Like many people, Grubsheet has been perplexed by the behavior of the recently-departed Chairman of the Constitutional Commission, Professor Yash Ghai. Almost as soon as he left the country after handing his Draft Constitution to the President, Professor Ghai launched an extraordinary attack on the Fijian authorities. He claimed that the police had illegally seized 600 copies of the Draft Constitution from the printers and had burnt some documents in front of him in an act of willful destruction. It allegedly happened when the police intervened to prevent the distribution of the draft that Professor Ghai had printed without the authority of the Government and – as we now know -without the knowledge of at least one of his fellow Commissioners.
Grubsheet was stunned to hear Professor Ghai tell Radio Australia that the confiscating police had used kerosene to set fire to some of the proofs and had showed contempt for both the constitutional process and the Fijian people. Our immediate reaction was to accept without question the account given by such an eminent global authority and to wring our hands with despair about the behavior of the police. It took a couple of days to discover that the story wasn’t quite the way it had been portrayed, and especially by the anti government blogs. Elements of the mainstream international media have also been guilty of misrepresenting the story. The Australian newspaper carried an article by its Asia-Pacific Editor, Rowan Callick, that was headlined “Fiji cops torch constitution draft”. It said the police had seized and burnt copies of the Draft Constitution. The story is wrong. It didn’t happen as reported. And yet such accounts are bound to trigger uproar in countries such as Australia and fuel their hardline stance on Fiji.
Certainly, no copy of the actual Draft Constitution was set alight. What was burnt were some uncorrected printer’s proofs that had been shredded – yes, cut up into little pieces – and that the police feared may have been reconstituted had they not been destroyed. Their orders, after all, were to secure the document and prevent its dissemination. The anti-government website, Coup 4.5, has published photographs of what it claims to be the actual fire itself, a very small affair that even it says lends weight to the notion that this was a printer’s proof, not the actual draft. It also shows a distressed Yash Ghai being comforted by one of his staff.
The truth is that all copies of the Draft Constitution survive and are now under lock and key. As the Government originally intended, they will be handed over to the proper authority when the time comes – the yet to be chosen Chair of the Constituent Assembly. It is then that public discussion on the contents will begin.
All along, it’s been the Government’s position that Professor Ghai’s duty – when he and his team had completed the Constitution – was to formally hand it to the President. Indeed, the relevant decree states that the Professor’s commission as Chair ended the moment that handover occurred at Government House on Friday, December 21st. So a significant question arises. What was Yash Ghai doing presiding over the printing of almost 600 copies a day later on Saturday December 22nd? He no longer had any legal authority to do so. He was in breach of the law. And yet it was Professor Ghai who accused the Police of acting illegally when he gave his Radio Australia interview six days later. By now he was safely out of Fiji and intent on what looks very much like a petulant act of revenge – pointing a finger of blame at the police when it was he who was actually in the wrong.
We now know from his fellow Commissioner, Professor Satendra Nandan, that Professor Ghai had the draft copies printed without informing him. In other words, it was a unilateral decision of the Chairman’s to make the document public, not the Commission’s as a whole. This raises some serious questions about Yash Ghai’s conduct. First, he defies the law by continuing to perform his duties after his job has formally concluded. Then he secretly presides over the unauthorized printing of 600 draft copies with the intention of disseminating them to selected members of the public in defiance of the Government’s wishes and the process it had set in train.
Professor Ghai keeps saying that the Fijian people have a right to see what’s in the Draft Constitution, with the less than subtle implication that the Government is intent on suppressing it. Yet the Government says it wants the Constituent Assembly – which will be broadly representative of the Fijian people – to be the vehicle to release the document, not the consultant whose sole task was to formulate it and then get out of the way.
Incredibly, Professor Ghai then appears to have taken it upon himself to leak the Draft Constitution and bastardise the entire process. The first leak – from an unnamed source – was reportedly sent by email to a string of recipients including Fijileaks – an anti-government website operated by Victor Lal, a former Fijian journalist now resident in Britain. Lal claimed a world scoop when he released the document and sparked widespread media and cyber debate in Fiji and the Fijian diaspora. But then came another posting on Fijileaks declaring that what was originally published wasn’t the final version handed to the President after all. Now it was publishing the real Draft Constitution – containing some minor amendments – and it was being released by none other than the Great Man himself under his own name.
The actual document plus the explanatory notes were accompanied by a self-serving statement from Professor Ghai that tried to justify his extraordinary behavior. It was notable for being riddled with the words “I” and “me” as if it was his Constitution, not the Commission’s, and certainly not the Fijian People’s. The whole thing reeked of hubris. And like his aforementioned interview with Radio Australia, the statement also carried a distinct tone of petulance. The Professor said he had taken it upon himself to release the Draft Constitution because the Government had refused to do so at the time of his choosing. So much for due process.
It now transpires that there’s a reason that all this showed up on Fijileaks. Victor Lal and Professor Ghai have known each other for years. Lal – who is based in Oxford and nowadays passes himself off as an Oxford academic – wrote a treatise on the Indian diaspora that included Indians living in Kenya, where Professor Ghai was born. According to a source who knows both men, the Professor helped Lal with his work and the two men have remained friends ever since. So much for a journalistic scoop. Leaking the Draft Constitution was as simple as picking up the phone to a mate.
For its part, the Government appears to have been no more than mildly annoyed that the ordered process it envisaged has been breached. It was certainly only a fraction of the annoyance felt when the actual document passed over the desks of senior government figures in the days before Christmas and they began to read the Commission’s work. Because it’s a deeply flawed document on several fronts and none more so than its failure to establish parliament – the people’s elected representatives – as the supreme and sole authority in the new Fijian democracy that will come into being next year.
Now that it’s been unilaterally released to the world by its principal author, we know that the Draft Constitution provides for 71 elected individuals in the new national Parliament plus another 144 individuals in what’s called the National People’s Assembly, which includes the President, the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers. Its job is to meet once a year to discuss matters of national interest and make recommendations to the parliament. Strangely, this body gets to choose the President, not the parliament. Seventy two members of the National People’s Assembly are unelected members of “civil society groups” (read NGOs). Then we have the restoration of another group of individuals in the form of the Great Council of Chiefs who are also unelected, though without their previous political power. The GCC was abolished by the Bainimarama Government specifically to transfer power to ordinary people in the vanua and endow them with the lease proceeds that used to go to the chiefs. So you can be certain that it’s none too pleased to see new life being breathed into the notion of inherited privilege.
Yet the overwhelming reason that the Ghai blueprint is causing such consternation in official circles is because it is such a patently flawed formula for achieving genuine democracy. If you dissect its provisions, Fiji would wind up with an elite of non-elected representatives and hereditary chiefs whose numbers would far exceed those directly chosen by the people. And what – pray tell – is democratic about that? As Grubsheet has already told Victor Lal in a scathing missive, this might be OK for the Kumbaya crowd of NGOs and tenured academics who appear to make up the Ghai glee club – none of whom have been elected to anything either – but the Fijian people deserve better.
As it happens, most of the Government’s critics have some very strange attitudes towards democracy. They oppose Frank Bainimarama for smashing the racist paradigm that gave the votes of i’Taukei more weight than the votes of other Fijians in previous parliaments. Now they object to him insisting that an elected parliament based on equal votes of equal value be the supreme and sole authority in the country. In other words, a genuine democracy in which the people’s representatives have the final say. As Grubsheet also fumed to Victor Lal: Is is too much to expect that you might give this a fleeting thought next time you rail against the “dictator”?
