Raw Fiji News

There are revelations that more judges and members of the bar refuse to  bow down to Aiyaz Khaiyum’s ploy to forcefully subjugate them under the junta’s new illegal order.

These men and women will go down in Fiji’s history books as the very few highly principled members of the real Fiji judiciary and bar who are direct representation of what their profession is all about i.e as guardians of Fiji’s constitution and as law abiding citizens who honor and respect Fiji’s rule of law – ALWAYS!!!!

Kudos to Justice Gwen Philips whom we are told has rejected joining Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum’s illegal order and have instead decided to bow out of her judicial role in Fiji altogether as a sign of her heroic boycott of the junta.

Justice Gwen Philips defied the new order and reported to her court room on the first working day after Easter Friday when all judges in Fiji were purportedly put on a wholesale job termination by Frank & Co.

Fiji Law Society President, Dorsami Naidu, appeared before her as a show of his defiance against the junta but was later arrested and jailed overnight.

We are also led to believe that Ms Gwen Philips has joined RRRT, the pacific regional rights team that provides technical support, policy and advocacy advice in human rights to promote social justice and good governance throughout the Pacific region.

Well, ethical judges like Gwen Philips will have no trouble getting picked up by regional and global bodies and why not!

They deserve better than what Frank has to offer them in juntawood – to be his mickey mouse judges.

A women’s community organisation based in Fiji says its report on women, peace and human security shows a deterioration in the status of women across the Pacific.

The co-ordinator of Femlink Pacific says it’ll present the first quarter report for this year to a meeting of regional women’s community media networks today.

The meeting brings together peacewomen from Bougainville, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Fiji.

Sharon Bhagwan Rolls says she hopes the report prompts Pacific countries to improve women’s security.

“When we’re correlating the human security framework if you look at the issue of personal security of women closely linked to that is the issue of violence to women and the threat to women. So rape is high on the agenda of just some of the very real threats that women are living under. You know in Fiji in January the news was the gang rape of a young girl so those are just some of the issues that are coming through not just from our own own women’s media network but being reported through the mainstream media as well”

News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

From this ……

to this …..

to this ….

to this ……

Read it here http://michaelfield.org/Fiji%20Watch.html

.

.

Commodore Frank Bainimarama, Sir “….Your kingdom shall not continue”….I Samuel 13: 14b….if you continue to be fearful of those who may be your only hope…….

The Dictator must have amongst his advisors seasoned theologians who convincingly quantified the possibility of “inciteful issues are going to be discussed at the conference” of Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma.

This Dictator and the IG must be told that the very ethos of their political and so called legal existence is contrary to the every fundamental tenets of the Christian faith that turned us away from eating each other toward eating outside our species….opps…did not consider pro-IG theologians may be some Pentecostals churches, some Muslim theologians, Hindus, Buddhist and Military’s own cadre of padres.

Since when has this slayer of political democracy, destroyer of social cohesion and robber of economic independence and prosperity promoted himself as supreme spiritual mediator between the rest of us and deities we respectively esteems?

As for the Methodist Church, as believers of the infallible nature of the scriptures, could only stand back and pity those who willfully kicks against St Pauls “goads” in Acts 9:5.

The present President and General Secretary of the Methodist church in Fiji and Rotuma have the Godly mandate to shepherd the Methodist flock, not the two extreme former Presidents. Hence, why should this IG consider or be influenced at all by the purported “inciteful” preaching of the former Presidents.

No Army Intelligence or Police Special branch could fully assess the enormity and complex communication networking and unmovable allegiance with the Methodist Church and the Vanua. They may try, but futile until the cows come home.

Surely the Dictator won’t disband the “ curusiga” – weekly elder’s training and spiritual empowerment meeting, “bose vakarau” – pre-quarterly meetings on administrative and spiritual and “bose vula tolu”-quarterly meeting; a very intimate event where the spiritual oversights review the circuits performances. These are my personal experiences while a member of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma many moons ago, and believe are still the forums her members find fellowship and strength today.

We beg the Dictator to leave the “altar” to those consecrated for these offices. When will he ban the Roman Catholic Church parish business meetings, Pentecostals Charismatic Leaders conference, Muslim League, Sabba meetings, etc?

When will he wake up…for he may have declared war against God….for that, we can not pray God help him..for he may be beyond help.

Semi Meo

The Executives of the Methodist Church of Fiji are now seeking a meeting with the Prime Minister after the military and the Police decided that the annual Methodist Church Conference will not be allowed to go ahead.

