8 August 2017

The Social Democratic and Liberal Party (SODELPA) Leader, Former Prime Minister Sitiveni L Rabuka today urged the FijiFirst Government, that has governed Fiji for the last eleven years since the 2006 coup d’etat, to respect the fundamental human and group rights of Fiji’s indigenous Fijians, as first peoples and natives of Fiji.

He made specific mention of the recent issuance of 99 year leases by the Government through the TLTB and the plans by the Government to color-code villages as a means to deny them development assistance. Rabuka also confirmed that SODELPA respects the human rights of all peoples in Fiji, and said that recognising indigenous rights does not mean limiting the rights of other communities in Fiji.

Rabuka said that SODELPA’s founding document and guiding principles affirm the freedom and dignity of all religions and religious denominations and the right of opinion and belief. It is an important objective of the Party to protect, enhance and promote the economic, social and human development of all communities and to secure their future in the Fiji Islands.

“Fijians should not lose sight of our common goal and desire for a peaceful and prosperous Fiji despite the best efforts of Bainimarama’s government to derail our efforts,” he said.

“SODELPA recognises the equality and indivisibility of all human rights, and the international human rights discourse and system similarly confirm that all human rights, whether indigenous rights, or minority rights, have equal status, in international law. One cannot promote one set of rights over another.”

“The mere fact that indigenous Fijians are the numerical majority in Fiji does not disqualify them from asserting their human rights as recognised in the UN DRIP, ILO 169 and as affirmed by the UN CERD Committee. Nowhere in international law, neither in the UNDRIP or ILO 169 is numerical majority listed as a disqualifier for the assertion of indigenous rights or a licence for a government to breach their internationally recognised human rights.”

“Lest we forget, the indigenous Africans in South Africa were for many years oppressed by the European minority population by force of guns, the regular application of torture and the enforcement of racist apartheid laws. The whole world recognised the plight of native South Africans, despite their numerical majority.”

“Every non-indigenous family in Fiji has an Indigenous family connection in their motherland, who will be living close to their tribal land and religious sites etc. And, should any wish to visit their motherland, they would find that their tribal rights and rites continue to prevail in their places of origin. Fiji is that motherland for Indigenous Fijians who want their culture, language, lands and resources protected as recognised in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples declared 10 years ago by the member nations of the United Nations.”

“I can say with confidence that my party the Social Democratic Liberal Party has since its inception called for respect for the rights of all ethnic communities in Fiji, for only together can we flourish as a nation, as individuals and reach our highest potential. SODELPA is for all the people of Fiji who call Fiji home, who have contributed to its development. All communities bring different talents, skills and assets to contribute to our nation’s development, and SODELPA is against stereotyping and discrimination in all its forms.”

“SODELPA supports the human rights of every person in Fiji, as well as the rights of all communities in Fiji. SODELPA also recognises the rights of the indigenous people of Fiji, as recognised in international treaties like the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 169 on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Recognition of the rights of indigenous people of Fiji is in harmony with the party's welcoming and recognition of the many ethnic communities who have made Fiji their home.”

“Indigenous Rights are also human rights, as are women's rights, as well as the rights of the disabled and the rights of children, for example. The international community recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to manage their land and resources, as well as to their identity, their culture and traditions, and their indigenous institutions.”

“In supporting indigenous rights, SODELPA does not seek to place indigenous rights above the human rights of members of Fiji’s minority ethnic communities, given the indivisibility and equality of human rights. In the same vein, SODELPA recognises that the fact that the indigenous community are the majority population, does not mean they lose their entitlement to their indigenous rights, in particular their rights to be consulted, and to give their free, prior informed consent to changes affecting their land, culture and resources, which is at the heart of their grievance of the last eleven years of the Bainimarama Government.”

“Fiji is at a crossroads and there are many wounds that need healing. Peace is possible for our beloved nation if we all learn to understand each other’s needs for peace, security, belonging and prosperity, to reconcile our differences and encourage peace amongst all our communities for the betterment of our future generations. Peace and progress are only possible if we work together.”

“As Party Leader of the Social Democratic Liberal Party, I want to reassure all the minority religious and ethnic communities in Fiji, that SODELPA is committed to assuring their security in Fiji. I want to reassure you of our acceptance, that you too belong to Fiji, with the indigenous Fijians. I also want to reassure you that SODELPA is committed to the path of peace in Fiji, and to promote respect and partnership amongst our communities. We respect and appreciate your contributions to Fiji. We want to work together with you, for a more peaceful, prosperous Fiji, now and for our future generations.”

“To our indigenous community, I say SODELPA understands very well your needs for proper management and for safeguards for all you hold dear. SODELPA has a vision for the development of your resources, for partnerships and greater return on the development of your resources and for the proper safeguards of all that you hold dear. SODELPA has a vision to reduce dependency on the government to promote more self-reliance. SODELPA will promote closer inter-ethnic cooperation, partnership and goodwill, which will be the mainstay of a lasting peace that will prevent future political crises.”

“Various changes and laws have been imposed on the people of Fiji without their consent, over the last eleven years of the Bainimarama Government. This includes the imposition of the 2013 Constitution Decree, and various decrees that limit human rights like the Public Order Amendment Decree of 2012, and the Essential National Industries Decree.”

