FIJI: Lawyer says appeal court judges should have stayed
Updated
One of Fiji's leading lawyers has expressed disappoinment at the decision by five New Zealand and one Australian judge to quit the Appeals Court. Vipul Mishra who is acting on behalf of Mahendra Chaudhry in a compensation case against the interim government feels it would have been better for the country if they had stayed on.
Presenter: Geraldine Coutts
Speakers: Vipul Mishra, solicitor,
MISHRA: I don't think they resigned, I think they did not take a fresh appointment. But I am disappointed these judges have left, you see a lot of things have happened in Fiji and we do need independent and good judges to fill these positions. That's not to say that the judges who have recently been appointed aren't good or competent, they are. But if we are to have that continuity in the same court of appeal as we did in the past when the important decisions regarding the constitution and other matters were to come before the court, their decisions would have had great significance for the country. What's happened is they have gone or refused to take the oath because they have expressed an opinion I believe about the acting Chief Justice. I think we need those judges to stay on and I think we need our Supreme Court and I'd appreciate it if well as an individual and a citizen of Fiji that if the Australian and New Zealand governments were to be supportive rather than negative about having an independent judiciary, which is free and fair and of course one with a certain amount of courage that would have helped a great deal in Fiji.
COUTTS: How have the New Zealand and Australian governments interfered with a free and fair judiciary?
MISHRA: I'm not saying they've interfered with it but if it were to be that judges and the judiciary, which is the third arm of government were to remain peopled by good and competent judges, and if they were encouraged and if governments were to encourage rather than impose boycotts and things like that on people who accept, I think that at least as far as the judiciary is concerned you will have a very good impact on the long term security of the country. After all a lot of these matters are going to come to court, they'll come to the High Court, sometimes it goes straight to the Supreme Court, but if they do come to court and there is an appeal if you have an independent, good recognised judiciary their decisions will carry so much more. The fact that they have resigned means that in some ways they have well I feel would have been much better if the same court of appeal was there. The fact is what we have is a number of judges who have resigned, they haven't resigned in protest about what's happened on 5th of December, they have somehow I think refused to take the oath again because there's an acting Chief Justice. I think the more important matter is after all you take the oath to the country, the more important thing is for us to have a good, strong, independent judiciary, and that it is seen to be such by the people of our country.
COUTTS: And what about Justice Fatiaki, you feel that the judges resigned more in support of him than any of the other political events that are happening at the moment?
MISHRA: Look as far as Justice Fatiaki is concerned, it's Chief Justice Fatiaki still, he's suspended. He is a judge who has proved himself over a period of time. I believe that his tribunal ought to be quickly setup, whatever he's facing ought to be put to him and if he's cleared he ought to be allowed back to being our Chief Justice. I feel quite sad about what has happened to him and he ought to know what charges are going to be put against him. I don't think that my taking that position and I'm just a simple individual lawyer, would in any way sort of conflict with what I feel about the court of appeal judges. In fact it would have been better if those judges had stayed for Chief Justice Fatiaki as well. There seems to be some controversy about the way the Chief Justice, acting Chief Justice was appointed. There's also some controversy about the manner in which he was removed.
