Suva lawyer Richard Naidu’s contempt of court case was yesterday set down for hearing on September 29, over the objection of his counsel Filimoni Vosarogo.
An application by the Fiji Law Society(FLS) to join the case was set down for hearing on September 26, also over the objections of FLS’s lawyer.
The case was called yesterday for a ruling on the FLS application that its New Zealand King’s Counsel make submissions by video link, which the court dismissed.
The court then asked for a date for when the FLS application could be heard before him in person.
Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s lawyer, Gul Fatima, then asked for a date which would precede a hearing date in the substantive application for the end of September.
FLS counsel Romanu Vananalagi said the FLS lawyers who would be arguing the case were not available until October.
Justice Jude Nanayakkara then fixed the date for hearing on September 26, with Mr Vananalagi saying that this date was not suitable to FLS’s counsel.
The judge then fixed the hearing date for the main case for September 30.
Mr Vosarogo told the court he had attended only for the purpose of taking the videolink ruling and was not in a position to agree a hearing date.
He pointed out that the timetable for filing of affidavits ended on September 29.
After further argument Justice Nanayakkara set the matter down for September 29, ending the hearing.
In his written decision ruling against the FLS application, the judge asked why the court should make a departure from its usual practice for mere convenience of the Fiji Law Society.
Justice Nanayakkara said the FLS had not yet formally invoked the High Court Rules 1988 to intervene in the proceedings and was therefore not party to the proceedings, making the application appear premature to him.
He said FLS participation in the proceedings as “a friend to the court” and providing it with material assistance on an independent and objective basis, needed to be appointed by the court and no such permission was granted.
Justice Nanayakkara said generally cases were argued by counsel directly in the presence of court and that “the courts insist upon the physical presence of counsel for argument and presentation of oral submissions”.
He said the court had the power only in very exceptional circumstances to allow testimony to be given via video link, for example for vulnerable witnesses, but hardly ever for convenience.
He also said the hurdle was higher than that in an application to conduct a hearing on a video link platform.
The proceedings will be called again on September 26 to hear FLS’s joinder application to intervene in the proceedings.