Yash Ghai seems to regard himself as some kind of latter day Moses coming down from the Mount with his opus etched in stone. How else to explain his insistence that a two-thirds majority vote be required in the upcoming Constituent Assembly for any clause to be overturned. Yet instead of exiting Fiji gracefully and leaving Fijians to work on their Constitution in their own time, he staged a world-class tantrum because the Bainimarama Government doesn’t share his own high opinion of himself. The net result is an atmosphere of crisis when there should have been calm and which arguably makes the formulation of the next phase of constitution building – the Constituent Assembly – that much harder.
Why was Yash Ghai so determined to get his own way, to bring the public consultations forward when they were going to happen anyway? The Professor keeps talking about the public’s right to know. Yet an old friend believes that there were clearly other, more complex forces at play. He thinks that when it comes to the Draft Constitution and his handling of the events around it, Yash Ghai’s emotions may well have got in the way of his better judgment.
Among some valuable and hitherto unpublicised insights, this friend – who naturally wishes to remain anonymous – points out that the Professor has had a much longer association with Fiji than most people realise. He was an advisor to the Labour/ National Federation Party Coalition that won the 1999 election and, as such, had plenty of experience of Fijian politics. And he also had plenty of local contacts, ranging across the political spectrum from Akuila Yabaki at the Citizen’s Constitutional Forum to Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed -Khaiyum. Yash Ghai supervised a younger Khaiyum’s masters thesis at the University of Hong Kong and it was the AG who eventually invited him to chair the Constitutional Commission. It’s a decision he now regrets.
When he arrived in the country – according to this friend – Yash Ghai had a distinctly romantic notion about finally being able to resolve the intractable “Fiji Problem”. Indeed, he apparently came to believe – in the words of this person – that he was “just as big a saviour for the Fijian people as Frank Bainimarama”. With his vast experience in greater world trouble spots than Fiji such as Somalia , Professor Ghai can perhaps be forgiven for being overly optimistic. But he clearly saw himself as far more than a run-of-the-mill international consultant paid to do a job. He seems to have regarded himself as an active peacemaker, someone capable of reconciling the various races and political factions and setting them on the path to a glorious future under his new prescription for a workable democracy.
According to his friend, Professor Ghai was stung when he arrived in Fiji to find that far from being universally welcomed, he was pilloried on anti-government blogs as a stooge of the Bainimarama Government and a lap dog of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. So he consciously set about to correct that assumption by actively courting those elements known to oppose the Government. It was a well-meaning but ultimately misguided attempt to be even handed because those anti-government elements were all too keen to exploit the opportunity for their own purposes. This is what the military Land Force Commander, Colonel Mosese Tikoitoga, means when he refers to Yash Ghai “ falling in with the wrong crowd”. The eventual outcome – according to his friend – was that Yash Ghai got caught in the middle. He alienated the Government by actively pursuing some of these associations. It began to get reports of him fraternising socially with some of its most prominent opponents. And eventually, the relationship broke down altogether when the Government discovered that Professor Ghai had secretly engaged the deposed vice president, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, as a paid consultant.
It is on the public record that the Government forced Yash Ghai to back down and terminate the Commission’s association with Ratu Joni. What hasn’t been disclosed – according to our source – is that the Professor canvassed resigning as Chair in response but was talked out of it by his local friends and associates. It suited nobody for him to leave at the eleventh hour, least of all his new anti-government companions. So the Commission defused the crisis itself by eschewing Ratu Joni’s services and threw itself into the task of presenting Fiji with what Ghai termed its “Christmas present” – a new Draft Constitution.
Regrettably, the standoff left a bitter legacy on both sides that never healed. Ghai appears to have become convinced that Bainimarama simply couldn’t be trusted to uphold democracy and Bainimarama became convinced that Ghai was a turncoat who’d been irredeemably seduced by the Government’s opponents. It’s against this sorry backdrop that Yash Ghai seems to have decided to “go rogue”, to thumb his nose at due process in the form of the Government’s timetable and strike out on his own. He simply dumped his blueprint for the future directly onto the cyber pavement off the back of Victor Lal’s truck.
How history will judge this unfortunate episode remains to be seen. But there’s yet another disclosure from the Professor’s friend that gives a telling insight into the depth of Yash Ghai’s bitterness. It’s not professional but personal. After a long career of playing constitutional midwife to a string of developing countries, the scholarly Professor had developed a deep love of Fiji and its people. At one stage, he had plans to eventually settle here and build a house at Vuda Point, living out his retirement under the Pacific sun. Alas, it seems, that plan has been abandoned.
As his aircraft thundered down the runway at Nadi Airport in the week before Christmas, what would have been going through Yash Ghai’s mind? Undoubtedly the same career-long determination to preserve his international reputation. By all accounts, it means more to him than anything else. Yet he was also clearly consumed with anger and a burning conviction that he was right and the Government was wrong. How else to explain why he would so comprehensively put that hard-won reputation at risk with a clutch of inexplicable lapses of judgment when he reached his destination? First, he told a radio interviewer that 600 copies of the Draft Constitution had been illegally seized and some of the proofs burnt when the unlawful act was his. Then, he took it upon himself to dump “his” Draft Constitution into the public arena – in the form of a leak to a minor anti-government website – in defiance of the wishes of his client, the Fijian Government. It all smacks of emotion triumphing over reason. And a legacy in the form of a Draft Constitution that the Government is deeply disenchanted with because it isn’t as genuinely democratic as it should be and requires major revision by the Constituent Assembly in the weeks ahead.
Graham,
I agree with you that Ghai was breaking the law when he printed the additional copies, which he intended to release. But in a situation like this the police/government also need to be seen to be following the correct procedures to the letter. Why didn’t the police get a warrant from a judge authorising them to seize all copies? Yes the whole burning situation was exaggerated in the press, but if the police/government use heavy handed tactics they have to realise that they are opening themselves up for negative publicity.
Whether printed copies of the draft Constitution or only proofs of the draft were burnt is IRRELEVANT.
What is relevant is the fact that an atempt was made to DENY the people of Fiji their right to discuss the draft – BEFORE it goes to the Constituent Assembly – as provided for by the Constitution Decree (No.57)- AND – the amended Decree (No.64).
Legal experts can argue all they like about the legaility of Yash Ghai’s releasing of the draft but in doing so they need to consider the following;
While the October 31, 2012 Constitution Amendment Decree (Decree No 64) attempted to “kill off” all public discussion of the draft BEFORE it reached the Constituent Assembly [Refer to Section 7 Amendments (j) and (k)], the amended Decree (No 64) FAILED to completely NULLIFY one important provision in the original Constitution Decree (Decree No. 57). The relevant section in Decree No 57 reads as follows: [“civic education” means programmes of education, whether conducted by governmental or nongovernmental bodies, having the aim of enabling the people of Fiji to understand the nature and
role of the Constitution and the guiding constitutional principles, and to participate effectively in the constitutional process].
This is further qualified by the following: [“constitutional process” means the entire process of constitution drafting and adoption, including the collection of public views by the Commission, preparation of a draft Constitution and public
consultation thereon, and decree of the new Constitution].
So, all that the amendment in Decree 64 did was cut out “the hearing of views on the draft Constitution”. It DID NOT restrict, by Decree, Yash Ghai from providing the public with a document to which they could air their views (to whomever – not necessarily the Constitution Commission). It was clear from the intention behind both Decrees (57 and 64) that Yash Ghai was to present a COPY to the President. There was NO PROVISION, however, in either Decree RESTRICTING HIM from also presenting copies to the public to enable them to express their views as outlined in both Decrees. Admittedly the amended Decree intended to provide for “public discussions” AFTER presentation to the Constituent Assembly – however, the Decrees were not amended sufficiently to ensure this!!!
