The qori ( “there, that’s what you deserve”) moment of the week has got to be the slapping-down of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Mohammed Saneem by two of the three Supreme Court judges hearing the cabinet’s application to determine if the Constitution actually permits the appointments of John Rabuku as Acting DPP and Alipate Qetaki as a judge.
Khaiyum and Saneem tried to intervene in the case, claiming, among other things, that they could bring specialist knowledge to the proceedings. Alas. To summarise the judges’ decision, if they allowed the ousted AG to intervene on the basis that he had a hand in drafting the Constitution, they would have to hear from others who did. And in the case of Saneem, the rebuff was even more humiliating – that his claim to have specialist knowledge of the Constitution because he was permanent secretary for justice at the time was unjustified because he had never held the substantive position and was acting for the briefest of periods. Whoops.
Both members of the ancien régime were made to look like idiots. In the case of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, it merely confirmed the popular narrative that the constitution was the work of a handful of people, him included, and had been foisted on the Fijian people. And in the case of Mohammed Saneem, it merely confirmed in the public mind his role as Dobby the House Elf – Khaiyum’s cringing “how high must I jump, Master? ” factotum.
The other reason the pair advanced to intervene was that they were being pursued in the courts by the illegally-appointed DPP. But this is a case that will be decided solely on an interpretation of the Constitution and its provisions for the lawful appointment of judges and DPPs and nothing else.
On that point the Constitution is pretty clear – with specific stipulations that ” judicial officers should be of the highest competence and integrity” and that anyone found guilty of professional misconduct by the Independent Legal Services Commission is barred.
Both John Rabuku and Alipate Qetaki are in the second category – found guilty of professional misconduct by the ILSC – so it’s hard to see on that basis how they can satisfy the integrity provision of the first.
Here’s what the Constitution says:
Of course, it is now up to the trio of distinguished judges – Justice Sir Terence Arnold, Justice Sir Brian Keith and Justice William Young – to hear the various submissions on June 19 and 20 and give their ruling on June 28. Will they interpret these provisions in the government’s favour? We shall see. But presumably their ruling will be binding and if they uphold the Constitutional provisions outlined above, John Rabuku and Alipate Qetaki will be gone.
What did Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Mohammed Saneem hope to achieve with their little pantomime? 48 hours of fame, if you can call it that? This was a sideshow that wasn’t necessary. We have three of the finest judges in the region hearing this case and the reasons they gave for excluding Khaiyum and Saneem have – in themselves – given us confidence that justice will be done.
As the ousted AG said: We now await the outcome.
“Oh dear. Was that really a good idea, AG Sir?”
Both embarrassed themselves, however, in an event FijiFirst comes back into power, expect the three judges to be kicked out of their positions
Good morning GD. Interesting reading and with three esteemed judges presiding and following the letter the law -true law-not made up to suit individuals in a big grab for power and money -the outcome should -should….be positive.
You have my full attention until the end of your commentary-until I break out in a fit a giggles at your images posted.
You make me laugh GD.
Have a good day!
Gone are the days where Aiyaz could dictate every outcome , influence every decision and defy everyone and be the judge and the jury. Should be a reminder to him that he is now a nobody but a faded away past but a past that did a lot of damage to the people of Fiji.
These days if you are not careful of your actions, than very quickly it comes back to haunt you
These two kids didn’t do their homework well
It is plain clear who the 2013 constitution belongs to and in who’s favour this was made for
All the authors name need to be made public
There is some legitimate argument with this coalition
Who knows the 2013 constitution can be thrown out of the window
Watch the space
Interesting times ahead as this could be the prelude to the judgement and somehow indicating that the 2013 constitution is not a valid document.
We keep telling everyone this
The constitution is the supreme Law and RFMF are the custodians…how can it be thrown out when Rabuka is seeking help from Consultants to interpret simple sentences?
As profoundly disappointing as the Coalition has turned out to be, they are in power for one reason only: the Nation’s utter distaste for these two vile men. If ASK cares for Fiji at all, he will withdraw from public life officially. I will never ever ever vote for Fiji First while there is even a possibility of him pulling the strings again as I believe him to be actually the personification of evil. Whereas the Coalition appear to be merely self serving, corrupt, morally destitute fools led by an aging and incompetent leader who has lost his grip on both politics and the sentiments of the Nation.
