The Christopher Pryde Tribunal has everything. Three judges who were told by the nation’s lawyers that proceeding with the trial would be unfair but went ahead anyway. Those judges reportedly “stunned” by “evidence” that cannot be tested under normal cross-examination. And mainstream media outlets already spinning the proceedings or ignoring the trial altogether.
Yet the one thing it doesn’t have is the most important element of all – the accused himself. Which reduces this entire farce to a travesty of justice little better than Joseph Stalin‘s show trials in the Soviet Union in the late 1930s. Except that the DPP won’t be shot. He’ll just be removed without having had a chance to adequately defend himself.
Christopher Pryde has never denied that a police docket or file on Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum had reached the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions before he was photographed with the ousted AG at a Japanese Embassy function in February 2023. But he has denied ever seeing it himself – that it had yet to reach him and was going through the normal procedures that apply in any case – allocated to an Assistant DPP to evaluate before it came to him for a final decision. In any event, both Pryde and Khaiyum deny discussing the case.
Now we have a witness before the Tribunal – Susana Vuniyani, the head of the ODPP Registry that receives dockets from the police – testifying that she emailed it to Christopher Pryde’s personal email address 11 days before he was photographed with Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. None of the other witnesses have given the same evidence. And, strangely, we learn from Susana Vuniyani that the DPP subsequently challenged her and asked her why she “hadn’t informed him of the case”. And he was sufficiently aggrieved to suspend her.
If Vuniyani is to be believed, she had. If the DPP is to be believed, she hadn’t. But the point is that she is there in court to give evidence and he isn’t. And that is the fatal flaw in these proceedings that makes them a travesty of justice. There is similarly no opportunity for Christopher Pryde’s counsel, Adish Narayan, to cross-examine her on her evidence because the money ran out to pay him before the case came to court.
So Susana Vuniyani’s account of what allegedly happened is what is on the record and according to today’s Fiji Sun, the “judges were stunned”. Oh really? But is it true? A defence counsel would have undoubtedly probed her about motive if she’d been suspended for allegedly not informing the DPP. Or questioned her about the possibility of collusion when an iTaukei cabal has pushed aside the minorities, and specifically “whites”, at the ODPP. But that isn’t going to happen.
We can all see where this is heading – the stitch-up this was always going to be right from the start. And especially when Salesi Temo and the rest of the JSC kept the DPP on full pay for a year and then unilaterally suspended his salary six months ago so that by the time the case reached court 20 months later, he wasn’t able to afford proper representation. And Temo then issued an instruction to the Tribunal judges to proceed with or without the accused.
Incredibly, the mainstream media have completely ignored the letter (see below) that was sent to the Tribunal by the President of the Fiji Law Society, Wylie Clarke, advising them that the hearing should not proceed because it was unfair and violated Christopher Pryde’s rights under the Constitution. Grubsheet published that letter two days ago and there can be no doubt about its authenticity. But presumably because it hasn’t been officially released by the Fiji Law Society, the media’s attitude is that it doesn’t exist.
Just as sinister is the spin that the media is already putting on these proceedings, with the honourable exception of Fijilive, which covered the first day of the trial in detail. Look at the Fiji Sun’s headline this morning – “Pryde’s Knowledge of Case Stuns Judges”. Seriously? This is a claim from one witness that will never be tested because Pryde himself is absent but is accepted by the Fiji Sun as gospel fact and relayed to its readers as a tablet from the mount. Talk about prejudicial.
And over at the Fiji Times, the bias is even worse. The Fiji Times wasn’t present at all at the first day of the trial on Monday, when Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum backed the DPP’s account that at no time during their photographed encounter had they discussed the police case against him. So, incredibly, day one is lost to history altogether in the nation’s traditional newspaper of record.
Day Two is covered this morning and with passing reference at the bottom of the story to Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s appearance in the witness box the previous day. But the Fiji Times simply ignores the most important evidence the ousted AG gave – that he and the DPP didn’t discuss his case. This is not just the usual sloppy Fiji Times reporting. This is the wilful exclusion of the most critical evidence in the trial so far.
