I think the answer to your question in the heading is because we are in Fiji. Same reason that Temo is still in high office, and other government ministers have not been stood down pending an investigation.
It’s a case of do as we say not do as we do that rules this country.
Wylie is a well known popular choice for the President of the Law Society who has practised in accordance with the rule of law. The COI situation has caused many great concern for various reasons. Yes, I agree that it has shown some issues with the appointment of Barbara Malimali, but if this was a bad process, then the decision should have been nullified and the decision made again in accordance with normal principles of administrative law.
At this point there would be egg on the faces of the persons who made the decision but is it proportionate to fire anyone within government including the AG for one poor decision? Rather, I think it was a poor decision made by a busy person who has an otherwise good track record.
The issue for Wylie et al in relation to the meeting at FICAC is a different kettle of fish. Yes, they should probably have spoken up about the registry saying they won’t accept a filing, but it happened in real time and not saying something is not an agreement or acceptance of what another says.
The late and great Ratu Joni explained “silence is not acquiescence”. So, ultimately even taken at its highest, Wylie and team were responsible for not being 100% on their game when they attended that meeting, and didn’t necessarily think everything through, but I would respectfully suggest they are a long way from perverting the course of justice etc. Noting this is just my respectful opinion to humbly question the findings of the COI.
It does look like there were behind the scenes political and strategic steps taken to avoid the charging of certain individuals but how far is this politics as usual and how far this is actual corruption and who was actually involved – these are all things that I don’t think are addressed in the COI – or the people actually responsible for formulating and directing that strategy are not named by it. For clarity I do not think Wylie and the group that attended the FICAC meeting are involved in this but then may have inadvertently and without knowledge served that purpose, which I feel is not on them and was missed by the COI.
So why is he still President? My view is because there hasn’t been an election for a new one, and when there is, it is by no means certain that he won’t be re-elected as a popular choice.
There are a number of difficulties with your proposition.
1/ The problem with the sacked AG isn’t that he was “busy” but that he knew Barbara Malimali was under investigation at FICAC for abuse of office because Francis Puleiwai had told him. That should have been the end of Malimali’s appointment. Instead after Atu Bain got in his ear, he revised his earlier advice to the Chief Justice that Malimali couldn’t be appointed and said it was now OK. It wasn’t and he has paid for that error of judgment/ coming under undue influence with his job. And as Joiji Kotobalavu has said – not me – Graham Leung deserved to be sacked.
2/ Wylie Clarke was specifically at FICAC on September 5 – by his own account – representing the Fiji Law Society. Not Barbara Malmali, himself or anyone else but the FLS – the body that represents the nation’s lawyers in private practice. He stood by silent as the chief corruption watchdog was specifically told by the Chief Registrar that the Chief Justice was instructing her that irrespective of whether any charge that she laid was lawful (and the decision to prosecute Biman Prasad had been finalised), it would not be accepted in any court in Fiji. That is fact. I have heard the tape recorded by Kuluniasi Saumi and read the transcript of what occurred myself. And it is corruption of the first order.
3/ You say “silence isn’t acquiescence”. It demonstrably was in this instance. Perhaps he was overawed. Perhaps he was stunned into silence. But did Wylie Clarke leave the room, realise that what had happened was unlawful – just plain wrong – and then advise the Chief Justice that the Fiji Law Society could not accept what had taken place? No. He has remained silent to this day. And given his official position, that silence is the silence and tacit acquiescence of every lawyer in private practice in Fiji.
4/ You indicate that you are OK with that and that Wylie Clarke deserves to be re-elected. But demonstrably others such as Dorsami Naidu – a former president of the Fiji Law Society – do not and have said so publicly.
5/ A Supreme Court Commission of Inquiry – the equivalent of a royal commission in Australia and New Zealand – has made a finding against Wylie Clarke that he is open to a charge of obstructing and perverting the course of justice. That charge is eminently justifiable on any proper evaluation of the hard evidence of what took place in the room on September 5.
