SM lodged his complaint in December 2006 but FHRC did not process it until SM provided sufficient documents in support in March 2007

Laws: FHRC assessed the complaint pursuant to Section (34) Freedom of Movement, Section (37) Privacy and Section (38) Equality of the 1997 Constitution and Section (17) of the HRC Act.

MS was working for a private shipping company. Upon being dismissed, he was restricted from traveling on any of its vessels. Notice to this effect dated 14/08/06 was posted at the Suva office, other agencies around the country and in the two vessels for the information of the crew.

FHRC was able to bring all parties to the table in April 2007 but then negotiations stalled with the removal of a senior manager by the private company. The company could not produce a copy of the restricted notice but fortunately, FHRC was able to find a copy during its investigations.

During August 2007, a new General Manager was appointed and in negotiations with the company’s Chairman (based overseas), the restrictions were lifted on 14/08/07.

Verification was necessary and this was obtained from the new General Manager. The Commission recorded the file closure as a resolution.

The file is now marked as Investigated, Conciliated and Closed in the Complaints Management System, CMS.

To top of page

Laws: Section (34) of 1997 Constitution; ICCPR

FHRC received a complaint in April 2007 from KMM an Indian national who in August 2003, under a work permit in Fiji , became a shareholder and company director of a private company with offices in Nadi and Suva .

KMM was visited by border control officers in 2006 and issued a deportation notice after his former business partner informed the immigration department that KMM had planned to marry a local woman.

FHRC investigated and subsequently sought the intervention of the relevant Permanent Secretary and the Minister pursuant to Sections 7 and 9 of the Immigration Act 17 of 2003.

To date the Commission has not been able to obtain a response from either the line ministry or border control office.

However, a resolution was achieved when KMM obtained a revised permit which was originally approved for stay until 27/05/09 and now amended to 22/02/08. This information was obtained after the Complainant provided the amended copy of the permit.

What is troublesome and still outstanding is that the line ministry and the border control offices did not respond or acknowledge the Commission's correspondence. The Commission will take additional action under the HRC Act in future if this problem recurs.

Since KMM and his spouse (now married) were satisfied with the granting of the permit, investigations were discontinued.

The file is now marked Investigated, Conciliated and Closed in the Commission's Complaints Management System, CMS.

To top of page