Dismissed Solicitor General Sharvada Sharma’s lawyer, Jon Apted gave details about the suspension and sacking of Sharma in court today while making his submission for their application to seek leave for judicial review.
Sharma filed legal action in relation to the termination of his employment on the 12th of November last year by former President Jioji Konrote.
The legal action is against the President of Fiji, the Judicial Services Commission and the Attorney General of Fiji.
While making submissions today, Apted says this is a case where a former public servant who had spent 24 years exclusively in government legal services – the last 10 of which in an acting or substantive capacity as Solicitor General was suspended without pay and then dismissed by the President.
Apted told the court that Sharma says this was in breach of the relevant provisions of the constitution governing the process and he was not accorded his common law rights to natural justice.
The Munro Leys partner says Sharma’s constitutional rights to due process have also been infringed.
Apted adds the decisions being challenged have left Sharma and his family without income and they adversely affected Sharma’s psychological state.
He says it has also adversely affected Sharma’s standing in the community because he held one of the highest offices in this land and there were media and social media reports about what happened.
Apted says Sharma has law degrees from the University of Waikato and the University of London and since being admitted to the bar in 1997, Sharma has given his whole professional life to this country and has not worked for any other employer other than the Government of Fiji.
He further says Sharma was first appointed Acting Solicitor General in 2011 and appointed substantively in 2014.
Apted says the background to this case is the Niko Nawaikula case.
He adds in July to August 2021, Sharma and a Principal Legal Officer in the Attorney General’s Office represented the Supervisor of Elections and the Attorney General in a petition brought in to the Court of Disputed Returns by Nawaikula.
Apted says Nawaikula had lost his seat in parliament.
He adds the court ruled in favour of Nawaikula, and the Supervisor of Elections after this decision, expressed dissatisfaction with representation by Sharvada Sharma and his associate and brought a complaint against Sharma to the Independent Legal Services Commission.
Apted went on to say that Sharma was given that complaint by the Chief Registrar and responded to it and it was a complaint under the Legal Practitioners Act. He says Sharma continued at work.
Apted told the court that on 16th September 2021, the Prime Minister summoned Sharvada Sharma to his office where Sharma was informed that the Prime Minister had been hearing things and he wanted Sharma to resign.
He says Sharma denied any wrong doing and sought time to explain.
Apted further says Sharma was given a short time to explain in writing which he did and Sharma explained that he had not done anything wrong and that he sees no reason to resign.
He adds that Sharma also told the Prime Minister in writing that the Judicial Services Commission was the proper authority to consider any complaint and deliberate on it and hear the complaint in a procedurally correct manner required under the constitution.
Apted says Sharma expressly reserved all of his rights.
He also revealed that on the following Monday, the Prime Minister requested Sharma to go to his office immediately and the Prime Minister gave Sharma a pre-prepared resignation letter to sign.
Apted says Sharma refused to sign it.
He adds that as Sharma left the Prime Minister’s Office his phone was taken off him by a security guard and when he went back to the Attorney General’s Office, his laptop was taken off him by a security guard as well.
Apted told the court that Sharvada Sharma had not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings and had not been suspended but the executive acted to remove his tools of office.
The Munro Leys Partner says Sharma then called the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission and informed him about what had just happened.
Apted told the court that the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission informed Sharma that he had received a telephone call from the Prime Minister requesting that Sharma be immediately suspended.
He says the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission told Sharma that he is calling a meeting of the Commission the same afternoon to consider suspension.
Apted further adds that during the phone conversation, the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission told Sharma that his suspension would be with pay as usual.
He says at 7.30pm that evening, the suspension letter was delivered to Sharma and it stated that it comes from the President.
Apted says the letter informed Sharma that the President had received advice from the Judicial Services Commission on allegations of misbehaviour and the President was suspending Sharma pending the appointment of a tribunal.
It was heard in court that the letter stated that Sharma would also be suspended without pay.