Yash Ghai is also justified in his actions as the provisions for his immunity in Decree 57 [14.—(1) A Commissioner, or the Executive Secretary shall not be liable for anything done or said or
in respect of any matter or thing said, or done or omitted to be done in good faith in that person’s capacity as
Commissioner or as Executive Secretary.] have not been amended. As explained by Yash Ghai his release of the draft to the public was done “in good faith” and followed a change (without due consultation) to the Decree which provided him his mandate.
So, in reality and despite what Tikoitoga would like us to believe, Yash Ghai did not act “outside his mandate” – he was well within his “mandate” to ensure that “civic education” was truly a part of the “constituional process”.
The move, by police, to confiscate the extra copies was obviously in response to SOMEONE issuing an order “in bad faith” after realising that he had not sufficiently “plugged” all the loopholes!!!
Graham,
You released what you claimed was SDL’s racist submission to the Constitution Commission, boasting it was a scoop etc. I have no quarrels how and by whom materials find their way on pro and anti-government websites. It seems you wrote this piece of yours before anti-government blogs released those shameful pictures with a renowned world scholar holding his head in his hands – it reminded me of those fanatical Taliban who used to burn (and still do) anything they dont like – the printer’s copy was still a Draft Constitution, for with my limited knowledge, it was a copy which was used to check and proof -read what was going to be printed – whatever you say, its a very sand and shameful day for Fiji – what this regime has done is to convince the outside world that there is no rule of law in Fiji!
Photographer, two things. I didn’t claim the SDL submission as a “scoop”. It was merely the proof – in the face of constant denials – of what I and several others had originally reported; that the SDL favoured the introduction of a Christian state.
You also say the printer’s copy was still a Draft Constitution. No, it was a pile of shredded paper by the time it was burnt and what a miserable little fire it is.
When this story first broke, it conjured up images of the German bonfires on which the Nazis burnt the books they didn’t like. The same thing happened when overzealous Christians in America burnt Beatles records after John Lennon said they were more popular than Christ.
But seriously, you call that a fire? Seriously, you call those torn up little pieces of paper a constitution? Get a grip.
By what stretch of the imagination is the Ghai draft constitution going to enable respect for democracy in Fiji? It is a celebration of elitism and smug per diem receiving four wheeled drive owning NGO’s. Suggestion? Every leader in Fiji should be elected by the people, from the President down to turaga ni koro’s. That’s democracy,
Ghai’s conduct is more than extraordinary. It is egotistical, driven by intellectual snobbery, and exclusive. His friends, like him, believe their views should be accepted by the “grassroots” – a word heavy with paternalism and superiority. The Constituent Assembly is an inconvenient impediment to this snobbery. Wisdom not the exclusive property of Ghai and his elite group of lawyers and academics.
Hey, hey, hey, hey all of you here. Don’t you all get it? As per his terms of references, Ghai was supposed to simply hand over the draft constitution to the President.
Full Stop!!
His job was over and out there.
The next phase would have started…………. without him, of course!
What’s so hard about that?
But he couldn’t avoid getting in bed with his toy, Victor !!!!!
All these stupidity is the making of Ghai’s lusty desire of Victor’s manhood and vice versa.
Amazing but true !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh dear me……………another of those issues that makes my head spin.
And so many difficult words, legal jargon, debates and talk already in above postings.
Thank goodness I’m not a lawyer.
Anyway – thanks Graham for this article – it really does throw a lot of light in to what transpired and puts things into perspective. It really makes me think.
This article is very useful and also needed for the record in case our children look back to this day and wondered what transpired.
I think some people will still opt to believe a different version of what transpired and reasons behind them.
I have tried putting things together and identify which story to believe and the various reasons for all that was said and happened and found out that my head spins even more.
So for me, an ordinary citizen, this is what I can just say about everything (relating to the Constitution) in a few words:
I am hopeful of the future and hope the Constituent Assembly will be able to come up with a final Constitution that is acceptable to the majority and the RFMF. A Constitution that will bring about democracy, peace and prosperity for our nation and dear children where they will be proud to be Fijians.
I pray the good Lord that our journey will not be too difficult to take and not too painful to bear.
Please brothers and sisters of Fiji …………… let’s move forward and come up with a good Constitution.
As we go through the leaked version of the document please lets look for common grounds and be willing to compromise so our Constituent Assembly’s work will not be too difficult to fulfill.
God bless our beautiful Fiji and may we have a very good Constitution that we can all celebrate.
And may God guide us always.
Graham, aren’t you doing exactly what you and the regime are accusing Professor Ghai of doing – discussing the contents of his Constitution – you seem to be telling us that we must reject many features of the Constitution like, for example, the National Assembly etc – you have no right to tell us nor a handful of Bainimarama’s selected CA members (even if some of them are from our side) what is good or bad for Fiji – the whole purpose of Ghai’s actions were to tell us here is what the Commission is suggesting – anyway – neither you nor the Government paid for the work of the Commission nor were going to pay for the printing of a copy of the Draft Constitution – and sadly, you are writing this attack on Ghai to ingratiate yourself with the present regime, I am sorry to tell you!
Students of this whole process in ten, twenty, thirty years’ time may not get a true sense of how f*@king mind-numbingly crazy this whole episode is, so I am adding my two cents worth just in case. Professor Ghai may or may not be a friend of Victor Lal’s but he also had the AG and CJ as his students and was widely criticised by the anti-government blogs on that basis (according to an RNZI interview). Yet it was Ghai’s reputation that was of interest to the Govt, rightly so, allowing them to link his credibility to the credibility of the whole constitutional process which they did ad infinitum. As you yourself have said this was the AG’s appointment. His call, his judgement, his pick to moderate and shape all of the competing visions. And pro-Govt forces positively revelled in Ghai’s appointment (‘a constitutional expert who’s a global authority in his field, having forged national blueprints for governance in his own country – Kenya – and across the globe. Professor Ghai’s appointment disarmed even the most skeptical [sic] of Fiji’s critics because of his fierce reputation for independence. The record shows that he is no rubber stamp and is prepared to walk away if he feels his independence has been compromised’ … sound familiar?) Now Ghai has delivered his document, he’s being held up for public opprobrium … as petulant, emotional, misguided, angry, lacking in judgement etc. etc. As I said f*@king mind-numbingly crazy. In sporting parlance these ad hominem attacks seem to be a case of blaming the referee for not delivering the right result.
Charlie, as a best selling author, you must know that the first draft of any script isn’t the last. And so it is with the Yash Ghai saga.
Yes, he was embraced and respected for his talents and his international reputation. But he also proved to be less than adept at handling some important aspects of his mission.
He secretly engaged Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi and the Government was enraged at this deception. Yes, deception. Because Ratu Joni was on the Commission’s books for almost a month before the Government was informed.
Then he defied the relevant decree by not concluding his task the moment he handed the Draft Constitution to the President. He was at the printers the following day supervising the printing of copies that he had no legal right to disseminate.
Then when he left the country, he took it upon himself to leak the Draft Constitution to Victor Lal when he also had no legal right to do so. He thumbed his nose at both the law and the notion of due process.
