#header-inner img {margin: 0 auto !important; #header-inner {text-align: Center ;} Fiji Coupfourpointfive: 2011-09-11

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Unionist tells Fiji's chief censor: If you don't know what you're talking about SHUT UP!

Kenneth Zinck has sent to Coupfourpointfive the following statement after our request for a reply to the claims from the illegal government that his motives for seeking political asylum in Australia are questionable. Zinck - a former government minister and unionist - has revealed he is making an application for asylum saying his safety can no longer be guaranteed in Fiji as the military is looking for him.
MINFO's Sharon Smith Johns has told FBC News: "The government is completely baffled regarding this. There is no truth to what Kenneth (Zinck) is saying. It's alarming the people are fabricating these sort of stories. He has a reason why he's doing this and the reasons are known only to him."
She claims Zinck has been free to travel and has attended overseas rugby matches without ever being taken to task or put on a watch list.

Zinck issued the following statement to Coupfourpointfive asking for it to be printed in full.


SMITH JOHNS AND BAINIMARAMA
Sharon Smith Johns knows nothing of the happenings in Fiji. She should resign her job now before she goes to jail with Bainimaramama, Khaiyum, Nailatikau and cronies. I have a three year multiple visa to Australia and New Zealand and am only here now for safety sake from her thugs in the Fiji army. Why would I make up a story to stay here in Australia when I have families back home plus a job, a parish, a house a car and everything I need? The army hounded me in a tinted white twin cab and followed my car in the main streets of Suva on Thursday 25th August 2011 but couldn't catch up when a taxi got in between us.

ATTACK ON ZINCK'S CAR IN 2009
I slept at the Pacific Regional Seminary that night and flew to Australia on Friday 26th August 2011 against my will but for safety's sake. I have been taken up to the Fiji Army camp three times and tortured and am not willing to be taken up a fourth time. NO WAY.

Doesn't Sharon know that I am currently blacklisted from leaving the country on instructions from her illegal PM's office and this is already on computer in Nadi in the border control area? The instructions came on the 29th August three days after I had left. The army even switched the street lights off in my street and then came at 3am in balaclavas to take me from home. My daughter and niece were home at the time and soldiers even gave them their ID. 


Sharon can also check with the Police Staion in Samabula where my daughter has lodged a complaint about the soldiers for harrassment and trespass. Does Sharon think that I am making all this up just for a visa to Australia? If I had wanted to migrate to Australia I would have applied when I was much younger, not in the eve of my retirement Sharon.

My advice to Sharon is: if you dont know what you are talking about then just SHUT UP. 

Her days are numbered together with Bainimarama, Khaiyum, Nailatikau and cronies and they will all go to JAIL for TREASON. When democracy is restored back home I will catch the first plane back to Fiji, Sharon, and I don't intend to live here in Australia forever. 


Oh, and I will come and visit the lot of you when you are all in the MAXIMUM PRISON IN NABORO. For the moment Sharon get your facts right before opening that BIG MOUTH OF YOURS. I dare the Fiji Media to print what I have written above or are they all cowards and LAMULAMU. 


Regards, Kenneth Zinck

FLP should suspend Chaudhry until money laundering charges resolved

Chaudhry and Chautala

Three years before Victor Lal exposed Mahendra Chaudhry’s secret millions in an Australian bank account, he had, in December 2005, challenged Chaudhry through Fiji’s Daily Post opinion column to answer some searching questions about the collection of money by Haryana’s Chief Minister, Om Prakash Chautala. In a cruel twist, both Chaudhry and Chautala appeared in court in August of this year charged with various offences. While Chaudhry is facing money laundering and tax evasion charges in Fiji, the 75-year-old Chautala is charged in India with of being in possession of immovable and movable assets disproportionate to known sources of his income; Chautala’s two sons, Ajay and Abhay Singh Chautala, both Haryana MLAs, are also facing similar charges.

‘Haryanagate’ is no ‘Silly Matter’ 

The FLP should suspend Chaudhry until the matter is satisfactorily resolved for his sake and the party’s political survival. And the following questions need to be asked:

·When did Chaudhry learn of the funds collected for him in his ancestral homeland?
· What did he do to encourage or stop the collection of funds?
· Why has Indo-Fiji Friendship Society (IFFS) issued denials and clarifications now and not Chaudhry or the FLP?
·  Was Chaudhry patron-in-chief of the IFFS, as claimed by its secretary Sher Singh Badshami?
·  What about allegations that thousands of dollars were also collected in Australia, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom? 

By VICTOR LAL

IT WAS a sight that had shocked and annoyed many ordinary Indo-Fijians in August 2000, and has now come to haunt Mahendra Pal Chaudhry’s political career. One angered Indo-Fijian, after seeing Chaudhry in a green Hindu turban, with clapped lotus-like hands greeting the adoring crowd, wrote to the Fiji Times from Ba, calling upon Chaudhry to return permanently to Bahu Jamalpur, a village which lies on the outskirts of Rohtak town in Haryana, and from whence Chaudhry’s grandfather, Ram Nath, came in 1911 to Fiji as a bonded coolie labourer.

I thought the writer from Ba was slightly harsh on the recently deposed Prime Minister Chaudhry, who had just emerged from 56 days of captivity at the hands of the pseudo-Fijian nationalist George Speight. After all, it is very fashionable for political leaders, whether in the United States, Australia, New Zealand or elsewhere, to return to their ancestral roots.

In Chaudhry’s case, it was doubly important for him to seek succour and help from ‘Mother India’, then unfortunately run by an extreme right-wing Hindu Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) government. Unlike thousands of us who can no longer trace our roots and relatives in India, I thought Chaudhry was uniquely placed to exploit the ‘Haryana connection’ if it helped mitigate the Indo-Fijians sufferings, lootings, beatings, rapes, and religious vandalism in the aftermath of the Speight coup. I was not aware that funds were already being collected even before Chaudhry had landed in Haryana. It also seems, if we are to believe Chaudhry that he himself was, and until recently still was not, aware of any funds collected in the so-called ‘Haryanagate’ scandal.

Chaudhry in Harayana land
In August 2000 Chaudhry arrived in New Delhi on a 10-day visit at the invitation of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Chaudhry had arrived by a Singapore Airlines flight, accompanied by his wife. He had gone to India to drum up support for the restoration of democracy and human rights in Fiji. He was, and still is, a few Indo-Fijians who commands widespread support, if not sympathy, in the land of his forefathers. His cause was greatly helped by the BJP government and its political allay, the then Chief Minister of Haryana, Om Prakash Chautala.