Yes, we can all see where this is heading. Because what is already happening is an unprecedented assault on the most basic right of all in any nation where the rule of law prevails – the right to a fair trial.
The trial of Christopher Pryde in absentia because the state cut off his sole means of support and deprived him of the right to properly defend himself is an outrage that should send a shiver of fear through any Fijian who finds themselves on the wrong side of the current establishment. Don’t take my word for it. The Fiji Law Society representing the nation’s lawyers in private practice has described it as unconstitutional and unfair.
Yet even more outrageous is that important sections of the mainstream media are party to this assault on the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. And the more they talk about the “new era of media freedom” in Fiji, the more insidious this all becomes.
Instead of standing up for justice and fairness, including publishing the Fiji Law Society letter, they have chosen to side with the state for their own commercial interests – to collude in a crude stitch-up. And that accomodation between the media and the Coalition and its stooges in the criminal justice system is a form of corruption that is destroying the very foundations of Fijian democracy.
No mention of the most important evidence in the case thus far – Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum backing Christopher Pryde’s contention that they did not discuss his case. Wilfully ignored.
Biased, subjective reporting and an equally wilful decision to ignore the nation’s lawyers. Neither the Fiji Sun nor the Fiji Times have published the following letter. Have they even approach Wylie Clarke for comment?
* Kangaroo Court:
A court whose proceedings deviate so far from accepted legal norms that they can no longer be considered fair or just.
GD
This whole Tribunal shenanigan is tainted by showing favouritism to the iTaukei gangsters in power. Despite that, I have a gut feeling that the three wise men will make a finding of fact which could be favourable to CP. The fact of the case is a very “narrow” one, whether a sensitive discussion took place between CP and AK. There is no evidence to suggest that such a discussion took place. There were NO witnesses to that discussion and it appears that those who had registered and raised the complaint had a vendetta against CP. It is as simple and obvious as that!
Wise men would have told the JSC that they were unwilling to proceed until Pryde’s salary was restored and he could properly defend himself. Wise men would have acknowledged the concerns by the Fiji Law Society that the process is unfair. Wise men would not have allowed themselves to be reported as having been “stunned” by the evidence of one person.
You are presupposing that the three wise men would recommend to the President that Christopher Pryde be reinstated. And I’m afraid that if you believe that after all that has transpired in this scandalous saga, you may just as well believe in Santa Claus.
Perhaps they will surprise us all and Santa really does exist. But your “gut feeling” is a lot more optimistic than my own. Because as the Fiji Law Society makes clear, this shouldn’t be happening in the first place. And the fact that it is is and the fact that the FLS advice to the Tribunal is being suppressed is cause enough for alarm about the integrity of the criminal justice system in Fiji.
Unfortunately we all know how this will end. The verdict was predetermined when Mr Pryde was suspended.
The plan was to leave him in suspension until he gave in and resigned. That didn’t work, so next they stop his rightful expectancy to be paid whilst suspended so that he has no money to live on or support his legal payments. That didn’t work and they are getting desperate to make a point so they defy all of the laws regarding a fair trial and push on without him and pronounce him guilty as charged. Job done.
Exactly what Putin does. (Minus step one and two, of what they did to Mr Pryde)
This is how it works in Fiji now and they know that right-minded people who don’t like what is happening may well leave. This further enhances the programme to take back the running of the country, but whilst still extending their hands for anything that is on offer from overseas governments.
Fiji, the way the world…….shouldn’t be.
There needs to be independent audit of emails to see if the email was actually sent.Another question that remains unanswered is why were itaukei lawyers being interviewed for the position of DPP weeks before the alleged incident took place? It was already widely known that David Toganivalu was going to be the new DPP long before the alleged incident. If Pryde gets sacked for this then Rabuku needs to be sacked immediately as well due to fraternising openly and in public with someone he is supposedly meant to be investigating!
