|
|
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AND: ASESELA RAVUVU, JOE SINGH, & Date of Hearing: 11 June 2001 R U L I N G (On Injunction) I have come to a clear view that these injunctions must be granted. Accordingly I grant the orders requested in the summons of 31 May 2001. It is abundantly obvious that the advice of the Cabinet tendered to H.E. The President to appoint a Constitutional Review Commission was outside the lawful ambit of a caretaker administration. The doctrine of necessity is a narrow doctrine and does not cover matters outside of the routine and the necessary Madzimbamuto v. Lardner Burke [1969] I AC 645 at p 732E; Texas v. White 74 US (7 Wall) 700 (1862) at p 733. Unusual programmes of expenditure or reformist projects are the prerogative of an elected government. A lawful government needs to be buttressed by holding the confidence of the House of Representatives, and by acting within the Constitution with the two other bodies of Parliament, namely, the Senate and The President. Moving in advance of the will of Parliament in reformist fields, however well intentioned, is not an act which the courts will validate under the necessity doctrine. The authorisation for the expenditure of public funds for such reform work is similarly outside the permitted scope of work of a caretaker Cabinet. Such authorisation is unlawful. Parliament which carries the necessary constitutional jurisdiction and authority for reform, may, when elected, set up a Parliamentary Select Committee for such work. Orders accordingly. At Lautoka Solicitors for the Plaintiffs: Mishra & Co., Lautoka |
|
People's Coalition Government - Fiji Islands |
