The Laws of Fiji

We have recently noticed the number of anti-govt. bloggers increase their ravings on this site. While many have simply resorted to using profanity (it is expected when you're ill-bred) while others have questioned the legitimacy of the military and its actions. We have been down this path once. We will only say that any member of the military who has or was involved in any physical abuse of citizens of this country has been taken to task. Each soldiers involvement has ultimately been decided by the military council and we will let the matter rest there. There is nothing further to discuss on this topic and we will not be returning to this issue.

We reiterate that the death of Malasebe was not of any consequence and his death has only removed a dangerous individual from our midst. To those who have repeatedly questioned this, we ask what you would choose if you were in the shoes of Malasebe's victims? Would you rather watch your family slain before you or slay the beast who threatens the very sanctity of your home? The choices we all make are our own and no individual can tell you what path to choose. We made our choice a long time ago and we will stick by these choices till the end. When in sight of the Almighty, we will be answerable for our actions and not the RFN and SV pot-smokers. We will however, not allow corrupt SDL officials to return to the forefront of running this country - that is certain. We will ensure that individuals who have used this country as a mere tool for their unscrupulous activities are taken to task and the light of the justice system falls on them.

Our sovereign leader has sworn an oath to protect this country - from evil forces within and outside. We are curious as to how our detractors reached the conclusion that his actions were illegal when the Courts have pronounced the action as legitimate. This was clearly demonstrated in whereby the then Acting Chief Justice Anthony Gates ruled in Qarase v Bainimarama [2008] FJHC 241; HBC 60.2007S; HBC 398.2007S (9 October 2008) that

"We find that exceptional circumstances existed, not provided for by the Constitution, and that the stability of the State was endangered. We also find that no other course of action was reasonably available, and that such action as taken by the President was reasonably necessary in the interests of peace, order and good government. Rather than impairing the just rights of citizens we conclude that the President’s actions were designed to protect a wide variety of competing rights from displacement by avoiding conflagration." (p.62, [162])

So where does the question of the legality of this govt. come in? Who are the RFN and SV bloggers to question this when the law of the land, the same law which is applicable to all the people in those country, has been found to be correct in it's verdict? Certainly, from the tone taken by both amateurish sites only serves to tell the wider public that the websites are in contempt of Court from their actions and words.

We have only to quote from the recent High Court ruling of In re Application by the Attorney General of Fiji [2009] FJHC 8; Action No 124.2008 (22 January 2009) where the learned Justice Hickey ruled, citing the judgment of Wilson J in 1979 in Rooney (No 2), Papua New Guinea, that

"the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the Constitution … The Constitution provides the protective safeguards of judicial independence … The independence of the judiciary is the key to freedom under the law … The Judicial Declaration that each member of the judiciary is required, by … the Constitution, to make before entering upon the duties of, or exercising any of the powers of, his [or her] office is inconsistent with there being any erosion of the concept of the independence of the judiciary … By virtue of the making of such a declaration independence becomes a vital part of a judge’s judicial integrity ..."

which clearly states that the decisions taken by the judiciary were legitimate and in line with the current constitution. In addition to this, making such false statements, we cite the case of Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn (No 2) in which Lord Salmon (at page 155G) said:

"It follows that no criticism of a judgment, however vigorous, can amount to contempt of Court, providing it keeps within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith."

Lord Edmund Davies (at page 156E) agreed saying:

“The right to fair criticism is part of the birthright of all subjects of Her Majesty. Though it has its boundaries, that right covers a wide expanse, and its curtailment must be jealously guarded against. It applies to the judgments of the courts as to all other topics of public importance. Doubtless it is desirable that critics should, first be accurate and, secondly, be fair, and that they will particularly remember and be alive to that desirability if those they would attack have, in the ordinary course, no means of defending themselves.”

So, these references should be more that adequate to provide the RFN and SV bloggers with the reasons behind the actions taken to remove the SDL from power and the realistic consequences of contempt of Court which the RFN and SV bloggers have crossed more then once. We have chosen these quotes deliberately for the following reasons. It should be noted prior that The International Court of Justice resolves matters of international law between sovereign states. For more on its jurisdiction look at its web site: here

• Google Blogger is subject to International Laws and as such should the reason demand action, the company may be subjected to an appearance in the ICC whereby the Court may ask for full disclosure of IP (Internet Protocol) addresses of all individuals who utilize the RFN and SV sites. This has already been proven when Google was summoned before the Supreme Court in the USA and asked to provide IP addresses of all individuals frequenting pornographic sites which encouraged paedophilia. While the issue of privacy was paramount in the argument, the Court ruled that the rights of individuals who indulged in such behavior were not subject to privacy and as such had to be disclosed. This was agreed to by Google. The govt. of Fiji can, should it wish, to file an injunction with the ICC which can issue a suspension of the bloggers accounts which are found to be abusing the Freedom of Speech clause for their malicious practices.
• That the bloggers of the RFN and SV site are using the Internet domain for their flagrant and vagrant display of contempt of Court which is punishable by law as the primary domain of the Google Blogger site is in the USA which is also subject to the International Laws of fair speech and protecting the reputation and rights of individuals.

We hope that our message is clear - we will not stop because the law is on our side and we ensure that every action is done in line with the 2007 Constitution of Fiji.