In re the Constitution, Chaudhary v Qarase [2002] FJCA 28; Miscellaneous 1.2001 (22 January 2002)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIJI ISLANDS

MISCELLANEOUS NO: 1/2001

BETWEEN:

MAHENDRA PAL CHAUDHARY
PLAINTIFF

AND:

LAISENIA QARASE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
RESPONDENTS

Mr. G.P. Lala and Mr Varun Shandil for the Plaintiff
Mr W. D. Calachini for the Respondents

MINUTE OF DIRECTIONS HEARING
IN CHAMBERS BEFORE EICHELBAUM JA
ON 22 JANUARY 2002

1. I explained the main purpose of the hearing was to ensure that the case would be ready to proceed on 12 February 2002. If there were any potential problems this was the opportunity to raise them so that they could be solved. Both sides indicated the case would be ready to proceed.

2. By consent I extended the time for the filing of the respondent’s submissions until 21 January 2002 (when they had in fact been filed).

3. By consent I made an order allowing the Plaintiff to file and serve submissions in reply no later than Monday 4 February 2002.

4. I noted the respondents’ submissions made reference to the Westminister system of government. The Court wished to be provided with text references to relevant parts of the Westminister system. Also, if there were any text references to the multi- party concept contained in the Constitution, the Court wished to have such references.

5. The Court did not want separate bundles of authorities from each side. The Court requests that it be provided with a joint bundle of authorities contained in a ring binder, with a numbered index and with flags corresponding to the numbers. Five copies to be provided. There was no need to include the 1999 Supreme Court Opinion on the President’s reference as the Judges already have that.

6. Counsel indicated that the Reeves Report would be provided separately ( a copy for each Judge). I requested that a copy of the report of the Fiji Constitution Review Committee also be provided with the authorities.

7. I expressed the view that the evidential material for the Court was limited to the Case Stated, that is the agreed statement of facts and the appendices to it. Earlier material included in the Record was regarded as subsumed. I pointed out that the submissions referred to some other material. After some discussion, Counsel agreed the position was as I had stated. Mr Calachini indicated that he was giving consideration to making an application either to the High Court or this Court for leave to file a supplementary case of materials. He specifically mentioned the updating the position of the seats held in parliament. I indicated that he would have to decide to which Court to apply. If this Court had to deal with the matter it would do so at the commencement of the hearing on 12 February 2002.

8. Counsel confirmed that the operative set of questions was the one commencing at page 117 of the Record.

9. I referred to the possibility that television might apply for leave to televise the proceedings, as happened with the 2001 Constitutional case. No application has been received to date but if one were made the Court would deal with it on 12 February 2002.

10. I announced the names of the Judges who would constitute the Court, in alphabetical order.

11. I stated that in accordance with Counsel’s estimates, two days have been allocated to the hearing, and Counsel should be aware the Court expected the hearing to be confined to this time.

12. I invited Counsel to raise any other matters. At Mr Calachini’s request I fixed the time for providing the folders of authorities, namely 12 noon on Friday 8 February. There were no other matters.

Thomas Eichelbaum
Justice of Appeal