The Lautoka High Court last week refused to uplift a travel ban on Grace Road President, Daniel Kim.
He had filed an application for bail variation on June 6 to allow him to travel to Nauru for a meeting with the country’s President, David W.R Adeang.
On 31 May 2025, Mr Adeang had visited Fiji specifically to meet with Mr Kim and during that visit, he was taken around the various projects of Grace Road in Fiji.
“On 04 June 2025, His Excellency wrote a letter to Kim to formally invite him to Nauru “to further explore opportunities for collaboration and partnership in various sector,” states Justice Anare Tuilevuka in his June 12 ruling.
“Kim welcomes this invitation. He wants to travel to Nauru on Friday 13 June 2025 and to return on Saturday 14 June 2025.”
With on-going legal cases, Mr Kim’s current bail conditions are that he surrenders his Vanuatu Passport No. RV0154470 to the Lautoka High Court Registry and that he continues to reside at 11 Wainidovo Road, Navua- Grace Farm.
Fijian courts are yet to rule if the State is entitled to deport, remove or extradite Mr Kim from Fiji to South Korea to face some criminal allegations or whether he should be allowed to travel to Vanuatu instead, and if whether he should remain in Fiji.
“If the applicant (Daneil Kim) is allowed to travel to Nauru, there is a real risk that he will detour to Vanuatu from there and not return to Fiji. This would totally defeat the stay order currently in place which is to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the above questions,” said Justice Tuilevuka.
“While I accept that Kim is not a convicted criminal nor is he yet facing any criminal charges in Fiji or anywhere else in the world, I refuse the application purely in the interest of preserving the status quo in this case.”
“Having said that, I assure both counsel that this decision to refuse the application to allow Kim to travel to Nauru and back is, in no way, a reflection of how I intend to rule in the substantive Judicial Review matter which is pending before me.”
“To allow him to leave Fiji even temporarily and to return would set a bad precedent and would amount to this court usurping the relevant executive powers over the control of Fiji’s borders.”
