On 18th November 1998, the third Defendant published the following article under the headline “Naidu denies education probe claim”.
“Education Secretary Amraiya Naidu denied reports that he ignored instruc from the Prime Minister that allegations of corrupt practiractices
against one of his officers be investigated.
The Daily Post reported yesterday that Intelligence Officers questioned Mr Naidu on Monday as to why no action had been taken on t
on the Prime Minister’s directive.
“The Daily Post report cat as if I had ignored the Prime Minister’s directive.”
“Nothing is further from the truth”, Mr Naidu said last night.
And as soon as I received the letter from PM I wrote to the Commissioner of Police on 18/12/97 on the matter.”
“On 19/1/98, the Deputy Commissioner of Police wrote to say that police had coed its investigation and wond would give us the interim
report. However, investigations would continue.”
Mr Naidu said he kept in touch with the investin officer throughout the year, the latest being on Novemberember 5 when the second
lot of allegations came in.
And the Public Service Commission had beet informed on the issue of certificates and degrees alleged to have been the subject of fraf
fraud.
Mr Naidu said when FIS officers came to see him on edocumentary evidence they required.
“This they did and they are welcomed to it”, he said.
“The matter is in the hands of the police and unless they authenticate the allegations we cannot charg officer concerned.”span>
“We need to have proof before I can take action,” Mr Naidu said.
Meanwhile, the officer involved came to the Daily Post yesterday with his certificateuting allegations that he o he obtained them
by fraud.
He said he left Fiji in 1987 to study in India on a joint Indian and Fiji Government scholarship.n>
p class=MsoNormaNormal style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Two years later in 1989got his BA degree in Hindi and two years later in 1991 he obtained his Masters degree.
He returned to Fiji immediately after that and after four yef research he successfully obtained his Phd in Hindi 1994.<994.
“It took me eight years to complete my studies and not three years as alleged in the anos letter to the Prime MinisMinister,” he said.
“The writer of the letter is not only a coward but someone who is spineless and gutless to reveal his ide and his address.
“But we know who the man is and he is doing this as a personal vendetta against me.”
The officer also refuted allegations that he had received a new car a businessman recently.”
An editorial on the same day under “Security P printed as follows:
1">
“What is the Fiji Intelligenceice doing investigating a case that is already in the hands of the police?
Is it because the service better known by the initials FIS, has nothing r to do? Or is it in the habit of intruding into other peop
people’s business?
The case involves allegations levelled at a senior official at the Minist Education. As Education Secretary Amraiya Naidu says in
ouin our report today, everything is under control and the police are investigating.
Why the FIS has suddenly come into the picture is uncertain, except that it claims it has done so at the insistence of the Prime Minister
after a National Security Council meeting.
What is so disturbing about this case is the involvement of three very powerful parties in a case that even the police have not seen
fit to place in its priority list.
The case emerged from an anonymous letter sent to the Prime Minister containing allegations about the Ministry of Education official.
Instead of throwing it into the rubbish bin, where all anonymous letters of this kind belong, the Prime Minister launched an investigation
based on it.
One can only surmise that the Prime Minister somehow knows the writer of the letter and that is why he is pushing the issue.
The police decided to sit on the, obviously believing there were far more important issues to deal with first. But the case case continued
to excite some people’s imaginations and that elevated it to a level where it was important enough to be discussed at the National
Security Council. After that it was handed over to the FIS.
These events lead to one very worrying thing. By giving it so much importance, the Prime Minister, or whoever is acting for him in
this matter, has turned the problem into a matter of national security. And that puts the man under investigation in a very precarious
position.
What charges are now likely to be brought against him should he be found guilty of some act? Is it reason? Or what is it that makes
this case so important that it demands the attention of the Prime Minister, the National Security Council and the Fiji Intelligence
Service?
It seems that this matter has been blown well out of proportion. At the end of the day it may turn out to be a simple case of professional
jealousy. Yet once that has
required the attention of the biggest movers and shakers in Government.
The lesson from this case is that Prime Ministers shouldconcern themselves with matters raised in anonymous letterstters sent by people
with axes to grind. The FIS should tread more carefully so it does not intrude into areas under the jurisdiction of the police.”
On 20th November 1998 the third Defendant printed the following article under the headline “Party queries Intelligence Invont.”
“The Christian Democratic Alliance says it is rned over reports that the Prime Minister has instructed the Fiji Intelligence Service
(FIS (FIS) to carry out investigations into allegations of corrupt and malpractice by a senior Education Officer.
