#header-inner img {margin: 0 auto !important; #header-inner {text-align: Center ;} Fiji Coupfourpointfive: 2012-01-15

Make Your Vote Count

Make Your Vote Count

Saturday, January 21, 2012

New Zealand backlash to new Fiji departure tax

Stupidity or bravery seems to have struck the regime.

It's hiked the departure tax from Fiji from $FD100 to $FD150 dollars - a move which has already started a backlash.

The departure tax was bumped up via a new decree and the New Zealand travel industry is gagging at the increase.

The country's largest travel agency, the Flight Centre, is giving Kiwi travellers who had plans to holiday in Fiji what it says is the option of transferring their deposits to other destinations - the Cook Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Hawaii, Niue, Bali or Thailand, to avoid paying the extra tax.

In a statement, the Flight Centre describes the new departure tax as "unfair to travellers" and predicts it will hurt and put off thousands of Kiwis.

The regime has been glorying in what it says is record tourists numbers to Fiji, especially from Australia. It remains to be seen if the Ockers do a runner but if New Zealand's reaction is anything to go by, the regime may have blundered.

The illegal attorney general and the illegal president, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and Epeli Nailatikau, also signed off this week on a swag of other decrees, including the Public Order Amended Decree 2012, which has been finally released to the public.

Included in the record 12 decrees released publicly yesterday, were new protocols covering tax (excise, income, service, VAT, fringe benefits), customs and roads.

The latest decrees can be viewed here: http://fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&Itemid=158&gid=123&orderby=dmdate_published



Fiji AG questions Flight Center's motive
http://www.radiofiji.com.fj/fullstory.php?id=43056

NZ travel agent says increase in departure tax to affect travel to Fiji
http://www.fijivillage.com/ 

Friday, January 20, 2012

Cock-eyed ruling about cock and bull Personality poll

Predictably, and after what seems to have been a very quick investigation, the Commerce Commission has ordered Fiji TV to apologise for its controversial text competition and to refund the monies of those who took part.


The regime claims the unelected prime minister, Frank Bainimarama, was the real winner of the Personality of the Year poll after Fiji TV closed the competition a day early, omitting hundreds of votes that supposedly put him ahead of the original winner, Premila Kumar.


Coupfourpointfive, however, revealed the poll was rigged and that the so-called 1500 votes for Bainimarama came from two government phones: one of them this number 9905393.


Our inside information also revealed that Vodafone boss Aslam Khan tipped the regime off to the poll closing a day early and that Vodafone also alerted it to the fact that Bainimarama was losing badly to Premila Kumar. Fiji TV was forced to bow down to pressure from the illegal attorney general, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum: sadly, the pay TV has again bent over.


In a sham of a decision, the one-eyed Commerce Commission chair Mahendra Reddy (pictured above) today announced Fiji TV has agreed to "not engage in this type of behavior and maintain the highest ethical standards as well as providing an apology to individuals for whom the public voted for."


Reddy claims his investigation showed that neither a written terms and condition and closing date was provided for the competition and that while it was supposed to stay open until December 31 midnight, the tally was done for votes cast up until 8pm December 30 only. It also says messages were sent to voters the next day saying their votes had been  registered successfully when in fact, they had not been tallied up.


He says that Fiji TV in its letter to the Commission this Tuesday agreed that it erred in not informing the members of the public of the closing date and that it extracted the voting results after the 6pm news on Monday 30 December, 2011.


Reddy also says Fiji TV today signed a Deed of Settlement agreeing to undertake what it has been asked to do by the Commission adding the Commission will now develop guidelines to all media outlets on how the texting promotions are to be run in future.


It appears that even texting in Fiji is now under Decree. 

Fiji TV in breach of Commerce Commision Decree
http://www.fijivillage.com/ 
Fiji TV to apologise for text competition
http://www.radiofiji.com.fj/ 

Regime skites to NZ about its good deeds

Aiyaz Khaiyum - or is it the Qorvis brats Seth Thomas Pietras and Tina Jeon - writes to the New Zealand newspaper, the Dominion, to say 'Fiji is working diligently to define a new future for itself' and will be a 'true democracy in 2014.' The following was found in the Opinion section in yesterday's paper.

