Counsels To Give Closing Address On Tuesday

All counsels in the Fiji Times alleged sedition case will make their closing addresses to the three assessors on Tuesday.

This was determined at the close of proceedings yesterday.

Justice Thushara Rajasinghe ordered counsels to file and serve written submissions by Monday afternoon.

In his opening address, Fiji Times lawyer Wylie Clarke said there were two parts to the case against the newspaper company.

He said the first part was that the defence said the letter in question was not seditious. He said Linguistics Professor Paul Geraghty would translate the letter about what it said to prove that it did not say anything remotely close to what the prosecution claimed. Mr Clarke added that Nai Lalakai was not a radical newspaper.

He said the second part of the defence case was related to the fact that the company was charged in the case.

He referred to the company as an “artificial person” that can only do things through its people.

He said only the acts and state of minds of the company’s most senior people mattered which were the Board of Directors and Senior Managers including the third and fourth accused persons; Fred Wesley and Hank Arts.

Mr Clarke told the assessors that it was not disputed that the letter was published. However, the question was if the letter was published with the approval or authorisation of the Board or Wesley or Arts.

He added that the company maintained that no authorisation or approval was given. He said Fiji Times had a very strong and robust system of training to ensure common decency and respect for all members of the community.

Mr Clarke reiterated that the company’s case was that systems were in place to ensure that standards were met and maintained.

University of the South Pacific (USP) Social Professor of Linguistics Paul Geraghty gave evidence on behalf of Fiji Times yesterday and said he had read the alleged seditious letter about 5-10 times.

He said the letter referred to historical events and anyone reading the letter in Fiji would not relate it to any events locally.

Mr Geraghty did not agree that the letter would stir up feelings of hostility within ordinary Fijians who were not part of the Muslim faith adding that he had personally read the letter and did not feel any hostility towards Muslims.

He testified that he did not see any threat of action in the letter against anyone.

Mr Clarke told him that the Prosecution had claims that the language used in the letter was extremely inflammatory and could lead to public disorder.

Mr Geraghty responded saying the Nai Lalakai readership was quite small and it was largely made up of rural dwellers who read the publication for sports stories and oral traditions.

He said the letters in Nai Lalakai mainly centred discussions around religious issues, adding that he did not think anyone reads Nai Lalakai for its political content.

He told Mr Clarke that the article did not contain insensitive statements against Muslims. Mr Geraghty commented that there was plenty of evidence that other Fijians and Muslims got on very well and to suggest that statements were insensitive was rather ‘farfetched’.

Munro Leys lawyer and partner Richard Naidu told the court that Fiji Times was a client of theirs and the nature of services they provide was across the board. He said on the news side of things the majority of the work done was for pre-publication. He said this involved reviewing contents of the newspaper before it was published so that it was legally compliant and did not defame anyone or is not in breach of the Media Industry Development Decree.

Cross Examination by Marc Corlett QC

Mr Corlett asked Mr Naidu if Arts had approached them in relation to any pre-publication matters.

Mr Naidu said no, adding that the Publisher does not send them copies for review.

He said that was the general practice of any good newspaper was to maintain editorial independence.

He said he liaises with Wesley at least once a week but generally he speaks with the sub editorial staff.

He said Wesley was quite conservative because he would contact them if he saw any potential risks.