrong in their opinion.