Transcript
BIMAN PRASAD: What we are basically saying is that the Election Commission is an independent constitutional office in charge of elections. And the Supervisor of Elections, an independent appointment, also must work under the direction of the Election Commission. What we find and this is well observed by the former election commissioners in their report of 2014 and also observed by the multi national observer group, that the election process and the election rules need to change in order to bring about a free and fair environment in which to have the election. So what we have now is the Minister for Elections, the Attorney General who is also the General Secretary for the Fiji First Party and this is the first time in the history of Fiji there has been a portfolio for Minister for Elections.
DON WISEMAN: That is something that Mr Sayed Khaiyum is disputing, of course. He claims that there have been ministers of elections before.
BP: That is entirely incorrect. In the previous regime of government, the elections office came under the Prime Ministers Office, purely for administrative purposes, and for budget, but the Election Commission always was an independent commission directing the affairs of the elections office and making sure that the conduct of the election, and the laws relating to the election were independent of the government or the prime minister at that time. So there was never a designated portfolio called the elections portfolio, or we never had a Minister for Elections. That is the difference.
DW: He's also raised this matter about the Election Commission seeking independent legal advice and not going to the solicitor general, who he says is independent. But whose call should it be?
BP: This is precisely the point and Don if you read what the Commission, the last Election Commission, said, this is what they said and I quote "The Elections Commission's work was affected by it not having the services of an independent legal advisor, repeated requests for an independent legal consultant to the Minister of Elections went unanswered." Now this is very important because the Election Commission in 2014 made a decision and that decision was obviously overturned by the Supervisor of Elections, and he took the Election Commission to court and got a ruling in favour of the Supervisor of Elections. Now that was challenged by the Elections Commission and the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Election Commission and said that the Election Commission was correct. So this is the point that we are making, that the Election Commission, which is an independent commission, must have the ability to seek independent legal advice for the conduct of their business and the decisions they are going to make in any matters of dispute.
DW: At this point then what is it you want to see happen?
BP: Well what we are saying simply is that the Attorney General - and we are calling on the Prime Minister to ask the Attorney General to give up the so-called portfolio for Minister for Elections. The elections office must come under the Prime Minister's office, purely for election purposes, and the Election Commission must be allowed to work independently, as observed by the Appeals Court in the judgement on the case that the last Election Commission took to the court, and remove any suggestion of conflict of interest between the minister in charge of elections as it is now and the Election Commission and the Supervisor of Elections.
DW: In a separate issue this week the High Court has confirmed last year's suspension of the NFP was lawful. You were suspended over not having used an accountant who had a Certificate of Public Practice for the party's accounts and you were suspended over that. I think the judge said it was a heavy handed thing perhaps but that the Supervisor of Elections was within the law. Will you do anything more, at this point, on that?
BP: I think it is important to note the judge said the Supervisor of Elections could have just asked us to correct whatever anomaly he had identified, but that's the decision by the court and we respect the decision. However we are talking to our lawyers and see whether there is any room for a constitutional redress, but that's something we are leaving to our lawyers to look into at the moment.
