#header-inner img {margin: 0 auto !important; #header-inner {text-align: Center ;} Fiji Coupfourpointfive: Dodgy Australians and Kiwis abroad

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Dodgy Australians and Kiwis abroad

By Professor Wadan Narsey

Whatever the merits of the Australian Government’s failed attempt to charge Julian Moti for “Child Sex Offences outside Australia”, that incident raises a wider legal question regarding Australian and NZ citizens who commit, or aid and abet other crimes in foreign countries.

Under the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995 (Division 272 and 273), Australian citizens, residents and corporations may be charged for Child Sex Offences or child pornography or child abuse material, even if committed outside Australia. The offences also include “benefiting from, encouraging or preparing for sexual offences against children outside Australia”.

The principle behind this legislation is undeniable: being a citizen (or Permanent Resident) of Australia not only gives the person privileges and protections in Australia and abroad, but it also imposes responsibilities on the citizen, when abroad, to follow the laws of the host country, and not bring disrepute to Australia.

The child sex legislation is also predicated on the principle that Australian citizens should not be engaging in child sex activities abroad which would be considered to be criminal under Australian laws, if perpetrated within Australia or NZ.

So why does Australia not have comparable legislation for other activities abroad, which would also be considered criminal, if committed in Australia and abroad as well?

Is the over-throw of a lawful government, support of an illegal Regime which denies its citizens' basic human rights as defined by United Nations, not as serious as child sex or international terrorism activities?

Specifically in the case of Fiji, when would Australian and NZ citizens' support for the Military Regime amount to clear support of "unlawful" activities, which the Australian and NZ governments would like to discourage?

I suggest that April 2009 would be the watershed date to separate out the legally safe "do-gooders", from those who can be said to knowingly disregard the rule of law and courts in Fiji.

Overthrow of a lawful government is serious
Clearly, the Australian and NZ governments had the view from 2006 that the overthrow of Fiji’s lawfully elected government by the Fiji Military Forces was unlawful and totally unacceptable to them. Despite the expulsion of their High Commissioners from Fiji, they have steadfastly maintained their stance for the last five years.

Also sharing and supporting this stance have been Forum Secretariat, the Commonwealth, and the EU, which are solid regional and international organizations, and extremely valuable part of Fiji's historical external alliances.

Those Australian and NZ citizens who put up their hands to support the Regime after 2006 may have had some legal legitimacy with the Gates, Pathik and Byrne 2008 judgment that the coup was "legal".

That semblance of legality ended when the 2009 Court of Appeal judged that Gates, Pathik and Byrne were wrong in their judgment. Iloilo and Bainimarama put a stamp on their illegality by purporting to abrogate the 1997 Constitution the day after.

Since then, the Regime followed that up with a large number of Military Decrees, which all additionally state that their actions cannot be challenged in court- i.e. no Fiji court or rule of law would be allowed to apply to these Military Decrees.

The Military Regime continues to deny its citizens a whole range of basic human rights such as freedom of speech, media freedom, freedom of assembly, freedom to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, protection of private property, accountability for the use of tax-payers funds, and most importantly, the right to take one’s grievances to an independent court for resolution.

All these rights are taken for granted in Australia and NZ, by those very people who actively support and defend the Military Regime in Fiji, some pathetically claiming with paternal condescension that it is OK for some of the these rights in Fiji to be eroded for some "greater good" yet to be seen.

What about Australian and NZ citizens?
Given the official Australian and NZ government stance, it is strange that there have been many Australian and NZ citizens and Permanent Residents who have been directly and indirectly, supporting the Fiji Military Regime, even after the 2009 Court of Appeal judgment.

As in the legislation on child sex offences outside Australia, a legal case can clearly be made that since 2009, they have been “benefiting from, encouraging or preparing for" the over-throw of a lawfully elected government.

If they perpetrated or supported similar activities in Australia or NZ, they would be prosecuted by the Australian and NZ states, and condemned by society at large.

But there appear to be no Australian and NZ laws which discourage their citizens, residents and corporations from aiding and abetting military coups and unlawful regimes abroad, whether for money or personal satisfaction.

Indeed, it is a total contradiction that Australia and NZ allow their citizens to return home to enjoy all the basic human rights there, that they directly or indirectly, help to deny others in foreign countries.

What is more contradictory is that Australia and NZ impose sanctions on ordinary Fiji soldiers' relatives (such as rugby and netball players), thereby denying their basic human rights: by no stretch of the imagination could they be held responsible for the actions of their relatives.

The case of FNPF's foreign consultants
Look at the strange media statement put out by two foreign consultants to the FNPF.

One consultant was from a prominent Australian firm, hired by FNPF to provide technical assistance on the reforms of the FNPF Act) and other from a NZ university, hired by FNPF to develop actuarial and data analysis capacity.

It would have been quite acceptable if these consultants' role had been only to offer consultancy services to help FNPF's sustainability over the long run, through lawful means allowed in the FNPF Act and Fiji laws.

But their media statements effectively justified Military Decrees whose very legality was being challenged in the High Court through the Burness/Shameem case.

These two consultants wrote a Fiji Times article purporting to counter 10 alleged “myths” about the FNPF reform. Read it here (and look at the faces of the pensioners in the photo). http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?ref=archive&id=188644

They footnoted their article with a strange statement "Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are the authors' own and are not intended as legal or financial advice".

There is no need to rebut their arguments on the alleged 10 Myths, as my own detailed submission for the Burness/Shameem legal case (censored from the Fiji media) implicitly did that. A reader-friendly version may be read here:


The consultants' allegation on Myth 2 however claimed that the FNPF reforms did not involve FNPF “breaking contracts with pensioners”; they claimed that the FNPF was paying the pensioners an annuity not because they had a contract, but because the “Minister” decided what annuity they should receive under the “old Act”, and when the “old Act” was “abolished” by the 2012 Military Decree, then the pensioners' entitlement also vanished, ipso facto.

The consultants boldly stated “The legal correctness of this analysis has been confirmed by the Solicitor General”. Really? "Confirmed"?

The issue is not whether this interpretation was correct or whether the David Burness/Shameem case would have been successful (as the pensioners' lawyer and I thought).

The real issue is that these foreign consultants were making a statement clearly in contempt of the Fiji High Court, which had already accepted that case and set a date for the hearing to decide that very issue.

Would they be allowed to peddle such a view in Australia or NZ that it was acceptable for the Australian Solicitor General and the Attorney General, who were named parties in a legal case to become judges, jury and executioners in their own case.

Burness (and all the adversely affected pensioners) could of course ask the consultant: "if the Attorney General and Solicitor General were so sure of the correctness of this analysis, why did their Military Decree state that the Registrar of Courts must throw out any related case already in court"? Why not let the allegedly independent judiciary decide on the case?

[Bored readers should read these expert consultants' views on their "Myth 3" claiming that the contributors to FNPF and the pensioners do not own FNPF, but the Board does. What a gem. What horrendous implications for the accountability of anything owned by taxpayers in Fiji].

Consultants' employers and rogue multinationals abroad

There is a much broader issue here for the Australian and NZ governments whose companies operate under illegal regimes abroad, whether in Fiji or elsewhere.

Globally, multinational corporations, try to ensure that they receive favorable treatment in royalties, taxes, labor legislation and environmental regulations covering their investments in minerals, oils or major commodities.

They have shown themselves to have no scruples about helping in the overthrow of lawfully elected governments in order to install puppet governments (hence the term “Banana Republics” describing countries in Latin America who were totally subservient to the American banana multinationals).

Thankfully, multinationals are being increasingly taken to task by international watch-dogs for unlawful or bad corporate practices that lead to bad governance and often devastating political instability in Third World countries.

Multinationals have to be also on guard that their employees in foreign countries, do not aid or abet illegal practices there. Some, like Nike, have had to clean up their employment practices in Third World countries such as China, which are not illegal per se, but just considered unfair in their home countries where the products are sold.

The Australian consultant for FNPF worked for a global company with offices all over the world, and whose website prides itself on "unparalleled regulatory credibility and insight". Presumably this company is also glad to operate in a world where independent judiciaries could always be counted upon as the bastion of last recourse to any disagreements they might have, with either governments or other corporate entities.

This Australian consultant had also worked for World Bank, Asian Development Bank and AusAID - which would ordinarily be expected to give her professional credibility.

While the two consultants stated in the Fiji Times article that their views were personal, they did not explicitly state, as is usually the case in the Fiji Times articles, that the article did not represent the views of their employers in Australia and NZ.

These questions may very legitimately be put to them:

1. As Australian an NZ citizens, were they justifying the Regime’s illegal Military Decrees in Fiji which broke the pensioners contracts and eroded their basic human rights, especially to personal property?

2. Were they implicitly justifying the Military Decree which removed the pensioners' legal case already before the High Court, thereby denying their basic human right to take their just grievances to court, as well as compromising the independence of the judiciary and the High Court judge concerned?

3. Were their respective employers in Australia and NZ supporting their statement in the media?

4. Were they knowingly taking part in this media propaganda, while being aware that all opposing statements by the pensioners' lawyer (Dr Shameem), opinion pieces by academics, and even letters from aggrieved pensioners, all Fiji citizens, were being totally censored in the Fiji media?

The pensioners’ lawyer (Dr Shameem) was reported on the Fiji Pensioners' Website as being "certain that neither (the consultants) nor indeed the Solicitor General ... would be allowed to get away with this type of blatant abuse of power in their own countries, namely Australia and New Zealand".

And that "The NZ Law Society has already commented on Decree No 51 as purposely interfering with the power of a judge to decide a case already in the High Court."

While Dr Shameem described the foreign FNPF consultants as “carpet-baggers from Australia and NZ” (I would not, as they probably did give some valuable technical advice), the real question is, why Australia and NZ do not have laws to discourage unethical behavior by their own citizens' abroad, as they do with respect to child sex offenders?