Sobo, so embarrassing. Vakamadua dina. Questions then from a non-lawyer.
Would these developments be watched and monitored by regional and global bodies like the International Bar Association, the British, Commonwealth, UN, IMF, World Bank, ADB and the Pacific Forum Secretariat etc? Will there be implications? Or is it rather a sovereignty issue?
Glad to hear from those in the know including GD. Vinaka.
Well we know that the New Zealand Law Society is watching the case because they have been copied in on all of Christopher Pryde’s correspondence. And they will certainly be aware of the Fiji Law Society letter describing the process as unfair. We shall see.
Clearly this whole thing is unfair and pryde is entitled to be represented and contradict the evidence. His suspension without pay is simply unlawful.
But what about the evidence from dpp staff that pryde was fully aware of the file against kaiyum – that an email was sent to him about the file and he acknowledged the email? that he was involved in the preparation of the media release on the file? that his assistant dpp confirmed to the tribunal that he received the file for assessment? All of this about 11 days before the photo.
It is unfortunate that pryde is not there to contradict all this. But the evidence from dpp does show that pryde was aware of the case. Tribunal will now rule that pryde lied in his response that he was not aware of the file. I don’t think that should matter but seems like tribunal have got something to rule against him. And that’s all it wanted I think.
We all knew there was a police investigation into Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum because he was in the media being questioned at length at the CID and the presumption was always that a file would eventually go to the DPP.
Christopher Pryde has acknowledged that the file had reached the ODPP. But he maintains that he didn’t know what the evidence was and that while the file was with one of his subordinates for evaluation, he had yet to see it. And to review their recommendations and make a final decision on whether or not to prosecute.
These may be subtle concepts to understand for those unaware of how the system works. But in the interests of fairness, it is designed for an Assistant DPP to evaluate the police docket before it goes to the DPP and make a recommendation whether or not to prosecute and that process can evidently take several weeks.
The critical thing is this: 1/ Did the DPP have the police file on his desk or in front of him to decide whether or not to prosecute when the AG approached him at the Japanese Residence? Pryde says no. The head of the ODPP Registry says yes. And that should be properly tested in the courts, not her word taken as gospel to the extent that “judges are stunned”.
2/ Did the DPP and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum discuss the case when they met, with the inference that representations might have been made not to prosecute. Both men say “no”. It then becomes whether it was “misbehaviour” for them to be seen together in the same room with others irrespective of whether they discussed the case or not.
It hasn’t been a problem for John Rabuku – the current Deputy DPP – to have been seen socialising with the FICAC Commissioner, Barbara Malimali, when he is actively investigating her for abuse of office. Why is that not misbehaviour? Simple. Because there is one rule for the white goose and another for the little black ducks.
It was the Opposition leader, Inia Seruiratu, who described this as a double standard and called for John Rabuku and Barbara Malimali to be suspended. What happened? Nothing.
BTW, the DPP has not “lied in his response”. He hasn’t made a formal response because he withdrew from the process until his salary was restored and he could pay Adish Narayan to defend him. A big difference.
Even if Pryde was aware of a file in the office (as stated before tribunal by dpp staff), it does not matter as having a casual meeting at a social event cannot possibly amount to misbehaviour. If it is, then Siromi, Barbara and Rabuku should also be removed. Even then Pryde’s actions do not reach a threshold that warrants removal from office. Surely justice must be done, unless of course it’s a fixed match where the JSC now has an open goal mouth with Pryde not there.
Wow, GD, the Fiji newspapers’ reporting is abysmal, to say the least. Elementary mistakes, or, as you allege, willful bias. If this is normal behavior, it’s no wonder that that FijiFirst brought in the media act.
Attention to detail and balanced coverage is clearly not the Fiji media’s forte. If the coverage of the trial is any indication, right now the biggest threat to media freedom in Fiji is the Fiji media itself. The farcical Fiji media, that is.
The outcome of this case was already written even before it hit the court/Tribunal. This circus is full of monkeys who are dancing to the tune of their Master.
Wonder where Jon Apted is and why the silence on his part – I recall him making a similar comment about “Kangaroo Court” some time back. Oh well, little boy Apted must have crawled back where he came from – from under Richard Naidu’s table.
Not only Jon Apted and Richard Naidu.
Where is Imrana Jalal? Shaista Shameen? Shamima Ali (Oh wait, she only advocates for women and Palestinians).
Where are all the other prominent lawyers and human rights advocates of Fiji?
Wylie can’t be hiding under the FLS blanket. He can make a personal statement as well.
If all these prominent and outspoken lawyers in Fiji are mum, then you have to wonder what has happened to the right of free expression in Fiji.
Their silence in this matter is deafening.
It appears that freedom of expression is worse off now than it was in the previous administration.
At least under FFP when someone spoke against govt they are taken to task publicly.
Currently we don’t see anything similar. But no one is opening their mouths.
Is there a gestapo type group going around threatening these people?
Funny how Tabuya is advocating for the Pornography task force and commending Australia for banning social media for children under 16. She really must be smoking some crazy shit because her peanut sized brain isn’t serving her too well. If anything, it’s not the under 16s that are a problem, it’s the grown ass Ministers in the Coalition that Fiji needs protection from, with Tabuya topping the list. The only harmful content we need to ban as a matter of priority is Tabuya. People like her confirm what most of us already know – that a number of elite itaukeis rock up to church in the white man’s attire (despite their hate for them) preach and harp on about God, love, and all other BS and conduct themselves contrary to the Bible. 2026 seems so far away.
Sit back and enjoy the comedy show put up on a daily basis by the coalition and its crooks.
It is doing wonders for people looking to invest or continue living in Fiji.
Best solution is to get your kids educated and out of this forsaken country.
Why don’t they come out and openly say it? Christopher is a white man. And they want the white man removed from his position and gone from Fiji. And finally, they want a Native Fijian to be given the position that Christopher held. But I guess that admitting that would make the whole world call them racist. In the America of today, the white men are labeled as the culprits while the minorities, females and the LGBTQ+ are underprivileged. But in Fiji the story is something else. In Fiji the white men are the minority, but still the culprits, while the majority Native people are the underprivileged.
The Acting Chief Justice Sailosi Temo, while giving evidence, is quick to say that Pryde cannot put condition that his salary should be paid first before he attends the Tribunal proceedings.
But Temo doesn’t tell the Tribunal why his salary was stopped in the first place when Pryde was suspended on full salary pending completion of Tribunal. The Prime Minister had made it clear that Pryde was entitled to his salary. It is clear that it was a deliberate move by Temo as chair of JSC to stop Pryde’s salary to weaken his ability to engage a lawyer.
Temo also said that Pryde could have represented himself or got assistance from Legal Aid. Who is Temo to dictate to anyone, for that matter, who should represent the accused. The accused, in this case Pryde, has every right under the constitution as well as his human right to hire the best lawyer to defend him.
It would be interesting to see what judgment the tribunal gives. The issue is why Pryde’s salary ceased and why the tribunal ignored the letter from the Fiji Law Society? Also, why were constitutional provisions not respected?
The Acting Chief Santa Claus is telling the Tribunal what the suspended DPP should be doing, that he should be representing himself, that he cannot approve his superannuation etc etc. I guess the Acting Chief Santa Claus is the judge, jury and the executioner in this case. He can stop the salary of the suspended DPP unilaterally because he thinks that is the right thing to do. I guess that he really believes that he is right based on his personal prejudices.
That is why he is the ideal person to be the Acting Chief Santa Claus of Fiji and should be confirmed in the role as he has the ideal personal prejudices which makes him fully qualified for the role under this government and on the basis of all the appointments the government have made since they came into office.