Fiji Times lawyer withdraws from case

Feizal Haniff, the lawyer representing the Fiji Times Company, its editor-in-chief Fred Wesley and publisher Hank Arts has withdrawn from the sedition case. Mr Haniff made an application in the High Court in Suva yesterday. Pravesh Sharma took over from Mr Haniff.

Ruling on motions next Monday

The High Court will deliver its ruling on Monday on motions filed by the defence lawyers in the Fiji Times alleged sedition case regarding the test with which seditious intention will be applied.

Defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma who is representing former Nai Lalakai editor Anare Ravula submitted that his client had pleaded not guilty to a charge which had a completely different translation compared to the translation adduced by the court interpreters.

He said that having looked at the interpretation it appeared that there was no offence anymore because of difference in punctuation.

Mr Sharma suggested that if the prosecution wanted to proceed with the charge then there was a need to examine the court’s interpretation and reframe the charge as it could not stand with the translation which was initially included by them.

He said the translation implied that the Muslim community had a part in the running of the Fijian Government. However, the court interpreters had clarified in their interpretation that the particular statement had nothing to do with Fiji but with the running of the Bangladesh government.

Mr Haniff representing the Fiji Times editor-in-chief Wesley, its publisher Hank Arts and the Fiji Times Company also stated that they accepted the court’s translation.

Mr Haniff said he had filed similar motions to what Mr Sharma had filed and mentioned that there was a vast difference in the translation included in the charge compared to the court translation.

First accused, Nai Lalakai article writer Josaia Waqabaca was represented by lawyer Aman Ravindra-Singh who advanced his objections relating to Waqabaca’s interview on the allegation of inciting communal antagonism before the charge was amended to sedition.

He said it was worrying that there was a second translation adding that he was inclined to engage his own interpreter to look at the translation.

Judge Justice Thushara Rajasinghe said the translation was only tendered to assist non-iTaukei speakers. Mr Singh responded saying the basis of the charge was framed around the wordings of the translation and that each word was important.

Stay Application

Further Mr Singh told the court that he had filed a motion challenging his client’s charge in holding that the words contradicted Section 17 of the Constitution for Freedom of Speech.

Justice Rajasinghe said the issue whether Waqabaca exercised his right of freedom or not was a trial issue. Mr Singh submitted that the words upon which the prosecution had framed his client’s charge fell within the Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech provision in the Constitution.

Adding that the enforcement provision was included in Section 44 (1) (2) and (3) which gave the power to the High Court.

Mr Singh requested the court to determine that the words did not consist of hate speech and therefore did not amount to sedition.

Secondly, that it was a violation of Section 17 of Freedom of Speech and Expression of his client who was a Fijian citizen.

Finally, he submitted that there be a permanent stay on the matter.

The stay application was later withdrawn by Mr Singh in the criminal proceeding as he had filed the same grounds of objections in the Civil Registry.

Prosecution

In response, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Lee Burney said that Mr Singh’s last minute application to seek Constitutional Redress and stay the proceedings were complete abuse of the court process.

He said Mr Singh had 18 months to file his objections which he neglected to do, adding that the application was a matter for the civil jurisdiction and it had no way of interjecting criminal proceedings.

Mr Burney also mentioned that the employment contracts of the Fiji Times employees appeared to have been tempered with.

He said the Investigating Officer had gone to the Fiji Times office with a search warrant issued by the Magistrates Court.

At the company he was told by Mr Haniff to return to his firm at 3pm to collect the contracts which he did.

Justice Rajasinghe said that this was a serious issue and that the Officer had to seek guidance from the Magistrate when he could not find the contracts during his search.

Justice Rajasinghe will deliver his ruling on Monday before a trial is expected to start.

All accused men were further released on bail.