(PINA/IFEX) – On 8 April 1998, “The Fiji Times” announced that its lawyers are beginning a legal challenge against a finding by the Senate Privileges Committee, which held that the newspaper breached parliamentary privilege. Publisher Alan Robinson said: “In essence, we reported the facts. And just how an editorial opinion can misrepresent proceedings of the […]
(PINA/IFEX) – On 8 April 1998, “The Fiji Times” announced that its lawyers
are beginning a legal challenge against a finding by the Senate Privileges
Committee, which held that the newspaper breached parliamentary privilege.
Publisher Alan Robinson said: “In essence, we reported the facts. And just
how an editorial opinion can misrepresent proceedings of the Senate really
needs to be explained. As far as I am aware there is no law against fair
comment. There is a vital principle at stake here. The media has to be free
to comment on the proceedings of Parliament without fear or favour. The
Senate finding seeks to restrict that freedom.”
**Updates IFEX alerts dated 6 October 1997, 8 October 1997 and 6 April
1998**
According to a report issued by the Privileges Committee on 6 April 1998,
“The Fiji Times” breached parliamentary privilege by reporting and
editorializing on a short meeting of the Senate. Though the Committee
recommended that no formal charges be laid, it warned that in the case of
any future articles breaching parliamentary privilege, the Senate “will not
hesitate to impose sanctions that will have severe repercussions.”
Fiji’s parliament consists of an elected House of Representatives and an
appointed Senate, which includes representatives of the country’s
traditional chiefs and prominent citizens from all the main races.
On 30 September 1998, “The Fiji Times” reported the short Senate meeting in
an article titled “House sits for 20 minutes.” An editorial in the same
issue, headlined “Practise What You Preach”, questioned the cost to
taxpayers of the sitting and said it was hard to take seriously calls by
senators for others to cut costs and improve efficiency.
Senators complained they had met informally after adjourning that day. The
Senate Committee claimed “The Fiji Times” headline was not factually correct
as the Senate actually sat for only 15 minutes, not 20 minutes, as had been
reported. The Senate also called the following paragraph derogatory and a
scandalous slander or libel: “They cannot expect anyone to take a serious
view of their bluster on cost cutting and the need for improved productivity
while they continue to squander other people’s money while piously calling
for efficiency.”
Under Fiji’s Parliamentary Privileges and Powers Act those found guilty of
breaching parliamentary privilege can be jailed for up to two years.
Background Information
On 6 December 1996, in a separate case, the House of Representatives’
Privileges Committee ruled that a prima facie example of breach of
parliamentary privilege had been established against “The Fiji Times.” The
ruling followed the newspaper’s publication of details of in camera meetings
of parliamentary sub-committees responsible for reviewing the country’s
constitution. No further action was taken in that case.
PINA has previously expressed concern over such efforts to stop the Fiji
media from providing the public with information on matters of public
interest.