Fijians control own destiny under Bainimarama

AIYAZ SAYED-KHAIYUM
Last updated 12:29 19/01/2012


OPINION: The Dominion Post can make outlandish claims and offer distasteful descriptions of the Fijian government (Commodore's foot still on Fiji's throat, January 10) but what it always fails to do is ask the simple question of what the Bainimarama government has done while in power? Wild accusations overwhelm any desire to examine what is actually happening in Fiji.


To begin, the government has strengthened the Fijian economy and created jobs. Standard & Poor's recently upgraded Fiji's sovereign debt rating. We have a net deficit position of 1.9 per cent (ahead of the IMF's recommended target of 2 per cent). And we have even sought to creatively align ourselves more closely with free market principles, including cutting or eliminating taxes for 99.4 per cent of taxpayers (putting about $53 million back in the pockets of Fijians) and significantly cutting taxes across the board for businesses to promote investment.


A "Social Responsibility Levy" has further been applied to the top 1 per cent of taxpayers to help fund new social welfare programmes, and all of the existing ones have either continued or expanded this year to serve the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women, school children and squatters.


The government is also providing real and tangible services to Fijians: new roads, electricity, clean water, subsidised bus fares, unrestricted internet access – including free internet tele-centres – most of which is being brought to places that never had it before. There's also unprecedented investments in healthcare and education, with new programmes to provide practical skill training for rural and maritime Fijians to better compete with their urban peers.


In fact, according to the United Nations second National Millennial Development Goals Report 2010, Fiji has already made significant progress in universal primary education "through strong and effective education policies". 


Enabling our government to deliver to our citizens is our focus on eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Our government unreservedly ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in 2007, for which Fiji has volunteered and undergone peer reviews by countries such as the United States and France. 

Anti-corruption practices have angered many who benefited from the old system, but these new ways have encouraged trade and investment – which we have seen from Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand and the United States, among other countries. 


New and further transparency rules will soon be put in place to ensure all government officials properly disclose their assets and investments.


MOST importantly, however, the Bainimarama government has undone decades of institutionalised racial and religious discrimination, and created a common and equal citizenry. All citizens of Fiji are now "Fijians". This was never the case before.


Critics in New Zealand and Australia may decry our process of establishing a path to true democracy, but what has enabled Fiji to get this far were the Public Emergency Regulations, which curbed self-interested individuals, religious groups and self-serving unionists – all of which would have prevented the passage of such decrees as anti-discrimination laws, the codification of equal rights for women, child welfare laws, and the equal distribution of land lease monies, among many other basic rights that previously did not exist.


Those emergency restrictions are now gone, and while Fiji welcomes statements of support from the international community, we do recognise that many in this group for decades either directly or implicitly supported Fijian governments that were corrupt, that relied on ethnic categorisation and discrimination, and that maintained only a thin veil of democracy. 

As obviously bears repeating, Fiji has never had "one person, one vote, one value". Yet the international community never required that to offer its backing to previous governments. They just needed hollow elections, which in Fiji merely concealed the turmoil of pre and post-colonial strife – which led time and again to destabilising events, coups and terrorism. 

Fiji will, however, be a true democracy in 2014 – consisting of an equal and common citizenship, access to substantive justice, and true universal suffrage. We will soon commence consultations for the formulation of a new constitution that will guarantee these universally accepted principles and values. 

Foreign media such as the Dominion Post and its columnists may make pointed threats and bluff with scorn, but Fiji is working diligently to define a new future for itself, one that provides Fijians with control of their own destiny.

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is the Attorney-General of Fiji.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/6282605/Fijians-control-own-destiny-under-Bainimarama 

Fiji Govt Online continues to be a target

Screenshot of www.fiji.gov.fj at the time of the attack

The website http://www.direxer.com/ is claiming responsibility for hacking the regime's Fiji Govt Online as recently as last night.

The website was hacked just a day after the illegal leader (January 2), Frank Bainimarama, announced he was lifting the public emergency regulations.

As people rushed to read his speech, the hacked website diverted visitors to a website in Malaysia.

Hackers say they again brought down http://www.fiji.gov.fj at 7.30pm last night for half an hour.

Anyone visiting the web portal reportedly only saw a black page with the slogan "CODE SECURITY WAS HERE" and a Code Security logo.

The page title had been changed to "Hacked by direxer".

Months ago the resistance movement requested assistance from international hackers.

June 28, 2011

HackerLeaks received a message purporting to be from intelligence officers in Fiji requesting the aid of hackers worlwide in hacking their own governments servers. here's the full text of the message received and the reply address.