The Indian Minister for Agriculture Chaoba Singh, Chautala and chief protocol officer M. P. Singh received him. The deposed Prime Minister of Fiji waved at the waiting Indian media outside the VIP lounge of the Indira Gandhi International Airport but did not speak to them despite requests. The Haryana Chief Minister’s son Ajay Chautala and relatives of Chaudhry were also present at the airport to receive him. During his captivity, his relatives had actively sought Vajpayee’s help to free Chaudhry from Speight’s clutches.

Ironically, for some of Chaudhry’s warring relatives, whose ugly feud over four hectares of his property in Bahu Jamalpur, his coming was anticipated as a defining moment. The two warring relatives had been fighting to wrest control of the disputed property belonging to Chaudhry’s grandfather. As one Indian journalist put it, ‘A court verdict may not satisfy them and the dispute could end up before the man who survived a coup and ethnic onslaught. The prime minister without a land to rule would be the final judge’.

Chaudhry had never visited Bahu Jamalpur in Haryana. And when he did visit Haryana on 17 August 2000, he went to Rohtak, which is 90km from Bahu Jamalpur. He was, accompanied by Om Prakash Chautaa, driven down from New Delhi and was formerly received at the Teliyar tourist complex by Haryana’s Governor Bhai Parmanand.  The people of Bahu Jamalpur, who had held nightlong vigils and had offered prayers during Chaudhry’s 56 days as prisoner, did finally greet their hero.

In Rothak, welcome arches and flag-waving school children greeted Chaudhry. According to Indian newspapers, the Chautala government had forced government-sponsored schools to line up their students by the roadside in the scorching heat. He was feted at a public reception by the Chautala’s Haryana State government. He was given a hero’s welcome, with his struggles to uphold Indo-Fijian rights likened to the South African President Nelson Mandela’s crusade against White apartheid in old racist South Africa. In his speech, according to Indian newspaper reports, Chaudhry told a cross-section of politicians and a gathering of up to 8,000 people who had turned up to cheer him that his struggle to restore democracy in Fiji would be fraught with danger because the guns were still in the hands of rebels who had overthrown his Peoples Coalition Government.

The politicians who had come to listen to him were the Congress Party, the BJP, the Haryana Vikas Party (HVP), the Bahujan Samaj party and the Communist Party of India-Marxist. The former Deputy Indian Prime Minister Devi Lal (no relative of mine, by the way) was also present for a while. In his speech, Chaudhry also told the gathering that it was the second time in 13 years that a democratically elected government in Fiji had been overthrown on racist grounds, and urged the international community not to be taken in by the promises made by the incumbent military-backed Laisenia Qarase interim Fijian government on the restoration of democracy in the country. ‘I have not received such a reception at home,’ Chaudhry told the crowd. ‘For a moment it appeared as if I was in my own political constituency.’

In his address to the gathering, Chautala, likened Chaudhry’s struggle to Mandela’s in South Africa, and also dramatically announced that his government would present a purse of Rs 16 million to Chaudhry before he returns home on 26 August 2000. Chautala said all the State’s subjects would be requested to contribute Rs 1 to the purse.

Question:  Did Chaudhry hear of Chautala’s announcement at this reception? If so, what was his response to the planned fund-raising? What did he do to encourage or stop the collection in August 2000?

Prime Minister to Doctor Chaudhry
During his visit to Rohtak, the returning prodigal son was also conferred an honorary doctorate by the 8th Special Convocation of the Rohtak’s Maharisi Dayanand University. Again, according to Indian press reports, receiving the doctorate, Chaudhry had to remind the audience that though his grandfather and father hailed from Haryana, he was born and brought up in Fiji. Chaudhry received the doctorate with a sense of great joy and pride and also some regret. ‘This could have occurred in happier times for me and my countrymen, Fijians.’ The honorary doctorate was awarded to him in recognition of his pioneering and exemplary service in improving the lot of his countrymen and his fight for democracy and social justice. The degree was awarded by Governor Parmanand, also the Chancellor of the University.

To his credit, Chaudhry repeatedly stressed his Fijian moorings again and again. He did not utter a word against George Speight and his goons who had held him captive. Neither did he say anything against the rulers who had sent Speight to prison. According to Indian journalists covering Chaudhry’s visit, throughout the day, different Haryani speakers kept forgetting that Chaudhry’s middle name was Pal and not Pratap.

But ‘Pratap’, which means courage, had become so synonymous with him that nobody, even Chaudhry himself minded that. He did however manage to win the day despite having betrayed popular sentiment by not uttering a word in Hindi. As one journalist put it, ‘even at the reception where the pro-subsidy, pro-free electricity farmers had gathered, Chaudhry spoke in a foreign tongue’. It was, as the journalist put it, a rude culture shock for the suave Chaudhry, impeccable in a blue-grey suit. But Chautala would have none of it. Throughout the day he fought hard to steal the show. Buoyed by a wave of jingoism which largely uneducated Haryanis had fallen for, Chautala raged throughout the day.

Why was Om Prakash Chuatala so upbeat and excited about Chaudhry’s visit to his home state? Was he planning to add the thousands of rupees, to be collected for Chauhdry, to the millions for which he would be subsequently charged by the Indian authorities? At the reception, however, Chautala told the masses: ‘Chaudhry is fighting an arduous battle for restoring democracy and we want him to know that we fully support him.’

Haryana Congress raises Fiji fund scandal
It was not long however before Chautala’s political opponents sensed blood. In January 2003, the Pradesh Congress demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the source of the money allegedly earmarked for Chaudhry. The Haryana Congress president and former Chief Minister, Bhajan Lal, at a news conference on 18 January in Chandigarh, sought to know the details of the funds collected in Haryana and demanded a CBI probe into its sources.

However, the so-called Indo-Fiji Friendship Society and the then ruling Indian National Lok Dal (INDL) had dismissed allegations of committing any irregularities. The Haryana INLD president and society member, Sher Singh Badshami, in a statement, refuted the allegations levelled by the Congress leaders, including the Legislature Party leader, Bhupinder Singh Hooda. Badshami termed them as ‘baseless’. He said Chautala had nothing to do with the IFFS. The society president was Inder Singh, MP, while the treasurer was Ram Lal of Rania., and the patron-in-chief was Chaudhry himself, Badshami said. He said the Rs 1 crore received from the public had been deposited in the society’s name in a bank in Chandigarh.

