In 1979, Fiji’s Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara raised questions about the independence of Chief Justice Sir Clifford Grant as part of a broader push to localise senior judicial posts. Mara’s remarks came after he faced inquiries about his moves to replace Grant with a local judge, a step he argued was in line with constitutional localisation provisions.
During a public engagement at an international press forum, Mara acknowledged questions from a local newspaper about whether he had acted within constitutional bounds in seeking a local successor to the Chief Justice. He recounted that he had written to the Governor-General and had met with him on multiple occasions to discuss the matter, emphasising that under constitutional provisions the Governor-General is kept informed of Cabinet papers and would request further explanations as needed. He argued that independence of the judiciary should be interpreted in the context of ensuring the judiciary reflects the nation’s character, and he pressed the question of how independence is maintained when the Governor-General acts as the head of both the judiciary and the executive, especially when he is well acquainted with the PM and the proceedings of Cabinet.
Mara also noted that the local public and media attention had made the issue more pressing. He stated clearly that the post of Chief Justice should be localised, and indicated that the Government sought a local candidate who could command the requisite respect and authority. He said that the Governor-General’s role in such appointments involved consultation with the Prime Minister and others, and that such steps were part of a constitutional process designed to balance leadership and accountability.
The push to replace Grant within six months, and the suggestion of a local candidate, reflected a wider post-independence effort to localise senior public service and judicial roles. In related developments at the time, a formal letter from Mara requesting the retirement of Sir Clifford Grant was delivered to the Governor-General shortly before noon, and Mara indicated that several local judges could meet the required standards. The move drew cross-party interest and support, with some opposition figures and the Fiji Public Service Association backing localisation as a necessary step in redefining Fiji’s public service for a new era.
Sir Clifford Grant contested Mara’s authority to compel retirement and, according to reports, provided a copy of a letter to the Prime Minister indicating he would not remain in office if he was not wanted. The situation highlighted tensions between constitutional processes and perceptions of judicial independence. Mara maintained that the process was constitutional and properly managed, with Cabinet papers and explanations prepared for review as needed. The broader debate underscored the enduring challenge of ensuring judicial independence while also allowing for national ownership of key institutions.
Context and implications:
– The Governor-General’s role in appointing or dismissing the Chief Justice, and the need for consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, illustrate the constitutional mechanisms meant to balance executive prerogative with judicial integrity.
– Localisation was framed as a necessary step toward national ownership of the judiciary, though it required careful handling to preserve public trust and the appearance of independence.
– Sir Grant’s response, including the publication of correspondence, demonstrated the tensions that arise when political decisions intersect with individual and institutional integrity.
Publication notes for editors:
– Consider including archival photographs of Sir Clifford Grant and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara with clear captions to visually contextualize the historical moment.
– A short timeline outlining letters, meetings, public statements, and the transition window would help readers follow the sequence of events.
– Where possible, add contemporaneous statements from the Leader of the Opposition and the FPSA to provide primary-source context.
Summary:
In 1979, Mara sought the retirement of the British Chief Justice Sir Clifford Grant and a local successor within six months, arguing it was a constitutional localisation step. The process involved the Governor-General, with Mara and his office presenting correspondence and justifications, while Grant contested the authority to compel retirement. The episode highlighted constitutional safeguards intended to balance executive aims with judicial independence and national ownership of the judiciary.
Hopeful note:
The localisation effort reflected Fiji’s confidence in its own legal talent and the opportunity to strengthen public trust in the judiciary through transparent, constitutional processes. When managed with openness and respect for constitutional safeguards, such transitions can reinforce national sovereignty while preserving judicial integrity.
Additional commentary:
This historical episode resonates with ongoing debates about the balance between executive prerogative and judicial independence in Fiji’s evolving governance framework. It underscores the importance of transparent procedures, robust consultation, and clear constitutional boundaries when reforming senior public institutions.
Leave a comment