6/ At the very least, Wylie Clarke should stand aside as FLS President until this matter is resolved once and for all. Otherwise none of the membership should be in the least surprised that your own reputations are under threat because of the conduct of your President in failing to stand up for the rule of law when it was being so blatantly violated. Silence IS acquiescence under the circumstances and there are no two ways about it.
7/ The Fiji Law Society must clean up is act or be regarded as complicit in the corruption of the rule of law that the COI has uncovered. And frankly, the fact that Wylie Clarke is still in place means that the FLS as a whole has failed the most basic of tests in the minds of all right-thinking Fijians.
First they came for the vulagi, then the Wadua, then the Solomoni, then the ………
COI – The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways.
The Gangs of Viti.
Westminster System, use by date : Expired.
End Times ?
Mighty iTaukei men of history. Cakobau, Sukuna, Sukanaivalu.
GD, would it be to much to list the men and women who acted with integrity, honesty and honour throughout this whole dishonourable saga.
Fiji is in dire need of honest men and women who will speak up and not acquiescent to evil.
There will always be the initial few, and they will pay a high price, as witnessed by history.
Lest we forget.
Great idea, Ian. Maybe something for the Sabbath – the angels who soared over the crocodiles in the COI saga. Vinaka. My editorial board 😉 will look into it.
So you mean the findings of the COI (A Royal Commission) should just be ignored?
And what happens to findings of future commissions and investigations?
It all depends on who is involved?
Seems to me like you are another bush lawyer. There are many in Fiji.
As another lawyer of 18 years good standing in Fiji, I expect that the President of the FLS will be ABOVE REPROACH. Perception is everything and in this case, things went beyond mere perception because evidence shows Wylie Clarke went to secure Barbaric Malimali’s release from custody at any cost and in doing so he compromised his ethics as a lawyer and absolutely interfered with an executive arm of the government exercising its Constitutionally guaranteed enforcement powers.
Wylie was tacit and complicit and his integrity is now tainted. A moral and ethical bankruptcy from a lawyer, and it shouldn’t be left ignored. I personally no longer have the confidence that he should lead the Fiji Law Society. And these comments apply equally to Laurel Vaurasi and all the other lousy, incompetent and unethical lawyers who were in that room and didn’t know the consequences of their words and actions that day.
This is the reason why fiji is not moving forward. Lawyers like you and politicians like you are busy saving each other’s back . Just remember God is watching .
My children grew up knowing there were to be consequences in life for everything they did. They could break the rules a little bit by not making their beds in the morning and that’s a little bit naughty, they could get angry and throw all the bedding and the mattress out of the windows and that’s very naughty. But it doesn’t work like that with stealing, or corruption.
You can’t be a little bit naughty with corruption whether it’s taking part in it or turning a blind eye to it.
Both are the thin end of the wedge and lawyers, of all people should know that or they should find another job!
How, NFP, Baiman and Riachrd Nadiu running rings around PAP and Rabukasays
Sorry to ask you, but there’s no choice since the Fiji news media totally useless and clueless.
While looking into why Wylie Clarke, also investigate Aspen, which Baiman, while in opposition criticized to no end. Now, thanks to Baiman they are in business in Fiji. They are inviting Baiman to speak at the events because that is all he can do- talk, be garlanded and grin like an idiot, strike deals for his network and waste taxpayers money.
We have a corrupt grinning monkey in charge of the national purse strings.
Guess which legal firm is representing Aspen. You are right – it’s Richard ‘I have the means’ Naidu’s Munro Leys. I understand government will pay Aspen $10m a month.
Richard Naidu will make a hefty amount in legal fees.
After the Fiji Water windfall, there’s Aspen. And there’s many more to come.
Thanks to the NFP cabal that is running rings around Rabuka and taking advantage of his old age. while milking the system.
PAP is busy with politics while NFP, Baiman and Richard Naidu are busy making money.
While legal professionals often hold differing viewpoints, your defense of Wylie is nothing short of utter nonsense, a flawed and utterly unconvincing attempt to give him a clean slate for unequivocally wrong conduct.