On 21 January 2003, Chautala offered to hold a probe into the alleged misuse of funds collected by the IFFFS. Addressing a press conference he said the society, headed by INDL MP from Rohtak, Inder Singh, had collected funds for the specific purpose as ousted Chaudhry hailed from Rohtak district. He maintained that the society had been maintaining proper records of the funds and the money was safely lying in a bank account. Chautala said the Opposition was raking up the issue to defame him.

The protestations failed to wish away the controversy. On 28 January 2003, the Indian Youth Congress demanded the dismissal of Chautala for failing to adhere to ‘constitutional norms’. An IYC delegation, led by its President, Randeep Singh Surjewala, presented a memorandum to Governor Parmanand, on this issue, and also urged the Governor to order a CBI probe to find out the truth about the quantum of money collected and the IFFS which was said to be in possession of the funds. The memorandum contained a blow-by-blow account of Chautala’s announcement to collect the fund for Chaudhry.

The memorandum questioned why money in crores collected in the name of Chaudhry was not handed over to him even 31 months after August 26, 2000, when he was supposed to be presented with the collection. It claimed that workers of all political parties and others collected money to the tune of Rs 6 crore, and a majority of the donations were received in cash. The memorandum also pointed out the contradictions between Badshami, who claimed the money was collected only in the form of bank drafts and cheques, and Chautala’s announcement about collecting R1 from each Haryani. The Indian Youth Congress asked exactly how much money was collected.

The memorandum said it had now been stated by the IFFS that the money would be utilised for Non-Resident Indians of Haryana origin and not for Chaudhry questioning that was the justification of raising the money then. It also asked for the date on which the money was deposited in Oriental Bank of Commerce, sector 19, Chandigarh. It also asked as to who was in possession of the money between August 2000, and the day when it was deposited in the bank. Claiming that ‘fraud by Mr Chautala and his party is thus writ large’ in the Fiji episode, the memorandum said when a person holding the highest office in the State was engaged in defrauding the people of the State, it amounted to his ceasing to hold allegiance to the law of the land. The use of government officials in the fraud also amounted to violation of Article 164(3) read with Third Schedule of the Constitution of India, stated the memorandum.

The episode, one Indian journalist, recently noted, has frightened many prospective ordinary donors from responding to donations in times of disasters, and they have every reason to do so for running away from donation-seekers. In 2002, when Chaudhry participated in the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (the much celebrated Non-Resident Indian gathering), Chautala was nowhere to be seen. When an Indian newspaper asked him why he did not hand over the money to Chaudhry, Chautala said the transfer involved two sovereign countries (India and Fiji).

If so, why did he raise the money in the first place? Badshami, while refuting Congress claim, said only Rs1.2 crore was collected and it was to date deposited in a branch of Union Bank of India in Panchukla. Though Badshami said that Chaudhry was a member of the Committee, he did not have either his number or address. What a ridiculous and breath-taking explanation?

Question: Was Chaudhry, as Badshami claims, a patron-in-chief of the IFFS?
In November 2004, when Chautala was charged by the Indian authorities with the disappearance of millions of dollars, including funds collected for the Fiji Labour Party, Chaudhry denied reports that Chautala had collected funds for the party which were later stolen. He labelled such reports as ‘mischief making’ and a ‘smear campaign’ against the FLP. On 14 January 2003, the Indian Express quoted Chaudhry as saying, ‘I am hopeful that Chautala will honour the promise he made to the Indians of Fiji’. It said that when Chauhdry made inquiries, he was told that 2.5 crore rupees (about FJ$1 million) had been collected and put in the bank. ‘I was not given anything and I decided not to press the matter further at that point,’ Chauhdry had allegedly told the Indian Express then.

What is the Truth?
A radio report in Fiji stated in November 2004 that the FLP sources had confirmed that Chautala collected funds for the party to fight its court cases relating to the Constitution. When contacted, Chaudhry said: ‘There was absolutely no funds collected for the FLP by anybody and we have not asked anyone to collect funds on our behalf. ‘It is mischief making and a smear campaign against the Labour Party to discredit us because the elections are around the corner,’ he said. ‘It is pure mischief making by the radio station and we have asked them to retract the report, failing which they will face the legal consequences,’ he said. Chaudhry said people making such allegations should either come up with evidence or shut up. 

The most recent to raise the issue is the Prime Minister, who asked in Parliament: ‘I challenge him to tell us the complete truth about the funds that were raised there for him in Haryana State. Where are those funds now and what are they used for? How much money is held in bank accounts and who are the signatories?’ But Chaudhry said Qarase should come up with evidence. ‘He is just being silly. Let him come up with evidence before making wild accusations? He refused to admit or deny any knowledge of the funds.

Now, the evidence has come straight from the horse’s mouth – Chaudhry’s hosts in Haryana in 2000 – the Chautalas and Sher Singh Badshami. The INDL general secretary and Chautala’s son, Ajay Singh Chautala has welcomed any probe into the controversial money collection for Chaudhry by the previous INLD government in Haryana. He has admitted that his father did collect the money and it is deposited in the Oriental Bank of Commerce in the account of the Indo-Fijian Friendship Society, He said because of problems related to the international law, this amount could not be transferred to Fiji.

Badshami says they would have no objection if the present Laisenia Qarase government arranged the transfer of this money to Fiji, presumably for Chaudhry and the Fiji Labour Party.

Will Chaudhry accept the money?

Above all, to put the Nixonian question – when did Chaudhry know that funds were being collected for him, and how did he know?

What more evidence he needs before he admits or denies any knowledge of the funds that was collected in Haryana in August 2000? 

Editor's Note: In recent days the Fiji court has heard that Chaudhry failed to declare AUD$1.5million given to him in India. It's alleged he took the money to Australia and then lent it to other people, without being an authorized dealer. According to the prosecuting team, the Exchange Control Act stipulates that if you are a Fiji resident, money disposed overseas should be brought back to Fiji and be declared. In Chaudhry's defence, Queens Counsel Peter Williams, told the court Chaudhry thought he was entitled to keep the money without authorization. Chaudhry is charged with 12 counts of money laundering, tax evasion and giving false information to the Fiji Revenue and Customs Authority.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Regime and democracy supporters to face off at Fiji World Cup match


While Fiji battles it out on the field tomorrow night, the pro-democracy movement and the illegal regime will be vying with each other in the stands.

Both camps are urging supporters to wear white at the game against South Africa in Wellington: armbands for those wanting democracy and white generally if you're heeding the 'Go, Fiji Go' call by FRU chair Mosese Tikoitoga.


Tikoitoga: “This is the time to show your true colors, your national pride and the pride in our national team as they prepare to enter the battlefield against the Springboks.”


