refWrite...page3: Fiji Today -- Two Infosources

Special Feature on the Military Coup in Fiji Today

For the materials below, I thank Dr Bruce Wearne, a sociologist of Christian-democratic political outlook, based in Australia. The first item is a note from him, while the second is a legal document filed in the Fiji courts by the Prime Minister who was ousted by the military coup that is proving so destructive to all aspects of life in the Republic of Fiji. -- Owlb

Bruce writes:

Phew. It must be pretty humid in the Suva Court Precincts. I think that Laisenia Qarase is acting on the assumption that it is possible to resolve this matter through the courts and hence bring about some kind of stable constitutional resolution.

My reading is that any genuine Christian-democratic CD movement in Fiji is hedged in not least by interpretations that regard Christian as nationalist (ie ethno-nationalist). [There are nearly 500,000 Fijians whose ethnic origins are located in India, a demographic that is ethno-religiously connected chiefly to Hinduism. -- Owlb]

I take it that the CD seed is planted in the SDL [main political party of the govt coalition, Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua] but is actually slow growth with lots of other hybrids etc etc. [A knowledgeable correspondent] has said to me that his advice over the last three years to [SDL leader] Lesenia Qarase and his advisors on just this matter has been ignored, and [my correspondent's] piece which asserted that the SDL had betrayed the trust of the Fijian people and is going to need a decade to rebuild themselves as an authentic party for good, should be read in that light.

The second item of this refWrite page 3 Special Feature on Fiji Today, as mentioned, is a legal document the concerns of which are currently being tried in court.

AFFIDAVIT - Qarase’s challenge to the Interim govt: 2
Affidavit of Laisenia Qarase in support of an Originating Summons.

I, Laisenia Qarase of Mavana Village, Vanuabalavu, Lau, Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji Islands make oath and say as follows:-

1. That I am the lawful and democratically elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji Islands.

2. That I make this affidavit on behalf of myself as Prime Minister of the democratically elected and lawful Government of the Republic of the Fiji Islands, and I am able to depose as follows –

(a) on the basis of personal knowledge of the matters contained herein, correspondence exchanged between the First and the Second Defendants and me or other members of my Government; or,

(b) where matters are not known to me personally, from information derived from the various forms of mass media and from sources specified.

3. That I make this affidavit in support of an Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiffs seeking this Court’s declaration that:

(a) the removal of the democratically-elected and constitutionally appointed Prime Minister, his Cabinet, other Minister, and members of Parliament by the First and Second Defendants by force of arms on or about the 5th December, 2006 was and is unconstitutional and unlawful;

(b) the usurpation of executive authority and power by the First Defendant on or about 5th December 2006 was unconstitutional and unlawful;

(c) the decisions and actions taken by the First Defendant in the purported exercise of executive authority, including the dissolution of the Parliament, the dismissal of a number of senior Government officials, the dismissal or termination of senior executives of statutory boards, the dismissal of members of statutory boards and Boards of some Government Commercial Companies; the suspension of the Chief Justice and the placing of the Chief Magistrate on forced indefinite leave are unlawful and unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect;

(d) the reliance by the First and Second Defendants on the doctrine of necessity to justify their removal of the lawful and democratically elected Government of the Republic of Fiji when and in the manner they did were, in all the circumstances prevailing in the country at the time, constitutionally and legally misconceived and unjustified, and therefore contrary to law and the Constitution;

(e) the actions taken by the First and Second Defendants in the purported exercise of their powers and roles contained in the repealed provisions of Section 94(3) of the 1990 Constitution is legally and constitutionally misconceived and inconsistent with the Constitution;

(f) the appointment of the first Interim Prime Minister, Dr Jona Senilagakali,, made by the First Defendant in the purported exercise of executive powers and authority of the President, along with the appointments by the first Interim Prime Minister of various persons to certain senior positions in the Public Service were and are unlawful and unconstitutional;

(g) the appointment by the President on the advice of the First Defendant of the First Defendant as the second Interim Prime Minister and other persons as members of the Cabinet of the Interim Government was an is unconstitutional;

(h) the declaration by the First Defendant of a state of emergency effective from 5 December 2006 and the subsequent promulgation of the Emergency Regulations in the purported exercise of the powers contained in Chapter 14 of the Constitution and the application and continuing application by the Second Defendant of the special emergency powers contained in the said Regulations were and are misconceived in law and fact given the circumstances prevailing immediately prior to the coup and are therefore contrary to law and the Constitution;

(i) the First-named Plaintiff remains the lawful and constitutional Prime Minister of the Republic of the Fiji Islands, and the members of his Cabinet, other Ministers and his Government remain the lawful and constitutionally constituted Government of the Republic of the Fiji Islands;

