Bending the Rules

Now this little bit of news was again sooo predictable on the part of the junta....


Twist to ousted PM court case

The Fiji Human Rights Commission wants to be an additional party in the case in which Mr Qarase is questioning the legality of the removal of his government by the Fiji Military last December.


Radaus/ Pacnews
Tue, 11 Sep 2007

SUVA, FIJI ---- There’s been a surprise twist in Fiji concerning the case brought out against the island’s military government by ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase.

The Fiji Human Rights Commission wants to be an additional party in the case in which Mr Qarase is questioning the legality of the removal of his government by the Fiji Military last December.

Radio Australia reports outgoing director of the Fiji Human Rights Commission Shaista Shameem is asking the High Court for permission to be the intervener in Mr Qarase’s case.

She told acting chief justice Judge Anthony Gates this privilege is allowed for under the island’s Human Rights Act.

Dr Shameem said she also want to submit two reports her Commission has compiled about the legality of the military action.

But both the plaintiff and defendants’ lawyers objected to Dr Shameem’s application.

Mr Qarase’s lawyer Tevita Fa wondered whether the reports were authored by the Commission or by Dr Shameem herself.

He suggested the Human Rights Commission’s involvement can be considered at a later date.

The state lawyer agreed, submitting that both the two primary parties be allowed to continue on their own, without the intervention of Dr Shameem’s Commission.

Judge Gates will rule on the matter on Wednesday.


What she essentially suggests in her application is that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) Act can more or less bend the rules of our courts. Now the HRC Act does allow the Proceedings Commissioner (and not the Ombudsman) to be heard in the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in relation to any proceedings for which on unfair discrimination or violations of rights are at issue.

But the HRC's position as intervenor as clearly outlined in this media piece will (predictably) stoke the dying embers of "this coup was not a really a coup" and "Qarase et al committed crimes against humanity".

However, practically thinking the REAL role of the HRC in such a matter whether as amicus curiae or as an intervenor should be to provide specialist (human rights) advice and the HRC MUST BE INDEPENDENT of the parties to the case. There are court standards already in place to ensure this and they are called the High Court Rules.

But what will be most telling is when the learned Judge Gates rules in The Shyster's favour to intervene in this case (and mark our words he will because he wants to save his own neck as co-conspirator).

But wait! Thats not all. In July this year our good ol President under the expert advice (ho hum) of the iAG, Messrs Saiyed Khaiyum promulgated yet again changes to the High Court Act which allowed for judges from Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and India to sit on our benches.

Court stacking anyone? Cus that's really what's going down here.