Apted says on Diwali Day on 4th November 2021 which was a Thursday, a police officer appeared at Sharma’s home at around 2pm and delivered a letter which enclosed the complaint by the Supervisor of Elections to the Judicial Services Commission and 31 questions from the Judicial Services Commission.
He adds the letter set out 31 questions across three pages requiring Sharma’s response by 4pm Saturday, 6th November 2021.
Apted further says Sharvada Sharma only had one working day to respond and was unable to seek legal advice.
He adds Sharma was also concerned he was being asked specific questions as opposed to being asked to respond to the complaint which was the normal practice.
Apted stresses that the time given to answer the questions was unreasonable and unfair given that the Judicial Services Commission was sitting on the complaint for seven weeks.
He further says this is fine but that does not mean that when you decide to take action you give the subject of the complaint two days of which one is a working day.
Apted went on to say that Sharma was being asked to respond in the middle of his solemn religious holiday.
He told the court that it was like giving a Christian a letter to answer during Christmas time or Easter while they are busy singing in church and praising Jesus.
Apted revealed in court that on 10th November, Sharma was served with the termination letter from the Office of the President and it was signed by the President.
The Munro Leys Partner read the letter which says that the President agreed that the allegations in the complaint against Sharma are of a factual nature and do not warrant the appointment of a tribunal.
High Court Judge, Justice Deepthi Amaratunga will deliver his ruling on May 9th.
R Patel Lawyers partner Devanesh Sharma who is representing the Attorney General, President of Fiji and the Judicial Services Commission today revealed details in court about the complaint to the Judicial Services Commission by the Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem against dismissed Solicitor General Sharvada Sharma.
The complaint was made last year after the former Solicitor General who represented the Supervisor of Elections lost the Niko Nawaikula case.
While making the submissions in the High Court today, Devanesh Sharma read out the complaint by the Supervisor of Elections.
He told the court that the former Solicitor General or his team, apart from meeting to receive instructions, did not have other any meetings or interviews with the Supervisor of Elections to understand the facts, evidence and the legal basis of the decisions by the Supervisor of Elections.
The R Patel Lawyers partner adds the Supervisor of Elections also raised that the former Solicitor General did not discuss or furnish any court documents filed by both sides before the hearing in the Nawaikula case.
He says it is not just a minor complaint.
Devanesh Sharma adds the Supervisor of Elections was not consulted prior to submissions being filed by Sharvada Sharma on his behalf.
The R Patel Lawyers partner went on to say that the Supervisor of Elections was also concerned that the submissions did not properly address factual foundations and neither did the legal arguments raised by the former Solicitor General assist the court in understanding the decisions of the Supervisor of Elections.
He says since Sharvada Sharma did not properly understand the evidence and factual basis of the decision the court was not properly appraised of the technical details of the Voter List.
Devanesh Sharma says despite several opportunities, the former Solicitor General did not call the Supervisor of Elections to seek clarification during the hearing and therefore put the Supervisor of Elections in a precarious position before the court.
He says this is in-fact a very serious matter because this is a client raising all these issues about why Sharvada Sharma did not go back to him.
Sharma says it is a serious matter because now the Supervisor of Elections has got a detrimental judgement waiting and claims of abuse of office.
Sharma also argued that the Judicial Services Commission followed the proper procedure and no injustice has been done.
Devanesh Sharma further says the Judicial Services Commission gave time to Sharvada Sharma to respond but he chose not to.
He also says that Sharvada Sharma had the letter of complaint for 49 days.
Sharma adds that the judicial review is not the path in this case.
While responding to Devanesh Sharma submission, the dismissed Solicitor General’s lawyer, Jon Apted says that Devanesh Sharma is very eloquent and can make black look white and white look green but he will make the black look black and white look white.
Apted says that the Judicial Services Commission does not have powers under the constitution to advise the President to remove the Solicitor General.
Apted further stated that the President cannot remove the Solicitor General without the Tribunal’s recommendation.
The constitutional lawyer also says that there was never any suggestion that if Sharvada Sharma did not respond to the questions then it is misbehaviour.
High Court Judge, Justice Deepthi Amaratunga will deliver his ruling on May 9th.