"Hello brothers
We are intel officers fighting to free Fiji from a dictactor and its miltray rule by bringing peace and a democratic government. The people are being beaten everyday while our government fills it pockets with huge monies from public funds.
Reference of what is happening in our small country Fiji can be found at our blog sites:
we in Fiji dont have resources to fight the government and retrive information from their servers to let the world " know the truth" about our governments shady dealings. That is why we need you.

please help us crack and steal government file and sites.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Disillusioned loyalists urge Mara to 'wake up and hear the cry of the people'

THUMBS UP CAMPAIGN: Mara trademark.
Coupfourpointfive today asks the question that is on a number of people's minds: Where is Roko Ului Mara and what is he doing to deliver on his early promises of 'telling all' about Frank Bainimarama to help liberate the people of Fiji?

In the interest of the people who supported him, this blog questions the credibility of Roko Ului Mara, the former 3FIR leader who last year fled to Tonga after being charged for sedition with fellow RFMF officer, Pita Driti.

Questions have been coming in to us reinforcing what we, too, have felt for some time: why is Roko Ului blogging instead of following through with promises to bring down his former regime colleagues, using his inside information since he was right there with them?
 
There are still pockets of support for Mara but we believe this story needs to run to answer the people of Fiji who want freedom from the unelected government of Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum: people who last year embraced Mara despite his links with the regime. The same people who are now asking what has Mara really revealed that has been useful to the fight for democracy?
 
As an insider says, from the time Mara defected from Fiji with the help of the Tongan navy, people have had a lot of hope in him to help Fiji move out of dictatorship. But for some months now, Mara has been fading away with the launch of his website and his analysis of the Fiji situation - work that blogs are already doing and doing better.

What has happened to his Pacific wide campaign against the regime and the 10-point transistion plan that included the removal of the Public Emergency Regulations, the restoring of the 1997 Constitution and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Committee? What has happened to the information that was given to the New Zealand government ahead of the blogs?

Similar questions have been voiced by his loyalists in emails to Coupfourpointfive; loyalists who have now decided to answer for themselves the following: 
1) What has Mara actually achieved? Nothing. There has been no concrete evidence from him on Bainimarama with him maintaining the same lines the blogs have been running for the last four and a half years. It is a clever cut and paste job. 

2) Where is he now and does he plan to return to Fiji? His stay in Australia has turned into one of luxury. There is no sign of his 10 point plan. Mara is enjoying the contributions from democracy groups and forgotten his men in Fiji who are suffering because he just calls to get information and no action is forthcoming. 

3) Lack of direction and focus. What was he doing in New Zealand in September watching the Rugby World Cup finals when he was supposed to be leading the fight against Bainimarama?

Information suggests that Mara now wields no power or support that sees him the legitimate mover as he claims to be. 

An insider has told Coupfourpointfive: "Our message to him is that the resistance wants your support - not your political words written by someone else."

According to sources, "Mara's writers are his sisters plus the Australian democracy guys". But as a key insider says, the move is not against him - but aimed at waking him up because even now his right hand man is saying that Mara is keen only on enjoying the life in Australia." (He was in Tonga late last year and according to sources was heading back to Australia after watching the rugby world cup in New Zealand). 

This from a well-placed source: "Mara is not the brains - just a order following guy - he is not like his father - he is easily swayed by politicians and others to taking a road he is now on - which is a road to nowhere.  I say 'where deafs can't hear - you need no talk but action.' 

"We have heard that he collected a handsome sum of monies to follow a road map to democracy. He has not financed a single cent in any of the Fiji operations - even VRF used local funds to do what they do. 

"The general vote now is that we better turn to our own man here in Fiji and do what needs to be done. Mara is a failure - unless he wakes up and hears the cry of the people of Fiji and not talk but stand up like a man and come clean on Frank." 

Insiders note that at the time of Mara's escape to Tonga they felt that it was unlikely he would 'reveal all'. 

But they say he was given the chance to show what he could do in the interest of the fight against the regime. Disappointingly, apart from a "few revealing facts on torture and the publications on the 2000 coup" and the recent casino controversy, he has produced little else. They say he is now NATO - No Action Talk Only.

Coupfourpointfive has said that 2012 should be a Year for Justice. For that to happen everyone who is in a position to help restore democracy to Fiji needs to knuckle down. Will Mara be one them?

Monday, January 16, 2012

Air Pacific disruptions due to lack of crew

Air Pacific has farewelled one of its longest serving planes but it can't shake its so-called maintenance problems.

A big deal was made a couple of days about the 767-300 Island of Taveuni plane making its final flight to Hong Kong ahead of the arrival of the new Airbus A330 fleet.

But not a mention about the problems that continue to dog Air Pacific with pilots now adopting work to rule.

Previously, airmen would go out of their way to assist if their services were needed to bring tourists in or fly them out of the country.

This is not the case anymore. Pilots are now only doing flights they are rostered for as a result of the new job and salary conditions, which came into place on January the first.

The results, as we have seen, have been nothing short of disastrous. Flights have had to be cancelled because of a lack of crew.  Air Pacific's spin doctor, Shane Hussein, is doing a good job lying to the public that it is maintenance issues causing the disruptions.

In fact, Air Pacific has had to charter seven flights from Qantas and Air New Zealand in the past two weeks to cope with the cancelled and delayed flights.

When you add the cost of these charters with hotel accommodation and meals for disgruntled passengers (mostly tourists), it paints a troubling picture. How long can the  disruptions continue and how much is it costing the airline?

In Fiji's case it's definitely a case of more is less

It's been more than a week since the public emergency regulations were lifted and a quick look at the media reveals nothing seems to have changed. News teams remain well-heeled although the Fiji Suns seems poke its head out on the odd occasion, confident perhaps because of its status as the official regime organ. Similarly, the 'analysis' being offered about major issues such as the new public order, is in the vein of 'helpful information' rather than a hard hitting challenge to the continued loss of citizen's rights. See below.



By NAZHAT SHAMEEM
(Ms Shameem is a former High Court judge. She is now a legal consultant)

PART II

What powers do the police have under this section?
1.    To prohibit a meeting, procession or assembly[.
2.    To direct any meeting assembly or procession to disperse.
3.    After due warning, a police officer may use any force he/she deems necessary including the use of arms to disperse the meeting, procession or assembly, and to apprehend any person present. In such a case the police officer is immune from civil or criminal suit.


These provisions are similar to regulation 3 of the repealed Public Emergency Regulations although there is no longer a power to attend meetings on reasonable suspicion that there will be a breach of the peace.


The power to use whatever force is necessary to disperse a riot was previously given to the police under section 90 of the Penal Code.
Immunity from civil and criminal suit was also provided under section 90 of the Penal Code. Thus these are old powers.


The new section 10 creates offences of taking part in a meeting held without a permit or in breach of the conditions of a permit.
The maximum penalties are five(5) years imprisonment and/or a fine of $10,000. A person who organises a meeting in breach of the Act is liable to the same penalty.


The new section 11 of the Act gives the Commissioner of Police or the person in charge of the police district powers to close roads or to regulate the use of public places in order to secure public safety or to maintain public order.


In an emergency a police officer above the rank of inspector can exercise these powers but for only 24 hours or until the order is endorsed by the Commissioner or the officer in charge of the police district. Section 11A, is comparable to section to section 5 of the Public Emergency Regulations, except that one of the grounds on which the Commissioner can act under the Public Order Act is “for ensuring that the economic and financial integrity of Fiji is not undermined or sabotaged”.


The Decree also adds a new Part 3A to the Public Order Act.

Section 12A provides that the penalty for an act of terrorism is a maximum of life imprisonment. Section 12B creates an offence of harbouring a person who has committed an act of terrorism. Section 12C creates an offence of knowingly providing or offering to provide a weapon to a group or organisation involved in terrorism.

Participating in terrorist groups is an offence under section 12D and recruiting into terrorist groups is an offence under section 12E.
Sections 14, 15, and 16 are left untouched in the Public Order Act except for an increase in the penalties for the offences.
Section 17, which is the “hate speech” offence, is amended by adding two further categories of result which is likely to be caused by the report or statement.


One is “incite or promote religious, ethnic, or communal hatred or dislike” and the other is “undermine or sabotage or attempt to undermine or sabotage the economy or financial integrity of Fiji’.


Further after the word “race” the words “religion, ethnicity, or community” are added wherever “race” appears in the section. Subsection (2) which permitted newspapers to report hate speeches is deleted. The offence is given extra-geographical jurisdiction by the insertion of a new subsection (5). This means that hate speeches made overseas by Fiji citizens and residents can be tried in Fiji by the Fiji courts.