Church President Reverend Ame Tugawe told Fijivillage that they hoped Commodore Bainimarama would agree to discuss the cancellation of the conference

A joint statement issued by the military and the Fiji Police said they have decided to take this action after submissions were made to the Methodist Church standing committee on the political situation in the country.

The military stated that in the past few months certain figure head members of the Methodist Church have tried to bring instability to the country by using the Church.

News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

Amnesty International has called on the United Nations to exert influence on Fiji’s military regime to curb systematic injustices there.

The regime has recently transferred the power to issue lawyers with practising certificates from the Fiji Law Society to the High Court.

Amnesty’s spokesman Patrick Holmes says the move is a serious attack on the independence of the legal profession.

He says the United Nations could apply pressure on the regime by denying employment to Fiji’s peace-keeping troops.

“That’s a big source of income for the government. It can’t be right that the United Nations continues to pump money into the government because they value the service of the troops – the same troops that are intimidating their countrymen.”

Patrick Holmes injustices in Fiji are happening with alarming regularity and can only be overturned with sustained pressure from the international community.

News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

FIJI PRODUCT RECALL – FIJI TRAVEL ADVISORY WARNING – FIJI REMITTANCE BAR

1.       DO NOT BUY FIJI MADE PRODUCTS – IF YOU DO YOU ARE FUNDING THE PROLONGING OF TYRANY & TERROR – JUST AS YOU WOULD NOT BUY BLOOD DIAMONDS – PLEASE STOP BUYING FIJI MADE
 
2.       DO NOT VISIT FIJI FOR YOUR VACATION/WEDDING/HONEYMOON – STIMULATE YOUR OWN ECONOMY AND KEEP YOUR OWN PEOPLE IN JOBS – IF YOU INSIST THEN DO NOT FLY ON AIR PACIFIC – PREPAY ALL EXPENSES IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY
 
3.       DO NOT SEND MONEY TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY IN FIJI – SAVE AND INVEST YOUR SURPLUS MONEY IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS GIVEN YOU MILK AND HONEY – THAT IS YOUR GREENER PASTURE – ENJOY IT
 
4.       FIJI BUSINESSES – DO NOT PAY TAX/VAT/FNPF – THE WORLD IS IN RECESSION – FRANKS GOVERNMENT IS ILLEGAL – THEY DO NOT HAVE THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO COLLECT TAXES – TAKE THE MATTER TO COURT – DRAG THE CASE TILL INFINITY – DIVEST AND RELOCATE TO A MORE STABLE PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRY
 
5.       INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC NATIONS/ORGANISATIONS – STOP BANKROLLING AN ILLEGAL MILITARY DICTATORSHIP – RELOCATE YOUR OPERATIONS – TIME FOR TALK IS OVER – ACTION FIRST – TALK LATER – SHOW FRANK WHOS HIS DADDY?  
IF WE FOLLOWED THESE FIVE SIMPLE THINGS WE WILL HAVE OUR CONSTITUTION BACK AND ELECTIONS NOW AND THEN WE MUST HAVE A REFERENDUM UNDER A LEGAL GOVERNMENT TO DISOLVE THE FIJI MILITARY FORCES ONCE AND FOR ALL – TO BECOME A NATIONAL MUSEUM – ALL TRESONOUS SOLDIERS GO TO AFGANISTAN WHERE YOU BELONG – FRANK GATES KAIYUM & CO STRAIGHT TO NABORO PLEASE – NO DOUBLE STANDARDS – ALL GO TO JAIL

a blogger

The annual conference of Fiji’s biggest and most influential religious group, the Methodist Church, has been cancelled by the military and police.

Police spokeswoman Ema Mua confirms the disciplinary forces issued a joint statement on the matter last night and hoped the church leaders would accept the decision.

She said the two week Bose Ko Viti in August this year had been called off due to information that “inciteful issues are going to be discussed at the conference”. 
 
Police had mid this month arrested former Methodist Church president Reverend Manasa Lasaro when he used a sermon to call for peaceful protests to restore democracy.

Military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Neumi Leweni later issued a statement urging churchgoers not to be “misled by the antics of a few people who are trying to cause instability”.

The government also threatened to ban a centrepiece of the church’s calendar, its annual conference, and accused religious leaders of causing instability.

The Methodist Church is the predominant denomination of Fiji’s indigenous population and is closely aligned to the deposed Laisenia Qarase Government.