Unfortunately for Fiji, such undesirable activities by Australian and NZ citizens are not isolated cases, and they may be expected to continue in the future.

Other Coup Supporters
Australia and NZ urgently need to examine what should be their laws regarding dozens of their citizens who are, or who have been aiding and abetting illegal activities, infringing on basic human rights in Fiji, especially after the 2009 Court of Appeal judgment.

One FNPF board member is enjoying his safe property rights and other basic human rights in NZ, while helping the FNPF Board and the Military Regime to deny them to Fiji citizens. (The Chairman of FNPF is a Sri Lankan).

Two former ADB employees and NZ citizens rapidly touched down in Fiji to help the post 2006 coup Regime, allegedly because of their great love for Fiji, their former home. (Except that when these former Fiji citizens retired from their lucrative international jobs, they invested all their savings and pensions in NZ, where they enjoy all the human rights and property protections of the law, that are denied to Fiji citizens by the very Military Regime they supported).

One of them was the driver of the "Charter" exercise which has been one ideological justification used by the Regime to hold on to power, and he kept the Regime powered till 2009 (he also he helped to push out another star, while another star was born, shining on till today).

This paid consultant has said nothing publicly (and neither has the Head of the Catholic Church, the Co-Chair of the NCBBF which allegedly approved the Charter), when the Constitution was abrogated in 2009, although the first paragraph of the Charter stated that Fiji would be guided by the 1997 Constitution (no doubt an important factor in many people putting their signatures in support of the Charter).

[Quite strangely the Regime mouthpieces keep parroting that the Yash Ghai Commission will not be allowed to revisit the 1997 Constitution, and in the same breath, their Leader keeps saying the Charter will be their guiding document for Fiji. How terribly sad that an entire country accepts this charade, day after day].

In this paid Charter consultant's most recent interview, he even accused the Australian and NZ governments of cynicism towards the Fiji Regime!

Many of the Australian and NZ citizens who have taken up key employment positions in the judiciary, civil service, statutory corporations and boards, may be excused if they took up these posts before April 2009.

But many have remained there even after the 2009 Court of Appeal judgment, when all doubt was removed about the Regime's illegality.

Some help to implement the draconian media censorship (which censors the views of citizens, while shamelessly giving prominence to Regime supporters); some assist with the judicial applications of illegal military decrees; some continue to provide ideological justification of the coups, shutting their eyes to all the abuses.

Of course, it would be difficult to prove in a court of law that they are "aiding and abetting an illegal Military Regime" and that their behavior is "criminal" in some clear way.

Of course, some may still be genuine in their views especially those who are clearly not benefiting personally: "we were just helping to return Fiji to lawful democratic rule" and to "make sure that the ordinary people do not suffer" and "anyway, look, Bainimarama is really popular amongst many Fiji citizens".

But as current Chief Justice Anthony Gates correctly stated in 2001, constitutionality and law and order are not about popularity: "For the courts cannot pronounce lawfulness based simply on the will of the majority. Nor can lawfulness be accorded to the tyranny of the mob.... Such tyranny lacks universal morality and the courts will not assist usurpers simply because they are numerous, powerful, or even popular."

It is sad for Fiji, that not only is the post-2009 Regime an unlawful government undermining basic human rights of Fiji citizens, but the end result after five and a half years of rule, is economic stagnation and increasing poverty, which the public cannot read about because of the continuing media censorship.

It is indicative that even die-hard pro-Regime supporters (to this day) like Father Kevin Barr, have had to resort to international blog-sites to get his views to the Fiji public, while his Wages Councils which have been trying to help the poorest workers in Fiji for the last five years, have been thoroughly hamstrung and effectively trashed by this Regime.

But that matters little to the elite pro-Regime supporters in Fiji and abroad.

"Arc of instability" for Australia and NZ
When the first 1987 coup took place in Fiji, Australia and NZ tended to laugh it off as a bit of blimp in the South Pacific paradise.

But in the last twenty years, there have been more Fiji coups, and civil disturbances in other Pacific countries like Solomon Islands, Tonga and PNG, and the totally ignored West Papua.

For the last year or so, there have been bitter political struggles to take control of the PNG government, with the lure of making personal fortunes from dealing with the global corporations involved in the massive natural resource boom in liquid natural gas and mining.

In the recent crises, the police and the military in PNG may have remained marginally neutral, although there was a special police unit which had to be disarmed as their loyalty was in question.

I suspect that a hundred professionally trained Fijian soldiers could have easily done a coup in PNG, for any group of disaffected politicians with the money.

There is a very real possibility that in future, political groups may begin to hire mercenaries among former army personnel from Australia, NZ and Fiji, with experience in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan, to provide backup to their political maneuverings.

Military coups cannot be ruled out, with many Melanesian leaders admiring and echoing the words of Rabuka, Speight and Bainimarama.

Ominously, the PNG judiciary, which is supposed to be the final arbiter in political stand-offs, has also had a murky role in recent weeks.

