Skip to content

Driti case highlights weaknesses of regime’s immunity claim

November 29, 2013


We know the alleged initiator and purported architect of the aborted coup against Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum will not be prosecuted.
We also know the very same Mohammed Aziz has scuttled off to China while Pita Driti has been found guilty of sedition and inciting mutiny.
But as the United Front For A Democratic Fiji says
how come Driti, who was part of the 2006 Bainimarama team that overthrew a constitutional government and is supposedly covered under  the ‘entrenched’ immunity provisions of  the 2013 constitution, been ‘excluded’ and put on trial? 

The Coalition says if a special decree was passed by cabinet under section 161 of the 2013 constitution that excluded  Driti from the protection he is supposed to have enjoyed as a member of the 2006 Bainimarama team, why has that decree not been made public?

The Coalition says it is ironic Driti is being found guilty of inciting mutiny against an army Commander who overthrew a constitutional government.

“How was it possible to have a trial where some of the key characters involved in the alleged crime did not even make a court appearance?

“If Driti can be charged and brought to court while supposedly being protected under the immunity provisions, does this mean all those who have aided and abetted the regime who think they are protected from prosecution, can also be removed from immunity protection and prosecuted?”
Source – C4.5; Posted by Rusi Varani for SWM
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: