Pictured above is Suva lawyer Richard Naidu.

The Civil High Court has refused another application filed by Suva lawyer Richard Naidu to set aside the ex-parte order in relation to committal proceedings brought by Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

Naidu was not present in court today as his counsel Jon Apted informed the High Court Judge that his client is attending a funeral.

Apted had requested the court yesterday for his client to be excused from today’s proceedings.

The committal proceedings against Naidu are in relation to a post which appeared on his Facebook page in February in which he allegedly made comments about the judiciary after a case.

In the ruling, the court outlined that the applicant did not file an answering affidavit and challenged the affidavit evidence of National Federation Party MP, Lenora Qereqeretabua and Loriane Bhan, who is employed by a law firm, Munro Leys.

The applicant challenged the affidavit of Bhan and Qereqeretabua saying it could not be admitted as evidence.

This was because the affidavits need the respondent’s authority, the respondent is required to swear affidavit and third parties cannot swear affidavit.

Lawyers also argued that Qereqeretabua was deposing to the Sayed-Khaiyum in Parliament and said she referred to remarks made by the applicant about Naidu and his law firm. She also deposed that the applicant regularly criticized the respondent and his law firm in Parliament.

Apted in his written reply submissions argued that the applicant challenges the affidavit evidence of Bhan and Qereqeretabua based on a law that does not apply to those affidavits.

The judge also noted that neither Bhan or Qereqeretabua are swearing affidavit on behalf of anyone, and this is sworn by someone other than a party to proceedings.

This resulted in a ruling that there was no weight in the contents of the affidavits of the two.

The court further states that there was no founding affidavit filed and this is disastrous.

It said Bhan and Qererqeretabua did not say in the affidavit in which capacity and under what authority the affidavits were filed in court with the application.

It also is noted in the ruling that Apted did not seek to persuade the court that Sayed-Khaiyum’s allegation of contempt lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law.

The judge goes on to say that he does not understand how the respondent could argue that Sayed-Khaiyum’s actions were designed only to cause harassment to the respondent.

Furthermore, Apted’s argument is classed as misconceived, adding that the nature of the alleged contempt in this case was that of scandalizing the court.

The judgement goes on to say  that the court can not accept Apted’s propositions on abuse of process as he in his written submissions did not advance the argument that the object sought to be affected by the applicant by means of the process is outside of the lawful scope of the process.

It has also been ruled that it is beyond sensible doubt that the AG intended to obtain the remedy, which the contempt proceedings was designed to give.

The judge says he is at a loss to understand how could the respondent seek protection against the continuance of the case on the grounds that Sayed-Khaiyum had done all for an ulterior motive and Apted’s argument of seeking protection under Section 16 of the Constitution is based on misconception.

Meanwhile, the Fiji Law Society which had earlier indicated that they want to intervene in the proceedings sought directions on two applications filed by them.

The first application for FLS to join the proceedings and another motion filed for their Queens Counsel to join the proceeding via video link from Auckland New Zealand.

However, this was strongly objected by Attorney General’s lawyer Gul Fatima.

The matter has been adjourned to Monday for mention.