“Further, the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs in 2007, the termination of the Great Council of Chiefs Regulations in 2008, the authority given to the Minister for Fijian Affairs to appoint all members of the Fijian Affairs Board, the termination of the existence of the Council of Chiefs in the Fijian Affairs Act in 2012 and their representatives from the Native Land Trust Board, the establishment of the Land Bank through the Land Use Decree, are examples of changes and laws that were forced on the people of Fiji, and those affecting the indigenous community were imposed without the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of the indigenous people of Fiji. The Land Use Decree can alienate Fijian land for up to 99 years and the landowners are prohibited from challenging the government in court, including further 99 year extensions, under that Decree. These are examples of the way that Fijians have lost control of the management of their land, over the last eleven years.”

“The removal of the name Fijian from the native indigenous Fijians, and the imposition of ‘iTaukei’ on the native community by Decree, was also done without their free, prior and informed consent. Free, prior and informed consent is a requirement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

“The right of the indigenous people of Fiji to be consulted on the changes to the laws and policies regarding their way of life and resources was not respected by the government and the UN Committee (CERD) recognised this breach and sought an explanation from the Government, which still has not rectified these grave breaches. The government has continued to ignore its obligations under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP) and changes continue to be implemented today without that free, prior and informed consent, to the dismay of the indigenous people of Fiji.”

Significance of the 2017 International Indigenous Peoples Day

Rabuka said this tenth anniversary of the International Declaration on Indigenous Rights, passed by resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 2007, is an opportune time to review how Fiji’s indigenous Fijians had fared over the last eleven years of the Bainimarama Government.

“The Declaration is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of indigenous peoples. It embodies global consensus on the rights of indigenous peoples and establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for their survival, dignity and well-being. It elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms, as they apply to the specific situation of indigenous peoples.”

Rabuka said the UN International Day for Indigenous Peoples, celebrated annually on August 9th offers an opportunity for the government to review its policies, and to comply with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), in particular the right to free, prior, informed consent. Rabuka said that the right to free, prior informed consent requires the Government to consult in good faith, with the indigenous people before decisions are made to change their native administrative structures, to the administration of their land and fisheries resources, to any matter that concerns them.

The UNDRIP requires the Government to consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples through their representative institutions, in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them (article 19).

Nothing about us, to be decided, without us

The international human rights doctrine or requirement of consent is that the consent of indigenous peoples must be freely given, that is given after full disclosure of the effects of any changes, and that informed consent is given given prior to the proposed change, can be summarised as Nothing about us, to be decided, without us.

“Over the last eleven years of the Bainimarama Government, many changes have been effected without consultation and without the free, prior informed consent of the indigenous Fijians. This was recognised in 2012 by the UN Committee on Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) which advised Fiji to explain the 12 Decrees that affect indigenous Fijians, which were imposed without their consent. Todate, the Fiji Government is yet to reply to the UNCERD and in fact, since 2012, another 12 Decrees and laws have been imposed without the free, prior, informed consent of indigenous Fijians. So there are 24 such Decrees and Laws now.”

“The grievances of indigenous Fijians were reviewed by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racism (UNCERD) at its 2012 session. The UN CERD Committee instructed the then Fiji military regime in Recommendation no. 14 to ensure effective consultation with the indigenous people of Fiji. It instructed the government to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Fiji’s indigenous community to issues affecting them and their identity, ways of living and resources in line with the CERD treaty, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, which Fiji ratified in 1989. The CERD Committee also sought the explanation of the military regime on the dissolution of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Council of Chiefs).”

“The government has continued to ignore its obligations under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP) to consult fully and to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous people of Fiji to changes made in the 24 Decrees affecting indigenous communities, resources and welfare and these changes continue to be implemented today without that free, prior and informed consent, to the dismay of the indigenous people of Fiji.”

99 year leases

Rabuka expressed concern that Fiji’s Minister for Economy has started handing out 99 year lease titles or virtual freehold titles on native land, issued by the Native Land Trust Board, now called the iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB), on the authority of the Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama. Rabuka said SODELPA is concerned whether TLTB consulted landowners and properly assessed their need for land, in the longer term, or whether TLTB secured the leases after pressure was applied by the Prime Minister. Bainimarama is now Chairman of the TLTB and appoints the members of the TLTB Board, without reference to the voice of landowners, the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV), a change brought about by Decree and without the participation of the people's’ representatives in Parliament.

“A SODELPA Government would apply the cautionary principle and seek assurance that the Native Land Trust Board, has carefully and properly carried out its important fiduciary duty, to ascertain the needs of the landowners whose land has now been leased on 99 year terms, or virtual freehold. The fiduciary responsibility vested in the TLTB is not to be taken lightly or overridden by the central government. The TLTB’s fiduciary's responsibilities or duties to landowners are both ethical and legal. The Native Lands Trust Act (Cap 134) confers on the TLTB in its fiduciary duty, as Trustee of all native lands, this fiduciary duty requires the TLTB to act in the best interest of its principal, the landowners, whose assets or land they are managing.”

“Indigenous landowner's vested the legal ownership of their land in 1940 in the TLTB, a central body that administers native land in trust. That consent was obtained by the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna after an arduous trek across Fiji, from the coast to the highlands, to the remote islands of Fiji. That consent and trust given in 1940 imposes a sacred and fiduciary duty that should not be taken lightly or for granted by the central government of Fiji.”

“The Fiji Sun of June 24, 2017 quotes the Minister for Economy expressing gratitude to the Prime Minister for the 99 year agricultural leases. The question that has to be asked is whether the TLTB properly followed its procedures and properly discharged its fiduciary duty to the landowners, in particular their needs for land for their future generations, in the issuance of these 99 year lease titles. Or was the TLTB pressured by the Prime Minister and Minister for Economy to issue these 99 year agricultural leases?”

“SODELPA seeks assurance from the TLTB that the Native Lands Trust Act requirements in section 9 for the TLTB to ensure the adequacy of land for the sustenance of the landowning units before they issue a lease. How did the NLTB carry out the assessment of the needs of the landowning units before the leases were approved?”

“Section 9 of the Native Land Trust Act, Cap 134 provides that: No native land shall be dealt with by way of lease or license under the provision of this Act unless the Board is satisfied that the land proposed to be made the subject of such lease or license is not being beneficially occupied by the Fijian owners and is not likely during the currency of such lease or license to be required by the Fijian owners for their use, maintenance and support.” (emphasis ours)

“The Prime Minister and the central government now have extraordinary control over the TLTB given that he is Chairman of the Board, having removed the President as Chairman of the TLTB Board of Trustees and being the appointing authority of TLTB board trustees by Decree. Previously, the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and the Fijian Affairs Board appointed TLTB trustees.”

“99 year leases are often called ‘virtual freehold’, because a 99 year lease means two to three future generations of landowners, will not have a say in these leases. Those who approve this lease, will pass away long before the 99 year leases expire. A SODELPA Government would ensure the review by TLTB of these leases after every 30 years, to ascertain the land and livelihood needs of the landowners, before further extension.”

Color Coding of Villages

Rabuka also expressed concern that the Taukei Fijian Affairs Ministry is planning to label and color code Taukei indigenous Fijian villages, as a prerequisite to the grant of government development assistance. Rabuka said this is another example of the government’s heavy-handed authoritarian tendencies coming to the fore once again, without the consultation and consent of the many vanua in Fiji. Rabuka said the concept of labelling villages by color was a grave insult to the indigenous people of Fiji and is discriminatory because it is being applied only to indigenous communities.

“The color coding proposed by Deputy Secretary for Taukei Fijian Affairs Colonel Apakuki Kurusiga, which he is announcing at various provincial council meetings, is discriminatory to the indigenous community, given that it is being applied to their community alone. It is a punitive measure, that punishes villages on a subjective and not objective criteria, and may be abused by the FijiFirst government to punish villages which may not support the FijiFirst party politically.”

“Will villages whose voting record show they do not vote for FijiFirst be coded red and denied development? Soon after the 2014 elections, Bainimarama announced that the government would prioritise development projects for those communities that supported FFP policies in the 2014 elections. This was reported in the Fiji Sun of October 26, 2014. The denial of development assistance also happened during the interim government to certain villages whose leaders criticised the Peoples Charter. Given this track record of the denial of development assistance to those who have a different political opinion to Bainiamara, we have to ask whether color coding is a signal to all communities to support FijiFirst or lose development assistance from the government?”

“This color coding exercise is inhumane and goes against all principles of assisting those who need it the most. By this exercise, villages coded red are unlikely to receive assistance, meaning that they will not be helped, a measure that punishes those who need it the most. It is also a breach of the right to development and misuse of government resources because it is the duty of all governments to progressively develop the nation on a non-discriminatory basis.”

“The colour coding plan is a serious breach of Fiji’s obligations as a signatory to the ILO Treaty No. 169, the Convention on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous rights are human rights and the disrespect shown by the FijiFirst Government to the indigenous peoples of Fiji, and the continuing breach of their human rights, is the height of hypocrisy for a government that espouses equality and non-discrimination.”

“The ILO Convention 169 and UNDRIP require that the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous people be sought and obtained before any measure like color coding is imposed. Media reports show that indigenous leaders have expressed the need for proper consultations on color coding.”

“I urge the Minister for Fijian Affairs and Prime Minister to rescind this policy, because the development funds are not his personal funds, but are contributed by all the people of Fiji who pay direct and indirect taxes on all the goods and services they purchase, including those whose villages may be labelled red and denied assistance.”
ENDS

FROM THE ARCHIVES

STANDING UP FOR 'IMMIGRANT RIGHTS'

In search of ancestral heritage in Fiji - Who is an 'Indigenous' Fijian?

By VICTOR LAL

Fiji's Daily Post, 2000; during George Speight's failed coup:

The present crisis in Fiji has once again raised the ugly spectre of a civil war in Fiji between native Fijians and Indo-Fijians. It is, therefore legitimate to ask:

Who is an indigenous Fijian?

How many centuries will it take for the so-called 'immigrant' races in Fiji (the Indo-Fijians, Chinese, and Europeans) to become natives?

Fiji -Three-Legged Stool

The great Fijian leader Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna described Fiji as a Three-Legged Stool comprising Fijians, Europeans and Indo-Fijians (not to forget the Chinese and Rotumans). According to official Fiji government publication (Fiji Today, 1998), the Fijians are descendants of the great chief Lutunasobasoba, who led his people across the seas to the new land of Fiji. They landed in a great canoe, the Kaunitoni, on the west coast of Viti Levu, at a place which is now called Vuda, and they travelled inland in search of lands to settle until they reached the mountains of Nakauvadra. There they built a house for the old chief, who died shortly afterwards entreating his children from his dying couch to go forth and populate the land. This they did and many of the tribes of Fiji today trace their descent from the children of Lutunasobasoba. Most authorities agree that people came into the Pacific from Southeast Asia via Indonesia. Here the Melanesians and the Polynesians mixed to create a highly developed society long before the arrival of the Europeans.

