From the Fiji Times online edition on this lovely Saturday morning, …
“FORMER chief State prosecutor Justice Nazhat Shameem said there will be no political will to fight corruption where charges are made against powerful figures or supporters of the Government. In her contribution to the Asia Pacific Human Development report, Justice Shameem said Fiji’s laws were inadequate. She said she experienced personal attacks in high-profile cases. “Members of the bench threatened several prosecutors with contempt proceedings,” she said. “Two were cited and one was detained in the cell after feelings ran high in court. “Those were the direct attacks. The indirect attacks were those within the civil service machinery, the lack of co-operation, the abusive memoranda and ostracism. When prosecutors take on the rich and influential their children will be abused at school and threatening letters will be thrown at their gate.” Justice Nazhat Shameem said an independent prosecutor was a potential challenge to a government that did not believe in accountability. “Attempts will be made to subdue that independence, ensuring some executive control.” She said at one time the Government tried to make her report to the permanent secretary for Justice but she refused. “But the pressure was immense, together with personal attacks, judicial battles, legal challenges and political apathy, the pressures defeated the prosecution.”
To her press release, we say –
Is that the best the Queen Pretender could come up with??
It is a disgusting and pathetic attempt to subtly and indirectly justify her role in the mentoring, counseling, aiding, abetting and all that… of the Pig’s Dec 2006 coup de’tat … given all that’s transpired since in its aftermath!
If QP was so passionate about the weight of opposition driven by ‘powerful’ figures to counter the work that she was ably doing to successfully prosecute those corruption cases that came before her when she was the Director of Public Prosecutions, then why did she leave that office so ‘prematurely’ to take up the OFFER to the bench as a Judge of the High Court?
A place (bench) where she does not drive the agenda but merely act as a referee, adjudicating ONLY on issues brought before her;
A place where she is less effective in advocating to correct the wrongs that she so accurately indentifies in her interview above;
A place where she is bound by rules mostly made by the legislature and which are beyond her powers, particularly, if they (laws and policies) were made within the ambit of the Constitutional provisions).
WHY? Did she really feel that helpless at the helm of the DPP that she decided to ‘give in’ to the pressures and be ‘annointed’ to the bench to ‘mind her own business’?
Or did she accept the appointment for the accolades in breaking that ‘hard glass ceiling’ twice (being the first female Director of Public Prosecutions and then first female Judge of the High Court). Hmmm……
If she was TRULY passionate about the plight of our people, why didn’t she remain true to herself and have the courage of her convictions to either stay where she was (as DPP) or venture out of the restrictive civil service machinery in order to become a MORE EFFECTIVE ADVOCATE for the changes that she’s now trying to drive in our society… except that she is now riding her convictions on the back of two wounded, lunatic and selfish tigers (Bainimarama and Chaudry).
What a tragic ending it’ll be to such noble intentions …