The defence counsel of former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended Commissioner of Police Brigadier-General Sitiveni Qiliho has applied for the recusal of acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo from their appeal case.
This is after Justice Temo ruled against Magistrate Puamau’s sentencing of the duo.
Earlier this month, the Acting Chief Justice questioned Resident-Magistrate Seini Puamau’s sentencing who granted an absolute discharge to the former Prime Minister for charges of attempt to pervert the course of justice while Qiliho was granted a conditional discharge for his charges of abuse of office.
The application was submitted at the High Court in Suva last week.
In the over100-page summon, the defence called for:
- The state’s appeal against the sentence is stayed until the Supreme Court has determined whether the appointment of the acting DPP John Rabuku is legal pursuant to the 2013 Constitution.
- That the Acting Chief Justice be recused from hearing this appeal sentence,
- That the DPP’s petition of appeal against the sentence be assigned to another judge,
- That this application be heard prior to the DPP’s appeal against the sentence
- This application is called instanter
Both the former Prime Minister and the suspended COMPOL have challenged the appointment of the acting DPP, which in their view is contrary to the Constitution.
Prima facie, they believe that Rabuku was disqualified from being appointed as he had sanctions recorded against him by the Independent Legal Services Commission.
They argued this was done after many consultations with the Office of the Attorney-General.
They believe there is a perceived conflict of interest and that another judge should preside over the appeals matter.
They had also called out Justice Temo’s statement against them during the appeal about running the case without honour, fairness, and pride. They said there was an apparent bias in this statement as Magistrate Puamau had already found in her ruling and sentencing how misconceived and erroneous he was about the Brown v Dunn rule.
All parties will meet in the judge’s chambers on May 2 where the matter will be called.