Frankly, is it any wonder that his original supporters are disillusioned? Professor Ghai’s job was to provide Fiji with a working document so that the Fijian people themselves – through the Constituent Assembly – decided the final outcome. Instead he behaved illegally, deviously and without the knowledge of even some of his fellow Commissioners.
That leaves him diminished in the eyes of many of his staunchest supporters, though not people like you who evidently don’t like the way the story ended. But it was Professor Ghai who wrote the concluding chapter. Yes a sad ending. The end.
Did Fiji Sun Invent Professor Nandan’s Statement – His Email to Fiji Sun (5 January) does not mention anything against Yash Ghai and what you and Fiji Sun claim Nandan told you and the paper (published on 7 January!
Graham, you write;
“We now know from his fellow Commissioner, Professor Satendra Nandan, that Professor Ghai had the draft copies printed without informing him. In other words, it was a unilateral decision of the Chairman’s to make the document public, not the Commission’s as a whole. This raises some serious questions about Yash Ghai’s conduct.”
Presumably, you are quoting from Fiji Sun story by Maika Bolatiki:
Commissioner tells
January 7, 2013 | Filed under: Fiji News | Posted by: newsroom
Nandan: No
ok to Ghai
to print draft
By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Controversy over Constitution Commission chairman Professor Yash Ghai’s actions is growing. No decision was made by the Constitution Commission to controversially print extra copies of the Draft Constitution, a commission member has now confirmed.Professor Satendra Nandan, one of three local members of the commission chaired by Kenyan academic Professor Ghai, told the Fiji Sun:
“I can confirm that there were discussions about the printing of the copies of the draft but we did not reach an agreement.”
When asked if he was aware of thehundreds of copies being printed by Professor Ghai, Professor Nandan said he was not. Police confiscated the copies after being tipped off that Professor Ghai had these printed and was planning to distribute them outside the mandate of the commission. Boxes of these are now being held by Police. They are expected to be handed over to the Constituent Assembly when it meets to publicly debate the draft, consult with people and finalise the constitution.
Professor Nandan stressed he was only aware of the draft copy that was handed to President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau on December 21 by the commission. Ratu Epeli was then to hand this to the Constituent Assembly,
“The President received it most graciously,” Professor Nandan said of the draft. “That is the only copy of the Constitution I have seen. I do not have a copy with me.”
Professor Nandan is a distinguished Nadi-born academic and author and former parliamentarian. He migrated to Australia after Sitiveni Rabuka in his first 1987 coup removed and detained the Bavadra Government in which Professor Nandan was a minister Professor Nandan spoke amidst mounting questions about both the neutrality of Professor Ghai’s actions and proposals in the draft constitution. These are seen to go against the reforms since 2006.
Below, is the original (or in your words a printer’s copy) which Mrs Nandan sent to Fiji Sun, and if you compare the story in the Fiji Sun and Satendra Nandan’s written statement to the paper, the two do not add up – DID YOUR PRO_REGIME PAPER MADE UP NANDAN’S COMMENT TO FIJI SUN, and you are REPRODUCING THE LIE to belittle Professor Yash Ghai:
From: Jyoti Nandan
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 2:03 PM
To: maikab@fijisun.com.fj
Subject: Press statement by Professor Satendra Nandan re: Neutrality of Constitution Commission
Dear Maika
As discussed on the phone a while ago, here is my statement re: the above.
“I speak for myself alone — I considered myself as an independent, impartial Commissioner with political neutrality.
I was deeply honoured to be appointed to the Constitution Commission by the Prime Minister. I followed scrupulously the terms laid down in Decree 57 which established the Constitution Commission, without fear, favour or bias.
I listened to and read all submissions with the respect and attention they deserved.
Occasionally robust discussions on important issues took place among the Commissioners and these were resolved and recommendations reached consensually. I listened to the experts, both local and international, but the conclusions were mine.
Consequently we have an extraordinarily thoughtful Draft Constitution — a copy of which was presented to the President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau on Friday 21 December. The President received it most graciously. That is the only copy of the Constitution I have seen. I do not have a copy with me.
It is now for the Constituent Assembly, as defined in the relevant Decree, to consider the Draft Constitution and produce the final document.
That, one hopes, will be the new Constitution for a new Fiji, which the citizens and their well-wishers richly deserve.”
With best wishes
Satendra Nandan
Tel: 903 4015
Come on Victor, you’ve got your own website. Why are you trying to elbow into mine? What’s wrong, old chap? Can’t you use your real identity? You seem to be in a fit of pique because Professor Nandan isn’t sticking to your script. Life is full of challenges and I know exactly how you feel. But sometimes it just doesn’t all turn out the way we want it. Tallyho, pip pip. How is good old Oxford? Jolly freezing, I’d imagine. Trying to drum up a little heat? Don’t blame you for that either. Hoo roo.
After a long absence I would have thought the bread man would bring some sense and butter to this blog-site. Like old mother chulbul, he continues to pluck the mould from the bread and present it as fresh from the oven…poor baby chulbul….a clone that “Dolly the sheep” (had she been alive) would have been embarrassed of. RIP Dolly.
“In sporting parlance these ad hominem attacks seem to be a case of blaming the referee for not delivering the right result.”
Ummmm…ok lets seee….is it the cricket umpire Darryl Hare….the “white mans white refere” delivering the “right” results for white nations…
Ok I’m a racist…but wait.
Is it Steve Bucknor, the “white mans C@#k sucking black umpire” delivering the “right” results for the white nations…
Oh boy…..talking of f*@king mind-numbingly crazy…
Graham,
Your rubbishing of Victor Lal’s connection with Yash Ghai doesnt make sense. Anyway, unless Victor gives his version of how he got hold of the first draft, your version will remain what it is – your version. I recall in old days you were describing Victor as arguably one of Fiji’s finest investigative journalists – and in true fashion – he did what he has been best at – delivering. We were waiting for him in Fiji, some even betting their hard earned cents whether he would or would not be able to get it for us. It is beyond comprehension how you can accuse Ghai of giving it to Fijileaks (aka Victor Lal) because they are old buddies – well, one could say the same about your chum – Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum – that Yash landed on our shores because the two were master-student at the University of Hong Kong (even yash says it was Khaiyum who approached and appointed him) – you are clutching at the straw – the fact is a copy was shredded and burnt in front of Yash – its like me pissing on a copy of Grubsheet and setting fire to it in front of you saying, “Oh, come off, its not the real copy that was posted on your cyberspace – its a printout from the net – so its not really original” – get that out off your head – anyway, why are you so obsessed in belittling Yash, Victor and others – its because you are paid by Qorvis to do so! If you are so passionate about the issue, you should have never taken in upon yourself to even discuss the Draft – you can accuse Victor of whatever you like (mate, thanks to him you are having sleepless nights) discussing the very Draft that Fijileaks released it for you to comment upon – I hold no brief for that Victor chap, but friendship has nothing to do with the release – its TRUST – if you are saying the two have been long-time friends, then Yash trusted him to deliver his “Xmas Gift” to Fiji – all this rumbling of yours has one message – to ingratiate yourself with your paymasters in Fii via Qorvis – are you against Yash Ghai having given you the right to hold Dual Citizenship in the Ghai Constitution – No, you are picking choosing what suits you. Hypocrite! Anyway, who are you to speak on behalf of the silent majority – you dont represent them, Graham
Oh dear, Seafarer. Master of the ship of fools. I don’t lose any sleep over anything, Captain, and certainly not any of this. I’ve changed my mind about Victor Lal since I wrote those words because of one thing and one thing alone. He is a liar. He has wilfully and deliberately misrepresented the truth on fijileaks in several of his recent postings. So in my eyes, he has forfeited the right to my respect. He’s also an appalling big noter. He was reminded on Coup 4.5 – that other great paragon of journalistic virtue – that 30 people were on the original email that leaked the first version of the Draft Constitution. And yet he breathlessly boasted that it was he who “had told the world” about the Ghai constitution. Gimme a break.