The new sentence for hate speeches is now a maximum of (five) 5 years imprisonment and/or $10,000 fine A new section 17A gives powers of arrest for police officers in relation to public order offences or offences under the Act.
These offences include terrorism, racial vilification and trafficking in persons.


Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has acted or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety or the preservation of peace, or is about to commit a public order offence, or on being questioned by the police a person  fails to satisfy the officer as to name or address, or purpose for being in the place where he or she is found, the officer may arrest the person without a warrant.


The police may also detain the person for investigations for up to 48 hours. Thereafter the person can be detained for 14 days but only on the authority of the Minister, who must be satisfied that the enquiries cannot be completed within 48 hours.
After 48 hours or up to a further 14 days the person must either be released or brought to court. The Criminal Procedure Decree gives the police powers to detain for enquiries for up to 24 hours, for offences other than murder or treason, and to grant bail after the expiry of 24 hours unless the case is of a serious nature.
If the case is serious, then the suspect can be kept in custody and produced in court “as soon as practicable”.


The Public Emergency Regulations allowed the police to detain persons in custody while acting under those Regulations for up to 7 days after the initial 24 hours, with the authority of a magistrate or police officer[20].


Section 17B permits any police officer to use whatever force is necessary to arrest a person suspected of having committed a public order offence.
This provision is similar to section 90 of the repealed Penal Code in relation to powers of arrest for riot and unlawful assembly. It is an offence to obstruct officers under the Act.


Section 17C provides that a member of the armed forces, when directed by his/her commanding officer, at the request of or with the concurrence of the Commissioner of Police, to exercise any of the duties or functions of the police or prisons officers.
A new Section 21 is inserted in the Act. It reads that no court, tribunal, commission or other adjudicating authority may hear a challenge to the validity, legality or propriety of any decision made under the Public Order Act by the Commissioner of Police, Divisional Police Commander or Minister or any public official.


Where any such claim is brought, the file will be taken to the Chief Registrar for termination of the proceedings.


That is a summary of the provisions of the Public Order Act after the amendments.

The Public Order offences
Are the public order offences, to which the Act now applies new offences? If they are old offences which previously existed under the Penal Code, have they been modified either in the Crimes Decree, or in the Public Order Act itself?
Treason – Under the Penal Code there were several treason offences, defined under sections 50,51, 52, 53 and 54.


Treason itself was simply defined as any act which in England would be termed treason.
The term was defined in State v. Timoci Silatolu and Josefa Nata [2006] AAU0024/03S.
Section 51 of the Penal Code stated that any person who instigated any foreigner to invade Fiji with an armed force was guilty of treason. Section 52 created the offence of misprision of treason[23] and section 53 of the Penal Code created the offences of “treasonable felonies”.


Any person who formed an intention to depose the State or to levy war against it or instigated an armed invasion of the state by foreigners committed treasonable felonies.
The Crimes Decree definitions of treason and related offences are more specific.


Levying war against the State is still treason[24], but so is instigating invasion, killing the President or the Prime Minister or engaging in conduct that materially assists another country which is engaged in armed hostilities against Fiji.


There is a special offence under section 65(1) of intentionally urging another person to overthrow by force or by violence the Constitution of Fiji, or the Government of Fiji, or the lawful authority of the Government of Fiji.


These were not specific offences under the Penal Code, although they could be alleged as overt acts to the offence of treason. Spreading racial or communal hatred or antagonism is a new offence under section 65 (2).


However although a new offence, it is very similar to the offence in the Public Order Act of inciting racial antagonism[25]which is retained and extended after amendment.
Sedition – now under sections 66 and 67 of the Crimes Decree, the offences of sedition are identical to the old Penal Code definition of sedition under sections 65 and 66.
However, Sections 67 and 68 of the Penal Code which allowed the court to suspend the operation of a newspaper found to contain seditious material and to prohibit the circulation of seditious reports are not included in the Crimes Decree. Important safeguards to freedom of speech are set out in the proviso to section 66 of the Crimes Decree[26].
Terrorism – Is made an offence for the first time, although the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 2003 made the financing of terrorist activity unlawful and defined terrorism in similar terms to the Public Order Amendment Decree.
Human Trafficking  and People Smuggling-Offences created in accordance with the definition of trafficking in the United Nations Trafficking in Persons Protocol were incorporated into our laws for the first time in 2009 when the Crimes Decree was passed.
The offences are based on the prohibition on the transportation of people in and out of Fiji, or within Fiji, for the purpose of exploitation, or by deceit.
Genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery, sexual servitude and apartheid are all offences from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.


