Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Illegal CJ Gates the Evil Behind Voreqe

Sai's Comments:
  • Great to have a good legal opinion behind what some of us have been on about the illegal CJ Gates and his cunning and deceitful actions and support of the illegal regime in Fiji.
  • Gates must never be allowed to escape unscath when the regime falls over as it surely will. He must be prosecuted like a criminal and usurper he his and continues to be in Fiji. He has lost all credibility by flouting his very ruling in the Chandrika case and must be hunted down and brought to face the consequences of his illegal actions.
  • So must be the New Zealander, Christopher Pryde, the illegal Solicitor General. They must both be made to pay for their treasonous actions in Fiji and suffer everlasting condemnation and ridicule.
  • These two post real danger for ordinary Fijians in devising and implementing legal policies and riules that resulted in the deprivation of the rights and freedom of innocent citizens. They are both no doubt intelligent enough to know about their roles. And they must equally know of the dire consequences they are having on the people of Fiji, yet choose to ignore and turn a blind eye at them. For that they must both pay heavily for it..

If Mr Justice Gates has read the opinion of Professor Jennifer Corrin of the University of Queensland law school he must be feeling very nervous.

According to Professor Corrin, “Knowingly accepting judicial appointment from an illegal regime…has the potential for criminal repercussions.”

“In Fiji, this could amount to an act of treason under the Penal Code.” Obviously the illegal regime is not likely to prosecute the judges it appoints, but what happens if there is a change of regime and the constitution is re-instated.

For Mr Justice Gates, the risk of criminal prosecution is substantially greater. Thanks to the Chandrika Prasad case, he knows very well what the law is.

We can be very sure that he is familiar with the words of Lord Pearce in Madzimbamuto: “I accept the existence of the principle that acts done by those actually in control without lawful validity may be recognized as valid or acted upon by the courts, WITH CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.”

And what are the limitations Lord Pearce had in mind? Acts can be valid “so far as they are not intended to and do not in fact directly help the usurpation.”

Mr Justice Gates knows that the purported abrogation of constitution is “usurpation”. The constitution has not gone away. It remains quietly in the background, held back only by force of arms, and it renders all the acts of the usurpers illegal and treasonous.

This is in fact the reason why Gates became so desperate to have the other judges from overseas join him. He thinks they make his position look respectable legally.

But the fact is they do nothing of the sort. Gates’ role in the Chandrika Prasad case places his guilt on an entirely different level to the newcomers.

Once we have regime change and Gates is on trial, he would need to argue against everything he said in the Chandrika Prasad case, while the prosecutor would need to do little more than read the Gates judgment to the court. What a spectacle that will be!

And what happens if one or more of the new judges resigns because they recognize the illegality of a legal system based on decrees without a constitution or grow tired of the heavy hand of the jumped-up junior military legal officer who now lords it over the entire legal profession?


Exerpt from Radio Australia interview

The central role that he’s (Anthony Gates) playing in the dispute has come as a surprise to those who’ve known the approach he’s taken to his legal career over a number of years. Peter Ridgway served as deputy director in Fiji’s Department of Public Prosecutions. He playing a key role in dealing with the perpetrators of the 2000 coup led by George Speight.

PETER RIDGWAY: His role in recent events particularly in the post-Bainimarama coup and things that have followed, it is very difficult to reconcile with the highly principled staunch defender of the judiciary and the constitution that I worked with in 2001-2005 period. So I find it very hard to recognise the same individual.

No comments: