When former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama got an early release from prison last week, it attracted attention.
It inched out debate and criticism, prompting the Fiji Corrections Service to put out a statement clarifying the process it followed.
This was shared through a statement from FCS after public discourse criticised Bainimarama’s early release, comparing it to previous high profile cases, notably that of the late former prime minister Laisenia Qarase.
“It is important to note that FCS management has changed since those decisions and current processes are conducted without political bias,” the FCS statement read.
This appeared to be a dig at Mr Bainimarama’s own government.
So the FCS statement is encouraging. It suggests that FCS will follow the law, without regard to the politics of the prisoner.
That is certainly putting FCS’s practices and principles on the right track.
But when you are following the law, you must also be transparent. It is one thing to say that you are following the law.
But you must also give the public enough information about your decisions to ensure that the public believes you.
“Mr Bainimarama, like all individuals in our custody, was convicted by the court and deserves to be treated in accordance with the law. His political history does not exempt or alter our legal obligations to provide impartial treatment to every inmate,” the FCS said.
That is certainly the right philosophy.
FCS explained Bainimarama’s early release aligned with “standard procedures” provided under the Corrections Act and followed a legal framework that was routinely applied to all prisoners in similar situations.
Upon admission, it said, every prisoner’s sentence is calculated with a standard one-third remission, as stipulated by law.
In Bainimarama’s case, it said his one-year sentence was reduced by four months under the provision, establishing his release date as early January 2025.
But Bainimarama was not released in January 2025. He was released this month.
Like other prisoners, the FCS pointed out, he exercised his right to apply for early release, a request reviewed through the usual protocols.
But now we have to ask – why did FCS approve Bainimarama’s request for early release?
What factors did it consider?
Bainimarama’s health was a factor raised at the time of his sentencing.
So that may have been a factor in his early release.
What other factors went into FCS’s decision?
What conditions were attached to his early release?
Is he required to remain at home?
Is he free to travel within Fiji or internationally?
It is important and in the public interest to show that Bainimarama is not being punished for his politics.
But it is also important, in the public interest, for FCS to show that he is not getting special treatment!
Perhaps FCS should tell us exactly why Bainimarama’s application for early release was successful.
That would be transparent.
After all it is only fair that we know the reasons.
Other prisoners might want to do the same, so it is important that they know how the policy works so they too can benefit from it.
As FCS says, impartial treatment belongs to every inmate.
