The Department of Environment has raised concerns that Great Han Pte Limited is continuing construction work along Princes Road in breach of a partial stop work order.
The order had only permitted development on buildings one and two, limited strictly to level one.
State Counsel Mainavolau Josefa informed the Suva High Court that the Environmental Tribunal had partially lifted the stop work order, but made it clear that no construction was to take place beyond the approved scope.
He says that the Department is now in the process of filing another stop order due to new information received.
Defence Counsel Feizal Haniff denied any further construction is currently underway at the site.
Josefa informed the court that the development sits along an earthquake fault line, posing potential risks to public safety and traffic disruption during peak hours.
He says the submitted Operation Environmental Management Plan was unsatisfactory and highlighted that the foreign companies must comply with local laws.
He further says that Great Han is disregarding environmental regulations.
In response, Haniff says the company is registered in Fiji, and objected to the use of the term “foreign,” clarifying that it is incorrect to refer to the company or its personnel as Chinese.
Justice Vishwa Sharma intervened to clarify that the State Counsel had only used the word ‘foreign’ not ‘Chinese.’
Haniff questioned the implication behind the term ‘foreigner’ and claimed that the stop order was influenced by the Tamavua Action Group, which had been previously led by Rohit Punja.
He argued that the fault line runs through the entire Princes Road area and questioned why Great Han was being singled out.
He also challenged the claim of environmental risks, noting that construction had begun in 2017 and the buildings had not collapsed.
Haniff says the ongoing legal restrictions were causing financial hardship to the company’s clients.
Haniff further says that both the Suva City Council and the Mineral Resources Department had raised no objections to continued construction.
He clarified that no work is taking place from buildings three to six, which currently remain vacant.
On the issue of jurisdiction, State Counsel Josefa mentioned that the High Court has the authority to hear the stay application.
However, Haniff opposed this, arguing that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the application should be made in a lower court, such as the Magistrates Court.
The ruling on the matter has been adjourned and will be delivered on notice.
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
