Richard Naidu in court today.

The Civil High Court in Suva has refused an application by Suva lawyer Richard Naidu to call Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum for cross-examination in his committal proceedings matter.

Naidu’s counsel Jon Apted had filed summons on 15th July seeking for order from the court to set aside the ex parte order dated 27th June granting leave to the applicant to apply for an order of committal against the respondent to be set down for hearing in open court.

He had applied to seek orders that Attorney General and Minister for Economy Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum attend the hearing of setting aside summons for cross-examination on his affidavit.

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

Apted had also sought orders for all further proceedings in the action to be stayed until the determination of the matters set out in the application

In his ruling, Judge Kurukula Nanayakkara on the summons for hearing says on July 26, 2022, Apted had objected that the date was a mention only and that Naidu was to request for a timetable for hearing on the setting aside of summons.

Furthermore, the ruling states that on the same day, Apted started that senior counsel had been instructed to conduct the hearing of the setting-aside summons.

Also on the date, Apted said Naidu intended to apply for cross examine Sayed-Khaiyum at that hearing.

The ruling says that on the same day, Apted with other counsel appeared for Naidu and vigorously opposed that the granting of an adjournment to the hearing of the summons taken out by the respondent.

It goes on to say that the court indicated that it would hear the summons but Apted refused the invitation to make oral submissions.

The judge adds this led to the court indicating that it will determine the summons for setting side on the written submission and the parties were given direction to file written submissions.

It was also ruled that Naidu did not take advantage of a 11-day period between the filing of summons and that date of the hearing to organize a counsel of his choice.

It further states that the respondent did not take advantage of eight-day period between June 20 and June 26, and this indicates there has been no violation of the respondent’s right to counsel of his choice.

The Judge ruled that the word mention was nowhere in the summons and that the parties were to attend the court for hearing as per the summons.

Judge Nanayakkara says Apted is a very senior counsel and appeared along with five other very senior counsel and had been given every opportunity to make oral submissions in open court over the respondent’s application and concluded that there had been no violation of the respondent’s right to have an oral hearing on the summons.

The judge also notes while in setting aside the summons, the respondent seeks to set aside the ex-parte grant of leave to issue the committal proceedings.

Adding that the affidavit in support did not support the claims toward and political rivalry with the respondent which might have indicated to the court that the applicant’s only purpose in seeking the committal was personal and political.

The judge said he did not find these persuasive and the Attorney General brought the proceedings for a legitimate purpose for which he is entitled under law.

The ruling also stated that the oral submission from Apted did not seek to persuade the judge that Sayed-Khaiyum’s allegation of contempt lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law and it was proper and appropriate for him to initiate proceedings.

The court’s ruling also says that Apted made a scathing attack on the application by the AG for leave on the basis that the proceedings have been commenced and maintained for a purpose alien to the purpose which such proceedings are for.

He says as far as his understanding was, it was Apted asking the court to process for leave that had been employed by the AG was for ulterior purpose or in such a way as to cause improper vexation and oppression.

Justice Nanayakkara noted that Apted’s submissions were ill-founded and incapable of explaining the wording of Order 52, Rule 2 of the High Court Rules, 1998.

Meanwhile, the ruling on the setting aside application will be delivered tomorrow.

The court is also expected to give direction to the Fiji Law Society who wants to intervene in this matter.