There is no guarantee that for their own financial gain, Australian and NZ nationals will not get involved in the kinds of activities that they have engaged in, in Fiji, supporting the Regime through civil service and other roles.

It is also unfortunately true that to the western world, white faces prominent in illegal regimes still imply "oh perhaps, they are OK", whatever their actual capabilities.

Which is why illegal Third World regimes hire them.

Also a matter of legal justice for Fiji victims

Many of the Military Regime’s actions are unlawfully harming property interests in Fiji of not just citizens, but foreigners.

Currently, most of these victims have no recourse to the judiciary in Fiji, as the Fiji courts are explicitly prevented by the Military Decrees from hearing their cases.

Paradoxically, some of the active coup supporters have their own homes and private personal assets safe and sound in Australia and NZ, happily protected by the laws of these two countries, while they support a Regime which erodes the same rights of Fiji citizens.

However, should any of these Australian citizens, Permanent Residents, and corporations be convicted in Australia for "crimes" against people abroad, then it is possible that the victims abroad may be able to sue them and their assets in Australia and NZ.

However hard it may be to implement such laws in reality, their mere existence would discourage Australian and NZ citizens who currently and with impunity, assist in the breaching of basic human rights abroad, as in Fiji.

For certain, Australia and New Zealand need to bring in new legislation that will discourage their own citizens from aiding and abetting activities abroad, especially if they help to worsen the "arc of instability" around Australia and NZ.


Anonymous said...

Brilliant Call Prof. Narsey:

The list of conmans who should be prosecuted is as follows;

1. John Sami
2. John Prasad
3. Robert Khan
4. Nikil Naidu
5. Francis Narayan
6. Robin Nair
7. Surendra Sharma
8. Wele Pillai
9. Rajendra Prasad
10.Thakur Ranjit Singh
11.Crosbie Walsh
12.Sada Reddy
13. YP Reddy and Family

These are key coup supporters who now live on NZ and Australia after assiting Khaiyum to commit treason made millions in fees and now enjoying the freedon and law and order overseas. bring them to Fiji and charge them there.

Thank You
good Professor


Anonymous said...

As usual the good professor has exposed the hypocrisy of the situation.And,sadly as usual the people of Fiji and elsewhere will sit on their hands and do nothing but bemoan their fate or the fate of others.When will it occur to all concerned that a free fair democratic election is not a contemplation for the PM.AG,CJ and others for they would surely end up behind bars.

Anonymous said...

Stan Howard, former Aussie PM, John Howard's brother is a partner of Phillip Bart, Australia's biggest rag trader, who has partnership interests with a Fiji rag trade set up that financed George Speight in excess of $50,000FJD during the 2000 coup d'etat.

He is also now moving to buy part of the Kalabu TFZ with his partner.

Bart emerges phoenix-like from textile fire

By Brian Robins
September 3, 2004

Philip Bart has taken control of AWM and Bruck Textiles.
Picture:Gabrielle Charotte

Sydney businessman Phil Bart has emerged from the collapse of National Textiles as one of Australia's largest rag trade players, and has taken full control of Australian Weaving Mills and Bruck Textiles.

AWM, which operates from Devonport, Tasmania, produces towelling products under brand names such as Dickies, Dri-Glo and Esprit.

Mr Bart has acquired the Tasmanian Government's half-interest in AWM in return for a pledge to upgrade its mills and safeguard jobs.

AWM, the sole remaining business of National Textiles that emerged from administration late last year, has been renamed New Bounty.

National Textiles collapsed in 2000, and federal and state governments had to help pay out more than 300 employees. It was public company controlled by Mr Bart and was chaired by Stan Howard, brother of Prime Minister John Howard.

Mr Bart now controls almost 90 per cent of AWM after a share issue earlier this year.

Separately, Mr Bart has bought out major textiles figures Joe Brender and Sam Moss from Bruck Textiles for an undisclosed price. Babcock & Brown also had a shareholding, which it inherited from its purchase of AIDC from the Federal Government.

Advertisement Advertisement

Mr Bart emerged with a half-share of Bruck after the National Textiles collapse. Bruck bought the stricken company's plant and equipment.

Bruck, claiming to be the largest weaver of man-made fibres in the southern hemisphere, has begun to specialise in textiles for the defence force and fire-resistant materials, as it seeks out profitable niches ahead of further reductions in tariff protection.

As Mr Bart was negotiating for full control of AWM, it sacked 24 employees, about 10 per cent of its workforce, citing competitive pressures from China. The Tasmanian Government is understood to have an exposure of more than $8 million.

With the purchase, Mr Bart is believed to have undertaken to invest $4.2 million upgrading the company's mills.

The Tasmanian Government has lent its weight to Mr Bart's push for more subsidies through the Federal Government's Structural Investment Program, , to further upgrade plant and equipment.

Tasmania's Economic Development Minister, Lara Giddings, said this week that AWM required a significant injection of capital if it were to take advantage of the SIP funding and to modernise.

Ms Giddings said that as a passive shareholder, her government was not well placed to take on this role.