The secretary of the Council of Trade Unions, Peter Conway, is asking rugby fans to use the occasion to denounce the Frank Bainimarama regime. “Whichever team your supporting at the game, we’re asking you to show support for a fair and democratic Fiji by wearing an armband."


Fiji beat Namibia 49 25 last week so we're hoping it'll repeat the victory. We're also cheering for the ultimate win: a democratic Fiji.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Documents show Pflieger machinations in Essential Industries Decree

ANDY COOK
A clear trend is emerging about the powerful influence that foreign owned corporations are exerting on Fiji through the military regime of Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum.
 
It follows more revelations after the enforcement of the draconian Essential National Industries (Employment) Decree last Friday, which nullifies the role of trade unions,  professional trade unionists, workers' rights, collective agreements and gives absolute powers to the employers - and Bainimarama and Khaiyum.

That is why foreign owned and managed companies (including where family interests lie - Radio Fiji managed by Khaiyum's brother, Riyaz, and Telecom Fiji Ltd - managed by South African, Rohan Mail) are designated corporations under the Decree.
 
The first indications were that Air Pacific, the sugar industry and the tourism industry would be affected by the Decree - if we accept that the regime's reason of protecting essential industries from its claim of exploitation by unions was to be taken as gospel truth. If that was bad enough (sugar and tourism were subsequently excluded), the fact that the Decree extends to private sector, especially commercial banks, which are all foreign owned, has a strong whiff of collusion.
  
The collusion theory makes sense when with Air Pacific chief executive, David Pflieger, playing a leading role in the drafting of the Decree through his ideas or that of consultants he recommended for the job of stifling workers and unions.

Coupfourpointfive has been given documents, (some of which are memos) with Pflieger's signature that show the leading role played by him.

Pllieger's letter to Aiyaz Khaiyum urging the regime to include Pacific Sun (Fiji Airlines Ltd) as a designated corporation under the Decree and a memo confirming the appointment of one Andy Cook as consultant to see the enforcement of Decree in Air Pacific are two examples of what we are saying.

And all this is happening right under the nose of Qantas, the Australian Airline, which owns 46% of Air Pacific and whose  directors are on Air Pacific's board.

We have also been given a draft letter prepared by Pacific Sun general manager, Shaenaz Voss. That letter was to be given to Pacific Sun employees on the airline being listed as a designated corporation under the Decree. But the absence of Pacific Sun from the Regulations under the Decree dampened some of Voss's enthusiam to trample on the rights of her workers. That has obviously led to Pflieger (with whom Shaenaz has an intimate relationship) to write to Aiyaz Khaiyum.

Similarly, in the private sector, Bank of South Pacific has PNG interests but appears a minor player compwhen ared to Australia and New Zealand, who own ANZ and Westpac Banks. And then it is the Indian interest through the ownership of Bank of Baroda.

We therefore question why foreign owned corporations or in case of Air Pacific 46% ownership, are quiet when the corporations are included in the Decree? 

Almost a week has passed since the announcement of the Regulations under the Decree but ANZ, Westpac, Bank of Baroda, BSP and Qantas have all remained silent. Have they forgotten that they are required to abide by standards and regulations governing trade unions and workers in their own countries, which by the way give protection to the workers and unions? And what about the governments of Australia, New Zealand and India who are not blind and can see the ramifications of the collusion between the regime and the corporations?

In the absence of any answers or public positions, there is a growing perception of collusion between the foreign owned corporations and the regime, leading us to predict a period of uncertainty in the industrial relations front in future.

We now publish in full the documents named above.

David Pfleiger's memo confirming Andy Cook's appointment

David Plflieger's letter to Aiyaz Khaiyum urging the regime to include Pacific Sun as a Designated Corporation under the ENI Decree


Draft copy of letter by Shaenaz Voss that was to be sent to Pacific Sun employees last Friday

Regime fights to save Fiji's reputation as 'safe, peaceful and attractive'

Tony and Barbara Smith of Perth.

Oh, dear. This poor Australian couple have been unwittingly roped in to help prove the illegal regime claim that Fiji is a safe and attractive place to visit. 

Tony and Barbara Smith are part of what we feel is a rather desperate effort to get tourists and visitors to rave about a country that has been under military rule now for nearly five years.

The Smith's are Fiji Village's star tourist couple in a story headlined "Fiji very peaceful and calm -Tourists." While, obviously, not directly organised by the regime, the article clearly seeks to endorse its effort to defend itself from international criticism.

NARSEY
The president of the New Zealand law society, Jonathan Temms, yesterday released a statement saying Fiji is a totalitarian regime and that four foreigners, including two New Zealanders, had recently died in unexplained circumstances in Fiji's tourist belt. He said there was a degree of lawlessness and lack of transparency in the country. 


Temm also said the Fiji Law Society had been taken over by the regime and that its headquarters had been destroyed in an unsolved arson. And he noted the military had removed staff critical of the regime from USP, referring to economist Professor Wadan Narsey who has been fired, a story Coupfourpointfive broke last month along with the tourist deaths the regime had tried to play down.


REALITY
Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum has today tried to dismiss Temm's comments saying they lack substance.


A miffed Khaiyum says Temm and members of the New Zealand Law Society have been repeatedly invited to Fiji to meet the legal profession, including the country's Chief Justice, so they can decide for themselves "the true situation with regard to the rule of law in Fiji and the introduction of modern and just laws."


"Instead, Temm prefers to rely on hearsay and exaggerated opinions, not to mention untruthful reporting by sections of the New Zealand media. Freedom of religion continues to be respected in Fiji. At no time has anybody been prevented from attending or entering or praying, including in churches.

“Temm suggests that the four foreigners including two New Zealanders who died recently were victims of lawlessness claiming that they died in unexplained circumstances. This is a lie. Temm needs to verify his facts simply by checking with the Police.


“The hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit Fiji on a daily basis will be able to tell Temm that Fiji is a safe, attractive and peaceful holiday destination for everybody, including New Zealanders. The increased growth in tourism numbers in particular from Australia and New Zealand is a testimony to this."


Khaiyum, who has been proven by this blog and others as a liar, claimed Temm's information was unreliable.


“If Temm had bothered to investigate some of these outrageous claims for himself instead of relying on untruths from sections of the New Zealand media or politically motivated individuals from Fiji, he would know, inter alia, that the Fiji Law Society has not closed, there was no arson attack on its premises, no professors were removed by the Fijian Government, and all people, including New Zealanders, have equal access to the law in Fiji." 


Khaiyum can keep extolling the virtues of the regime but the international community are increasingly speaking up about the realities in Fiji.


Just two days ago, the ILO head, Juan Somavia, denounced the regime's latest decree, the one marginalising workers and trade unions.



The following comments from the Fiji Village story on the Smiths:
We have found Fiji very peaceful and calm.
A couple from Perth Australia, 79 year old Tony and Barbara Smith have plans to visit Fiji next year as they are amongst hundreds of tourists who flocked in the Suva City for a day visit in a tourist vessel this morning.
Another tourist Ben Dubael was enjoying the sunny weather in Suva saying he found no nasty people around.
He also did some shopping for himself and his family.
Many tourists were seen buying handicraft from retail outlets, having lunch with their loved ones in restaurants and sightseeing around the capital city.

India link to Fiji Minister's $2million deposit

Fiji Sun Sunday, February 17, 2008

Political sympathisers channelled money through Sydney consulate
 
BY VICTOR LAL

 
The Government of India’s Consulate General in Sydney acted as a conduit to secretly channel over half a million dollars into an interim Cabinet minister’s private bank account in Australia in 2002 that was collected by his  
political sympathisers in India, according to the Minister’s tax file. The same political sympathisers also, separately, on two different occasions, in 2000 and 2001, transacted nearly one million dollars into the Minister’s same bank account in Australia. 

 
The transaction linking the Consulate to the movement of funds from India to Australia was confirmed by the Minister’s own delegated tax agent, a Suva based chartered accountants, who notified FIRCA, Fiji Inland Revenue and Customs Authority, on November 15, 2004 that, “The taxpayer (the Minister) received funds amounting to A$514,148.50 on 15 April 2002 from Consulate General which was deposited in Cash Management Call Account maintained by him with Commonwealth Bank, Australia (Refer statement 31 in attached Schedule 4).”

 
An Indian parliamentarian of a leading political party also confirmed the role of the Indian Consulate-General in a letter to the Minister on 9 September 2004, in response to the Minister’s letter of enquiry about “the details of the funds”. The Indian parliamentarian had written to the Minister in Hindi (later translated for FIRCA into English): “The total amounting to nearly AUD fifteen lakhs was sent to you with the help of Government of India through its Consulate General in Sydney. We sent AUD 503,000/- as first instalment in the year 2000. In 2001, AUD 486,890/- was sent and then in 2002 AUD 514,148 was sent”.

 
The statements provided by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia confirm that $503,000 was deposited into the Minister’s private bank account on November 1, 2000; $486,890 on February 22, 2001; and $514,148.50 by the Indian Consulate-General on April 15, 2002.

 
The funds had been collected, according to the Indian parliamentarian’s letter, for the Minister’s settlement in Australia. A committee formed on his behalf by the parliamentarian and others in India had wanted the Minister to leave Fiji because it was not safe for him (the Minister) in the country. FIRCA, therefore, found there was no evidence that the money was intended for the Minister’s community in Fiji, and he was therefore told to pay up his tax. The Minister had claimed that the money was kept for his community. He could not also furnish a trust deed to back up his claim, and the fact that the bank account was solely held in his name.

 
In 2004, FIRCA found that the Minister had not submitted his tax returns for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. He was later assessed and slapped with a $120,000 tax bill. He was also found not to have disclosed the interest of $A25,233 that he had earned on his Australian bank balance.

 
In the course of its investigation, FIRCA’s Income Matching Unit (IMU) became aware of his bank accounts in Australia and New Zealand and, on May 11, 2004, wrote to him advising him that they had received information from surveys and banks and financial institutions that he was in receipt of income, which had either not been declared or under declared.

 
In accordance with the provisions of Section 50(5) of the Income Tax Act Cap 201, he was asked to furnish details of (a) interest earned on all private bank accounts operated by him and his family, both in Fiji and overseas from the year ending December 31, 1998 up until December 31, 2002; copies of rental agreement from year 1998 to 2002; copies of any certificate of dividends received from 1998 to 2002; and a copy of the trust deed. He was given 14 days to make representation to FIRCA on receipt of the letter.

 
On May 18, 2004, the Minister wrote to IMU informing that interest on bank accounts earned in Fiji had been declared in his tax returns. Members of his family who were taxpayers filed their own returns and invited FIRCA to enquire from them. He said he did not have any rental agreements with any person or organisation that earned him any income. The Minister said he did not receive any dividends as he was not a shareholder in any company and he did not hold any trust deeds. What about the moneys abroad? The Minister claimed: “In so far as interest from moneys held in accounts abroad are concerned, please be advised that these have not been brought to Fiji but remain re-invested in the accounts there.”

 
On June 3, 2004, the IMU pointed out to the Minister that he had amassed interest and dividends for the year ending 2002 of $29,606.84 and there was a discrepancy of the same amount. On the margins of the Minister’s May 18, 2004 letter, certain questions were raised, and the same were later repeated in a letter to the Minister on June 15, 2004. The letter re-iterated that he was required to clarify queries with copies of documentary evidence: (a) the source of funds invested offshore; (b) when did he first invest these monies; (c) details of interest earned from when he first invested; and (d) copies of bank statements and documentary evidences of any tax deducted at source.

 
The next day, June 16, the Minister wrote asking for an extension of time to provide the information because “old records will need to be looked up to obtain the details”, and that the banks had requested more time be given. He also disclosed that he had some travel and parliamentary commitments and therefore asked if he could be given until August 15, 2004 to furnish the details. FIRCA granted him the requested extension. On August 14, the chartered accountancy firm wrote to FIRCA notifying it that the Minister had appointed the accountancy firm to act as his tax agent. The firm asked for further extension till September 15, 2004, which was granted.

 
On September 3, 2004, representatives from the accountancy firm visited FIRCA and wanted to know the information that was needed by the tax organisation. They were referred to the letter of June 16, and informed that FIRCA was after the most important detail, and that was “the source of the income”. The accountancy firm stated that the information would be submitted by September 15, 2004.

 
But on September 13, it again wrote to FIRCA asking for further extension until October 15, prompting FIRCA to warn the firm that no further extension would be granted. However, considering that the firm was still awaiting confirmations from the Minister, it agreed to the extension but stressed that, “Please be advised that information gathered and “on hand” by your client should be submitted by that date”.

 
On October 4, 2004 the accountancy firm wrote to FIRCA enclosing details of the income earned by the Minister for the periods based on the documents provided by the banks together with summary of income and withholding taxes deducted at source including: (a) dividend income from Perpetual Investments, Australia; (b) interest income from ANZ, New Zealand; (c) income received from Commonwealth Balanced Fund; (d) interest income from Commonwealth Bank, Australia; (e) income from Colonial First State Investments Limited.

 
On behalf of the Minister, they stated that, “We advise that above income were not included in the tax returns as these contributions and income there from were sourced and earned overseas and the relevant withholding taxes on the income are deducted at source”. The capital contributions being the deposits in the bank account in the form of donations, they argued, were received from non-residents and attached were the relevant confirmations – the Indian parliamentarian’s letter to the Minister about the transfer of funds.

 
On October 5, 2004, FIRCA officials met with one of the accountants and according to FIRCA’s office memo they identified details of bank accounts, confirmation of the letter from the parliamentarian that the money was raised in India for the Minister, and that half a million dollars was transacted through the Indian Consulate-General in Sydney. One FIRCA officer observed on the office memo: “Transmitted to Australia – How?” and regarding the parliamentarian’s letter: “More substantive evidence to support the lttr.”

 
On October 22, 2004, FIRCA wrote to the accountancy firm regarding the October 5 meeting and for the submission of information the firm had “on hand” at the meeting. FIRCA informed them that they (FIRCA) had examined the documents and would be amending the income tax returns for the respective years. However, they would not be allowing the tax credits due to lack of documentary evidence.

 
FIRCA also emphasised that despite it amending the returns, the tax organisation would still be pursuing the “source of the funds” issue. “The document submitted explaining the source of the funds is not sufficient enough for our purposes,” it stressed. It, therefore, requested the chartered accountancy firm to forward documentary evidences – (a) details of remittances from India to Australia; (b) details of withholding tax deducted; (c) and as requested in their letter of 15 June 2004, the copies of bank statements. A copy of the letter was also forwarded to the Minister. On November 10, 2004, the Minister paid $86,069.02 in outstanding income tax for 2000.

 
On November 22, 2004, one of the partners in the accountancy firm replied to the letter, confirming the payment of $86,069.02, noting that, “The tax paid by our client includes 2004 provisional tax amounting to F$34,962”. He also pointed out: “We note that credit for non-resident withholding tax deducted at source amounting to $22,858.03 has not been considered by Inland Revenue.” The accountant also enclosed summary details of the non-resident withholding tax deducted by banks and institutions in Australia and New Zealand together with copies of the bank statements evidencing the deduction of tax at sources for the years 2000 to 2003 in relation to investment companies etc.

 
In the same letter, the accountant also admitted the payment by the Indian Consulate General of $514,148.50 into the Minister’s Cash Management Call account in the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. He also requested FIRCA to make the necessary amendments for the years 2000 to 2003 and the Statement of Tax Account to include credits for the non-resident withholding tax amounting to $22,858.03.

 
The documents provided by the accountancy firm to FIRCA reveal that the Minister had opened the Cash Management Call account in the Commonwealth Bank of Sydney branch at Ryde. On August 8, 1997, he had an opening balance of $A58.16 in his name. Three years later, on August 10, 2000, he made a deposit of $13,001into that account, and four days later, on August 12, $502.80.

 
Between 2000 and 2003 he made further deposits as follows: $503,000 (fund from India), $486,890 (fund from India), $8,461.00 (possibly also fund from India for it has the same transfer code), $79,330.89, $10,000, $6,000, $514,148.50 (through Consulate-General), $378,978.18, $46,000, $50,000, $10,00 and $47,398.37.

 
Naturally, between October 10, 2000 and March 20, 2003, the Minister also made a series of small and large withdrawals towards property and other expenses such as spending money in camera, hardware, electrical, shoe and food shops, the purchase of airline tickets from Qantas and at Sydney’s international duty free shop. Between October 10, 2000 and March 20, 2003, he withdrew as follows: $6000, $6,800, $400,000, $400,00, $55,000, $10,000, $6,000, $7,266.10, $38,000, $100,000, $25,825.89, $30,030, $469,000, $380,000, $46,000, $50,000, $6,000, $8,000, and $5,000.

 
In June 2001, the Minister gave an address in Sydney as his contact address but in October 2001 he changed it to a close relative’s address in another part of a Sydney suburb as his home and correspondence address. He also gave his daughter $50,000 as gift, and it has also emerged that a close relative of his also bought a house for $300,000, paying cash for the property.

 
Meanwhile, on receipt of information from different sources, FIRCA’s investigating officers were instructed to verify the original sources of all investment deposits into the Minister’s Australian bank account, details of bank withdrawals, a thorough analysis of some withdrawals below $5,000, confirmation of all assets of the Minister in Australia, a check to establish whether there were any violations of the Fiji Foreign Exchange Act, and finally to audit his tax file to ascertain the true financial wealth of the interim Cabinet Minister.

 
The December 5, 2006 coup, carried out to stamp out rampant corruption, cut short FIRCA’s investigation into establishing the truth about the real financial worth of the minister.
There is no evidence that his community in Fiji benefited from the $2million that was collected in India and secretly channelled into his private bank account through the Indian Consulate-General in Sydney.

 
And in June 2007, the Interim Cabinet Minister had still owed $57,672.09 in taxes to FIRCA.

Prasad back in Suva with 'investors' in tow

John Prasad
The former permanent secretary of finance, John Prasad, is back in town.

Prasad, who disappeared to Auckland, was known to have scammed the country while at the Water Authority of Fiji and almost ran the Fiji Sugar Corporation to the ground.

He's been seen around Suva, with  'potential investors' in tow.

Inside sources say it looks like the former pool equipment salesman is back in the good books of the dictator, Frank Bainimarama, and the illegal attorney general, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, after last year being moved on as CEO of the Fiji Sugar Corporation.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Chaudhry's past comes back to haunt him

We have searched write-ups and opinions about Mahendra Chaudhry's stash in Australia (the subject of a criminal case) and have found articles written by Victor Lal and Kamal Iyer.

We bring you the first of some of the opinions written by Kamal Iyer and will reveal more articles that will show how Chaudhry has changed his tune. The following article titled "Ghost of Valelawa lives on" was published by the Fiji Times on 13th March 2008.

Ghost of Valelawa lives on 

By KAMAL IYER

Thursday, March 13, 2008
Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, right, has come under fire for keeping money in his Australian bank accounts
BY now the people of Fiji have digested the information on interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry's tax details and the $1.6million tucked away in his bank account Down Under.

 Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, right, has come under fire for keeping money in his Australian bank accounts

By now the people of Fiji have digested the information on interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry's tax details and the $1.6million tucked away in his bank account Down Under.


After challenging The Fiji Times to name the interim minister on February 21 — reported on the front page of the country's first and oldest newspaper a day later, Chaudhry and the nation woke up to bold front page headline on February 23 proclaiming: "It's Chaudhry".


Not to be outdone, the Fiji Sun on Feb 24 proclaimed it was now time for the real story. Having highlighted stories about an interim minister's tax affairs since August 2007, the Fiji Sun through its correspondent, London-based Victor Lal, even published a letter written in Hindi and translated in English, supposedly penned by one Harbhajan Lal of Haryana, India, detailing how much money was channeled into Chaudhry's Australian accounts. 


Of course a day later, Fiji Sun publisher and managing director Russell Hunter was taken from his Tamavua home in Suva, transported to Nadi and bundled into an Air Pacific flight to Sydney on February 26 and told not to re-enter Fiji. That is another story. 


But revelations that Chaudhry attempted to evade tax on his overseas accounts have spread like wildfire. In the midst of all this, the real point has been ignored. And that is whether Chaudhry indeed pocketed money raised in the name of the poor, the ordinary and downtrodden citizens and cane farmers of Fiji who happened to be his power base in the last three general elections. 

Firstly, let me dissect Harbhajan Lal's letter from Haryana. In the letter dated September 9, 2004, Lal is replying to Chaudhry's queries about money raised in Haryana because Lal writes that "you (Chaudhry) have asked details of the funds". 


Lal then outlines the details of three deposits worth AUD$1.6 million to Chaudhry's Australian bank accounts in 2000, 2001 and 2002.
Why did Chaudhry write to Harbhajan Lal after already having received money from Haryana? 


If indeed the money was collected for Chaudhry's re-settlement in Australia as claimed in Lal's letter, what has Chaudhry been doing in Fiji since his released from captivity by George Speight in July 2000?


If Chaudhry had changed his mind and decided to remain a Fiji citizen, wasn't it morally and ethically correct to return the money to Haryana and tell the Indian State of his ancestors that sorry, I don't need the money because Fiji is safe and I have decided to remain in the paradise island! 


But morality, transparency and accountability disappeared in this case.
Secondly, why did Chaudhry tell the House of Representatives on December 2, 2005, that he had not received a cent from Haryana or its former Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala? 


Chaudhry told Parliament what he told the media both in India and Fiji that he had not received any money.
He told the Lower House that he asked Chautala to clarify the matter to the media. Chaudhry also told Parliament that because the issue was casting doubts about his honesty and integrity, he wrote to the Indian Minister for External Affairs Yashwant Sinha on February 24, 2003, asking him amongst other things for the Government of India to institute an inquiry to the matter so "this rather sordid affair is put to rest once and for all". 


Chaudhry stated in the letter he will not condone an "act of dishonesty perpetuated under his name, particularly when its victims are the poor and disadvantage in the society". 


The questions, therefore, all right-thinking citizens need to ask Chaudhry are these: After having written to Yashwant Sinha asking the Indian Government to inquire into the sordid fundraising affair, why did you write to Harbhajan Lal inquiring about the funds? Why did you ask Yashwant Sinha to institute an inquiry into the matter despite knowing that you had the money safely tucked away in your Australian bank accounts? Were you expecting more than AUD$1.6 million from Haryana? Did you doubt Harbhajan Lal's integrity? 


And why seek a response from a little known figure like Harbhajan Lal about funds when you requested Yashwant Sinha to institute an inquiry to clear your name? Why did you tell FIRCA that the money was held in trust for your people in Fiji when no such trust account was opened but the funds kept in your name? Why did you fail to declare $220,000 income derived from the Australian bank accounts to FIRCA? And who were you trying to fool? 


The most glaring contradiction and indeed a sordid comment on the whole fiasco was given to a local radio station Legend FM and to The Fiji Times by the current Fiji Labour Party treasurer and Nasinu Mayor Rajeshwar Kumar. 


Kumar said all the money collected for farmers by Chaudhry was spent on refugee farmers at Valelawa camp created by the National Farmers Union after the May 2000 coup and on Muainaweni farmers who were taken to the Girmit Centre in Lautoka. 


Kumar told Legend FM that the Haryana funds were for Chaudhry's re-settlement in Australia. If this is true, isn't Kumar concerned with what his leader is doing in Fiji? Can Kumar publish a breakdown of monies used on people at Girmit Centre and Valelawa? What was the intention to set up the Valelawa camp? 


At the time of its establishment after May 2000, the NFU and FLP claimed the camp was housing farmers and their families as well as those forcibly removed from their homes. 


In January 2001, Chaudhry invited Commonwealth Peace Envoy Justice Pius Langa of South Africa to visit Valelawa.
Justice Langa told the FLP leader and the camp occupants that the solutions to their problems did not lie in packing their bags and running away. 


A month later, an SBS television crew was invited to visit Valelawa, in an attempt to portray Chaudhry as saviour of farmers. One of the excerpts of the interview quotes Chaudhry as saying while talking to a farmer, "You have played here since you were little? Don't worry, the world is big enough for everyone." 


This obviously meant the camp's sponsors had promised farmers overseas resettlement.
In mid-2001, 28 families in the camp signed a petition alleging NFU officials were forcing them to enter into an agreement with the union and that those who did not would be denied basic needs. 


They recalled how in the aftermath of the 2000 coup, NFU and FLP officials toured the Northern Division cane belt urging farmers to move to Valelawa promising them food rations, hospital care, education for the children, security, transport, water supply and even a children's park. 


Farmers who even had leases of up to eight, 12 and even 15 years quit their farms. But the truth surfaced a bit late for them.


On October 24, 2001, The Fiji Times carried a front page story highlighting the plight of the camp occupants after the landowner, one Ram Narayan, threatened to evict them because NFU and FLP failed to pay any rent to him.
Farmer Sukh Ram told the newspaper that they had been cheated. He said: "We were told the land had been bought and after three months we'll go overseas." Mr Ram said his daughter died because she could not be transported to the hospital. 


The plight of the unsuspecting victims of Valelawa is best captured by Fiji Television journalist Anish Chand whose news item on Feb 2, 2003, described the horrific conditions and inhumane treatment of the families in the camp. It is appropriate to re-produce Chand's television story to understand the exploitation of the Valelawa occupants that Rajeshwar Kumar claims were assisted by Chaudhry's overseas collected funds: Anish Chand: "Our visit to Valelawa was without notice no politician or people representing the refugees were told of our surprise visit. And this is what our cameras caught ... children smiling but without any future families huddled together in darkness thinking what the next light will bring."


