Fiji AG violated democratic principles according to law expert

Transcript

A New Zealand law expert says Fiji's attorney general violated the founding priniciples of democracy when he interfered in a parliamentary committee looking into allegations of torture by Fijian security forces.

On Tuesday last week Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum called the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on foreign affairs and defence and told him its investigations into allegations raised by local lawyer Aman Ravindra-Singh were illegal resulting in the committee suspending its investigations.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum later told Fiji media that the committee members were not suitably qualified and that the investigation should be carried out by police.

He also insisted he had acted within his rights in advising the committee.

But the University of Auckland's Bill Hodge's told Koroi Hawkins Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is wrong.

BILL HODGE: A committee is very definitely a proceeding, one of the functions of parliament and it is privileged. This is a very important function very important aspect of all parliaments whether it is the original English parliament, New Zealand, Australia or Fiji going back to 1688 and the bill of rights, speeches and debates and procedures in parliament are immune free and privileged from intervention or intrusion and any interference by the executive, for that matter by the courts as well. So that this heritage is one of the fundaments of parliament. And I think the first thing we need to make clear is that that applies not only to parliament sitting in its entirety but parliament sitting in committee. Or a standing committee or a specific committee set up. So the parliamentary committee under parliamentary privilege cannot be interfered with or shut down or intruded upon by a member of the executive. This goes back to 1688 when the King was trying to do exactly what, what it appears the military or an attorney general is attempting to do in Fiji. The King was attempting to do it to head a revolution and they put in the bill of rights if 1688 speeches and debates and proceedings in parliament are free from interference. And that is a fundament of how parliamentary systems work.

KOROI HAWKINS: Another aspect of this is whether the parliament or the parliamentary standing committee needs to have the blessing of the speaker in order to carry out its functions. If they went together and sat. That is another issue that is not so clear in this?

BH: That confuses it a bit because the speaker is obviously the titular head of parliament but to do that the speaker would have to have a motion of the entire house. Let me take a step back, it is possible for a committee to run amok and perhaps exceed its brief. But in that case if a committee is exceeding its brief, I am thinking back to the United States when the McCarthy committees where hauling people in and very, abusing their rights and so on. They could not be brought to heel or that committee could not be brought to heel except by the congress entirely. That was at that time a senate committee and the senate brought a stop to it. But an outside body cannot so if the speaker has a motion of the house if the entire parliament moves that they will be disbanded that this committee shall not meet. Then the committee is simply a creature of the house. But the speaker would have to have the authority and I would say express authority of the entire house to tell a committee what to do. If the whole house votes to disband the committee than that would be effective. But I would be suspicious of the speaker acting on his own attempting to prevent a committee carrying out its function.

KH: And certainly not a single member or an attorney general?

BH: No, no well an attorney general is actually part of the executive and the original privileges for parliament were designed to prevent the executive from interfering. So that is exactly why we have these privileges to keep the attorney general out of it.