The Court of Appeal has granted an appeal to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces after High Court Judge, Justice Jiten Singh in an earlier ruling said that a section of the RFMF Act was unconstitutional.

While delivering the ruling, Justice John Byrne said Justice Singh held that Section 30 of the RFMF Act was unconstitutional in that it did not allow any soldiers convicted by Court Martial to appeal their sentences to the Court of Appeal.

The High Court ruling was made last year after Emosi Qicatabua and seven others, who were convicted and sentenced by court martial for offences relating to the takeover of parliament in May 2000 and mutiny at QEB in November 2000, appealed the sentence.

Following Justice Singh's ruling about the unconstitutionality of the RFMF Act in relation to no appeal of sentences, the RFMF appealed the case giving six grounds.

The RFMF said that Justice Singh erred in failing to give any or any sufficient weight to the fact that those convicted and sentenced in relation to the 2000 coup and mutiny, had been convicted of the most serious military offence the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment and therefore he should have directed the relevant authorities to make the necessary changes. The military also said to the Appeals Court that Justice Singh failed to take into account or give due consideration to the fact that a court might not be the best forum to determine appeals from General Court Martial because only parliament was the correct forum to overhaul the military justice system in this country. The RFMF further stated grounds that Justice Singh failed to consider and take into account military procedures and customs and the need to have the matter properly debated and scrutinised by legislators.

It further said that the Attorney General or his chambers should make a Presidential Promulgation reflecting the wishes of the counrt as this is the method adopted by the interim government to make laws.

The Appeals Court has ruled based on the RFMF's appeal that it is not for a court to remedy if there is a constitutional dead-end, but for parliament after debate to make the necessary amendments. While delivering the Appeals Court ruling, Justice Byrne said in his judgment it is not an answer to the problem posed in this case to say that if since December 5th, 2006, and for some unknown period into the future there is no parliament then a court may assume the role of parliament in attempting to remedy a situation thought by some people to require a change.

He said it is also important to remember that the soldiers convicted of the 2000 coup and mutiny related charges have been convicted of one of the most serious offences known to the law, mutiny.
Justice Byrne further said that it is no answer to say that because there is presently no parliament, any amendment may be made by promulgation. He said to do so would be merely an act of expediency for which he can find no justification in the law in the present circumstances. The appeal has been granted and there will be orders accordingly.