Judge grants leave

FIJI’s Constitutional arrangements tasks an independent judiciary with the duty to ensure that Government actions comply with the law in relation to accountability of the executive, said Justice Anare Tuilevuka at the High Court in Lautoka.

He made the statement in a judgement allowing Grace Road lawyers leave for Judicial Review on a decision made by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Director Immigration to remove six Grace Road members from Fiji in August, last year.

Jung Young Kim (Daniel Kim), Sung Jin Lee, Nam Suk Choi, Byeong Joon Lee, Jin Sook Yoon and Beom Seop Shin were arrested last year by Immigration Department officials and remain in custody.

The six grounds for judicial review filed by their lawyers say extradition procedures were not followed, no written reasons were given by the minister for his decision, there was a lack of procedural fairness, the minister misunderstood his jurisdiction, the decision was irrational and lacked proportionality, and that the minister acted under bad faith or under the dictation of the Republic of Korea.

“Based on all the points raised above, I am of the view that, except for the allegation that the minister had acted in bad faith under the dictation of the Republic of Korea, the applicants have raised an arguable case,” said Justice Tuilevuka.

“It is fair to say that Fiji’s Constitution, at section 16(1)(a), demands the accountability of the executive.

“It is also fair to say that Fiji’s Constitutional arrangement tasks an independent judiciary with the duty inter alia to ensure that the executive actions comply with the law section 16(2)).”

Justice Tuilevuka noted a submission by the Solicitor General Ropate Green that there was substance in the executive decisions which touched on issues of national security where judicial review would be rare and limited.

“However, I would rather postpone any comment or conclusion on any of these questions until the final determination of this case.”

“I find that the applicants have raised an arguable case on five of the six grounds of review which they propose.”

The case has been adjourned to February 15 for ruling on the application for the release of the applicants.