Well what else can I say!

The President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, did not have any powers to appoint Voreqe Bainimarama Prime Minister as his “emergency powers were only within the context of the 1997 Constitution”.

That was the submission of Nye Perram, who is representing Laisenia Qarase and others in their case against Commodore Bainimarama and others in the High Court. Mr Perram said the court needed to determine what the Constitution said about the President’s “executive powers” and whether it was lawfully applied following the events of December 5, 2006.

He said the Constitution upheld values of the rule of law and it was the role of the judiciary to determine what the powers of other branches of Government were. Mr Perram said it was clear the Constitution was the supreme law of the land and it established the hierarchy of laws in the country. He said the High Court had the jurisdiction to determine all constitutional questions brought before it.

He said the Constitution allowed the court to deal with constitutional cases so that the key notion of the rule of law was always guaranteed. “Section 120 subsection 2 of the Constitution states the High Court has original jurisdiction in any matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation.” He said the Office of the President determined its powers from the Constitution. “Therefore, the President is a creature of the Constitution.”

 He said the Constitution stated the executive authority of the State was vested in the President, who was the head of State, commander-in-chief of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces and had powers to establish the office of the Vice-President.

He said the President could only be removed for the inability to perform the functions of the office whether arising from infirmity of body, mind or any other cause like misbehaviour. Mr Perram said in the absence of a President, “the VP performs his functions and in the absence of both the Speaker of the House of Representatives steps in”.

He said Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama’s actions “as a soldier to take control of government on December 5, 2006, could never be lawful”. Mr Perram said no provision in the Constitution allowed Mr Bainimarama to be President when he assumed executive authority in December 2006. “He obviously was not a man helping the country in a crisis but someone justifying his appointments after he sacked people, including the Commissioner of Police and Cabinet ministers,” said Mr Perram. He said the President only acted lawfully on the advice of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister and that he had no powers to exercise on his own.

He said Commodore Bainimarama could never be appointed as PM because he was not a Member of Parliament and that the President had no powers to make that move.

He said the Constitution clearly referred to an elected prime minister and Commodore Bainimarama was not and Mr Qarase was still the Prime Minister as he had not resigned and had not received a pension.

“This government is, therefore, unlawful and non-existent, and came to power using a gun and this court has the powers to give the regime its place.

“None of Qarase’s Cabinet ministers have resigned as the only way to do so is through writing to the President and it is, therefore, clear that these people were deprived leadership through the takeover, and had applied for pension because they did not have a choice and were under duress,” he said.

and then today:

The Interim Prime Minister and Army Commander Frank Bainimarama should come forward and give details on the necessities under which he carried the takeover on December 5th, 2006.

While making submissions for ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and others against the interim government, QC Nye Perram said that Commodore Bainimarama is the only person who knows everything behind the real reasons for removal of a democratically elected government.

Perram said Laisenia Qarase came forward and was also subject to not so respectful cross examination by QC Gerad McCoy and the Commander should also come forward and give his side of the story.

The QC stressed that Commodore Bainimarama could singularly reveal why December 5th was necessary. He also said that certain contradicting evidence has been put forward on behalf of the Commander and if he were to take the stand it would be a cross examiner’s dream.

Perram said the Commander had explained after the events of 2000 stating what was the necessity of his actions, however, this time around he refuses to come forward.

He said the Commander also saw it fit to the tell the nation the status and stand of the President in an address on December 5th, 2006 but he sends his people to court to argue executive privileges not to reveal certain information.

The SDL Lawyer also said that the defendants submissions of the Great Council of Chiefs recommendations on December 22th, 2006 cannot be accepted. He said the defense failed to note the fact that the GCC recognized that it was ONLY due to the actions of the military that the SDL government had been rendered incapable and ineffective.

Perram said saying the SDL government was dysfunctional cannot be justified as the defendants were the cause of the dysfunction when Qarase was removed from Office and confined against his will on Vanuabalavu.

He said the GCC statement is inept and incapable of providing plausible arguments on the necessity which led to the events of December 2006.

Perrem continues his submissions on the evidence provided in court earlier by Defense that most of the ousted SDL ministers had applied for and are on pensions as former Cabinet ministers and on the evidence that Qarase had asked for foreign intervention on or about December 5th, 2006.

Following that Fiji Human Rights Commission Director Dr. Shaista Shameem, who is acting as an amicus or friend to the court will make submissions. (Get ready for the Comedy; this mad excuse for a woman does not know her limits)