You say that I am paid by Qorvis to say all of this. Yeah, right. As if they give a hoot in Washington about my little blog. These are my opinions and my opinions alone. I don’t ask anyone what I should think or what I should say. I see it as I see it and I call it as it is. No master, no interference. Must be very hard for you to swallow but it’s a fact. As for your harping on about dual citizenship, what an irrelevant canard. I was born in Fiji and was a Fiji citizen until the mid nineties. Now I’m a Fijian again. I don’t claim to speak for the “silent majority”. I speak for myself and I say what I damn well please. I need hardly remind you that I allow you to do the same in these columns, unlike Victor Lal, who doesn’t give anyone else the right to comment on fijileaks. A charlatan and undemocratic to boot.
This short note is in response to allegations by senior members of the Fiji Government and the RFMF that the Constitution Commission violated the law when it ordered the printing of 600 copies of the Draft Constitution.
The process for the making of the constitution was negotiated largely between the Attorney-General, Mr. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and me. I insisted on a legal framework for the process, so the Commission would have a clear guidance on its responsibilities and the protection of its independence, and the public would have an understanding of the process and their participation in it (contrary to the view of the AG that there should be no law on the process).
Originally there was to be one Decree covering the whole process, the first draft of which I wrote. The AG divided the draft into two Decrees, one covering the Commission and the other the Constituent Assembly. I insisted that the Decree on the Commission should be as I had drafted it (with the exception of the provision on immunity of those involved in previous coups, excluding the 2000 one). But significant changes were made as regards the Constituent Assembly which I was opposed to (which were set out in a joint statement by the Commissioners when the Decree was published).
It was agreed throughout that the process would be highly participatory (the PM has said that every Fijian must have a voice) and that the Commission would be completely independent. Both Decrees guarantee that the process would be “inclusive, participatory and transparent”. The process was defined to include public consultation on the draft constitution by the Commission, and the submission of public views to the President for transmission to the Constituent Assembly. The Commission was to ensure that all the people were able to participate in the process, and to show “manifest respect for people’s participation” and of their rights. The Commission had to inform the people the progress of the process so that they understood the issues under discussion. The participation of people was also reiterated in an important objective of the process: “true and sustained democracy”.
The Commission also had to publish an Explanatory Report summarising as concisely as possible and in a way that the people understood the recommendations embodied in the draft constitution and the reasons for those recommendations.
It was within this framework that the Commission decided on its engagement with the people including publishing the draft constitution and consulting the people. However on 31 October when the Commission had already made some decisions on the draft constitution and were planning public consultations, that a Decree was published without any consultation with or advance notice to the Commission that there would be no public consultation. There was no mention whatsoever that the Commission could not publish the Draft Constitution and the Explanatory Report to the public. Indeed even after the October Decree, both the original Decree retained statements about the consultation and the duty of the Constituent Assembly to take public views into consideration (for example sec. 8 (1) (c) of the Decree mentions the function of the Assembly to “debate the Draft Constitution, Explanatory Report and the view of the people expressed on the Draft Constitution”).
It is not unusual for important reports to be presented to the Head of the State. This in no way precludes distribution of the report to the public.
Picture
Khaiyum gets mastery lecture in ethics and legalism
If the overall objective of the process: participation of the people and the responsiveness of the Commission and the Assembly to their views, is to be respected, it is imperative that the Draft Constitution and the Explanatory Report should be available to the public immediately after they have been presented to His Excellency the President. It is on this assumption that we ordered the printing of a sizeable number of copies and were about to publish other material to assist the public when the Commission was told that it was not to publish any material relating to the Draft Constitution.
The position of the Attorney General is extraordinary, and hard to understand. The Decrees make clear that the Draft Constitution that the Assembly has to consider is that produced by the Commission—none other.
It therefore makes no sense to say that the Draft cannot be released to the public. In none of the nearly 20 constitution making process in which I have been involved, or others that I have studied, has the commission been told not to publish the draft constitution. What happens to the Government’s objective of a “true and sustainable democracy” if the people are not allowed to read and discuss the Draft Constitution? The Assembly has been given a maximum of 9 weeks to consider the Draft and adopt the constitution. Inevitably a week or more will be taken up to swear in and induct the members, adopt the rules of procedure, assemble a secretariat.
The documents that the Assembly members have to read, understand and debate are long and complex. When are they going to have the time to explain the documents to the people and seek their views?
Under what moral authority has the Government changed the process more than half [way] through the period given to it? The Commission and even more the people have the right to expect that the rules and procedure governing the process as set out at its start will be respected and observed. It is on this basis that they engaged in the process.The change of rules has also seriously interfered with the independence of the Commission.
The dissemination of its work is surely a matter for the Commission, especially given the emphasis on the participation of the people. And is the printing of a decree any different from the phone call from the PM or the AG to the Commission to desist from their legitimate activities? Would the latter not be a clear instance of the violation of the independence of the Commission?
The illegal ban on the publication of the Draft Constitution and the Explanatory Report has led to circulation of legal texts purportedly as the Commission’s documents. This has resulted in considerable misunderstandings and confusion. The authentic, and the only valid, documents are those that I presented to the President on 21 December 2012. I have therefore decided on my own responsibility to release copies of the authentic documents to the public.
Yash Ghai
1 January 2013
This is a direct cut and paste from fijileaks and precedes the disclosure by Professor Satendra Nandan – who sat on the Commission with Professor Ghai – that he was not informed by Ghai that he intended to print and disseminate copies of the Draft Constitution. When the police seized those copies, Professor Ghai’s formal commission had ended. And yet we now know that he was still posing as the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission. When he castigated the police, that’s precisely what he was doing. He was, in fact, the former chairman and had no legal authority to be performing any task relating to the Commission.
Professor Yash Ghai explains Ratu Joni’s Appointment
“Prime Minster Voreqe Bainimarama’s attack on Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi for the consultancy with the Constitution Commission is unfair. He has criticised him and the commission for improper and deceitful conduct. These are serious charges. For the record, let me set the facts straight.
A constitution covers a wide variety of issues, some of considerable complexity. Members of a small commission such as ours cannot be expected to have sufficient knowledge of all the issues on which they have to make decisions. The Decree wisely provides for the commission to seek the assistance of experts on specialised issues. The experts can be local or foreign—we have had both. We have benefited greatly from the experience and research of local experts, some of whom were deeply involved in the preparation of the People’s Charter, and some opposed to it. It is not our practice to make public announcements when we appoint a consultant (nor are we required to do so). But we certainly do not hide our experts. If we are asked, as was the case with Ratu Joni’s appointment, we have not withheld information.
We often invite government, military, academic and civic organisations to workshops which are organised around topics of the experts. We also try to organise a public event in the form of a seminar with our foreign experts, to educate and engage the people—with very considerable success. Members of the government departments, including the Prime Minister’s Office, have attended our internal workshops where Ratu Joni was present.