The business needed new capital and owners that fully focused on operating the mill, she said.

In the year to June, AWM posted a net profit of $800,000 on revenue of $42.9 million

SUAR Khan said...

Vinaka Wadan I fully support your views and the culprits in the semi circle must face the music. On the treatment list must be:
Santa Maharaj,Atma Maharaj,Nick Naidu,Pramod Rae,Salesh Mudliar,Ravin Pillay[scc] chandu umaria,nasir hussen,Anwar Khan[lawyer] afzal khan,zarin ali,samsu dean etc.more names will come soon.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone noticed that the well known brown noser, Robin Nair, a close friend of Satendra 'Great Masturbator' Nandan is Fiji's ambassador to the UAE? They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to appoint this loser to represent Fiji. What a shame.

Democracy allows a citizen the choice of an Employer said...

While I have much respect of your many analysis of fiji’s political and socio economic data, I find that this article is below the belt.

Looks like that you are going insane with yoiur ditrabe of anti-government and anti-anyone who disagrees with you, especially when no one ever takes a step in fiji to gain from your analysis.

Every now and then some of these analysis are used by politicans like the SDL and its supporters to score political points.

I wish Qarase and SDL Government, had used your analysis when he was in government and the coup could have been avoided.

In a democracy, which you are fighting for, you can not deny the right of your citizens, if they chose to work even for your most hated enemies - thats what democracy is all about.

In Fiji, you have a different senario, where the government of Voreqe Bainimarama has a popular support.

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

Exactly 4.5 you have hit the nail on the head. Now what Australia and NZ need to do is make it known to those individuals currently serving the illegal regime that they are looking at jail time when they return to their countries of origin. How is it they can jump up and down about their rights in their homeland yet not care a toss about the freedoms and rights of the poor Fiji citizens? Canberra and Wellington should penalise these mercenary buggers and remove sanctions from sporting people related to the rogues, as it is no fault of their own..

goighoh said...

one co-mentors name is in the list and he is chaudhry's step son maichood SANTA MAHACHOOR MAHARAJ.

Anonymous said...

Prof - get over it & enjoy your new country.

Q? - given current Gov can't even run (fix AUS problems) what makes people like you believe they can somehow solve Viti's?

Anonymous said...

Please add Dixon Seeto, though not an Oz resident, to the list and his puppet master Hafiz Khan. They must have exit strategies and its not ot mother India or China.

@ 2.34pm - popular support???? take your medication and go back to the asylum. You obviously never ever speak to the common Fijian people you moronic retard.

Anonymous said...

John Sami and the rest on the conmans should refund the million they earned from writting rubbish charter which talks about 97 constitution as supreme law only to trash it in the next breath. John you conman return the money you charged bastard, your charter has been abrogated with the constitution MF.

Anonymous said...

The problem with acedemics is that they rarely look outside the box as they are too busy promoting themselves.

Just pause and look at all the assistance given by Aus and NZ both in cash and volunteer work here at the times of the floods. I suppose these good people would also be classed by Narsey as assisting the goverment of Fiji he hates so much.

Facist dogs said...

Thank you for the list of facist dogs and bottom feeders. All deserve a rope.

Anonymous said...

The lad form Tooorak has hit the nail on the head with this pity the 2 Governments in question will never move down that path for a very simple fact these western governments and those that support them frm behind the scenes are the very ones that support REGIMES around the world. These countries are a mindfill for making money so does anyone believe an Australian Or NZ Government will support this very idea! NO BLOODY WAY. It comes down to everyone in these Governments complain now about Gaddafi yet behind the scenes they were more than willing to buy the Libiyan oil, something the Gemans & British were doing with their dealings with Saddam! Now the shoe is on the other foot with Russia & China supporting the idiot in Syria at the same time vetoing the UN! Maybe we can get our Aussie mate who seems to loves advising us about how and what and what we need to do about Fiji, MR Mark Manning he could put his countrymen under some pressure with his influences?

Anonymous said...

Part One of Two

Prof. Narsey is right to call attention to the hypocrisy and contradictions behind the Fiji policies of Canberra and Wellington, but his proposed remedy is unworkable, and he knows it. He already admits that it would be hard to implement such laws 'in reality' and difficult to prove criminality in court in any clear way.

The Tasman allies' visa restrictions are unduly broad. They're also petty and need to change. When they do change, which should be soon, they'll become more reasonable and proportionate, like the Americans' visa restrictions. They'll end their targeting of family members and more narrowly, and correctly, target only the coup perpetrators and key regime supporters. Why those restrictions shouldn't also apply to major coup participant and alleged human rights abuser Roko Ului just goes to show what happens when policies are anchored in politics and subjectivity rather than on principle.

Every sovereign nation has the right to refuse to grant entry visas to anybody. This is not the violation of a basic human right. Permission to enter another country is a privilege, not a right, much less a 'basic human' one. The Japanese government did not trammel Bainimarama's basic human rights by choosing not to issue him a visa to the PALM summit; they were exercising their sovereign prerogative.