The European discoveries of the Fiji group were accidental. The first Europeans to land and live among the Fijians were shipwrecked sailors and runaway convicts from the Australian penal settlements. Sandalwood traders and missionaries came by the mid 19th Century.

From 1879 to 1916 Indo-Fijians were introduced as indentured labourers to work on the sugar plantations. Their history, however, will record that their own displacement from British India prevented the dispossession of the Fijians in colonial Fiji.

Indeed, by a happy irony, the indentured Indian was uprooted specifically to prevent the Fijian way of life from disintegrating. The above official history of the Fiji Islanders (as everyone is known now) thus shows that we are all former migrants to the Fiji islands. It is in this context that we can ask the question: who is indigenous?

Definition of Indigenous Peoples and Related Terms

According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 107 (1957);  Article 1 provides that the Convention applies to:

(a) members of tribal or semi-tribal populations in independent countries whose social and economic conditions are at a less advanced stage than the stage reached by the other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;

(b) members of tribal or semi-tribal populations in independent countries which are registered as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or consolation and which, irrespective of their legal status, live more in conformity with the social, economic and cultural institutions of that time than with the institutions of the nation to which they belong. Furthermore, ILO's Convention 169 (1989);

Article 1(1) stipulates that the Convention applies to

(a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;

(b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

The World Bank policy on indigenous peoples are as follows: 'Tribal peoples are ethnic groups typically with stable, low-energy, sustained yield economic systems, as exemplified by hunter gatherers, shifting or semi-permanent farmers, herders, or fishermen.' They exhibit in varying degree many of the following characteristics:

(a) geographically isolated or semi-isolated;

(b) unacculturated or only partly acculturated into norms of the dominant society

(c) non-monetized, or only partly monetized; production largely for subsistence, and independent of the national economic system;

(d) ethnically distinct from the national society;

(e) non-literate and without a written language;

(f) linguistically distinct from the wider society;

(g) identifying closely with one particular territory;

(h) having an economic lifestyle largely dependent on the specific natural environment;

(i) possessing indigenous political leadership, but little or no national representation, and few, if any, political rights as individuals or collectively, partly because they do not participate in the political process; and

(j) having loose tenure over their traditional lands, which for the most part is not accepted by the dominant society nor accommodated by its courts; and having weak enforcement capabilities against encroachers, even when tribal areas have been delineated.

It is thus clear that the Fijians do not, by any stretch of the imagination, fall into such categories. Although a minority for several decades, the Fijians never suffered the effects of dispossession, discrimination and political marginalization. In fact, it was the Fijian chiefly leaders who enjoyed sustained political control of the country since independence, and still communally own 83% of the land (now a weapon of political blackmail), dominate the Fiji army, and the Great Council of Chiefs' nominees in the Senate have a veto over any Bill affecting Fijian land, custom or tradition.

The entrenched land rights makes it impossible for any dispossession to take place without the consent of the chiefs. It is, therefore, absurd to liken the position of Fijians today to that of the Aztecs, the Incas, the Mayans and the Aborigines.

Minorities in International Law

The 1990 post-coup Constitution-makers had invoked the doctrine of indigenous supremacy to enable Fijians to enjoy more rights than other races and to institute a new system of domination and inequality.

The central idea of the ILO conventions however was to institute an order that guaranteed equally fundamental rights including equality of franchise. In fact, if any group(s) which might have a legal claim in international law are the minority communities (Indo-Fijians, Chinese, Europeans and Others in Fiji).

It is they, the international lawyers could claim, who need constitutional and political safeguards for the possible violation of their rights under various international legal conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all persons are 'equal in dignity and rights' and that this should not be abridged on the basis of 'race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status (article 2).

These prohibitions are repeated in several other conventions including Articles 2, 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 5 of the International Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Fiji is a signatory to these various conventions. As a matter of fact, whenever the question of constitutional reform had been considered during British rule, the Fijian leaders based their claim not as indigenous peoples but as a minority fighting to maintain a separate identity. In the process, the Indo-Fijian bourgeoise leaders went along with their Fijian counterparts, totally oblivious to future population trends which led to Indo-Fijians becoming a minority in Fiji.

In short, if there were any losers in the long, tortuous, and complex struggle for political power in the 1970s, it was not the pettit-bourgeois Indo-Fijian leaders but the ordinary descendants of indentured Indo-Fijians. The so-called 'Passenger Indians' remained unscathed in economic terms. Thereafter, what Fiji witnessed for the next two decades, was the politics of race until the rise, demise, and rise of the multi-racial Fiji Labour Party in 1987 and 1999.

What Fiji is witnessing in the formation of the Foundation of the Fijian Indigenous Peoples, threats of repatriation of Indo-Fijians and 'blood will flow' in the wake of ALTA debates, and the exclusion of the Prime Minister from the Great Council of Chiefs, is an attempt by a mindless minority to revert back to the era of racial bigotry and racial politics in Fiji.

Moreover, what some Fijians believe to be their ancient heritage is a colonial legacy. Like the deep cleavages existing within the Indo-Fijian community, pre-colonial Fijian society consisted of a series of tribes and tribal confederacies that were frequently in conflict with each other. Tribes in eastern Fiji were heavily influenced by Polynesians from Tonga, and developed a very hierarchical Polynesian-style social structure with great power in the hands of hereditary chiefs.