Even a minimal, electoral democracy cannot exist unless rulers comply with at least one rule – that which regulates who should occupy the position of ruler given the outcome of general elections.

More broadly, the virtues of the rule of law are substantially the same as those of the democratic process, in three key respects: the rule of law upholds the political rights of a democratic regime; it protects the civil liberties and rights of the entire population (including minority and other disadvantaged groups); and it establishes ‘horizontal accountability’ – networks of responsibility ‘which entail that all public and private agents, including the highest state officials, are subject to appropriate, legally established controls on the lawfulness of their acts’ (O’Donnell 2005, 7).

Indeed, as Carothers suggests, properly conceived the interrelation between the rule of law and liberal democracy goes beyond democratic processes to permeate institutions and spheres across society: The rule of law makes possible individual rights, which are at the core of democracy. A government’s respect for the sovereign authority of the people and a constitution depends on its acceptance of law. Democracy includes institutions and processes that, although beyond the immediate domain of the legal system, are rooted in it. (Carothers 2006, 4–5).

At the turn of the twenty-first century, in sum, the rule of law is most appropriately conceptualized not merely as a check on naked tyranny, an elixir for sustainable economic growth, or a set of institutional attributes, but as a key dimension (arguably the key dimension) of democratic quality.

The banana republic of Frank Bainimarama fails the bare minimum definition of a “Democracy” and fails both the thin and thick definitions of the “Rule of Law”, whether conceptualized back in 1908 by its originator Dicey or by his present time contemporaries namely Magen & Morlino; it is simply NAKED TYRANNY.

We can divide conceptions of the rule of law into two broad types: thin and thick.

Thin, formal, or negative conceptions of the rule of law demand the essential separation of law from politics (or ‘autonomous law’), and focus on the minimal conditions necessary for law to restrict sheer arbitrariness in the ruler’s use of power.

The constitutive attributes of a thin conception, therefore, stress formal or procedural aspects of the rule of law: laws must be open and public so that they can act as a guide to people (there should be no secret laws); the meaning of laws must be reasonably clear so that ordinary people can be guided by them; laws should be relatively stable, so that people can plan their lives by them; laws must be prospective, not retroactive; and the making of laws themselves must be governed by known, clear and relatively stable rules.

In contrast, a thick, substantive or positive (though anti-positivist) conception of the rule of law, accepts all the constitutive attributes of the thin definition, but at the same time insists that the rule of law cannot be divorced from fundamental elements of political morality and institutional practicality.

A substantive democracy, accordingly, is characterized by the presence of a democratic rule of law, which itself embodies five main dimensions:
(1) protection of civil freedoms and political rights;
(2) independent judiciary and a modern justice system;
(3) institutional and administrative capacity to formulate, implement and enforce the law;
(4) effective fight against corruption, illegality and abuse of power by state agencies;
(5) security forces that are respectful of citizens rights and are under civilian control.

Though the two concepts are not synonymous, the affinity between the democratic rule of law and liberal democracy is clearly profound and multidimensional.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, two sets of phenomena are challenging our understanding of democracy and democratization.

At a bare minimum democracy requires: sovereign elected institutions; universal adult suffrage; free, competitive, fair and recurring elections; multiple serious political parties and a plurality of sources of information.

The basic conditions for democracy, in other words, involve institutionalized guarantees for participation in public contestation for power.

In contrast, when we approach the issue of democratic substance – what makes a good democracy – we can identify eight dimensions on which an empirical determination of quality can be made: (1) the rule of law; (2) Participation (3) Competition; (4) Electoral Accountability; (5) Inter-institutional Accountability; (6) Responsiveness to the needs, interests and expectations of citizens; (7) Freedom (consisting of political, civil and socioeconomic rights); (8) Equality/solidarity

Prima inter pares among the dimensions of democratic quality is the rule of law, the degree to which the rule of law exists in a given polity reflects the entire democratic quality of that regime.

Indeed, the rule of law may be understood as the foundation upon which every other dimension of democratic quality ultimately rests.

For Dicey, who coined and popularized the phrase, the concept represented one of the two legs upon which the constitutional order of England consistently rested since the Norman Conquest of 1066 (Dicey 1908).

In contemporary use, as Kleinfeld (2006) observes, the phrase is commonly brandished by politicians, practitioners and scholars to imply at least five meanings that are in fact distinct, but seldom clearly differentiated by those who invoke the term: (1) government bound by law; (2) equality before the law; (3) law and order; (4) predictable, efficient justice, and (5) public power respectful of fundamental rights.

