FIJI'S RULE OF LAW IN "DIRE STRAITS"

UNCLAS SUVA 000096 PLEASE PASS TO EAP/ANP E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL FJ SUBJECT: FIJI'S RULE OF LAW IN "DIRE STRAITS" ¶1. (U) Summary: The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) released a report entitled "Dire Straits: A Report on the Rule of Law in Fiji" on March 3. The IBA completed the report despite being banned from visiting Fiji by the Interim Government (IG). The report concludes that "Since the 2006 coup, the interim military regime has taken steps to influence, control or intimidate the judiciary and the legal profession." The report also concludes that the leadership of Fiji's Human Rights Commission "has been taken over by a military appointee who is strongly sympathetic to the military government and no longer fulfils its mandate." Not surprisingly, the IG has called the report "irrelevant, unfounded and without evidence." End summary. Background -------------- ¶2. (U) Responding to concerns raised about the rule of law in Fiji, in late 2007 the IBAHRI appointed a fact-finding mission to investigate. Requests made by the delegation to visit Fiji during 2008 were refused. During one attempt in February 2008, an IBAHRI program officer was refused entry into Fiji after landing at Nadi International Airport, necessitating a very last-minute cancellation. Correspondence between the IBA and Fiji's interim attorney general detailing the lack of congruence between the AG's public statements welcoming the visit "in principle" and private, extremely hostile correspondence to the IBA are published in the report. The IG's refusal to cooperate ultimately compelled the IBA to conduct its investigation remotely through telephonic interviews. Judicial Independence -------------- ¶3. (U) The report highlights a litany of well known concerns: the removal of Chief Justice Fatiaki in January 2007; the appointment of Acting Chief Justice, and later Chief Justice, Gates; the exodus of judges from the bench; the questionable legality of all judicial appointments made under the IG; the failure by judges appointed by the IG to recuse themselves from cases implicating the legality of their appointments; the granting of late night ex parte stays favorable to the IG; and the use of travel bans to censor lawyers critical of the IG. "Since the 2006 coup, the interim military regime has taken steps to influence, control or intimidate the judiciary and the legal profession," the report concludes. Fiji's Human Rights Commission -------------- ¶4. (U) The IBAHRI also addresses the failure of Fiji's Human Rights Commission, under the leadership of Shaista Shameem, to promote or protect human rights in Fiji. Shameem is an IG appointee who has used the FHRC as a platform to publish reports supporting the coup, accusing Australia of planning to invade Fiji, and accusing pro-democracy activists of being foreign agents, among others. It should be noted that Shameem is also a UN Special Mandate Holder, as a member of the Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries. The report concludes that the FHRC is no longer compliant with the Paris Principles. Six of the report's 31 recommendations ultimately deal with the FHRC. Shameem was quick to respond that the IBA report was obviously motivated by jealousy of the FHRC's exceptional accomplishments. Warnings to Be Wary -------------- ¶5. (U) Referencing the IBAHRI report, the Australian Bar Association (ABA) has warned attorneys to think twice before accepting judicial office from Fiji's interim government because their appointments could be seen as tainted. ABA president Tom Bathurst said the report was in line with the ABA's own concerns. Anybody who might be considering accepting judicial office in Fiji "ought to have a good read of this report before they do so", he said. "Much as you might like to assist these countries, it is very difficult when on an objective view it could be seen as a tainted appointment. Comment -------------- ¶6. (U) Comment: While the IBA report is not the first assessment of the state of Fiji's legal system under the IG, it is certainly the most comprehensive. Various political parties and NGOs have commended the effort and urged the IG to consider and implement the recommendations. The U.S. Human Rights Report on Fiji alleged interference with Fiji's judiciary and was criticized by the IG for lacking details. At more than a hundred pages, the IBA report has provided the details and then some. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that those in power in the IG, including the FHRC, will seriously consider the report. It should, however, give serious pause to those now considering whether to join Fiji's tainted judiciary. End Comment. MCGANN