Let's take it a step further. Are all Chinese entitled to enter Fiji? No. The fact that Bainimarama's regime foolishly waives visas as an entry requirement for Chinese citizens does not in any way prejudice the right of the Fijian government to impose such a requirement in the future. 

Prof. Narsey should be careful lest his proposal be turned against him by the regime. If the principle behind this legislation is undeniable, then what's to stop that 'Dark Star', Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, from declaring that being a citizen of Fiji imposes responsibilities on the citizen, when abroad, to follow the laws and not bring 'disrepute' to Fiji?

The disgraceful role of the Australian consultants in the FNPF issue was utterly unconscionable. Whether what they did qualified as contempt of court, I don't know, but they had no legal standing whatsoever. The so-called 'confirmation' by the solicitor general was in no way authoritative and amounted to gratuitous interference. 

Clearly and completely deprived of due process in Fiji, pensioners should make every effort to seek legal redress in foreign courts, including through the seizure of regime assets. Moreover, a government that officially sanctions the systematic and deliberate deprivation of its citizens' due process under law provides the historically-recognised legal and moral justification for its own overthrow, does it not?

Anonymous said...

Part Two of Two

Christopher Misnomer's role in the FNPF case should be grounds for his disbarment from every court in the Commonwealth. Prof. Narsey, please join with me in advocating the disbarment by law societies of any member who takes up a position in a regime suspended from the Commonwealth and whose actions they adjudge prejudicial to the independent functioning of that nation's judiciary.

They say the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The Petero Matacas, John Samys, and Kevin Barrs of this world are seldom manly enough to recognise, much less atone, for the damage they do, always claiming the best of intentions. 

Similarly, all those who participated in the phony People's Charter exercise should be embarrassed by how they allowed the regime to manipulate them. Only those few who value their integrity and credibility have distanced themselves from their work with the NCBFF.

Yash Ghai is traveling down the same path. Like every rookie, he thinks he might be able to help. He gives Bainimarama the benefit of the doubt, supposing him misunderstood. But if he's half as bright as he's supposed to be, by now he's tested the commodore's sincerity and found it wanting. He's also seen for himself the army's attempts at intimidation, heard for himself Aiyaz's lies, and educated himself a bit more on the current situation. 

At this point, Ghai either needs to buck the regime and begin laying down some ground rules or prepare to extract himself from the process to preserve what he can of his integrity and reputation. The longer he waits to do either, the harder it will be for him to succeed. The clock is already ticking, diminishing Ghai's credibility and reputation every moment he delays.

s/ Dakuwaqa

Anonymous said...

Why bother with this crap. It's old news. Davies has a better peace on grubsheet.

rajend naidu said...

Your headline news " Don't mess with the army" (Fiji Sun 9/6) is apt reaction from the army to any criticism or questioning of its role. Army spokesman Col. Mosese Tikoitoga is spot on with that reaction.
In the local lingo we would say " Army tho army hai" (Just as we say " Ba tho Ba hai)).
If the army did not threaten civilians who questioned or criticised it then it would not be what a third world army is meant to be.
It is of course different in a first world setting where the army is constantly subjected to public scrutiny and accountability to ensure it does not stray from its assigned role in a democracy.
Good governance requires that every institution of the state be subjected to such scrutiny.
That includes the army.
yours sincerely,
rajend naidu

Anonymous said...

Rajesh - great list you did of chors but why dont you add your name to it - people that supported the coup and then were kicked out,you dont need to be spared either , real self opportunist - Rajesh Singh, Felix Anthoney,Dr Sahu Khan,Ahmad Bhamji,Div Damodar,Damen Naidu - funny how its all indians.

Francis and Padoo

Anonymous said...

Both the professor and his clowns are deluded if they think that they can send citizens of Aust and NZ to face charges in Fiji - get some legal advice before you insult our brains - you must have the same legal advice as Rajesh Singh ( Dr Sahu Khan) - you should join AssWipes judiciary in Fiji, they all just as stupid with no concept of reality.

Anonymous said...

Victor Lal caught with his pants down ...

[posted 14 June 2012,1245]

WHERE is that 40-page document Victor Lal that you claim links Mahendra Chaudhry to the 2006 coup?

In your blog piece (courtesy Coup 4.5) of 5 June 2012 you went BIG on claims that: “Military Council documents link Chaudhry to the 2006 coup: Chaudhry prepared 40-page report against SDL and PM Laisenia Qarase for Bainimarama to overthrow the SDL-FLP multi-party government”.

Mr Chaudhry and the FLP refuted the existence of any such report prepared by the Labour Leader. Now that your lie has been exposed – you are slinking away with your tail between your legs with a mild: “one of these days…” you will produce the documentary evidence.