Of course he was not perfect.
In making my observation I have no benefit or gain from making the following comment – The former AG and his skills were wasted on Fiji if some think he was the personification of evil despite the reforms that were undertaken to lift Fiji out of third world into more modern economy. He would have been a great leader in another democracy where people are judged on performance rather than ethnicity, religion or just plain hate! Sadly no one likes someone who is able to articulate himself intelligently and with mostly good ethos.
Narcissism is all about manipulating connections to get what they want – which is why they just don’t understand or respect conflict of interest. How foolish to pursue this is the first place when it’s a glaring conflict of interest. Reading this put my mind to 16 years of angry iTaukei watching ASK’s corruption and conflicts, all the while absorbing the tips and waiting for their turn to do the same. The primal urge for revenge sums up all the Coalition have done and are capable of.
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum will never get the credit he deserves. Stop picking on him. The nation advanced in leaps and strides whilst he was at the helm. He appeared on ABC Australia’s flagship Q&A programme and held his own when talking about the economy. He gave the poor hope. Fiji First never forgot about the people in rural areas where electricity was set-up. Those glory days are gone because we have power hungry people in government now. Stop the Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum hate. You’re better than that Grubsheet. He’s not a punching bag that you can slam everytime.
It’s a shame those Fijians who hated him for irrational reasons , stopped Fiji moving forward by not getting behind the Fiji First govt reforms and betterment of the nation. The former attorney general and economy minister’s talents were in the end wasted on generally a mediaeval society not accustomed to modern civilised 21st century ethos. He would have been a great leader and achiever in the same roles in Aust or NZ if looking at the region only – countries where society judges people on merit and performance. Losers and the self inflicted have-nots always bring up the race or religion card or white colonial oppression when they are not good enough. Such people defend their right to shoot themselves in the foot again and again. (My land it’s mine I can let it grow into jungle and be unproductive, but you have to make up for me not being productive and having enough otherwise we all are not safe)
The argument for is that the guilty ruling is only applicable to those with less than 15 years of service.
Well you can’t fix stupid, those two were never so bright at all
The following may be a False Equivalence. However with this self disclosure I’d like to illustrate:
Start of external reference:
[Who mainly wrote the US Constitution?
James Madison
Contribution: Famously known as the “father of the Constitution”, James Madison.] End of external reference.
Now my comments follow:
There were others that contributed as well.
If there was some ambiguity in the US Constitution that required legal interpretation – would it not make sense to call up Mr Madison to give his 5 cents piece worth on the intent and purpose of the document he primarily had written. Should he be available of course.
Yes Mr Khaiyum was not called by the court in Suva but he offered himself to give clarification.
Why this relevant part of the Fijian constitution is unclear to those who seek clarification from the courts is a mystery. It is pretty crystal clear. That is what a good law is… clear, precise and unambiguous. It generally has traits of good common sense. ( Criminals should not hold high office is common sense) Good law also caters to be future proof so that events which were not foreseen at the time of the law being written, still captures those unknown events in its written provisions – eg all other acts that may cause impairment, or future acts of God if He rains down fire and brimstone on Fiji in his judgement!! Hopefully this later event will not become an event that requires interpretation of causation and liability by the courts !
Fortunately Mr Madison does not need to be called every so often to interpret the US Constitution – because those relevant legal practitioners are not thick as those who have required the court’s opinion in Suva on a constitutional law which is very clear.
I think Mr Khaiyum’s offer was not entirely ridiculous. The court has decided no thank you. Fine. However I don’t think the former Supervisor of Elections or Justice Secretary at that time due to his temporary tenure was materially relevant to offer his advise.
Yes it is hard to be impartial and rational – some of the comments here rely more on bias and hatred than clear heads. In such conditions what is crystal clear can become ambiguous – and this same bias and hatred has probably been the driver for those who require the court in Suva to interpret for them!
#1 “Khaiyum and Saneem tried to INTERVENE in the case”. Quote from Grubsheet.
Not the best word choice I would suggest.
INTERVENE – take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events: One of a few definitions of the word Intervene.
It’s the judges that decide the outcome – the expert witnesses that the prosecution or defense call on merely give their professional opinion on a specific matter. Same as witnesses to an alleged crime give evidence of what they saw or heard. Yes such “witnesses” testimony can materially affect the Jury or Judge – but the witnesses don’t intervene per se and decide the outcome!
