Mohammed Shafiullah Khan

Mohammed Khan has over 30 years legal experience, including as a magistrate in Fiji and the Solomon Islands. He is admitted as legal practitioner in Australia.

Judge Khan was one of three lawyers who accepted judicial office in the tiny island nation shortly after the removal by the Nauru Government of the entire former judiciary in 2014. This occurred by the deportation of Resident Magistrate Peter Law and the banning from the country of expatriate Chief Justice eminent Australian jurist Geoffrey Eames QC. Neither judicial officer was accorded due process or removed from office according to established legal process.

These removals occurred after both judicial officers had ordered stays on deportation orders issued by Nauru Justice Minister David Adeang. The actions of the Nauru Government were widely condemned and assistance with funding the justice sector was withdrawn by New Zealand.

In late 2014 the Nauru Government appointed Judge Khan, along with former Solomon Islands Magistrate Jane Crulci and Fijian lawyer Joni Madraiwiwi to replace the removed judiciary. The three appointments were a sharp departure from previous practice, where Nauru had generally appointed eminent retired Australian or New Zealand judges, generally Queens Counsel.

In the aftermath of his removal the former Chief Justice Eames urged his replacements to maintain their “independence and courage” against political pressure from the island’s government.

Judge Khan in late 2014 controversially joined with Judge Crulci and Chief Justice Madraiwiwi and dismissed a challenge brought by five opposition members of parliament against their indefinite suspensions from parliament.

The opposition members had been suspended in May 2014 for criticising the government in the foreign media and for "unruly behaviour" in parliament. Together the MPs represented one third of the population of the country, who were left disenfranchised as a result. Their suspensions came about at a point where it looked likely the Nauru government would be toppled by a no confidence motion in the parliament.

Despite the Constitution of Nauru guaranteeing democratic representation and freedom of speech, Judge Khan and his colleagues held the suspensions to be lawful, primarily on the basis that it was a matter for parliament to regulate its own affairs. The court declined to follow regional authority that suggests a court can intervene in parliamentary affairs when a breach of the Constitution is occurring. Following the controversial ruling the opposition MPs remained suspended.

In June 2015 the MPs participated in an initially peaceful protest on the country's parliament seeking their re-entry to parliament. Police interrupted the protest using a then recently enacted law that banned the association of three or more citizens without a police permit. The demonstration turned violent and approximately 20 people were arrested including three of the five suspended members of parliament.

As at July 2017 the MPs and their supporters await trial. They have sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that Judge Khan and the other current Supreme Court judge are not sufficiently independent of the Nauru Government to hear their case. It has been reported that former Chief Justice Eames QC is a witness for the accused.

In June 2017 it was reported by Radio New Zealand that Judge Khan had been accused of plagiarism by an Australian barrister who recognised large portions of a conference paper he had written reproduced without attribution in a judgment delivered by Judge Khan.