This is exactly the point we are making. You malign people you target without any shred of evidence based simply on gossip or hearsay. If you were an academic and “journalist” of any repute, you would not smear a person’s integrity without solid proof, no matter how much you dislike that person. In this case, you have made it more than obvious that it was fabricated by you to drive a wedge between him and Mr. Qarase

You are now trying to bring in all kinds of red herrings into the issue, simply to detract attention away from your lies. The issue is: you maligned the Labour Leader without a scrap of evidence, and lack the courage to apologise.

By your own admission you are one of Mr. Chaudhry’s “bitterest critics” – that reveals a lot about your attacks on Chaudhry. “Bitter” is a very harsh emotion that implies strong resentment against a perceived wrong. That’s the very point we are making: you harbor a grudge against Chaudhry because he once ignored your advice, thereby hurting your ego. Your hatred of Mahendra Chaudhry goes back much longer than the so-called million-dollar case.

By the way, it’s very interesting how the amount varies with your every article – first it was a million dollars, then it became $2m and in your last diatribe it rose to $3 million. In any case, why are you so rapt up about the money in Mr Chaudhry’s Australian bank account?

It has never been an issue with the donors of the money – they have never raised any questions about it. So, why are you getting so agitated about it?

As for the businessmen who pressured Mr Chaudhry to take up the Finance portfolio – these are matters of a personal nature that one does not divulge to satisfy the curiosity of vectors! In any case, if Victor Lal is the investigative snoop he claims to be, why doesn’t he find out for himself?

Anonymous said...

No such list would be complete without Anthony Gates, Sharon Smith-Johns, Christopher Pryde, and Graham Davis.

mark manning said...

I think that this might be a good time for someone to explain just how a Democracy is supposed to work, including explaining the separation of powers and the consequences if they are ignored.

Regime basher said...

Narsey has forgotten that regime apologist Graham Davies whose only credential is that he was born in Fiji - the coup has given him a name and a voice - had never had of this monkey in my life

Anonymous said...


Why would the contributors be complaining, they got theirs.
The $65m FSC contract.

Kickback laundered by the government of India.

poor millions of Harayana all gave 5 rupees each, pull the other one.

Tax dodger said...

Name minister, Chaudhry says

Friday, February 22, 2008
INTERIM Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has challenged the media to name
the Cabinet minister accused of evading tax payments in past years.
"What are they afraid of," he challenged.
"Why can't they just name the minister they say owes taxes or has been evading
"I am waiting for them to come up with a name or identify the minister." Mr Chaudhry
said such media reports were useless if the culprit was not identified.
"I hope they name the person and I am waiting for that then we can move on from
there," he said.
"The Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority will be responsible for any
investigation once the person has been identified."
On whether it was he who is alleged to owe taxes, Mr Chaudhry said: "I won't
comment on it. Let them name the person." He denied owning properties abroad and
having bank accounts overseas.
"Let the accusers come forward as these are just speculations. Let them name the
minister," Mr Chaudhry said.

Anonymous said...

On 23 November 2005, the deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase brazenly taunted Mahendra Chaudhry, then Leader of the Opposition, in Parliament
about the whereabouts of the Haryana funds and what was it used for, alleging
impropriety on the part of his predecessor, who five years previously had been
toppled from power in the George Speight led coup in 2000.
The exact words of Mr Qarase as recorded in the parliamentary Hansard
were as follows: “Tell the Truth: Mr Speaker, Sir, I also want to put to rest
the misleading and mischievous statements by the honourable Leader of the
Opposition following his various visits to India. 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?”
When confronted by the news media outside Parliament, Mr Chaudhry neither
denied nor confirmed the allegations of serious financial impropriety made
against him. He said Mr Qarase’s allegations were simply “plain stupid” and
called on Mr Qarase to either front any evidence in his possession or to just shut
On Friday, December 2, Mr Chaudhry told Parliament he never received
a cent from Haryana and branded the allegations as baseless. The

Anonymous said...

ANON 6.07 Still supporting Mahend Chodo or are you the men himself. Who ever you are you are certainly a deluded fool who needs to check into the nearest mental health center. Mr.Chodo is the lowest of the lowest piece of shit on this planet. He is the scum that even Hitler would find disgusting. May the fleas of a 1000 camels infest you and Chodo's stinking arm pits. Mahend if you are reading this please know that behind Aiyaz and Frank you are the 3rd most hated men in Fiji.

Anonymous said...

Whatever you might say about Davies, he can write. No point in complaining about him. If you don't like what he says, why don't you guys in the media go for him head on? Someone has to because he's getting away with murder. Can't believe his latest story on Beddoes. But had a good laugh!

Fiji TV Watcher said...

Khaiyum is punishing Fiji TV because Mahend's nephew and former regime supporter Arvind Datt was a spy for Mahend

He was actually Chaudary's spy inside Fiji TV. He would be out of the office most of the time having coffee with Rajend and attending to other things and was hanging around the FLP office rather then doing his work and the accountant did all the hardwork and he was also suspected of leaking vital financial information to Mahen. Fiji TV gave him the sack

Anonymous said...