The social structure of western Fijian tribes was more egalitarian, as is the Melanesian custom. In 1874 Britain accepted the cession of authority in Fiji to the British Crown by the eastern chiefs. The new colonial authorities succeeded in bringing all Fijians under the control of a single government for the first time. The British largely ruled through the existing chiefs, greatly enhancing chiefly authority over Fijian commoners. They also established the dialect and traditions of one eastern tribe as the norm for the entire country.

A rather romantic view of traditional Fijian society prevailed, and laws were passed to reinforce communal land ownership.

The Indigenous/Immigrant Debate

In 1976 the current president Ratu Mara, then prime minister, while rejecting a suggestion in the Senate by Senator Inoke Tabua, later a leading Taukei member, that 100,000 Indo-Fijians should be deported, made a pertinent statement: 'It is now being suggested that there are sections of citizens of Fiji, particularly the Indians, who have not the same rights as any others. I do not see that. If I made a mistake at the Conference (1970), please do not support me at this forthcoming election (1977). I would rather square my conscience with God then to be voted back into Parliament under false pretences. If you start removing Indians, the next ones will be the Chinese, the third ones will be the Europeans, and the fourth will be the Lauans.'

The Lauans, who are descendants of Tongans, settled in Fiji in the 19th century with their chief Ma'afu, a relative of the King of Tonga. Ma'afu, who settled in Fiji in 1848, thirty-one years before the arrival of the first batch of Indo-Fijians to Fiji, established himself at Lakeba as the leader of the Tongan community in Fiji. According to the historian Peter France, the Tui Nayau, who controlled the Lau islands from Cicia in the north to Ono in the south, was at this time an old man, corpulent, and severely afflicted by elephantiasis. With his company of Tongan fighting men, Ma'afu became military representative of Tui Nayau and extended his authority by conquering, in the name of Christianity, the islands of the Moala group; these were thenceforth accepted as being part of Lau.

The islands north of Cicia owed allegiance to Tui Cakau but, when this chief visited Lakeba in 1850, he accepted a canoe as a gift from Ma'afu and gave him, in return, rights of levy over them. In 1855 Ma'afu put down a religious war in Vanuabalavu and assumed control over the island, taking up residence at Lomaloma. His position in Fiji at this time was that of representative of King George of Tonga, the head of the Tongan community in Fiji, and the owner of the island of Vanuabalavu. He extended his influence throughout Vanua Levu by alliance with Tui Cakau and Tui Bua. He then defeated Ritova, Tui Macuata, and installed a chief more susceptible to his influence as head of the chiefdom.

Ma'afu was the most powerful influence in north-eastern Fiji when, in 1859, the first cession proposal was made. Consul Pritchard reminded Ma'afu that, as the country had been ceded to England, future attempts to extend his authority would bring him into conflict, not with mere Fijian chiefs, but with the British Government. Ma'afu signed a document to the effect that he was in Fiji solely to manage and control Tongans and had no claim to chiefly authority over Fijians.

After the first offer of cession was rejected, however, he resumed his attempts to secure a position of leadership and, in 1867, he appeared to have succeeded in uniting the provinces of Vanua Levu and Lau by creating the Tovata. On the collapse of this confederation he declared that he would have no further dealings with Fijian chiefs and retired to his estates on Vanuabalavu. Tui Nayau raised the Tongan flag at Lakeba and Ma'afu began to assume control over the Lau group, under the excuse that its chief had declared it to be Tongan, and not Fijian, territory.

In June 1868, however, the Tongan Parliament ordered the flag to be hauled down and instructed Ma'afu to cease from involving the Tongan Government in Fijian affairs. This meant that he could not continue to exercise control by virtue of his authority as a Tongan chief, but had to be accepted as a chief in Fiji. A meeting of the chiefs of Lau was held at Lakeba, in February 1869, at which he was installed as a Fijian chief, taking the title of Tui Lau (now held by Ratu Mara); his connection with the Tongan government was severed; a vessel was sent to Fiji from Tonga, proclaiming that Tongans who remained in Fiji would no longer be under the protection of the Tongan Government and offering passages to those who wished to return. Tongan lands in Fiji were made over to Ma'afu and he was accepted by the chiefs of Bua and Cakaudrove, in May 1869, as a chief of Fiji, having authority over Fijians. He played a leading part in the offer of Cession in 1874.

Some radical Fijians therefore assert that because of his family background, Ratu Mara does not have the automatic right to champion Fijian rights.. As a matter of fact, the case of Lauans is instructive to our indigenous/immigrant debate. In 1987 Ratu Mara, unlike a decade ago, began to assert paramounty rights on behalf of the Fijians in the new post-coup Constitution, saying that 'special rights for indigenous peoples are not something new and are provided for under international law'.

He reminded his critics of the fate of other indigenous peoples saying that 'the Fijian people are all too aware of the destiny of the indigenous Aztecs of Mexico, the Incas of Peru, the Mayas of Central America, the Caribs of Trinidad, the Amerindians of Guyana, the Maoris of New Zealand, and the Aborigines of Australia'. From these arguments, Ratu Mara concluded that Fijians must be awarded majority representation in Parliament and control of the government as 'an affirmative action to guarantee and protect the rights and aspirations of the Fijian people against other communities'.

