Much Unsaid In Fiji Law

• The Fiji Parliamentary Privileges Bill was passed in the Fiji Legislative Council, with amendments, in June (“PIM” July, p. 15). Some aspects of the bill were fiercely opposed in Fiji and overseas as being an attack, on freedom. A leader of the attack was the daily “Fiji Times”, whose editor and publisher here explains, by invitation, the reasons for the opposition.

By L. G. Usher, Publisher of “The Fiji Times”

It was natural that the framers of a bill to define the powers and privileges of the Legislative Council of Fiji should have based the bill on the powers and privileges of the House of Commons—the model for all Commonwealth legislatures.

PARLIAMENTARY privilege stems from the days when parliament was trying to establish its supremacy as a law-making body. Anything that weakened that authority was some thing to be fiercely challenged.

Anyone who trespassed on land belonging to a member of Parliament, or fished in his waters, or insulted him personally, was held guilty of offending the privilege of Parliament itself and was tried and punished by Parliament.

The power to punish remains, but with the years it has been less and less used, and the arrogance is gone.

Nobody these days is put in the pillory.

Nobody has been fined by the House of Commons for more than 200 years. Imprisonment has been replaced, in general, by reprimand following an apology.

The House of Commons still, itself, deals with alleged breach of privilege and sits as judge.

Under the new Fiji law, such charges are to be heard in the law courts—a procedure which courts in Britain have been trying to establish for many years.

There is no limit to the penalty that may be imposed for breaches of the privilege of the Commons.

Under the Fiji law, maximum penalties of a £2OO fine or two years gaol, or both have been fixed.

These are probably realistic when the offence involves deliberate per jury, destruction of public documents, or assault or bribery or intimidation of members.

But in its initial form the Fiji bill included in the blanket list of breaches of privilege such things as “insulting” a member because of his Legislative Council activities, “pre varication” as a witness not on oath, or disclosing details of proceedings or documents declared secret by the Council or one of its committees,

“misconduct” as a witness—which might mean anything from wrecking the furniture to appearing in a bathing suit.

The Fiji Times opposed the bill because it included, with heavy penalties, powers that have in practice been relinquished in Britain, although they still exist in theory. The Fiji law therefore enshrined things that have become archaic in Britain.

The Fiji Times protested against harsh penalties for minor offences, and when the bill came before the Council most of these things were removed.

But on the principle that ordinary laws of the land should apply to such things as alleged defamation or assault of a member the Government stood fast.

"Special Citizens"

So members of the Legislative Council have been put into a special category, separate from fellow citizens.

The opposition to the bill produced one valuable safeguard which in practice should curb any arbitrary assertion of power.

There can be no prosecution for breach of privilege unless it is authorised by both the Attorney General, as director of public pro secutions, and the Speaker.

Yet some basic questions remain.

They have been stated by an English outhority, Harry Street, in a Pelican book, Freedom, the Individual and the Law.

“Is there any need for this crime of contempt of Parliament at all in so far as it bears on freedom of expression? If an MP’s character is attacked he has his remedy in an action for defamation. What gap in civil and criminal law is there which needs to be filled by this crime?”

Fiji’s privileges law leaves these questions unanswered.