The Supreme Court has set the timetable for submission and opinion in the matter where cabinet made a referral concerning the interpretation of sections 105(2)(b) of the Constitution, in particular, whether an Independent Legal Services Commission finding in a disciplinary proceeding instituted against a legal practitioner, is consistent with the intended finding of guilt in the constitutional provisions.

It was heard in the Supreme Court this afternoon that Justice Sir Terence Arnold, Justice Brian Keith and Justice William Young will be presiding over the matter, and the hearing will be held on the 19th and 20th of June.

The opinion of the Supreme Court will determine the interpretation on whether a person found guilty by the Independent Legal Services Commission is disqualified or eligible to take up positions like a judge and the DPP. 

Cabinet is seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court on the interpretation or application of the Constitution.

In this application, the terms of reference indicates that Justice Alipate Qetaki was appointed as Judge of the Fiji Court of Appeal in April, 2023, however, on 18 April 201 7, Justice Qetaki was recorded as having “pleaded guilty” to two charges of professional misconduct. 

It also indicates that John Rabuku was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions in October, 2023, however, on 30 July 2013, Rabuku was charged with professional misconduct and ILSC found the charge established.

The Supreme Court will give an opinion on the 28th of June on whether the two can hold office under the constitution. 

The Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission and the Fiji Law Society have been served at the direction of the court in this case.

Lawyer, Feizal Hannif is representing the Solister General, Anil Singh is representing Justice Alipate Qetaki, Parvesh Sharma is appearing for the Human Rights Commission and Richard Naidu is appearing for the Fiji Law Society.

Former Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem have applied to be interveners in the case.

In his submission, Saneem says his application as an intervener from the fact that Rabuka as Acting DPP has sanctioned charges against him. 

He informed the court that he would like to challenge his appointment. 

Saneem also informed the supreme court that the opinion of the supreme court will determine the validity of the charges against him 

Lawyer, Gul Fatima informed the court that Sayed-Khaiyum’s submission as an intervener stems from the fact that he was a former AG who participated in the drafting of the constitution. 

The Supreme court will make a decision on the applications by Sayed-Khaiyum and Sameem to be interveners this Friday. 

The Constitution provides for the qualification of certain persons to hold certain offices. 

The Constitution also establishes a shared disqualification criterion in respect of appointments to certain officers. 

The Independent Legal Services Commission is entrusted with the function of adjudicating disciplinary matters involving legal practitioners, although there is no explicit authority to pronounce guilt.