He argued that Fijians had settled in the islands over 3,500 years ago, and this fact entitled them to paramount control of Fiji. He, however, did not explain or justify why his predecessor, Ma'afu as Tui Lau, could lay claim to Fijian paramounty and Indo-Fijians not for equality, when he (Ma'afu) had been in Fiji for 26 years only before the Deed of Cession of 1874, and not 3,500 years.

The Tui Bua, Vakawaletabua, also had personal links with Tonga: his mother was Tongan and he had been placed in peaceful occupation of his chiefdom of Bua by Tongan force of arms. In 1862, he visited Tonga, with Ma'afu. A Treaty of Friendship between King George of Tonga and Tui Bua was signed on 3 January 1865. This provided for perpetual peace between Tonga and Bua and for reciprocal rights of settlement. It also provided that the Civil Service of each state would make available its employment opportunities to the nationals of the other: any Tongan settling in Bua was declared to be eligible 'for appointment to any Government situation that may be vacant', with the same privilege applying to a Buan settling in Tonga.

It is therefore not surprising that Jone Dakuvula, a cousin and former press secretary to Sitiveni Rabuka, had also asked during the two coups in 1987: 'What is so special about us descendants of the many waves of early settler groups in Fiji that our political rights to be the government must be greater and secured unaccountably, compared to the descendants of later settlers?' Dakuvula further argued that the people did not want an apartheid-type regime because the Indo-Fijians were no longer foreigners, but part of the Fijian polity. Why should they accept diminution of their political rights in their own country; the country of their birth?.

The current prime minister Chaudhry had also stated his position: 'We have a fight on our hands and I believe in dealing with it until the matter is resolved one way or the other. I was born here. I am not a foreigner here. I have every right to fight for this country. We are not going to subjugate ourselves to a constitution of this kind (the 1990 Constitution), signing away all our rights and agreeing to be slaves.' In a cruel twist of fate, he went on to become the first prime minister of Indo-Fijian origin.

Perhaps the speech of Ratu Sukuna to the Great Council of Chiefs in 1936 is worth repeating: 'Let us not ignore the fact that there is another community settled here in our midst. I refer to the Indians. They have increased more rapidly than we. They have become producers on our soil. They are continuously striving to better themselves. Although they are a different race, yet we are each a unit in the British Empire. They have shouldered many burdens that have helped Fiji onward. We have derived much money from them by way of rents. A large proportion of our prosperity is derived from their labour.'

A central figure in the 1987 Fiji coups has defended the island nation's Indo-Fijian population as fully fledged Pacific Islanders. More recently, Ratu Mara criticised an international Pacific Island conference held in Auckland for excluding Indo-Fijians. Ratu Mara, the keynote speaker at Pacific Vision, a four-day conference, said that, "This is a conference of the Pacific communities in New Zealand, yet the Pacific Vision literature I have read appears to have an omission. There is no reference that I could see to the Indians from Fiji. Fiji Indians are full citizens. They are officially designated as Fiji islanders and one, the Honourable Mahendra Chaudhry, is now prime minister. They may have a distinct and different appearance and characteristics and been late arrivals, but islanders they are."

The Fijians and Non-Fijians: 'Marooned at Home'

On 14 May 1987, the Indo-Fijians awoke to mark the 108th anniversary of the arrival, aboard the sailing ship Leonidas, of the first Indo-Fijian 'coolies' in Fijian waters. In fact, that day was to see the arrest of all their progress- from plantation to parliament- when Sitiveni Rabuka and his henchmen overthrew the multi-racial Labour government. The Fijian coup d'etat also raised the fundamental question: how many generation should the Indo-Fijian community (and other non-Fijian races) wait to become 'natives'?.

We have already recalled the Tongan Parliament's reaction to Ma'afu's status in Fiji. The following declaration of the late Prime Minister of India, Jawarharlal Nehru, has a similar echo. He raised the issue of citizenship, including that of the Indo-Fijians, in the Indian Parliament on 8 March 1948: 'Now these Indians abroad? Are they Indian citizens or not? If not, then our interest in them becomes cultural and humanitarian, not political. Take the Indians of Fiji and Mauritius: are they going to retain their nationality, or will they become Fiji nationals or Mauritians? Of course, the two things do not go together. Either they get the franchise as nationals of other country, or treat them as Indians minus the franchise and ask for them the most favourable treatment.'

As a matter of fact, the majority of the descendants of Indo-Fijian labourers had lost contact with 'Mother India' long ago.

The following declaration of an ex-indentured woman labourer Rangamma, in 1979, who arrived in Fiji with her parents a century ago, in 1899, still applies to the Indo-Fijians today: 'Fiji is my place. There is nobody in India for me.'

It is equally true of the descendants of the great chief Lutunasobsoba, who cannot be expected to return 'home' from the coast of Vuda and the mountains of Nakauvadra, to a land far to the west in the great canoe, the Kaunitoni. Or the small but significant Fiji-born Chinese community to mainland China. As we gear up to greet the dawn of a new century, we have reached that tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

It is to be sincerely hoped that we will collectively judge each other not on the basis of our colour or ancestry but by the content of our character.

The coup leader George Speight has certainly failed the test of character and some have even expressed doubt about his "indigenous" colour. He alone has the chance to redeem himself from his mindless act.

Fiji, says the tourist poster, is 'the way the rest of the world should be'.

Let us keep it that way in the 21st Century.

