Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo will not consider contempt of court proceedings against Magistrate Seini Puamau over the cases of former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended police commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho.
Justice Temo made the statement yesterday at the duo’s sentencing where the prosecution made an appeal against Ms Puamau’s decision last month to record no convictions against Mr Bainimarama and Mr Qiliho.
Ms Puamau had earlier acquitted the men. However, Justice Temo, in a ruling on appeal from the Director of Public Prosecutions, found Bainimarama guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and Qiliho guilty of abuse of office. He then directed Ms Puamau to sentence them accordingly.
On April 3 this year, Justice Temo said he would be considering four legal options against Ms Puamau because she was “way off line”.
- Option 1 — Activate the High Court’s contempt powers in contempt proceedings;
- Option 2 — Ms Puamau be referred to the police for refusing to follow the lawful order of the High Court;
- Option 3 — the High Court to recommend to the President of Fiji for a tribunal to remove Ms Puamau from the bench; and
- Option 4 — Ms Puamau to resign as a magistrate
While sentencing the pair yesterday, Justice Temo said: “I reached the conclusion not to do any contempt proceedings against Ms Puamau.”
He said Ms Puamau acted on the wrong principle, which was against the High Court’s decision.
“The learned magistrate, by not following the directions of a superior court, allowed herself to be guided by irrelevant matters, that is re-examining the facts,” Justice Temo said.
“Even though she was the trial magistrate, she was obliged to view and see the facts in the way the High Court had decided.”
Justice Temo said Ms Puamau’s options in the Sentencing and Penalties A 2009 was manifestly limited therefore, her decisions on the duo were not available to her.
“In granting Mr Bainimarama an absolute discharge and a fine of $1500 without recording a conviction on Mr Qiliho, Ms Puamau had also not taken into account a material consideration that this option was not available to her.”
According to Justice Temo, the sentences imposed by Ms Puamau were null and void.
“This court grants the State’s request to quash Ms Puamau’s sentences accordingly.”
However, defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma did not agree.
“We don’t agree with that,” Mr Sharma said.
“We thought that the learned magistrate had applied the rights to provisions under the Sentencing and Penalties Act but I think it is better to leave these issues with another forum.”
