Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo is considering contempt of court proceedings against Magistrate Seini Puamau in the court cases of former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho.
Justice Temo made the statement yesterday at the first call of the prosecution appeal against Magistrate Puamau’s decision last week to record no convictions against Mr Bainimarama and Mr Qiliho.
Magistrate Puamau had earlier acquitted the men. However Justice Temo, in a ruling on appeal from the Director of Public Prosecutions, found Mr Bainimarama guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and Mr Qiliho guilty of abuse of office and directed her to sentence them.
In court yesterday Justice Temo said that in his 15 years as a judge,he had never seen a magistrate publicly pronounce or, in their judgment, show such dissatisfaction with a High Court decision to reverse a lower court decision.
He said there was currently a system in place that required the Magistrate’s Court “to listen to the High Court”, whether or not the two courts agreed or disagreed.
Justice Temo said he would be considering four different legal options for Ms Puamau because she was “way off line”. These included, he said
• 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.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Laisani Tabuakuro told the court that it was encouraging to witness justice taking its course after seeing the “red flags” in conduct pointed out to the magistrate.
She asked that the Court order Mr Bainimarama and Mr Qiliho be remanded in custody due to the likelihood of the success of the appeal on sentence. Justice Temo declined the request, saying that neither man had breached any of their bail conditions.
Ms Tabuakuro also requested Justice Temo for a “guideline judgment” for the particular charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and abuse of office and for magistrates to be bound by those guidelines.
She submitted that this would help prevent instances from occurring again in which a magistrate “goes rogue” and makes their own decision without referring to case laws.
Justice Temo replied that the law of precedents was one that even a university student should have known and that the magistrate, who has a Master’s degree in law “has shown that it’s worth nothing”.
Volume IV of the Magistrate’s Court record, which is relevant to the new appeal has been served on both parties. The first three volumes were received in the first appeal.
The case has been adjourned to May 2.
