The High Court has rejected a constitutional redress application from former inmate Rahul Rajan Naidu, who claimed he was wrongfully imprisoned for 149 days past his designated non-parole period. Naidu asserted that his rights to personal liberty, movement, and the ability to engage in economic activities were violated by the Commissioner of the Fiji Corrections Service (FCS).
Naidu was convicted of money laundering and sentenced to six years and nine months on September 18, 2018, with a five-year non-parole period. He calculated that he should have been released by September 18, 2023. However, he remained in custody until February 14, 2024. In pursuit of compensation for what he deemed unlawful detention, Naidu sought at least $5,000 for each day beyond his expected release date.
On February 4, Justice Mohamed Mackie noted that Naidu’s application was submitted significantly past the 60-day filing limit set by the Constitutional Redress Rules 2015. The court indicated that the cause for his action began on September 19, 2023, meaning that any legal proceedings should have been initiated by November 19, 2023. Instead, Naidu filed his claim on March 25, 2024, leading to a delay of over four months.
Justice Mackie emphasized that Naidu did not provide compelling reasons to justify this delay, stating that he was aware of his release date as early as July 2023. The Justice remarked, “Ignorance of the law which everybody is supposed to know does not afford excuse.” Furthermore, the court maintained that constitutional redress should be a last resort, pointing out that Naidu had other avenues available, including the option to bring a civil claim regarding his extended incarceration.
Consequently, the court dismissed Naidu’s application due to its late submission and the availability of alternative legal remedies, ruling that all parties would be responsible for their own legal costs. This case underscores the critical significance of adhering to legal deadlines and the necessity of seeking timely recourse within the judicial framework.