High Court Judge Justice Jude Nanayakkara will deliver his judgement on the 22nd of November in the matter where committal proceedings have been brought against prominent lawyer, Richard Naidu.
Naidu allegedly posted on his Facebook page a picture of a judgement in a case represented by his associate that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, and then made some comments that he was pretty sure the applicant wanted an injunction.
The committal proceeding has been brought against Naidu by the Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Naidu is represented by Jon Apted while Gul Fatima is representing Sayed-Khaiyum.
Earlier today, Justice Nanayakkara indicated that he is declining to deal with Naidu's King's Counsel's objection to Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum's statement and affidavit as evidence at this point.
As committal proceedings against Naidu started this morning, his King’s Counsel Martin Daubney said they are objecting to Sayed-Khaiyum's statement and affidavit as it is hearsay evidence and it should not be admitted.
Daubney says the matter should be struck out or to be ruled as inadmissible as it does not contain evidence the applicant is able to admit of his own knowledge.
Daubney says the Attorney General's Office alerted Sayed-Khaiyum but he is not clear who exactly.
He says anthropomorphism is not commonly a matter attributed to work.
The Attorney General's lawyer, Gul Fatima says the source has been identified which is his office who brought to his attention the Facebook post.
She says she does not know why Daubney feels the individual needs to be identified who would have given the post to the Attorney General.
Fatima says nobody can stand and say he never saw the Facebook post and he did not have knowledge of the post.
In response Daubney, says the office is not a source as it is inanimate object.
He says the Attorney General should be deposing direct evidence and if he isn't then that is inadmissible.
The King's Counsel further says the statement by the Attorney General says the Facebook post ought to do something but it does not say it actually happened.
Suva High Court Judge Justice Jude Nanayakkara has indicated that he is declining to deal with Richard Naidu's King's Counsel's objection to Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum's statement and affidavit as evidence at this point.
As committal proceedings against Naidu started this morning, his King’s Counsel Martin Daubney says they are objecting to Sayed-Khaiyum's statement and affidavit as it is hearsay evidence and it should not be admitted.
Naidu allegedly posted on his Facebook page a picture of a judgement in a case represented by his associate that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, and then made some comments that he was pretty sure the applicant wanted an injunction.
The committal proceedings has been brought against Naidu by the Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Daubney says the matter should be struck out or to be ruled as inadmissible as it does not contain evidence the applicant is able to admit of his own knowledge.
Daubney says the Attorney General's Office alerted Sayed-Khaiyum but he is not clear who exactly.
He says anthropomorphism is not commonly a matter attributed to work.
The Attorney General's lawyer, Gul Fatima says the source has been identified which is his office who brought to his attention the Facebook post.
She says she does not know why Daubney feels the individual needs to be identified who would have given the post to the Attorney General.
Fatima says nobody can stand and say he never saw the Facebook post and he did not have knowledge of the post.
In response Daubney, says the office is not a source as it is inanimate object.
He says the Attorney General should be deposing direct evidence and if he isn't then that is inadmissible.
The King's Counsel further says the statement by the Attorney General says the Facebook post ought to do something but it does not say it actually happened.
The hearing continues.
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
