Defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma contends that former police commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho possessed the authority under the Police Act 1965 to review police tribunal proceedings.
This, despite Justice Thushara Rajasinghe’s response that after reading sections 32 and 33 of the Police Act, Qiliho’s authority was confined only to the procedures and processes of the tribunal and did not extend to the decisions made by the acting police commissioner at that time.
Witness Seema Chand, the former principal legal officer at the Solicitor-General’s office, who provided the legal opinion on August 19, 2021 that led to the sacking of two police officers at the centre of the case, had also told the court that according to section 33 of the Act, in cases of procedural impropriety, “the commissioner may review the acting commissioner’s decision”.
Meanwhile, the court also heard that Qiliho had offered to reinstate the two officers he terminated in August 2021, for taking pictures of former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s brother and posting them on a police Viber chat group.
And the Suva High Court was told that he overturned the punishment for the duo endorsed by then acting COMPOL Rusiate Tudravu, after seeking the advice of the Solicitor-General’s office.
Qiliho was away on study leave for 12 months from July 20, 2020, to July 23, 2021, when the two officers were subjected to disciplinary proceedings before a police tribunal in July 2021. Qiliho resumed office on August 6 that same year.
Taking the stand yesterday, the force’s director legal, Rajesh Krishna, said Mr Tudravu had agreed with the recommendations for punishment provided by the tribunal — and as a result, Sergeant Penieli Ratei was fined five days’ pay and an interdiction order, while Constable Tomasi Naulu was handed a two-day pay fine and a final warning letter.
Mr Krishna said when Qiliho resumed duties in August, he sought advice from him on whether he had the authority to review Mr Tudravu’s decision, along with other general issues of the organisation.
He said he requested Qiliho to seek legal advice from the Solicitor-General’s office, and a lawyer from S-G’s office said Qiliho had the power to review, “but if it was a procedural impropriety”.
He directed the officers be terminated but later offered reinstatement when he received another legal opinion from lawyer Sharon Pratap from the S-G’s office.
However, the officers’ solicitors also made counter claims asking for reinstatement, compensation of $20,000, acceptance of guilt, and reimbursement.
Mr Krishna said Qiliho did not accept the demand.
He said in 2023 the officers’ solicitors made another attempt with the same demands, but the S-G’s office said it would only accept reinstatement and reimbursement.
When Juki Fong Chew became acting commissioner with Qiliho being suspended, the parties then agreed to settle the matter. He said the solicitors told him they only agreed because Mr Chew was the new acting commissioner.
The trial continues today.