The Applicant is a former member of the Counter Revolutionary Warfare (CRW) Unit convicted by a Court Martial for the offence of mutiny relating to the attempted takeover of Queen Elizabeth Barracks on the 2nd of November 2000. He appealed to the Fiji Court of Appeal, against both his conviction and sentence.

When the matter came before the Fiji Court of Appeal, Qicatabua raised the issue of section 30 of the RFMF Act, which limited his right of appeal only to appeal against conviction. He indicated that he asked the Court of Appeal to make a decision on the constitutionality of section 30 of the RFMF which provides that a person aggrieved with the decision of the Court Martial shall appeal against conviction in the Fiji Court of Appeal.

The Court stated that it was not able to rule on this but instead referred the issue to the High Court as a constitutional redress matter and that the Court of Appeal would decide on the appeal.

Qicatabua then made a constitutional redress application with the High Court and this was heard by Justice Jiten Singh. The Fiji Human Rights Commission was originally named as a Respondent by Qicatabua however, at the Court's direction the Commission was removed as a Respondent but retained as amicus curiae .

After hearing submissions from all parties, Judge Singh made a Declaration that section 30 of the RFMF Act breached section 28(1)(l) which provided that a person charged with an offence had the right, if found guilty, to appeal to a higher Court.

The Court declared that the right to appeal includes both the right to appeal against conviction as well as sentence. In order to grant the applicant Emosi Qicatabua appropriate relief, Justice Singh stated that the word appeal "and sentence" would be read in to section 30 of the RFMF Act to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.

To top of page

On the 27 th of August 2003, the Commissioner of Police caused Alifereti Yaya's image and personal details to be broadcast on television as part of the "most wanted list." The applicant's details were also published in the dailies and on National television.

Yaya claimed that the publication of both his image and personal details breached his right to privacy. He filed a petition for constitutional redress against the State. The Fiji Human Rights Commission was invited by the Court as amicus curiae and requested to make submissions on section 37 of the Constitution and its interpretation.

In his judgement, Justice Pathik stated the following: -

"The Police Commissioner's conduct in my considered view put the plaintiff in a very dim light in the eyes of the public before he was even arrested or charged. This undignified treatment of an innocent member of the public on the part of the Commissioner of Police will not be allowed by law as our Constitution under section 37(1) protects peoples' rights; members of the disciplined forces should not forget that they are dealing with human beings who have their dignity and name to protect from such ruthless conduct by defaming them in the media e.g. TV in this case before trial.

The applicant I find has rightly submitted that the action of the Commissioner of Police in publicly publishing and advertising his name has 'intruded into his privacy' in breach of section 37(1) and s27(1)(f) of the Constitution."

As a result, Alifereti Yaya was awarded four thousand dollars as damages for the breach of his right to privacy.

To top of page