Former Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho told the Suva High Court that every officer he terminated was given legal redress and advice through the director of legal to challenge his decision in court. He said he was willing to reinstate the two officers into the force and stressed that he held no grudges and did not discriminate against those he terminated.
Qiliho also asserted that he was not pressured by the former Prime Minister and that if there had been pressure, he would still be prepared to reinstate the two officers without any loss of benefits. When the state cross-examined him, they asked whether his review of the disciplinary decisions was influenced by his knowledge of the late Jonacani Bainimarama from his time in the military. He denied this, explaining that he reviewed the decision because he had returned to the country and resumed his role as commissioner.
He further stated that his review covered the penalties handed down by the Acting Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu, and that he did not reassess the findings of the disciplinary tribunal itself. Defence counsel clarified a point during re-cross examination: whether Qiliho or the police’s Director of Legal had suggested seeking Solicitors Advice. Qiliho replied that it was the Director of Legal who proposed obtaining legal advice.
The defense noted that the State planned to call the late Jonacani Bainimarama as a prosecution witness before his death earlier this year. The trial concluded this afternoon, and both sides are set to present their closing submissions next Monday.
Context and potential impact
– The case centers on allegations that Bainimarama pressured Tudravu to dismiss two officers, or resign, and that Qiliho overrode Tudravu’s disciplinary decisions to terminate the officers between August 5 and August 18, 2021.
– Tudravu’s role and the independence of disciplinary processes have been focal points in testimonies, with witnesses detailing appointment procedures, timelines, and the chain of command.
– The proceedings continue to be watched as a test of governance, accountability, and the protection of civil servants within Fiji’s public service.
What to watch next
– Closing submissions from both sides next week to gauge how the court may weigh the influence of political leadership on police disciplinary matters.
– Any further witness testimony that could clarify who ordered the terminations and how due process was observed.
– The potential implications for governance ethics and the balance between executive oversight and police independence in Fiji.
Hopeful takeaway
– The ongoing trial offers an opportunity to reinforce accountability and due process in Fiji’s public service. A clear, evidence-based resolution could strengthen public trust in institutions and underscore the integrity of policing practices, while clarifying the limits of executive influence over internal disciplinary decisions.
Leave a comment