The High Court has dismissed a constitutional redress application submitted by former inmate Rahul Rajan Naidu, who argued he was wrongfully imprisoned for 149 days beyond his designated non-parole period. Naidu sought to prove that his rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement, and the ability to partake in economic activities were infringed upon by the Commissioner of the Fiji Corrections Service (FCS).
Convicted for money laundering and sentenced to six years and nine months on September 18, 2018, Naidu’s non-parole period was five years. Based on his calculations, he should have been released on September 18, 2023. However, he remained incarcerated until February 14, 2024. Seeking compensation for his alleged unlawful detention, Naidu requested a minimum of $5,000 for each day he claimed to have been held unlawfully.
In a ruling on February 4, Justice Mohamed Mackie highlighted that Naidu’s application was submitted well past the 60-day limit established by the Constitutional Redress Rules 2015. The court noted that Naidu’s cause for action arose on September 19, 2023, necessitating that any legal action be initiated by November 19, 2023. Instead, Naidu filed his application on March 25, 2024, resulting in a delay of approximately four months and six days.
Justice Mackie pointed out that Naidu did not present compelling reasons for this delay, emphasizing that he had known about his release date as early as July 2023 and could have taken earlier action. The Justice stated, “Ignorance of the law which everybody is supposed to know does not afford excuse.” The court clarified that constitutional redress should be regarded as a last resort and that Naidu had sufficient alternative remedies at his disposal, such as the possibility of initiating a civil claim for his extended incarceration.
Ultimately, the court ruled that because the application was filed late and alternative legal options existed, Naidu’s case was dismissed. Consequently, the court ordered that all parties would bear their own costs. This ruling highlights the importance of adhering to legal deadlines and seeking timely remedies within the judicial system.