Fiji was required by her obligations under the Rome Statute to pass laws identical to the Rome Statute laws for international crimes.
Hate speeches and  incitement to violence – These are all old offences created by the 1976 edition of the Public Order Act itself.
There is a new offence under section 65 (2) of inciting communal antagonism which falls within the ambit of “public order offence” for the purposes of the Public Order Act.

The Media
The provisions in the Public Emergency Regulations permitted the Permanent Secretary to check on stories before publication. The Permanent Secretary no longer has these powers now that the Public Emergency Regulations have been lifted.


However the Minister for Information has similar powers under section 80 of the Media Industry Development Decree.
Complaints against the media can be made under section 54 of the Decree, and non-compliance with the code of ethics in the 1st Schedule is one of the possible grounds for complaint. A complaint may be dismissed summarily or referred to the Media Tribunal for adjudication.


What advice should be given under the Act since it was amended and the Public Emergency Regulations were lifted?

1.    When organising a meeting of three or more persons, you should apply for a permit from the police. This law has remained unchanged since 1969.
2.    When a permit is granted you must adhere to its conditions because failure to do so may lead to a refusal of a permit when you next apply.

3.    The Media is now regulated by the Media Industry Development Decree. Media agencies should be aware of its provisions, and of the powers of the Media Industry Development Authority, The media will be judged ultimately by adherence to the Media Code of Conduct, in the Media Industry Development Decree.

4.    In making statements in public you must not incite racial antagonism.

You must not make a report or make a statement that is likely to promote feelings of enmity amongst the different communities, religious groups, or classes of the community.

You must not become involved in terrorist activity.  You must not cause any harm to others, nor must you make threats of harm to others.

5.    You must not make hate speeches or speeches in contravention of section 17 of the Public Order Act even when you are travelling abroad.

6.    In seeking to promote changes to our laws and constitution, you must not urge the use of force or violence.

7.    In seeking to make changes to the law you must not cause discontent or disaffection amongst the people of Fiji unless you are pointing out factors which cause any such discontent.

8.    When asked for your name and address by the police you must not give a false name and address. When asked you should explain what you are doing in the place where you are being questioned.

9.    When in doubt about the effect of the law on your conduct or proposed conduct, consult a lawyer.

  • [1] Section 2 Public Order Act
  • [2] Section 4 Public Order Act
  • [3] Section 8 (1) (a) (b) and (c)
  • [4] Section 8 (5)
  • [5] Section 15 (a) (b) and (c)
  • [6] Section 16
  • [7] Inserted in 1976 by Act No. 19 of 1976
  • [8] Maximum sentence – 1 year’s imprisonment and/or $500 fine
  • [9] Section 7F
  • [10] Section 7F(2)
  • [11] These were the sections which empowered the Minister to prohibit assemblies and meetings, empowered the police to stop and disperse meetings and processions, and created a “deeming” provision that a meeting in breach of a permit was deemed to be an unlawful assembly.
  • [12] Section 9 (1) (a) and (b)
  • [13] Section 10 (1) and (2)
  • [14] Section 9 (1) (a)
  • [15] Section 9 (1) (b)
  • [16] Section 9 (3)
  • [17] Formerly Regulation 3(5) of the PER
  • [18] Section 11(2)
  • [19] Section 24 (1)  (2) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009
  • [20] Regulation 18 of the PER
  • [21] Section 17D
  • [22] As defined in the Public Order Act (Amendment) Decree 2012
  • [23] Defined in State v. Viliame Savu [2002]HAC 010/02S
  • [24] Section 64(1)(d) Crimes Decree
  • [25] Section 17
  • [26] See also DPP v. Afasio Mua and Others (1992) 38 FLR 226

DISCLAIMER: This article was written to ensure that members of the public are aware of the new and old provisions of the Public Order Act.  Nazhat Shameem is not the author of the Public Order (Amendment) Decree.
She has carefully refrained from expressing any opinion on  it.


An analysis of the Public Order Act and more
http://www.fijisun.com.fj/ 

Nazhat Shameem slams ASK's decree
http://fdnblog.wordpress.com/