Sukh Ram: "There is no other option we have, there are plenty of trees around here and we also don't have to look for a rope, what is life when you can't enjoy it. Now we are thinking if we didn't come here, it would have been better. Life is so miserable. I mean there is nothing to eat, us adults can remain hungry but what about the children?"


Shanti Devi: "If our children don't have education, then how are they going to support us, the school is about to open and we haven't got any money to send the kids to school". Whilst it is understandable that Rajeshwar Kumar will go to any lengths to defend and save Chaudhry, the reality of Valelawa that I have just described demolishes his claim that the "refugees" were financially assisted. 


The other issue here is Kumar's statement on Legend FM that after becoming treasurer of the Fiji Labour Party last year, he has looked through un-audited accounts of the party, however, he has found nothing sinister. Which un-audited accounts is Kumar talking about?


According to his leader, Labour accounts are audited every year. 


Can therefore the former Labour treasurer, Agni Deo Singh, enlighten the people of Fiji about the un-audited accounts that he failed to get audited during his term as FLP treasurer? 


Lastly, the FLP management board members over the years have a lot to answer. Weren't they aware of the overseas bank accounts of their leader? 


If not, why didn't they question Chaudhry after repeated rumours on the overseas funds all these years until it was recently exposed? Therefore, they are equally to be blamed.


All religious scriptures state that a person's past will one day return to haunt him or her. 


The Haryana financial windfall for Mahendra Chaudhry and the ghost of Valelawa live on. 


Kamal Iyer is a former journalist and is the former research/ administration officer in the NFP Parliamentary Opposition Office

Chaudhry purportedly told Bainimarama and Khaiyum about the money

CHAUDHRY: Purportedly helping the poor.



By Anit Singh

Interesting questions as a result of the admission from the former Fiji prime minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, that he had told Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum about the money he is accused of hiding in an Australian bank account.

With Justice Daniel Gounder failing to object to the disclosure by Chaudhry's lawyer, Peter Williams QC, and because Chaudhry confirmed to FIRCA the money belonged to the public, does this mean that he does not need to produce documentary evidence in Court that the money is purportedly still in his bank account, because he has purportedly informed Bainimarama and Khaiyum?


Is this why the judge has said the judgment will be made on notice, as he may have to take purported directions from Khaiyum?


Was Chaudhry trying to tell the judge that his court is not independent and that he has to take direction from Khaiyum before passing judgment?  Or was Chaudhry making deals with Khaiyum? 


Why did Chaudhry visit Khaiyum at all to discuss his case and money and then inform the Court of his reported visit to AG and PM? What is Chaudhry or his QC really trying to tell the Judge? Is there an element of further corruption here? 


And who is Bainimarama in the scheme of things to tell Chaudhry he can keep the money?


Chaudhry, while responding to a question from Laisenia Qarase in November 2005, had told Parliament he DID NOT receive a single cent from India in his personal bank account for ‘himself’ and purportedly wrote a letter to India complaining of not getting any money as was promised to him. 


Would this, then, not be enough to say that the personal donation money had not arrived, supported by Chaudhry’s own letter that he made public in Parliament? And when he failed to hide the money when he got caught, he started calling SDL corrupt instead.


Therefore, the portion of the donation that did come through his bank account was NOT for himself and should have been handed over to the refugee camp at Lautoka Girmit Centre, given that these were the only identified victims of the political crisis, whose plight was spoken about at every speech Chaudhry made.


Has Williams provided a reconciliation of how much money Chaudhry has in question and where all the money came from - and at what intervals did they arrive? And where did it say that it was his money and not given ‘through him’ as the sole trustee in his capacity as deposed PM of the deposed Government, when in fact it was for victim support at the refugee camp?


As part of public interest in this case, the Court should have also been informed by DPP of the freelance Hindi journalist residing in Auckland, who was taken to Fiji by Fiji Human Rights Group (NZ) to report the plight of refugee camp victims for Hindi TV Stations in Hariana and across a host of other Indian TV stations. 


Chaudhry’s invitation to meet Om Chautala, the State Minister of Hariana, was arranged by Mr Rohit Kumar ‘Happy’. Therefore, the Lautoka Girmit Centre Refugee Camp was directly behind the Indian TV news and Chaudhry’s profile in Hariana. 

Williams should show evidence, too, that the victim families of the 2000 coup were not part of Chaudhry’s emotional speech in India. And if Chaudhry can, let him prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not collect a single cent by using victims of Muaniweni as his emotional speeches, and that the public of Hariana were not aware of the refugee camp in Lautoka before Chaudhry arrived in Hariana.


Because is it not true that Chaudhry, by his own mouth, told Parliament (and recorded in Hansard report of November 2005) that he did not get any money from India for himself?


And has DPP taken notice that Williams told the court that Chaudhry ‘thought’ he was entitled to keep money because he has told the Government; when Chaudhry also previously told the Government (FIRCA) through his accountant, that the money he was holding onto he was keeping in trust for the public; and that the ONLY public at that time of donation happened to be mostly victims who were residing at Lautoka Girmit Centre?

By Williams stating ‘thought’ appears to confirm Chaudhry himself now ‘doubts’ if the money indeed belongs to him or is it that he should have passed it onto the Fiji Human Rights Group (NZ) in the first instance?


Would it, therefore, not be fair to say that Chaudhry must show evidence of his speech to the Indian public, Indian Media and Minister to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ALL the money was a personal gift to him and not a single cent was donated to the Lautoka Refugee Camp run by Fiji Human Rights Group (NZ) Inc from all that he received in his personal bank account?


Tax payment is a secondary matter which was paid after having been disputed, so the dispute itself is confirmation that a significant portion of money did indeed belong, purportedly, to the Lautoka Refugee Camp which this court should address.


If the court will stay on the proceedings, the Fiji First Party (who contributed this article) says it will appeal that purported decision by filing an appeal as a new party to this case on the ownership of this money, which shall be done within 28 days after decision taken, unless there is another decree to stop us doing so ... or unless Chaudhry offers 50% of the money to the group prior to the judgment handed down!


Time to test the DPP if they will support the purported appeal on these grounds and see if they are still purportedly independent?

  
Twist in Chaudhry trial
Fiji Village
http://www.fijivillage.com/?mod=story&id=130911eb08fd3306e8c6c4d2f9a3f2 
 Money was a donation – QC Williams
Fiji Village
http://www.fijivillage.com/?mod=story&id=12091138b12a7f259aa5fc0018d1d2