FRCS, Immigration ordered to pay Granny $38k for 'expired' stop departure order

The Fiji Revenue and Customs Service (FRCS) and the Department of Immigration have been ordered to jointly pay $38,945.49 in damages to 69-year-old grandmother, Premila Singh.

This follows a court ruling that both agencies unlawfully stopped her from leaving Fiji by enforcing an expired Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) two years ago.

Ms Singh was represented by lawyer Mohammed Saneem of Saneem Lawyers.

In his judgment, Justice Deepthi Amaratunga noted that when Ms Singh attempted to depart Fiji on December 17, 2023 with her two granddaughters for a family vacation, immigration officers prevented her from boarding because their system showed that she had a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) active against her.

However, evidence showed the DPO had already expired, and FRCS failed to remove it. Immigration officers also failed to verify its validity.

Justice Amaratunga ruled that this resulted in an unlawful and arbitrary restraint on Ms Singh’s constitutional right to leave Fiji.

“A constitutional right cannot be limited by an invalid administrative act,” Justice Amaratunga said.

Right to Freedom of Movement

Justice Amaratunga set out a detailed legal analysis demonstrating why the DPO enforcement was unlawful.

Section 21(3) of the Constitution states:

• Every citizen and every person lawfully in Fiji has the right to move freely throughout Fiji and the right to leave Fiji.
• These rights may only be limited by a law that is consistent with constitutional protections.

Justice Amaratunga emphasised that any restriction on movement must be lawful, proportionate, and valid at the time it is applied. A restriction based on an expired DPO is not a lawful limitation.

He wrote that rights ‘cannot be limited by an invalid administrative act’, reinforcing that bureaucratic failures do not override constitutional protections.

Tax Administration Act

The judgment summarised strict statutory requirements under Section 31(3) of the Tax Administration Act, including:

• A DPO can only be issued if a person has a tax liability.
• The chief executive officer must have reasonable grounds to believe the person may depart Fiji without paying the tax.
• The DPO must state the taxpayer’s name, address and amount owed.
• A copy must be served on the person and given to Immigration “as soon as practicable.”
• A DPO remains in force only until revoked or expired.

The court found none of these conditions existed in Ms Singh’s case. The judgement noted that FRCS could not demonstrate any tax liability, nor any reasonable grounds to issue or maintain a DPO.

Justice Amaratunga concluded that FRCS not only issued an invalid order but also failed to act on its expiry, causing Immigration to rely on outdated information.

The court noted that immigration officers must always verify whether a DPO is valid, whether it is current, and whether the person affected has been properly notified.

Immigration failed all three requirements, the judgment noted.

Respondents found administratively negligent

Justice Amaratunga described in his judgment that FRCS was unable to state any tax liability, unable to provide grounds to justify issuing or keeping the DPO, failed to remove it from the system even after expiry and provided ‘unsatisfactory’ and discourteous communication.

He also noted that the Department of Immigration enforced an invalid order, failed to provide basic information to the applicantand acted unlawfully and in breach of statutory duties.

Damages awarded:

• Special damages - $8,945.49
• FJ$8,945.49 for expenses incurred in Fiji
• NZ$1,290 for expenses incurred in New Zealand (conversion at payment)
• Compensatory damages - $30,000

Awarded for humiliation, emotional suffering, breach of constitutional rights, public embarrassment, loss of dignity and lack of apology.

The judge noted Ms Singh was an elderly woman travelling with minors.

Total damages: $38,945.49

Costs: $4000, payable within 21 days.

Singh Grateful

Speaking to this masthead after the ruling, Ms Singh said the incident caused her so much pain and embarrassment.

“The customs officer who attended to me was extremely unhelpful and to be told that she had no idea why I was on such a list and that she could not do anything because it was a Sunday was mortifying,” she said.

“It was very frustrating to be told that I have been placed on a no-fly list since 2012. It was all false and I am glad this came out in court. I should not have been on such a list to begin with.

“I hope the authorities can learn from my case and keep their information up to date and proper so that no other person faces the same thing that I went through.”

While thanking her lawyer Mr Saneem she said, “He is a brilliant young man with extremely good knowledge of our laws and he courageously took up my case.

“I also want to thank the Judge for expeditiously dealing with this and for acknowledging the ordeal I and my granddaughters went through. No one deserves this treatment, especially not a grandmother travelling with her two minor grandkids.”

Feedback: inoke.rabonu@fijisun.com.fj