(j) any legislation proposed or promulgated by or under the unlawful Interim Government to grant immunity from all criminal or civil liability to the First and Second Defendants and any person who can be proven to have been accessory before or after their treasonous acts, is made contrary to law and unconstitutional, and is null, void and of no effect; and,

(k) the current Interim Regime cannot rely on the doctrine of effectiveness to ensure its legitimacy, and it remains an illegal regime because its defacto control of the country was imposed and continues to be imposed on the people by force of arms and not by popular acceptance or voluntary acquiescence. Defects in affidavit

4. That since the events of 6 December 2006 detailed below, I have been confined to my home village of Mavana on Vanuabalavu in the Lau group. I have made various attempts to return to Suva by air but have been denied passage by Air Fiji. I know of no reason why Air Fiji has denied me passage from Vanuabalavu to Suva, and although Air Fiji has denied this, I believe that they have been threatened or ordered by the First and Second Defendants not to transport me to Suva. Moreover, I received a phone call on or about 4 January, 2007 in which a person who identified himself as a Major in the Second Defendant threatened that I would be arrested by the Second Defendant, if I returned to Suva.

5. That as a result of these difficulties –

(a) I do not have easy access to my lawyers in Suva;

(b) I do not have access to official papers which could or should be used as exhibits;

(c) It has been very difficult for me to provide my lawyers proper, clear and full instructions for the preparation of my affidavit as a Plaintiff in support of our Originating Summons;

(d) I have been informed by my lawyers and friends in Suva that the Second Defendant is monitoring closely various arrangements which may enable me to access assistance from Suva, including the possibility of any Commisisoner for Oaths traveling to Vanuabalavu; and it has not been possible to find any Commissioner for Oaths to bring the original form of my affidavit to Vanuabalavu to enable me to have the same property sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths, as they all fear reprisal by the First and Second Defendant;

(e) It is, therefore, logically extremely difficult for me to properly swear and deliver an original affidavit as, I am advised and I sincerely believe the advice to be true and correct, the form of the High Court Rules requires; therefore, this affidavit is declared before a Justice of the Peace (because there is no Commissioner for Oaths on Vanuabalavu) and delivered to my lawyers by facsimile, and I undertake to abide by any direction from the Court which will address any evidential or procedural issues arising from this or any other non-compliance with the rules of the Court on account of the restrictions imposed on me and my travels by the First and Second Defendants;

(f) I have requested my lawyer in Suva to make whatever arrangement he consider proper and acceptable under the Rules for regularizing the form of this affidavit for filing as soon as possible; and,

(g) I hereby notify the Court that it may be necessary for me to file supplementary affidavits once normal access has become available to me. Background A: Results of 2006 general election and my appointment as Prime Minister.

6. That on 18 May 2006, I was sworn in as the Prime Minister of Fiji by His Excellency, the President of Fiji, Ratu Josefa Iloilovatu Uluivuda pursuant to section 98 of the Constitution, following a general election held in Fiji between 6 and 13 May 2006 in accordance with the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

7. That the results of the general election saw my party, the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) winning 36 seats in the House of Representatives. Following the agreement of two independent candidates to join the SDLP as a coalition, the total number of seats in Parliament held by the SDL and its independent coalition partners came to 38 out of 71 seats.

8. That as required by section 99 of the Constitution, I invited the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) through its leader to join my Cabinet to form a multi-party Cabinet and government. Upon his acceptance of my offer, I formed the first multi-party Cabinet and Government formed under the Constitution.

B. RFMF long-standing opposition against Plaintiff’s Government

9. That the First Defendant in particular and other members of the Second Defendant’s hierarchy have on various occasions since 2003 publicly opposed the Plaintiff’s Government and a number of its policies. Their public utterances against Government and its policies have differed in subject matter, style and intensity as and when issues arose over the last five years, but I believe that it cannot be seriously disputed that the First Defendant in particular and certain members of the Second Defendant’s hierarchy have developed a clear pattern of deliberate and constant opposition against Government.

10. That I append hereto marked Annexure LQ 1 a summary of most of the principal events of opposition referred to herein, including copies of the various correspondence and records of oral communication in meetings between the First Defendant and me, and I understand that other persons named as Plaintiffs in this Action and others will be producing other relevant documents the contents of which they have personal knowledge of.

11. That the local media has also widely reported the First Defendant’s public utterances of his open criticism and opposition against my Government over the last five years or so. I append hereto marked as Annexure LQ 2 the copies of various articles, randomly selected, published by local daily newspapers, radio and television outlets published in the past five years which attribute comments made by the First and Second Defendants in opposition to my Government and its policies. Such information has not been subsequently rebutted or denied by the First or Second Defendant.