"Fiji going backwards - a mere footpath"

By PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY

For several years now, I have been writing articles (some published and some censored in the “bad old days”)  trying to warn Fiji people about the horrible dangers of allocating excessive amounts of taxpayers’ money to the Fiji Roads Authority (FRA).

I had tried to explain that: such massive allocations could not be spent efficiently, given the lack of capacity in Fiji; that most were not economically justifiable (i.e. the economic rates of return lower than the cost of borrowing); that there would be large wastage with companies making extra profits; or hiring staff at salaries far too large by Fiji standards.

But even intelligent members of the public have not understood that with the $500 million per year to FRA (or more than $2 billion over a four year period), even 10% wastage would lead to the huge loss of $200 million of taxpayers’ funds (virtually the cost of the NBF disaster in 1997 dollar terms), all to be paid by the current and future generations through the Public Debt.

Well the Fiji Times of 3 August 2017 has a news item about a small FRA project, a footpath, which explains the same arguments, in an easily understandable way.

The news item (with an interesting picture attached) was on the FRA footpath upgrading project along Queen Elizabeth Drive, supposed to cost taxpayers, the tidy sum of just over $3 million.

Really?
Project Objectives

The news item said that the project “will improve the road surface for motorists and provide easy access for pedestrians once it is completed”.

It all sound like progress, doesn’t it? Until you think about it a bit more.

Suva residents well know that right opposite that new footpath is an already an excellent wide footpath,  built by Suva City Council, going all the way to Suva Point.

It is an even more pleasant walk given that is right beside the sea, and has a low wall on which people can sit in comfort, and have their snacks or chats or just enjoy the sea breeze.

So clearly, the new footpath is relatively unnecessary.

Project Cost
Any Tom, Dick and Harry, or my carpenter friend Ali, will know that such a footpath, say half a kilometer or 500 meters long, can be built for less than $200 thousands.

Let us add another $100,000 for the PVC pipes, electricity lines and a few lamp posts along the way (which could equally have built on the side of the footpath next to the sea).

Let us add another $100,000 for contractors extra profit because there is a builders’ shortage now that most local contractors are building classrooms.

We are looking at $400 thousands maximum, which our Suva City Council workers could easily have done themselves, without any great fan fare.

Why is FRA spending $3.4  millions on building a footpath for Fiji taxpayers or some $3 million extra?

Why are $3.4 million being spent on a totally unnecessary footpath, whose “Internal Rate of Return” would be close to zero, and certainly less than the 7% average rate of interest Fiji taxpayers are paying on their Public Debt?

Why FRA involvement
One can understand if FRA is called in to oversee the design and construction of the King’s Highway going along the Wainibuka River where recently constructed roads have been washed away by floods (probably because of bad planning and design).

But why on earth would this expensive organization FRA, headed by expatriates, be asked to build a footpath in Suva City?

If at all, why not ask SCC to build it?

Did President Jioji Konrote demand that FRA must build it because it is just outside his boundary fence and perhaps he wants Suva people to walk that much closer in order to admire the Government grounds?

I doubt if that sensible man would ever demand such a wastage of funds for cosmetic purposes.

Was the footpath so complicated in design that it needed valuable time of the general manager network operations and maintenance Mr. Aram Goes?

While the lovely photo in the Fiji Times shows a sahib in a Fijian sulu, you can be sure that his salary is well above the salary of the average SCC foreman who supervises the building of footpaths in Suva.

What part of the $3.4 million is going to pay for the high salaries of FRA staff, who are all far most costly than the average PWD staff in the old days.

Some of us might even remember that not too long ago when the FRA cash was really flowing, there were white fellows from NZ sweeping the gravel, driving the rollers, and filling in the potholes, whose total number was periodically announced on national TV by the FRA Chief Executive Officer, another “First” for Fiji.

How stupid of the PWD never to have announced that annual number for fifty years they were in existence.

Alternative uses for $3 million
The Fiji news media has been carrying stories for years about shortages of medicines, kidney dialysis machines, classrooms, teachers, nurses and doctors, etc.

The Minister of Health has probably been begging the Minister of Finance for sums like the $3.4 million being wasted on a footpath by the Bainimarama Government.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident of FRA using massive amounts of money in the beautification of Suva.

A couple of years ago I pointed out that in an effort to use up large amounts of unused money allocated to them in the budget, FRA had spent massive amounts opposite USP next to the Cost U Less outlet, digging up and building new footpaths and roads.

I would guarantee that would have wasted at least another five million dollars.

But apply the same analysis to a total allocation of $2 billion these last five years, and assume that 10% has been wasted unnecessarily, then you are looking at $200 million of taxpayers funds gone down the drain.  That is roughly the cost of the NBF disaster in dollar terms.

Imagine what the desperately poor people in Fiji could do with an extra $200 million today?

Or the Minister for Health or Social Welfare?

Will the public should ask Mr. Dinesh Patel, the Chairman of the FRA Board, why the FRA is involved in building such an unnecessary and costly footpath?

Will the public ask the Bainimarama Government how much has been wasted by the FRA these last five years?
The answer of course is NO.

The public is too busy  writing Letters to the Editor on more important issues such as rugby sevens and grog gangs.

Postscript      
Expatriates now doing what locals used to do

It is a pity that local professionals do not have the courage to complain to the Bainimarama Government, the “First Fiji Government” to replace locals by expatriates, reversing decades of localization.

