Allowed to Share Magisterial

Fiji Indian J.P.

Allowed to Share Magisterial Bench

From Our Own Correspondent.

SUVA, August 16.

ON the occasion of the King’s Birthday, His Excellency the Governor appoint ed Mr. K. B. Singh, Indian member of the Legislative Council, and two high Fijian chiefs, one of whom was the paramount chief of the Colony, Ratu Popi Cakobau, to be Justices of the Peace. In Fiji, this has always been looked upon as a purely honorary distinction, and, according to old residents, J.P.’s here have never at tempted to exercise the right of sitting on the magisterial bench, being content to leave this to the trained District Com missioners. This system has worked very well in the past.

However, apparently Mr. Singh is not accepting his appointment as an honorary one. Recently on a court day at Naduru loulou, Rewa, to which district he be longs, he presented himself at the Dis trict Commissioner’s office, and asked to be allowed to sit on the bench with the presiding magistrate. It is reported that when he was refused, he went to His Ex cellency, and reported the D.C. for refus ing him the right to sit on the bench.

It is understood, on very good authority, that Mr. Singh returned to Rewa in a highly satisfied state of mind, with ex plicit instructions from His Excellency to the D.C., to the effect that Mr. Singh was to be allowed to sit on the bench whenever he pleased—a privilege which he has since exercised.

Old residents comment most unfavour ably on this state of affairs. They point out that its effect on the minds of more or less untutored Indians is a most un fortunate one. An ignorant litigant en ters the court and sees another Indian sharing the bench with the official ma gistrate. His opponent might be a friend of the Indian J.P., and then if the litigant loses his case, the impression left on his mind is that justice has been influenced against him. Not that it is suggested for one moment that that is so, for our D.C.’s are too scrupulously fair to be influenced by any outside interests.

The harm is done by the fact that an ignorant litigant does not understand that the Government official cannot be in fluenced in that way, for he can see no more than the evidence before his eyes.

Altogether, the innovation, which is un precedented, is most unpopular.