Any competent lawyer would readily affirm that Wylie’s actions fall far short of the standards expected of the legal profession, even if claimed to have unfolded in “real time” without prior knowledge, which offers no exoneration. He not only aided but actively abetted in the commission of possible offenses, being an integral member of the group that appeared, and it is clear these “rotten scoundrels” would have evaded justice had it not been for the crucial audio recording, leaving one to question the full extent of their past activities.
Furthermore, your attempt to glorify Joni Madraiwiwi and cite his “Silence is not acquiescence” judgment as justification is laughable and contradicts the fundamental principle of “joint enterprise” within the criminal justice system; there was nothing “great” about him or his often substandard judgments.
The notion that Wylie should retain his FLS presidency due to a lack of an election is a “lousy excuse” supporting his lack of integrity; a person of integrity would have voluntarily stood down, especially given the clear conflict of interest any first-year law student could identify, compounded by his decision to attack the COI chair. The fact remains that this group of “imbeciles” acted in concert with the undeniable intention to intimidate FICAC and deliberately interfere with, obstruct, and pervert the course of justice.
Wylie had sufficient time outside of FICAC to release a statement. What type of lawyer attends a meeting on the basis of following the law but doesn’t speak up when the law is being infringed upon.
The hypocrisy or cowardice in this instance is telling. He should have stepped aside as soon as he was implicated and or refused to publicly highlight the issue of the CJ’s interference. Legal ethics dictates this.
Also, he had no duty to be present at the meeting and should have walked away right away since Malimali wasn’t present.
FLS members should be worried why he didn’t reach out to his VP to tag along with him. Or any other active member. Why did he ask Laurel?
Let’s not be swayed by the likes of Charlie Charters who act to protect the interests of a few. COI are an important aspect of any democracy. It happens everywhere and in other nations those implicated or being investigated go ahead and assist. We cannot let this important work be rubbished so Charlie Charters who can’t figure out how to bake more white long for struggling Fijians derail it in favour of his powerful friends.
I think the answer to your question in the heading is because we are in Fiji. Same reason that Temo is still in high office, and other government ministers have not been stood down pending an investigation.
It’s a case of do as we say not do as we do that rules this country.
Unfortunately.
Wylie is a well known popular choice for the President of the Law Society who has practised in accordance with the rule of law. The COI situation has caused many great concern for various reasons. Yes, I agree that it has shown some issues with the appointment of Barbara Malimali, but if this was a bad process, then the decision should have been nullified and the decision made again in accordance with normal principles of administrative law.
At this point there would be egg on the faces of the persons who made the decision but is it proportionate to fire anyone within government including the AG for one poor decision? Rather, I think it was a poor decision made by a busy person who has an otherwise good track record.
The issue for Wylie et al in relation to the meeting at FICAC is a different kettle of fish. Yes, they should probably have spoken up about the registry saying they won’t accept a filing, but it happened in real time and not saying something is not an agreement or acceptance of what another says.
The late and great Ratu Joni explained “silence is not acquiescence”. So, ultimately even taken at its highest, Wylie and team were responsible for not being 100% on their game when they attended that meeting, and didn’t necessarily think everything through, but I would respectfully suggest they are a long way from perverting the course of justice etc. Noting this is just my respectful opinion to humbly question the findings of the COI.
It does look like there were behind the scenes political and strategic steps taken to avoid the charging of certain individuals but how far is this politics as usual and how far this is actual corruption and who was actually involved – these are all things that I don’t think are addressed in the COI – or the people actually responsible for formulating and directing that strategy are not named by it. For clarity I do not think Wylie and the group that attended the FICAC meeting are involved in this but then may have inadvertently and without knowledge served that purpose, which I feel is not on them and was missed by the COI.
So why is he still President? My view is because there hasn’t been an election for a new one, and when there is, it is by no means certain that he won’t be re-elected as a popular choice.
There are a number of difficulties with your proposition.
