The Fiji Law Society (FLS) says it is important that even in the midst of challenges such as the COVID-19 crisis, the machinery of the law and legal processes are upheld and adhered to.
FLS president Laurel Vaurasi said the Nadi Magistrates Court’s decision to acquit two men who breached the curfew had sparked much public interest and “Fiji’s system of justice provides for due process to be followed”.
“The magistrate’s decision whether correct or not, is subject to an appeal process within the 28-day time period,” she said.
“The appropriate forum in which the correctness of the decision is to be considered is the High Court, should the prosecution choose to appeal it.
“It is not the role of the Fiji Law Society to pre-empt what the appellate court decision should be or to analyse whether the magistrate’s decision was correct or otherwise without having considered all that was presented to the court.”
Ms Vaurasi said the society’s interest was to ensure that, even in these difficult times, the machinery of the law and legal processes is upheld and adhered to.
“In the very difficult times that we are in, it is imperative that the three arms of Government namely the executive, legislature and the judiciary work independently, whilst ensuring the continuance of the system of checks and balances, they are mandated to provide for each other and for the good of Fiji in this battle against COVID-19 to maintain public order and public confidence.
“The Fiji Law Society supports the good work of the judiciary and encourages everyone to adhere to the lawful directives of Government and be united in our fight against COVID-19.”
Meanwhile, acting Chief Justice Kishore Kumar issued a statement on Thursday saying the High Court had set aside resident magistrate Siromi Turaga’s orders in the case of Ravin Rohit Lal and Shelvin Praveet Chand.
The acting chief justice said the decision of the resident magistrate was reviewed by Justice Perera who set aside the orders made by Justice Turaga on the grounds that the charge did say the accused failed to comply with section 69 (1) (c) of the Public Health Act (Infectious Disease Regulation 2020).
The High Court judge also said the court should have allowed prosecution to amend the charge by deleting “Prime Minister” to “Minister for Health”.
The acting chief justice said the implementation of curfew orders was implemented by the Health Minister via Extraordinary Gazette No.32 published on April 4.
Mr Kumar said the matter would be called on April 21 at the Nadi Magistrates Court.
