Lawyers in the Richard Naidu contempt of court case will apply to cross-examine Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum as part of their application to set aside the legal proceedings.
Jon Apted, the lead counsel for Mr Naidu, made the statement in the High Court in Suva on yesterday’s call of the setting-aside application before Justice Jude Nanayakkara.
Mr Sayed-Khaiyum has brought contempt of court proceedings against Mr Naidu, claiming he scandalised the High Court in a Facebook post noting that a court judgment had used the word “injection” instead of “injunction”.
Mr Naidu has applied to set aside the grant of leave in the contempt proceedings, saying that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum failed to disclose that he and Mr Naidu had a strained relationship and were potential political rivals.
Mr Naidu was represented in court yesterday by Mr Apted and fellow lawyers Subhas Parshotam, Hemendra Nagin, Laurel Vaurasi, Gavin O’Driscol and Filimoni Vosarogo.
Gul Fatima, for the Attorney-General, told the Court yesterday that the grounds of Mr Naidu’s setting aside application were flawed and evidence of his strained relationship with Mr Sayed-Khaiyum was irrelevant.
Ms Fatima said that the question of Mr Sayed-Khaiyum’s intent was not important and the court should be focused on whether or not Mr Naidu’s Facebook post was contempt of court.
Ms Fatima described the application as an attempt to intimidate the court.
Responding, Mr Apted said the matters raised by Ms Fatima were for the setting aside hearing itself when the court would be asked to decide whether the proceedings were only brought against Mr Naidu for political reasons.
He said it was for the court to decide, at a hearing on Mr Naidu’s application, whether the animosity and public statements made by the A-G against Mr Naidu and the law firm of Munro Leys were material matters that should have been disclosed.
“It does not involve the court in any improper entry into politics,” he said.
“It is precisely the kind of matter the court has a duty under the Constitution to police.”
Mr Apted said the A-G, as the highest legal officer in Fiji, had the highest duty to provide full and frank disclosure.
He said the court needed to decide when and whether it was appropriate, or not, for the A-G to use the coercive powers of the court against a political rival, and to decide on the appropriate legal threshold for leave to issue committal proceedings.
Mr Apted sought an oral hearing of Mr Naidu’s setting aside application.
He said that Mr Naidu had engaged an overseas counsel to come to Fiji to argue the application before the court.
Justice Nanayakarra said he had recorded the parties’ oral submissions in court and that the parties could file written submissions on the matter with a ruling on August 22.
Mr Apted objected and said Mr Naidu was entitled to a proper hearing on his application, at which it was intended to cross-examine Mr Sayed-Khaiyum.
He said Mr Naidu was entitled to counsel of his choice in the argument of the application.
Justice Nanayakkara told Mr Apted that if he wished to have a hearing and cross-examine the A-G, he would have to make an application to the court.
Mr Naidu told the judge that the applications would be filed on Friday.