1/ The problem with the sacked AG isn’t that he was “busy” but that he knew Barbara Malimali was under investigation at FICAC for abuse of office because Francis Puleiwai had told him. That should have been the end of Malimali’s appointment. Instead after Atu Bain got in his ear, he revised his earlier advice to the Chief Justice that Malimali couldn’t be appointed and said it was now OK. It wasn’t and he has paid for that error of judgment/ coming under undue influence with his job. And as Joiji Kotobalavu has said – not me – Graham Leung deserved to be sacked.
2/ Wylie Clarke was specifically at FICAC on September 5 – by his own account – representing the Fiji Law Society. Not Barbara Malmali, himself or anyone else but the FLS – the body that represents the nation’s lawyers in private practice. He stood by silent as the chief corruption watchdog was specifically told by the Chief Registrar that the Chief Justice was instructing her that irrespective of whether any charge that she laid was lawful (and the decision to prosecute Biman Prasad had been finalised), it would not be accepted in any court in Fiji. That is fact. I have heard the tape recorded by Kuluniasi Saumi and read the transcript of what occurred myself. And it is corruption of the first order.
3/ You say “silence isn’t acquiescence”. It demonstrably was in this instance. Perhaps he was overawed. Perhaps he was stunned into silence. But did Wylie Clarke leave the room, realise that what had happened was unlawful – just plain wrong – and then advise the Chief Justice that the Fiji Law Society could not accept what had taken place? No. He has remained silent to this day. And given his official position, that silence is the silence and tacit acquiescence of every lawyer in private practice in Fiji.
4/ You indicate that you are OK with that and that Wylie Clarke deserves to be re-elected. But demonstrably others such as Dorsami Naidu – a former president of the Fiji Law Society – do not and have said so publicly.
5/ A Supreme Court Commission of Inquiry – the equivalent of a royal commission in Australia and New Zealand – has made a finding against Wylie Clarke that he is open to a charge of obstructing and perverting the course of justice. That charge is eminently justifiable on any proper evaluation of the hard evidence of what took place in the room on September 5.
6/ At the very least, Wylie Clarke should stand aside as FLS President until this matter is resolved once and for all. Otherwise none of the membership should be in the least surprised that your own reputations are under threat because of the conduct of your President in failing to stand up for the rule of law when it was being so blatantly violated. Silence IS acquiescence under the circumstances and there are no two ways about it.
7/ The Fiji Law Society must clean up is act or be regarded as complicit in the corruption of the rule of law that the COI has uncovered. And frankly, the fact that Wylie Clarke is still in place means that the FLS as a whole has failed the most basic of tests in the minds of all right-thinking Fijians.
“silence isn’t acquiescence”. bullsh*t to that !
First they came for the vulagi, then the Wadua, then the Solomoni, then the ………
COI – The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways.
The Gangs of Viti.
Westminster System, use by date : Expired.
End Times ?
Mighty iTaukei men of history. Cakobau, Sukuna, Sukanaivalu.
GD, would it be to much to list the men and women who acted with integrity, honesty and honour throughout this whole dishonourable saga.
Fiji is in dire need of honest men and women who will speak up and not acquiescent to evil.
There will always be the initial few, and they will pay a high price, as witnessed by history.
Lest we forget.
Great idea, Ian. Maybe something for the Sabbath – the angels who soared over the crocodiles in the COI saga. Vinaka. My editorial board 😉 will look into it.
So you mean the findings of the COI (A Royal Commission) should just be ignored?
And what happens to findings of future commissions and investigations?
It all depends on who is involved?
Seems to me like you are another bush lawyer. There are many in Fiji.
As another lawyer of 18 years good standing in Fiji, I expect that the President of the FLS will be ABOVE REPROACH. Perception is everything and in this case, things went beyond mere perception because evidence shows Wylie Clarke went to secure Barbaric Malimali’s release from custody at any cost and in doing so he compromised his ethics as a lawyer and absolutely interfered with an executive arm of the government exercising its Constitutionally guaranteed enforcement powers.