See if i got this right,the dalits from Harayan gave chodo 2 million dollars, so he can in turn manipulate the Government of Fiji - via FSC- to give them a $65 Million contract? George Speight should have blown-out chodo's brain
when he had the chance in 2000! Now Tikoitoga, the job is yours!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:39, I didn't realise Graham Davis has his own blog. Its readership is so low that he needs to try to redirect readers from C4.5?

Does he also have a Facebook and Twitter account? 

That's where Baghdad Bob and Tokyo Rose were no match for Graham, in the use of social media.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:07 claims that the millions in donations to poor Fijian farmers found squirreled away in Chaudhry's Australian bank account is a non-issue to its donors, who have never raised an objection. I direct your attention to just one such objection in the comment in two columns prior, dated June 14, 2012 1:55 AM.

Keep up the food work, Victor. Let them try to mock you by calling you 'Vector'. In this case, it refers to your prowess at vermin control.

Take your time in producing your 40-paged documentary proof. Let MPC and his supporters ensnare themselves fully with their arrogant lies, and only then lower the boom.

Anonymous said...

Further, Australia should not forget that the panel of judges that comprise the Fiji Court of Appeal which ruled the 2006 coup illegal in 2009 are majority Australian citizens. Australia should be steadfast in its supporting of that ruling because its own people were involved in it. Come on Australia stand by your men and you stand by democracy.

Anonymous said...

we have people calling rajesh chor .
he was in fiji till 2010.
why didnt the fiji govt charged rajesh ?
he supported the clean up not the coup.
some people are just f shit in the head.
if you have evidences pls submit it to c4.5.
we wait for evidence soon if not just go f khaiyum.

Anonymous said...

If Rajesh isnt a chor, why is he not going to Fiji anymore? He supported clean out of the same people he supports now - Lai. Supporting clean out was supporting the coup Lets face it, Rajesh didnt get the sports council job thus he is sour grapes - he will support anybody who doesnt support Bani- even brain dead monkeys have more sense.
Francis and Padoo

Anonymous said...

Which democracy Mark Manning theres a Russian one. Oh they now have one in Burma, theres one in Samoa where only the Chiefs are elected, theres one sort of so called democracy in Tonga, where the King makes the final decision! And one much closer to you Papua & New Guinea! So which one you want someone to talk about or and we haven't gone to Africa yet!

Anonymous said...

Stop picking on Rajesh - he was an ass. Minister in LQ govt, he was kicked by Ro Kepa,he went to mahen and Bani to be in the love boat and now he backs Mara.Whats wrong with that?He had democracy,he helped rape democracy and now wants democracy back - forgive this rapist please.

Anonymous said...

I, too, will support anybody who doesn't support Baini.

Anonymous said...

I see Graham Davis is still using sock puppets to try to pimp his blog site. Readership must really be down. That's what happens when your writing becomes so divorced from reality.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Narsey

There is such legislation and it has been in place since 1978. See the link below but it directly applies to Australian citizens taking 'hostile actions' against foreign governments


Anonymous said...

Howdy very cool blog!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Amazing .

. I'll bookmark your website and take the feeds also? I am happy to find numerous useful information right here within the post, we want develop extra strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .
Review my site ; bacalaos

Anonymous said...

ryqlf [url=http://buybeatsbydrdresale.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] eymfms http://buybeatsbydrdresale.co.uk hlbzt [url=http://salebeatsbydreonline.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] kzdbov http://salebeatsbydreonline.co.uk dwxio [url=http://salecheapbeatsdrdre.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] gznall http://salecheapbeatsdrdre.co.uk hfzzb [url=http://okcheapbeatsbydredr.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] spwadj http://okcheapbeatsbydredr.co.uk pyioq [url=http://cheapbeatsbydredrsale.co.uk]beats by dre sale[/url] ctmjmt http://cheapbeatsbydredrsale.co.uk eqysk [url=http://mycheapbeatsbydredr.co.uk]beats by dre sale[/url] ijyqph http://mycheapbeatsbydredr.co.uk zljql

Anonymous said...

bypmu bbbip [url=http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk]mont blanc pens [/url] yfdmpv http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk adrjd zxlvt [url=http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk]http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk [/url]wubba qwpkqiear[url=http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk]mont blanc [/url] tquumx http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk pfjlczhlpt zpkcn [url=http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk]mont blanc pens [/url] divpcn http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk jyiii ognzy[url=http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk]http://www.montblancoutletuk.co.uk [/url]ijjrg mhtwrbqags dolewvwcbt zwrso [url=http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr]mont blanc pens [/url] fvtjtg http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr guzhw ufeym [url=http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr]http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr [/url]weyws kaeydhbzp[url=http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr]mont blanc [/url] yadegs http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr hmyqqwcqus msgiu [url=http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr]mont blanc [/url] gcomgb http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr motof ojgib[url=http://www.montblancstylosoldes.fr]www.montblancstylosoldes.fr [/url]osdmf iwidwbogvg ptsmw

Anonymous said...

electronic cigarette, e cigarette, smokeless cigarettes, smokeless cigarettes, electronic cigarette, e cigarettes