When we were considering which local experts could help the Commission, we all supported Ratu Joni’s participation. That is hardly surprising. He is well known locally and internationally, not only for his wide knowledge and experience of the law, but of social and political affairs, a deep understanding of traditional cultures, and for his wisdom. He is admired for his strong sense of fairness. None of the local commissioners, despite their other excellent qualifications, has practical or academic experience of law. Questions of local law crop up all the time as we decide on the content of the constitution. The lack of submissions from relevant government bodies has made expert guidance on law more necessary, a task that Ratu Joni fulfilled admirably.
When I first approached him for his assistance, he agreed readily, and indicated that he did not need a consultancy or a fee. It was under pressure from us that he accepted a consultancy, no different from other consultancies. He also made it clear that he was intending to make his own submission and asked us if this would create a conflict. The commission considered and concluded that there would be no conflict.
The contractual arrangements for the consultancy do not provide for an automatic payment for 30 days. This is the maximum period, but payments are made only for the days he worked for us. He neither claimed nor was paid for the day he came to the public hearing.
It is alleged that Ratu Joni’s position with the Commission was untenable because he appeared before us as part of the delegation from the chiefly island of Bau which supported the concept of a Christian State. Fiji is a small society and people function in several capacities and contexts. Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi is not only a legal practitioner with some years’ experience, but a Fijian who has served in the public service and the judiciary as well as on the boards of civil society organisations concerned with human rights.
He is also a traditional leader and it was in that role that he appeared before the Commission. Ratu Joni’s views about Fiji as a secular, multicultural and tolerant society are a matter of public record, but he also respected what the people of Bau wanted. These contradictions are not uncommon in a country in transition and are part of the challenges the Commission faces in drafting a new Constitution.
Throughout our work with Ratu Joni, we have found him a person of great integrity, knowledge and wisdom.”
Yash Ghai
4 November 2012
Another history lesson in which Professor Ghai fails to explain why it took him almost a month to inform the Government that Ratu Joni was already on the Constitutional Commission’s payroll. This is not to detract from Ratu Joni’s qualities in any way. But Professor Ghai was fully aware of his obligations to be transparent about the Commission’s appointments. He chose not to be. It was the beginning of the end of his relationship with the Government, which perceived this as a fundamental breach of trust.
Seafarer and Graham,
I read the following some days ago, which I thought was gracious of Fijileaks:
UPDATE: Graham Davis has recently informed Victor Lal the following (2 January): “I notice that you have carried scurrilous postings accusing me of misrepresentation and being in denial about copies of the constitution being burnt. I’m afraid that I am right and you are wrong. All 599 printed copies of the constitution are intact and Yash Ghai’s fellow Commissioner, Satendra Nandan, is among those who’ve confirmed the fact. You and Russell Hunter need to do more homework before you start hurling boulders from your glass houses abroad.”
“The printer’s proofs were burnt, not the Draft.”
Fijileaks had posted what was reported to them, and in the absence of any Government statement at the time. Apologies for any confusion, and our appreciation to Davis for informing us of what he claimed was the present status of those confiscated Draft copies. We do not know if Davis has seen the copies or is taking Nandan’s word for it.The regime claims the confiscated copies are in the custody of Fiji police.
Graham, it seems all of you have been playing the same game as you have been accusing Yash Ghai and his circle of friends!
In the Fijileaks posting, you are cited as writing to Victor Lal on 2 January 2012: “Yash Ghai’s fellow Commissioner, Satendra Nandan, is among those who’ve confirmed the fact.”
So, it seems you were in discussion with Nandan long before the Fiji Sun story (for which you are a columnist) quotes Nandan of what he is alleged to have told the paper – Fiji Sun story appeared only on 7 January – five days before your “missive” to Victor dude! If we are to believe the authenticity of Jyoti Nandan’s e-mail to Maika, she only gave a statement (conveyed) it from her e-mail on 5 January (still three days after your note of 2 Janaury
Well, well, did Fiji Sun make up Nandan’s comments or whether you and others conspired with Nandan to go to Fiji Sun against Yash Ghai – we all know Fiji Sun is pro-regime to the pen!
Gosh, here we are – pot calling kettle black. I dont know but this whole saga is getting darker by the day. It is time Nandan told us whether he told Fiji Sun what he is reported to have said. I wonder in what capacity were you discussing with Satendra Nandan – five days before Fiji Sun went viral with his “comments” – as a friend, drinking buddy!
“Professor Nandan is a distinguished Nadi-born academic and author and former parliamentarian”…heh, heh, heh, lol…
As a former assessor, I would like to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY against Professor Yash Ghai: It seems it was 4:1 ( Ghai, Murray, Moore, Vakatale for the release) and Nandan a fence-seater, fearing he might be stripped of his dual citizenship he was seen to have been supporting Ghai against Khaiyum. At the end of the day, that is not the way to treat a distinguished visitor to our shores – sorry, Professor Ghai on behalf of the people of Fiji. The Mango Chutney professor will run back to Canberra, leaving us to pick up our lives!
Graham, you say Yash secretly engaged Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi and the Government was enraged at this deception
Well, the Government secretly appointed all the local Commissioners – no application, nothing – anyway, as Yash says, the Commission had no duty to consult Government, it was independent of it!
I wonder if both Fijileaks and C4/5 breached Yash Ghai’s trust – for I read on C4/5 (2January the following):
“Yash Ghai has meanwhile issued an explanation to a few selected people, including political parties, trade unions, NGO’s and academics along with the draft he says he submitted to Nailatikau”, and the, C4/5 website printed Ghai’s statement in italics: “YASH GHAI RESPONDS TO REGIME”
If it was sent, as you say, to 30 people, including C4/5 and allegedly to Fijileaks, then why did these two sites run it – from what I make out above from C4/5, Ghai was merely sharing it with a select few!
Anyway, me thinks, if Ghai acted illegally, then we should not be discussing a document which remains secret with the President! We all seem to be saying – now the looters have broken into a supermarket and exposed the goods – its perfect to join with them in looting whatever we prefer – in this case portions of The Draft Constitution. As to that chap Nandan, I m not sure – he ran away to Australia after the 1987 coup, and he will run away, again, to Canberra!
I wonder if Fiji Sun has now published the esteemed Professor Crosbie Walsh’s whole piece:
FIJI SUN. HALF MY STORY. The Fiji Sun’s front page on Saturday had the heading “ACCUSED. Neutrality of Yash Ghai’s Commission questioned” in which part of what I had written in “Making Some Sense of Recent Developments” immediately preceded what Col. Mosese Tikoitonga had to say which left us looking like babes in arrms. The Sun did not misrepresent what I said but it only published half of it — the half sympathetic to Government. I’m pleased to report that the Sun’s publisher Peter Lomas has agreed to publish the whole article in today’s issue.
Graham, I dont understand your logic or that of Government – you keep saying Ghai printed 600 copies illegally and was planning to distribute it illegally to the people of Fiji? And, you go on to say: “The truth is that all copies of the Draft Constitution survive and are now under lock and key. As the Government originally intended, they will be handed over to the proper authority when the time comes – the yet to be chosen Chair of the Constituent Assembly. It is then that public discussion on the contents will begin.”