Wylie was tacit and complicit and his integrity is now tainted. A moral and ethical bankruptcy from a lawyer, and it shouldn’t be left ignored. I personally no longer have the confidence that he should lead the Fiji Law Society. And these comments apply equally to Laurel Vaurasi and all the other lousy, incompetent and unethical lawyers who were in that room and didn’t know the consequences of their words and actions that day.
This is the reason why fiji is not moving forward. Lawyers like you and politicians like you are busy saving each other’s back . Just remember God is watching .
My children grew up knowing there were to be consequences in life for everything they did. They could break the rules a little bit by not making their beds in the morning and that’s a little bit naughty, they could get angry and throw all the bedding and the mattress out of the windows and that’s very naughty. But it doesn’t work like that with stealing, or corruption.
You can’t be a little bit naughty with corruption whether it’s taking part in it or turning a blind eye to it.
Both are the thin end of the wedge and lawyers, of all people should know that or they should find another job!
Sorry to ask you, but there’s no choice since the Fiji news media totally useless and clueless.
While looking into why Wylie Clarke, also investigate Aspen, which Baiman, while in opposition criticized to no end. Now, thanks to Baiman they are in business in Fiji. They are inviting Baiman to speak at the events because that is all he can do- talk, be garlanded and grin like an idiot, strike deals for his network and waste taxpayers money.
We have a corrupt grinning monkey in charge of the national purse strings.
Guess which legal firm is representing Aspen. You are right – it’s Richard ‘I have the means’ Naidu’s Munro Leys. I understand government will pay Aspen $10m a month.
Richard Naidu will make a hefty amount in legal fees.
After the Fiji Water windfall, there’s Aspen. And there’s many more to come.
Thanks to the NFP cabal that is running rings around Rabuka and taking advantage of his old age. while milking the system.
PAP is busy with politics while NFP, Baiman and Richard Naidu are busy making money.
While legal professionals often hold differing viewpoints, your defense of Wylie is nothing short of utter nonsense, a flawed and utterly unconvincing attempt to give him a clean slate for unequivocally wrong conduct.
Any competent lawyer would readily affirm that Wylie’s actions fall far short of the standards expected of the legal profession, even if claimed to have unfolded in “real time” without prior knowledge, which offers no exoneration. He not only aided but actively abetted in the commission of possible offenses, being an integral member of the group that appeared, and it is clear these “rotten scoundrels” would have evaded justice had it not been for the crucial audio recording, leaving one to question the full extent of their past activities.
Furthermore, your attempt to glorify Joni Madraiwiwi and cite his “Silence is not acquiescence” judgment as justification is laughable and contradicts the fundamental principle of “joint enterprise” within the criminal justice system; there was nothing “great” about him or his often substandard judgments.
The notion that Wylie should retain his FLS presidency due to a lack of an election is a “lousy excuse” supporting his lack of integrity; a person of integrity would have voluntarily stood down, especially given the clear conflict of interest any first-year law student could identify, compounded by his decision to attack the COI chair. The fact remains that this group of “imbeciles” acted in concert with the undeniable intention to intimidate FICAC and deliberately interfere with, obstruct, and pervert the course of justice.
Wylie had sufficient time outside of FICAC to release a statement. What type of lawyer attends a meeting on the basis of following the law but doesn’t speak up when the law is being infringed upon.
The hypocrisy or cowardice in this instance is telling. He should have stepped aside as soon as he was implicated and or refused to publicly highlight the issue of the CJ’s interference. Legal ethics dictates this.
Also, he had no duty to be present at the meeting and should have walked away right away since Malimali wasn’t present.
FLS members should be worried why he didn’t reach out to his VP to tag along with him. Or any other active member. Why did he ask Laurel?
Let’s not be swayed by the likes of Charlie Charters who act to protect the interests of a few. COI are an important aspect of any democracy. It happens everywhere and in other nations those implicated or being investigated go ahead and assist. We cannot let this important work be rubbished so Charlie Charters who can’t figure out how to bake more white long for struggling Fijians derail it in favour of his powerful friends.