June 29, 2011

Breaking down the FNPF legal challenge

So. It is probably an opportune time to break down the farcical circus (and yes it is as farcical as the FNPF "reform" charade) that Shaista Shameem is attempting to whip up into a storm validating her claims, her credibility and her ego that this test case, is in the "public interest".

Unfortunately for Shameem, this MO is so old and tired. It is the same tactic she deployed for the once-lauded constitutional Chandrika Prasad case which, in hindsight now, smacks of racial political engineering that is so similar to the thinking of her protege, the illegal and treasonous Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and his warped thesis.

According to the token pensioner, Mr DAVID FOWLER BURNESS of 44 Beach Road, Suva Point, Suva and his application (major credit to fellow blog Coup 4.5 for their scoop), these are the points that they want our kangaroo courts to provide relief for:
1. THAT the Court declare, as a human rights protective remedy, that the Applicant David Fowler Burness’ pension benefit in the form of his Fiji National Provident Fund cannot be reduced in any shape or form by the Fiji National Provident Fund Board, the Republic of Fiji and /or the Attorney General at any time.
2. THAT the proposed review of the Fiji National Provident Fund Act and Pension Scheme which will reduce the pensions of members, in the applicant’s case by 64%, is unfair discrimination within the meaning of unfair discrimination in Fiji’s human rights law and the obligation of the Republic of Fiji to comply with United Nations international human rights law prohibiting unfair discrimination on the grounds inter alia of age, status and personal characteristics and circumstances.
3. THAT the proposed review of the Fiji National Provident Fund in the terms communicated to the members of the Fund constitutes a breach of contract entered into between the Applicant, David Fowler Burness, the FNPF Board and the Government of Fiji.
4. THAT prior to the Fiji National Provident Fund Board reviewing the FNPF Act, it be declared by the Court that the Respondents appoint an independent person or body such as a judicial Commission of Inquiry, appointed through an open selection process, to inquire into the past financial dealings of the Fiji National Provident Fund with a view to independently auditing the Fund, providing the Applicant and other members of the Fund with a comprehensive report on the Fund’s use, including lending, finances, decision-making of previous and current Boards, and related matters, which the Board has stated in its public meetings as being the reason for the current problems with the Fund which necessitate the reduction of pension benefits to the Applicant.
5. THAT the terms of reference of the Independent Commission be drafted in consultation with the beneficiaries of the Fund.
6. THAT the intended review of the FNPF Act shall be shelved until such time as the independent body or Commission has communicated its findings and recommendations to the members of the Fund. The Applicant seeks an Interim Order to this effect from the Court.
7. THAT, in any event, the Court declare that any FNPF review intending to reduce or adversely change or alter the current pension benefit of the Applicant would constitute a breach of his human right to dignity in old age, to social security, his right to life, breach of fiduciary duty of the Board, and the State’s contractual obligations to him since the Fiji National Provident Fund was a mandatory pension Fund at the time the Applicant was working, and he was denied the opportunity by law to contribute to another pension scheme during his working life.
8. THAT, in addition, the Applicant seeks all the remedies available in the Human Rights Commission Decree, relevant common law, and international human rights law.
9. Any other relief that the Court may grant in its discretion.
This Notice of Motion is filed pursuant to section 38 (5) of the Human Rights Commission Decree No 11 of 2009, relevant common law, and international human rights law applicable to the Republic of Fiji as a member of the United Nations.
Shameem is already banking on other parties to ride on this case thus validating her, her stand and most importantly to profile her legal prowess (errm ok...), as coffee sales have financial limitations.
Shameem Law await High Court decision
Publish date/time: 29/06/2011 [13:04]

Legal firm, Shameem Law is now awaiting the High Court's decision on whether it will hear an urgent application for an interim injunction to be granted to stop the enactment of the new FNPF Decree which proposes to reduce the members’ pension rate.

Lead Legal Counsel in the case, Doctor Shaista Shameem said her client, pensioner, David Burness wants the court to stop the implementation of the changes until a full judicial Commission of Inquiry is carried out into FNPF.

FNPF had earlier said that changes are expected to be implemented in phases from July 1st.

Doctor Shameem said the application of the interim injunction is necessary to ensure that the full hearing of Burness's court application against FNPF, the Republic of Fiji and the Attorney General is not affected on July 4th.

Meanwhile Doctor Shameem said other pensioners have contacted their firm, wanting to join the action.

She said they will consider each application on its merit.

We have received confirmation that the full hearing of the application will take place before High Court Judge, Pradeep Hettiarachchi next Monday.

Court papers were served on the FNPF, the Republic of Fiji and the Attorney General yesterday.

Story by: Vijay Narayan

Fortunately people are not going to buy into this charade wholesale. This episode is still linked to the fugitive, Ratu Tevita Mara. Mara has rained on the Shameem parade by exposing Dr Shaista's youngest sister and former judge, Nazhat Shameem, as being a legal advisor to the military regime.

Ratu Tevita and Col Baledrokadroka, in now beginning to expose all the rot from the coup of 2000, is going to send alot of benefactors scurrying because the cut & paste attempts are not working in the 2006 coup, even though many of the players are the same.

And now that Nazhat Shameem and her spanking new NGO are pretending and feigning an "at arms length" ignorance of the legal machinations of her military regime allies (anecdotal evidence points to a different state of affairs), taxpayers funds from the EU and the US are still being funnelled to support the illegal and treasonous regime through Nazhat Shameem's proxy NGO, contrary to their foreign policy decisions.

Now all these claims to the courts would be well and good if we still had a constitution in place. Unfortunately for both Shameem's and their legal handiwork, by attempting to kill the constitution, the stand-in illegal and treasonous Human Rights Commission decree of 2009 falls way off the mark. And by propagating an illegal and treasonous decree it is clear that these leopards have not changed their spots.

If this test case can prove that the illegal and treasonous decree "protecting rights" in Fiji (whereas the 1997 Constitution did that and more), is successful and backed by ample "public interest", it validates the regimes attempts to illegally and treasonously rejig the constitution, in "the public interest".

No comments: