Monday, July 18, 2011

Double standard by Fiji’s judiciary more apparent than ever

Raw Fiji News - 18 July 2011

Questions have been raised on the apparent incoherent decisions made by Fiji’s judicial system on the cases they can hear and the ones they reject.
Since the coup of 2006, many atrocious breaches of human rights cases were submitted to the Fijian court system but they were all rejected outright and not allowed to go through due process with Nazhat and Aiyaz’s decree preventing any person(s) from seeking redress against crimes committed by the junta and its servants.
This oppressive decree even went as far as disallowing Fijians from seeking compensation for the losses they’ve sustained from trumped up charges by the regime. Case in point is that of former Airports Fiji Limited CEO Sakiusa Tuisolia who was found not guilty by the Sri Lankan judge who was told not too long ago by the regime that his services was no longer required. To date Tuisolia is unable to claim the more than $250,000 he and his wife spent on legal charges to defend himself, nor the unquantifiable damages done to their reputation, their professional life and the pain they had to endure over the years while his case was been heard.
But David Burness’s case against FNPF where he is claiming breaches of his human rights by FNPF’s proposed reform has raised many eyebrows, especially when he is represented by Nazhat Shameem’s sister Shaista Shameen who herself tried to legitimize the 2006 coup while she was head of Fiji Human Rights Commission.
How Burness’s case was given the ok to be heard over the ugly murder of indigenous Fijians Nimilote Verebasaga and Sakiusa Rabaka, both believed to have been murdered under Frank’s orders, shows the double standard prevalent within Fiji’s compromised judicial system.
It seems that David Burness’s complaint is more important than the brutal death of Verebasaga and Rabaka and others who suffered under Frank’s junta.
So why the unfair treatment by Fiji’s judicial system?
Is David Burness’s right to justice more significant than others or are we staring at a prejudicial justice system that only favors the haves?


No comments: