High Court Judge Justice Lyone Seneviratne will deliver a ruling on the 31st of this month in relation to Ratu Isoa Tikoca’s case where he has filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review challenging the decision of parliament to suspend him for the rest of the term of parliament until 2018.
Solicitor General Sharvada Sharma who is representing the Speaker of Parliament has filed a strike out application and both parties made verbal submissions yesterday.
While making his submission, Sharma said internal proceedings of parliament are not within the jurisdiction of the courts.
He said Parliament has its own privilege to regulate its own procedure, exercise discipline and suspend or take action for contempt or disciplinary issues.
Sharma says its not for the court to question the privilege of parliament.
He said there are four cases in relation to this in Fiji and in all cases it has been determined that the courts cannot challenge the decision of parliament.
He says the Fiji Court of Appeal in its earlier ruling had said that the court could only intervene if there is something expressly provided in the constitution.
Sharma then said that in 1993 in the Butadroka versus Attorney General case, where Sakeasi Butadroka was suspended in the exercise of privileges in parliament, the judge had said that the House of Representatives has the exclusive control over its internal proceedings and is not a jurisdiction of the court.
He said it cannot be doubted that legal proceedings in Fiji is crystal clear.
Sharma said parliament has privileges to take actions for contempt and the courts cannot challenge the internal affairs of parliament.
He said the constitution does not provide an expressed provision for the courts to challenge the decision of parliament, however it recognises the supremacy of parliament and the courts have also recognized this which has been followed for over 100 years in Commonwealth countries.
Sharma said there is nothing in the constitution which undermines the privileges of parliament.
Tikoca's lawyer Kitione Vuetaki said this case is about what parliament has put in its Standing Orders.
He said they are asking the court to look at the Standing Orders and see whether a power has been contravened.
Vuetaki said the court has to look at the Standing Orders and see if they have powers to suspend a Member of Parliament.
He said the court has to see whether it is lawful for parliament to remove a MP from parliament for exercising his right to freedom of speech.
Tikoca’s lawyer told the court that they cannot find any power in the Standing Orders to exclude the right of speech in parliament.
He said when you want to remove someone from parliament then the Standing Orders should have clear words.
He said parliament cannot just declare a privilege as it has to exist in the Standing Orders.
He said they are saying that the resolution of parliament is null and void and the court has powers to enquire this issue through a judicial review.
Vuetaki said the constitution protects freedom of speech and debate in parliament and they are just asking the court to see if there are powers in the Standing Orders to suspend a MP for the rest of the parliament term.