Well, if Ghai had printed 600 copies illegally, then why is Government holding onto them? Are you saying the Government had always planned to publish 600 copies from the original Draft with the President and hand it to the Constituent Assembly members but the good old nutter Professor Ghai beat them to the printer’s first? If so, was it illegal on Ghai’s part or that he took over the role of printing the copies which the Government had planned to do so – are you seriously telling us that the Government was planning to print copies – if so, please can you tell us when was the copy to go to the printers – you seem to know everything, as if you are the Government. Again, I wonder if the copy from the President could be torched once extra copies had been printed – come on, you and your underwear illegal regime seem to be consuming in your own lies and illogical explanations! What comes across is that Ghai usurped the printing task from Government – and was planning to distribute it illegally (which re refutes) – anyway, as a taxpayer I am happy that Ghai saved us expenses! if so, I thank him but do apologise his treatment. What i understand is those 600 copies were to be inserted in the Fiji Times for nationwide distribution!
From information available on this blog, clearly Prof Nandan was the double agent in the commission. He informed the military about Ghai’s intentions.
Dina! Remember he called Bainimarama Moses or Jesus of Fiji without telling Yash Ghai that he was Judas Iscariot; remember many journalists declined to give evidence in private, even at Ghai’s request, for they feared this evil Nandan – who had been chairman of the Media Authority at one point; anyway, who appointed this Australian kangaroo to the Commission – yes, Aiyaz Khaiyum, and as someone said earlier, the bastard is protecting his dual citizenship, knowing the vindicative nature of Khaiyum – if he can treat his own academic supervisor (we are told to respect our teachers in school) Ghai in the manner he has been treated, what about mango chutney professor Nandan – Karma awaits this man!
It’s amazing how the blowtorch of the anti-government lobby has turned on poor Professor Nandan just because he’s deviated from the script.
You Ghais have no shame at all. You stick like superglue to each other as long as everyone sings from the same song sheet. But the minute there’s a discordant note, you beat the offender senseless in the court of public opinion.
It all smacks very much of the group-think and group-speak of totalitarian regimes. Certainly, democracy it ain’t.
We have shame – shame at the way that Kenyan professor was treated in Fiji and shame that an Indo-Fijian who back-stabbed him – Satendra Nandan! That is the shame – he and Khaiyum, and you to some extent, with your support for the burning and treatment of Ghai.
Yes, enjoy wallowing in your shame. You deserve to. You condone unlawful and unprincipled behaviour on the part of Yash Ghai and yet pillory someone like Satendra Nandan who says he was unaware that the drafts were being printed. Ghai’s commission had ended. He was the former Chairman. The Government had told him it didn’t want the draft distributed by the Commission but by the Constituent Assembly – the people’s representatives. He defied that instruction and there were consequences. He invited them. He forfeited the moral high ground by leaking the Draft Constitution to an anti-government website. Because of that action, his impartiality – which was already being questioned – is irreparably damaged. He could have left with dignity. He hasn’t.
Graham, he left with dignity after exposing the fire spectacle he was subjected to – gosh, money has made you blind, and the new Fijian passport
You think I do all this for money and a birthright that is mine? To be pilloried and have my name dragged through the dirt for speaking my mind? To have an army of faceless detractors out for my blood? No, “Dignified Man”, I do it because it pleases me. And because I passionately believe in finally achieving a prosperous, multiracial democracy in the land of my birth.
All these attacks on poor Satendra Nandan reveal the true nature of the Ghai supporters. Undemocratic and devoted to thuggery.
The fact that Ghai secretly employed Ratu Joni Madrawiwi suggests that he knew he was doing something wrong.
Dear Graham
Can you enlighten me – did Nandan agree with the contents of the Draft Constitution or was he against the printing of the 600 copies? Or did he disown the whole Draft?
Thanks
You need to ask Professor Nandan. I am not his spokesman. My understanding is that he was not aware of the events of December 21st and the fact that the Draft Copies were being printed. That’s what he told the Fiji Sun and he has not retracted the statement. I can only presume that having signed off on the Draft Constitution, he supported the contents. But that is quite different from supporting Yash Ghai’s decision to defy the Government’s instruction and try to disseminate it. And when that failed, to leak it.
Ah Graham, it’s now your “understanding” not the “fact” it was a few days ago. Interesting.!
Honestly! OK, fact.
Thanks very much, Graham!
Petty quarrelling by C 4/5 immature embryonic bovines on this whole saga.
The point that Graham is making, and let me reiterate it, is that this Ghai guy seriously breached his terms of reference during the preparation of the draft constitution.
He was to hand it over to the President of Fiji. His work as the Commissioner of the Consttution Commission ended there and then.
Whetther Dr Nandan agreed to the draft or to the illegal printing of the draft must not be made an issue and confuse yourselves about this whole saga.
But what can I say………………. All the supporters of C 4/5 are a confused mob of thugs and they are a disgrace to the bovine family.
if Ghai was completely neutral why was an fierce anti-government person like Rajendra Chaudhry present during the printing of the additional copies?
Chodhary senior was there as well.
Police insist ‘no burning’ as photos emerge January 08, 2013
A suspended Suva lawyer has published three photos, one of which showed documents being burnt and another of Professor Yash Ghai appeared to be consoled by another person, that have since led viewers to believe the photos were taken moments after police seized copies of the Fiji’s draft constitution from printers. Rajendra Chaudhry posted the photos on his Facebook page today, with the third photo showing four policemen who appeared to be in deep discussion. However, Fiji’s Commissioner of Police, Iowane Naivalurua told FijiLive that they are standing by their earlier statement. “I did not know and surprised as nothing of this sort happened. We are standing by our earlier statement,” Naivalurua said when contacted about the pictures.
Graham, so you and all others are lying, for our boss says so!
You say: What was burnt were some uncorrected printer’s proofs that had been shredded – yes, cut up into little pieces – and that the police feared may have been reconstituted had they not been destroyed. Their orders, after all, were to secure the document and prevent its dissemination.
Honestly again! That was a fire that a six year old wolf cub could have extinguished. And you can clearly see that the relatively few pages that have been burned were already ripped up. They were cast-offs, for God’s sake. This was a bonfire of the vanities only – Yash Ghai’s and a handful of people around him. If this was really an attempt to humiliate him – as he and all you Ghais keep harping on about – it was pathetic.
The publication of these photos by Rajen Chaudhry and others is totally counterproductive. Before these photos appeared, we all envisaged something far more impressive and sinister in our collective mind’s eyes. This just disproves the whole notion of some sort of government and police conspiracy. Is that the best they can do? Any genuine pyromaniac would be cringing with embarrassment.
Every sordid detail which has emerged about the Ghai printing confirms the perception that Ghai was deeply in with anti government circles and continues to get support from them. Where was the neutrality he promised the Fijian people?
I think the most important thing we can get out of all this is that our Constitutional process is working to some fair degree and everything I believe happens for a reason.
I am thankful we went through all this because at the end as Riverside said there is hope. Hope that we’ll end up with a good Constitution.
The work of the Constituent Assembly will be a more challenging task given all that had transpired. But what a time they will have.
As for Graham, thank you Graham for this very good article and for the very good points you’ve raised for us all to consider.
As for Ghai, I think he can handle all the pressure. He too will look back to all this one day and also wondered whether what he did was the right thing to do. There will be never-ending debates on this subject and it will be a good case-study for our future students to think over.
So thank you all for the very good debates and the various good points raised.
May we end up with a very good Constitution.
I am a newcomer to this website and found it after reading Grahame Davis’s articles in the Sun. The articles tell me a lot about Davis. He is fearless, and does not care about taking on the politically correct and “respectable” brigade. He has a typically Australian irreverence for the up yourself intelligentsia.He is devoted to the truth and detests those who are economical with it. He is especially critical of journalists who mess with the truth because he himself is committed to the integrity of journalism as a trade. He does not bend to threats and hatred. We may not agree with everything he writes, but by God we have to admire his guts in taking on those who invite his censure.