Dismissed Solicitor General Sharvada Sharma’s lawyer, Jon Apted gave details about the suspension and sacking of Sharma in court today while making his submission for their application to seek leave for judicial review.
Sharma filed legal action in relation to the termination of his employment on the 12th of November last year by former President Jioji Konrote.
The legal action is against the President of Fiji, the Judicial Services Commission and the Attorney General of Fiji.
While making submissions today, Apted says this is a case where a former public servant who had spent 24 years exclusively in government legal services – the last 10 of which in an acting or substantive capacity as Solicitor General was suspended without pay and then dismissed by the President.
Apted told the court that Sharma says this was in breach of the relevant provisions of the constitution governing the process and he was not accorded his common law rights to natural justice.
The Munro Leys partner says Sharma’s constitutional rights to due process have also been infringed.
Apted adds the decisions being challenged have left Sharma and his family without income and they adversely affected Sharma’s psychological state.
He says it has also adversely affected Sharma’s standing in the community because he held one of the highest offices in this land and there were media and social media reports about what happened.
Apted says Sharma has law degrees from the University of Waikato and the University of London and since being admitted to the bar in 1997, Sharma has given his whole professional life to this country and has not worked for any other employer other than the Government of Fiji.
He further says Sharma was first appointed Acting Solicitor General in 2011 and appointed substantively in 2014.
Apted says the background to this case is the Niko Nawaikula case.
He adds in July to August 2021, Sharma and a Principal Legal Officer in the Attorney General’s Office represented the Supervisor of Elections and the Attorney General in a petition brought in to the Court of Disputed Returns by Nawaikula.
Apted says Nawaikula had lost his seat in parliament.
He adds the court ruled in favour of Nawaikula, and the Supervisor of Elections after this decision, expressed dissatisfaction with representation by Sharvada Sharma and his associate and brought a complaint against Sharma to the Independent Legal Services Commission.
Apted went on to say that Sharma was given that complaint by the Chief Registrar and responded to it and it was a complaint under the Legal Practitioners Act. He says Sharma continued at work.
Apted told the court that on 16th September 2021, the Prime Minister summoned Sharvada Sharma to his office where Sharma was informed that the Prime Minister had been hearing things and he wanted Sharma to resign.
He says Sharma denied any wrong doing and sought time to explain.
Apted further says Sharma was given a short time to explain in writing which he did and Sharma explained that he had not done anything wrong and that he sees no reason to resign.
He adds that Sharma also told the Prime Minister in writing that the Judicial Services Commission was the proper authority to consider any complaint and deliberate on it and hear the complaint in a procedurally correct manner required under the constitution.
Apted says Sharma expressly reserved all of his rights.
He also revealed that on the following Monday, the Prime Minister requested Sharma to go to his office immediately and the Prime Minister gave Sharma a pre-prepared resignation letter to sign.
Apted says Sharma refused to sign it.
He adds that as Sharma left the Prime Minister’s Office his phone was taken off him by a security guard and when he went back to the Attorney General’s Office, his laptop was taken off him by a security guard as well.
Apted told the court that Sharvada Sharma had not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings and had not been suspended but the executive acted to remove his tools of office.
The Munro Leys Partner says Sharma then called the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission and informed him about what had just happened.
Apted told the court that the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission informed Sharma that he had received a telephone call from the Prime Minister requesting that Sharma be immediately suspended.
He says the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission told Sharma that he is calling a meeting of the Commission the same afternoon to consider suspension.
Apted further adds that during the phone conversation, the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission told Sharma that his suspension would be with pay as usual.
He says at 7.30pm that evening, the suspension letter was delivered to Sharma and it stated that it comes from the President.
Apted says the letter informed Sharma that the President had received advice from the Judicial Services Commission on allegations of misbehaviour and the President was suspending Sharma pending the appointment of a tribunal.
It was heard in court that the letter stated that Sharma would also be suspended without pay.
High Court Judge, Justice Deepthi Amaratunga will deliver his ruling on May 9th.
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