Obviously the judges decided these two “witnesses or experts” evidence that was on offer was not required. End of matter.
#2 But presumably their RULING will be binding and if they uphold the Constitutional provisions outlined above, John Rabuku and Alipate Qetaki will be gone. Grubsheet.
What does the 2013 Constitution say about a Supreme Court’s OPINION – Is it binding or not! Or will that be subject to another independent opinion/ruling! Don’t presume! You would think that common sense is that its binding.
#3 In relation to the former AG’s application to be a part of this court case re Interpretation of this part of the constitution:
“The Court said the 2013 Constitution “was not the result of the type of public process that preceded the adoption of the United States Constitution”.
“Rather, it was the work of a relatively small group of officials of which Mr Sayed-Khaiyum was one. “Source FIJI TIMES.
Are the highly esteemed judges Arnold and Keith hinting that the 2013 Fijian constitution is at worst Illegal or undemocratic and at best the work of a few – which it was (Just like the American constitution was drafted by a few with James Madison pivotal in drafting the document as well as being remembered as one of the Founding Fathers of that nation? Is the 2013 constitution being challenged in this statement by Justices Arnold and Keith?
Ratification of a document like a constitution is indeed a public process involving citizens representatives. However you don’t go to Suva market or stand outside a large gathering and get endorsement from individual citizens. Neither is it done at the Grand Pacific Hotel in a symposium! GCC ?? Hint – house of elected representatives.
The drafting of the constitutional document for sheer practicality and competancy is done by a select few – as indeed it was done in what we now call the USA – prior to them being United. And similarly in Fiji. (Reliance on an earlier sound document The Magna Carta would not be amiss – no point in trying to reinvent the wheel!
Lets say the DRAFTING of the 2013 constitution was a public process. Who would arbitrate the validity and fairness if say one of the provinces representative or individuals or even the GCC required that their members be given preference in Civil Servant Jobs, that only Indigenous be allowed in the national rugby 7s teams players or administrator. If Ethnic Indians wanted the lease of native lands to be for a minimum period of 300 years, if they wanted only them to be allowed to play soccer and no i’taukei – Exaggerated examples to show the impossibility of trying to please everyone including irrational / unjust and unfair expectations.
I suggest that it is not fair for the esteemed Judges to make a comparison of the process in Independent Fiji with the issues we have, to the USA. If we think that Fijian society has progressed and developed positively post independence just look at the shambles we are in now. It takes centuries for civilizations to progress from Cave-men to the lifestyle of the American Dream including fair play and equality of all men/women – Fiji still in the early stages. Perhaps if the formally educated Judges looked at the real environment around them – rather than law textbooks – they may see the point that the democratic process may not be applicable everywhere. I think the former AG and the former PM especially grasped the realities of the society they were in – more than academics and professors with limited exposure to the real world for real world answers.
Incidently my opinion is that those who worship the current Finance Minister a Professor of Economics are simply deifying him because of their dislike of the former Minister of Economy, ASK, who I view as having much greater Nous: Oxford Dictionary Definition: common sense; practical intelligence.
And no I’m not a personal friend of the individual, I did not go to school with him, he didn’t make me rich by opening doors for me, I’m not from his bhajan mandli 🙂 I did not know his parents or his neighbour nor his barber to influence me. Just a fly on the wall observation!
#4
Mr Davis – I try and not be like a Sheep. So when I read your articles I try reading it critically and objectively and without switching the grey matter in my head to the OFF mode. I hope I give credit where it is deserved and offer challenge on an ad hoc basis. I well know you don’t write for the “likes and praises” but for a higher cause.
I also have a job or existential demands which takes up a lot of my time and have great admiration of the way you are committed to providing the many Fiji-Centric content you come up with! Now I’m going back to my tasks!
“Intervene” is the formal legal word in an instance like this.
I would defer to you on this definition of the formal legal word INTERVENTION…I’m satisfied to take your word for it.
However using the word INTERVENTION in the type of social blog we all are reading here – and how many of us commoner non legal people would know the legal usage of the word – can and has led to some people forming a view that ASK and his puppet are back to their old tricks of uncalled for “intervening”, pulling strings, dictating and other shenanigans of abuse of office in wielding their once held power.