Well said gerry.
So, very happy to see your face and article splashed all over Fiji Sun, Graham – I am sure you got extra dollar stuffed into your wallet from the illegal regime – with those you maligning in that piece having no recourse to refuting things for Fiji Sun editor Peter Lomas will not publish anything from the public..a very sad, pathetic man you have become – I hope those maligned with innuendos will not reply to your drivel, for they will devalue their own selves…Gosh, you abuse us for hiding our identities and yet are hiding the identity of your anonymous source in the Fiji Sun article – who is none one than that liar Nandan – the fiction writer of repute, who spurned out more fiction for your copy
Hand on heart, my source was not Satendra Nandan. As for your other gratuitous observations, what a hollow, bitter little anonymous creep you are.
@happy man
Actually journalists always protect their sources. They have too, or no one will speak to them. It’s now a right protected in several countries. And Peter Lomas published two anti government letters just this week.
I am puzzled ar Ghai’s claim that the copies were for distribution to the public. 600 would not go very far in a reading population of over half a million. Who really were going to be the recipients?
I think we can rest assured that they were for his little glee club – the academics and NGOs who, in the end, were more important to him than the Fijian people as a whole.
The UN being the common denominator – maybe?
Graham, what the hell is your problem – do you own Fiji or do you own us – farking telling us what is right or wrong – you scum of a man, just fark off to Australia where you had been living since you were a teenager and only surfaced after the coup you creep of a man, to get dual citizenship and support this regime – which I also support, part to a point – stop being a laptop – for the whole world can see – my friends read your article and found nothing of substance
except personal attacks on people who the regime gave you a list to attack and destroy – you pig
@ Fiji Sun Reader,
“my friends read your article and found nothing of substance”
Is this your best shot you moron? If your friends find no substance in Graham’s articles, it just simply demonstrates your calibre of friends who are just as stupid and idiotic fool as you are.
Another case of an immature bovine embryo !!! You are a disgrace to the distinguished family of bovines,
A laptop? You need to watch how your own fingers dance on the keys, Sunshine. Oink.
Oh – dear – and not nice to call anyone a pig!
Galley proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“Galleys” redirects here. For other uses, see Galley (disambiguation).
First galley proof of A la recherche du temps perdu: Du côté de chez Swann with handwritten revision notes by Marcel Proust
Pulling a galley proof
Movable type on a composing stick
In printing and publishing, proofs are the preliminary versions of publications meant for review by authors, editors, and proofreaders, often with extra wide margins. Galley proofs may be uncut and unbound, or in some cases electronic. They are created for proofreading and copyediting purposes, but may be used for promotional and review purposes also.[1][2][3]
Galley proofs are so named because in the days of hand-set type, the printer would set the page into galleys, the metal trays into which type was laid and tightened into place. These would be used to print a limited number of copies for editing mark-up. The printer would then receive the edits, re-arrange the type, and print the final copy.
Some publishers use paper galley proofs as advance reading copies, providing them to reviewers, magazines, and libraries in advance of final publication. These print-on-demand (POD) pre-publication publicity proofs are normally bound, but may be lacking illustrations (or have them in black and white only). Proofs in electronic form are rarely offered for advance reading.
Proofs issued in the proofreading and copy-editing review phase are called galleys or galley proofs; proofs created in a near-final version for editing and checking purposes are called page proofs. In the page-proof stage, mistakes are supposed to have been corrected; to correct a mistake at this stage is expensive, and authors are discouraged from making many changes to page proofs. Page layouts are examined closely in the page proof stage. Page proofs also have the final pagination, which facilitates compiling the index.
These days, as paper and digital forms share the final product that readers actually use, the term ‘uncorrected proof’ is more common as a term than galley proof, which refers exclusively to a paper proof version. Uncorrected proof describes the penultimate proof version (on paper or in digital form) yet to receive final author and publisher approval, the term appearing on the covers of ARCs.
What Graham Davis says – I wonder how he would have reacted if someone snatched a print out of this article of his, where he might have made minor or major corrections, and torn it in front of him, doused it with kerosene and told him to shut up or else you will get it where it hurts?
This is what is Graham’s explanation: What was burnt were some uncorrected printer’s proofs that had been shredded – yes, cut up into little pieces – and that the police feared may have been reconstituted had they not been destroyed. Their orders, after all, were to secure the document and prevent its dissemination.
Leaking official papers in any circumstance is a deliberate act. Question is why the need to leak these papers and what was the underlying motive and purpose? I can only think that the reason was to destroy the credibility of the Constitution process. Certainly has given C4.5 something to talk about though.
Lesley,
C4.5 is nothing but a porn site of dirty and filth ridden has- beens and free loaders of the former regimes….brain less buggers and thugs whose contribution…thank god is not wanted for the new Fiji…..
These guys want free speech and democracy and just read the colums/comments of their supporters…..brainless pathetic individuals and the buggers don’t even realise that they have been used as prostitutes by the so called Canberra/Oxford/Auckland trios.
What contribution can these guys provide for the people of Fiji with their rusted brains???nothing…
These guys are a frustrated and good for nothing bunch of fellows whose allegiance and loyalty can be bought and sold like…well …..as prostitutes
@ Chand
Hear, hear.
Well said bro.
I can’t understand why Professor Yash Ghai did this. Why would he compromise his reputation? I do wonder if he has been influenced by those anti the Fijian Govt who are intent on stopping the democratic process (to the 2014 election) in Fiji. I see the photo of Professor Yash Ghai is supplied by the UN. Just shows you the UN network has its fingers in every pie! This whole situation looks like a tangled web with the UN influence mixed somewhere in the web. Pretty obvious the paper being burned had been shredded. After reading C4.5 and The Australian (today) and NZ Herald lately, I am beginning to wonder if some disaffected journalists from Oz, NZ and Fiji are all behind the C4.5 Blog and the (seemingly deliberate) misinformation often published in the C4.5 blog and in mainstream media. Bit like “Custer’s last stand” where, no matter what, the bullets will continue to fly till the end. They all need to stop and think – about the future of the next generation – the Fijian children/young people whose lives will be affected by the result of the 2014 election. Put aside the selfish, personal and political agendas and grudges – start working for a truly democratic Fiji where one man/one woman has one vote each – that counts.
@ Lesley
Maybe he thought he was preserving his reputation by being some sort of Superman for Fiji. He didn’t expect to be exposed by people like Crosbie Walsh and Davis. We should remember that the UN’s funding for projects come from the same countries which have been so intractable about Fiji’s move towards real democracy. So I see the UN as part of the problem, not as part of the solution in Fiji. Pity, it could have played a much more constructive role. But money makes the mare go, and keeps everyone at the UNDP UNICEF and UN Women in a secure job.
Was Yash “Edgee” Ghai’s tears for the so called “burning ” of the shredded pages of some documents or was it because he got caught red-handed doing the illegal printing after his contract expired.
Or was it because his arrogance and duplicity under the guise of neutrality exposed?
Or was it because of the “scoop” his buddy Victor got, was not-so-much-of-a-scoop but a betrayal of a nation of peoples aspirations by the so called head of the commission?
Or because of his stupidity and duplicity, he just got screwed under the nose of his hero worshipping mongrels at c4.5?….talking of leeches of ticks.
Or simply in the words of the stray mongrel in Fletcher Road, Vatuwaqa “You’re Fu@#ed”.
Looks like burning toilet paper to me.