Party spokesman Joe Vosanibola said under the laws and practice of Fiji, the pois the competent authority rity to conduct investigations
into allegations of criminal wrong-doing and corruption is a criminal offence.
“It appears thalic service rules and practice have now been flushed down the drain.”
“Since the alleged offence was committed while the individual was employed byMinistry of Education, the the first investigating action
should have been taken by that ministry and the Public Service Commission,” he said.
“Following preliminary investigations, the matter should be handed over to the police.”
“The Fiji Intelligence Services, under the law governing its establishmes intended to handle national security matters, not criminaiminal
matters or is this the usual case of lapsus memorue.
“It seems that the government is re of good, honest, dedicated public administration. No wonder it is endeavouring to form aorm a
grant coalition so that it can retain its bankrupt and corrupt practices and perhaps corrupts the entire grant coalition,” Mr Vosanibola
said.”
The Plaintiff claimed that according to the natural and ordinary meaning of these articles,Defendants were understood to say that
the Plaintiff had faad false qualifications, that he had falsely represented that he had those qualification, that he was dishonest
and corrupt, that he wrote pornographic material and that he was an unfit person to be employed by the Ministry of Education.
He claims damages for libel on the basis that his character and credit have been injured and that he has been brought into public
scandal and contempt. I have heard his evidence and it is clear that the Plaintiff holds the degrees he claims to hold, that he does
not write pornography, and has not corruptly received a car.
ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The issue of liability is not in dispute. The only ion is that of the proper damages to be awarded. There are very few local cases
which have have awarded damages in defamation claims.
In Apisalome Namoumou -v- Kolinio Lule and Others Action No.of 1991, a retired school teacher who was held in some resp respect in the community, was accused by the Defendants of
practising witchcraft, at a village meeting. Pathik J thought that the sum claimed, of $2500 from each of the four defendants was
“extravagantly out of proportion to any possible injury to his reputation which the Plaintiff may have suffered.”
His Lordship awarded $250 each for slander, and $200 each for libel. The total amount awarded to the tiff was $1400.
In Livingstone -v- Rawyards Coal Co. (1880)5A 39, Lord Blackburn said:
“Where any injury is to bpensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation of damages yous you should as
nearly as possible get at that sum of money which would put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position
as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.”
In Peter Anthony Lomas -v- Frederick Caine (Civil Action No. 323/78) an award of $100 assessed because the slander was held to be of a serious nous nature.
Counsel in his written submissions submitted that the Plaintiff is a well-respected and recognised educationist and writer. The Daily
Post has wide circulation in Fiji and abroad. He said that the Plaintiff was entitled to damages for loss of reputation, and suggested
the sum of $80,000, based on overseas cases. He further submits that the editorial of 18th November could not mitigate loss of reputation
because it was not an “apology”.
There is no suggestion that the Plaintiff lost earnings, or his position as a result of the publications. However, he is clearly entitled
to an award for loss of reputation and injury to feelings.
I consider the editorial of 18th November tonsufficient to be considered to be a retraction or an apology under section 4 of the Defamaefamation
Act. Indeed the editorial appears to be more concerned about the impropriety of the Prime Minister getting involved in the investigations
against the Plaintiff, than with the truth or otherwise of their articles.
I consider the sum of $80,000 suggested by counsel, to be excessive in Fiji’s context. However the $250 award in Apisalome Namoumou (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Defamation of a professional educationist who is a well-known
person, in a national newspaper on three separate occasions, clearly calls for a much higher award than defamation at a village meeting.
Furthermore the articles on the Plaintiff’s evidence are partially truere was a police investigation into the Plaintiff’s qualifications.
There was a Fiji Intellntelligence Services investigation into the Plaintiff’s qualifications. To that extent the articles are partially
true, and may result in the mitigation of damages Chalmers -v- Shacknell [1834] EngR 898; (1834) 6 C&P 475, 478.
Finally, whilst I note that the Defendant made no apology, I am not satisfied that the publication of the articles was activated by
malice. I do not consider that aggravated damages are justified on the facts of this case.
Taking all the circumstances into account, I consider the sum of $10,000 for loss of reputation and injury to feelings to be an apiate
sum.
The third Defendant must pay the Plaintiff’s costs which I set at.
&nGB>
Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE
At Suva
6th June 2000
Hbc0372j.99s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2000/72.html