Article from:  The Australian

FIJI’S sacked chief justice Anthony Gates has startled the international legal profession by accepting reappointment to the bench from the regime that overthrew Fiji’s Constitution.

Justice Gates, who holds dual British and Australian citizenship, was sworn in on Friday. Another Australian, John Byrne, took office on Monday.

Their return to the bench comes six weeks after President Josefa Iloilo abrogated the Constitution both judges had sworn to uphold.

The new judges have been appointed under a presidential decree that has been criticised for offering weak guarantees of judicial independence.

Their appointments coincide with a radical change in the regulation of Fiji’s lawyers, the Law Society being stripped of its power to deal with complaints and issue practising certificates.

That change was accompanied by a weekend raid on the Law Society’s offices and the removal of all complaint files concerning Fiji’s lawyers.

The raid was carried out personally by the recently appointed chief registrar of the Fiji High Court, Major Ana Rokomokoti, who has extensive powers under the new arrangements.

The chief registrar has responsibility for issuing new practising certificates and for accepting all fresh complaints about lawyers.

Two hours after Saturday’s raid, Law Society vice-president Laurel Vaurasi emailed society members and said the incident had “dire implications”.

It had effectively terminated the core functions of the Law Society, Ms Vaurasi wrote.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum issued a statement saying all practising certificates would expire on June 30 and lawyers would need to apply to the chief registrar for new certificates. He said the Fiji Law Society would continue to exist and was not defunct, but membership would now be voluntary.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said that under the new arrangements, the chief registrar would also receive all complaints about lawyers and pass them on to a new legal services commission, modelled on the legal services commissions of NSW and Queensland.

Law Society president Dorsami Naidu said the society did not support the decision of the dismissed judges to return to the bench.

“The abrogation of the Constitution is unlawful and any judicial officer taking an oath under the new decree is not on,” Mr Naidu said.

“We do not want to be a party to it.”

But he drew a distinction between opposing the appointment of the new judges and the question of whether lawyers should refuse to appear before them in court.

“We are out there to protect the interests of the public however unpalatable that may be, Mr Naidu said.

“We have to look at the liberty of the citizen. For the rule of law, in whatever form it is, we have to maintain some degree or semblance of the rule of law.

“People need representation. The system must go on.”

Law Council of Australia spokesman Gordon Hughes, who is chairman of the council’s international law section, said although the removal of the Law Society’s power to issue practising certificates might not appear sinister, there were other issues at stake.

“The question is whether the profession can trust the integrity of the process that has been put in place,” Dr Hughes said.

“The concern is that, given that the Government has in the past shown a propensity to interfere with the administration of justice, and had been antagonistic towards the Law Society and its members, it might use its appointee to remove certain individuals from practice.”

By VICTOR LAL

Justice Isikeli Mataitoga was more than Sitiveni Rabuka’s spokesman for a racist Fiji in 1987; Rabuka had inserted him into the staff at Government House and used him to listen in on Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau’s meetings and conversations

fijidemocracynow2009

As we’ve pointed out before, dictators are prone to tell lies because it’s so easy for them to get away with it.

They know they are not accountable to anyone and they know that big, bold lies are the best and quickest way to gloss over inconvenient truths.

And our very own dictator, Frank Bainimarama, is proving that when it comes to telling whopping big lies he’s in a league of his own.

The most recent example was his address to the ACP Council of Ministers meeting Brussels where he further fine-tuned his big lie about Fiji under military control.

The main truth he wanted to gloss over was his central role in the illegal overthrow of a democratically elected government and his refusal to accept the ruling of a court of law.

So what does he do? He makes it sound as if all responsibility for establishing his dictatorship was down to the puppet president.

The dictator side-stepped the central issue, which was the ruling of a properly constituted court of appeal that his overthrow of the government in December 2006 and his setting up an interim government were completely illegal.

Instead, he referred to “a difficult legal situation” as if that was all
the justification a president needed for abrogating a Constitution. Then he prattled on about political reform, but failed to mention the current situation and his spectacular trampling of human rights, such as freedom of speech.

And had questions been allowed in Brussels (if anyone had bothered to listen, that is) you can bet the first one would have been something like this:

“Er, excuse me, Mr Dictator, but can you explain how political reform can ever happen in Fiji if no one is allowed to say what they think, except you?”