Minister for Lands Filimone Vosarogo has questioned former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s legal expertise, accusing him of overlooking constitutional provisions that resulted in his disqualification from Parliament in 2023.
In a social media post, Mr Vosarogo criticised Mr Sayed-Khaiyum for challenging Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s interpretation of the Constitution regarding the timing of the next general election.
“Former AG Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has been quick to criticise the Honourable Prime Minister over constitutional interpretation, but appears to have forgotten how his own misunderstanding of the Constitution cost him his parliamentary seat in 2023,” Mr Vosarogo said.
He referred to Mr Sayed-Khaiyum’s appointment to the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC) in January 2023, arguing that the former Attorney-General had overlooked Section 63(1)(b) of the Constitution.
“The result? He disqualified himself from Parliament, abandoning thousands of voters who voted for his former party.”
Mr Vosarogo also criticised the subsequent announcement by former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum would manage FijiFirst from outside Parliament.
He argued that Section 14 of the Political Parties Act prohibited public officers from holding political party office.
“It was an extraordinary episode for someone who had served as Attorney-General for more than a decade,” he said.
The exchange follows criticism by Mr Sayed-Khaiyum of the Prime Minister’s comments during public consultations on the Constitution Amendment Bill.
In his own social media post, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum accused the Prime Minister of receiving incorrect legal advice.
“As we have said on a number of occasions the Prime Minister Rabuka unfortunately has been subjected to receving completely wrong legal, economic and socio-political advice,” he said.
Mr Sayed-Khaiyum disputed the Prime Minister’s reported assertion that the timing of the election would be determined by the Fijian Elections Office rather than the Government.
He cited Section 59(1) of the Constitution, which provides that the writ for the election of members of Parliament is issued by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
“This provision is very simply and clear as daylight. It is the Prime Minister representing Government that determines the timing of the writ,” Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said.
He questioned how the Prime Minister and his Government could have misunderstood what he described as a straightforward constitutional provision.
“The question is how did the Prime Minister and his government once again get it wrong?”
However, Mr Vosarogo defended the Prime Minister, saying his remarks had been made in iTaukei and that the broader context had not been adequately reflected in subsequent reporting.
“The Prime Minister’s core message was that the Government would not interfere with the electoral process, with much of this context missing from subsequent media reports,” Mr Vosarogo said.
He urged Mr Sayed-Khaiyum to reflect on his own experience before criticising the Prime Minister.
“Perhaps before lecturing the Prime Minister on constitutional interpretation, Sayed-Khaiyum should reflect on how he managed to lose his own parliamentary seat under the Constitution he spent years defending.”