We saw that with the PS Information, the use of American propaganda company Qorvis, CEOs of Air Pacific (Fiji Airways now), PWD and many other government departments and public enterprises and their boards.

Many such appointments were not particular better than good appointable locals and some were distinctly worse, some being yame yame tabe tabe conmen and women disappearing over the horizon having made their ill-gotten gains.

But appointing whites was part of the Bainimarama strategy of appointing clearly visible white faces as part of his government, to give the “right message” to the international viewers and the local Fiji people with their typical colonized mentalities: any white is better than any black or brown or yellow.

Not forgetting of course, that with expatriate here on work permits given by the Government, any expatriate not “playing the game” that Bainimarama or Khaiyum wanted, could be sent packing.

As indeed, many have been.

Local appointments might fight unfair orders or dismissals, but even that is rare (remember the brave but futile fightback against the Fiji TV dismissals?).

It has not helped that the Public Service Commission has had pathetic members who have totally refused to deal with many backward steps taken on the civil service by the Bainimarama Government, such as the ridiculous 55 year retirement rule.

Fiji managers and executives have plumbed record depths of cowardice never known before in Fiji.

Fiji Labour Party: Shocking lack of Police manpower in the West

It is a shocking revelation that the Police Force has less than 50% of the manpower it needs to maintain law and order in the Western Division, says Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

He was referring to statistics revealed by the Divisional Police Commander Western SP Marika Yalimaiwai at a Crime Prevention Committee consultation in Ba this week (FT 4/8).

SP Yalimaiwai said he needed 2043 officers to adequately maintain law and order in the Western Division, but had to make do with only 999 officers.

“No wonder the crime rate in the country is so high. We suspect the situation is similar in the central, northern and eastern divisions. SP Yalimaiwai says the shortage of manpower is putting a strain on police posts forcing them to close down a number of posts,” Mr Chaudhry said.

FLP had expressed concern a few months back at the closure of a number of police posts around the country despite the fact that the crime rate is so high.

Mr Chaudhry expressed concern that people’s safety and security were getting a low priority when it should be the major concern of any government.

“There is no excuse for not providing adequate funds for the manpower requirements of the Police Force. If government can provide a subsidy of $18m for Fiji Airways when it is making good money and $10m for the Natadola International Golf tournament and $11.6m to the Fiji Broadcasting Commission – it should be able to fork out enough money to provide the Police Force with the manpower it needs.

“The maintenance of law and order and people’s security is a prime concern of all our communities. Government must find the money to provide adequate manpower in all the divisions so that the Police can do their job effectively, said Mr Chaudhry.

After all, our top brass in government are giving themselves around the clock security at their homes and wherever they are. The ordinary folks deserve similar protection for their families,” he said.

By WADAN NARSEY

The Fiji Bureau of Statistics has released the Preliminary Findings from their 2015-16 Employment and Unemployment Survey (EUS) (FBoS Release No: 34, 2017 (7 August 2017) from which I present their Table 1 (with line numbers added by me to help the reader).

A Media Release from the Ministry of Information, then reported the Minister for Economy (Mr. Aiyaz Khaiyum) using this FBS Preliminary findings to draw a number of glowing conclusions not justified by the statistics at all, except for No. 1, 5 and 6 below, with my comments in brackets.

1. Fiji’s unemployment rate has declined from 7.1 per cent in 2010-2011 to 5.5 per cent in 2015-2016, the lowest unemployment rate on record over the last 15 years (Line 5a). (CAREFUL!)
2. This was clear evidence that the record growth achieved by the Fijian economy was inclusive, and that ordinary Fijians were feeling the full benefits of Fiji’s economic development. (NOT SUPPORTED)
3. The strong economic management and consistent policies … targeted investment in infrastructure and service delivery, have already brought us eight straight years of economic growth … translated directly into more jobs and new investment opportunities for the Fijian people. (NOT SUPPORTED)
4. The number of employers in Fiji in 2015-2016 increased by 37 per cent from 2010-2011 (Line 7)…. a major victory for Government’s pro-growth policies that have supported private sector activity in the Fijian economy. (CAREFUL!)
5. The statistics on school participation showed that while 3,500 persons aged 6 to 17 had dropped out of school in 2010-11, only 3,182 persons had dropped out in 2015-16. (CORRECT)
6. The percentage of dropouts that had left the education system due to financial constraints had also dramatically dropped from 31.9 per cent in 2010-2011 to 4.8 per cent in 2015-2016. (CORRECT)
7. The Minister for Labour (Mr. Jone Usamate) then also commented that “the findings depicted that Government policies were effective… it shows that these policies are beginning to work because unemployment is reducing”.   (NOT SUPPORTED)

Unfortunately, nearly all these Bainimarama Government claims (except that on education) look very shaky when one examines the detailed FBS preliminary findings more closely as in Table 1.

Beware the definitions
I remind the readers that the statistics provided by the FBS Press Release are based on very strict ILO advised definitions, which can trap the unwary.
First, all the employment numbers given in the tables in the FBS Press Release relate only to those aged 15 years and over, not to those 14 and under children in Fiji who may be working.   
The “Labour Force” is defined by the ILO as “those who are working or are available for work”.
The “Unemployed” are those who say they are “available for work, and actively looking for work”.
Let me start with the “good news” which I think are quite credible.

Good news on education
Claims 5 and 6 on the progress in education are probably sound and as I would have expected.  The Bainimarama Government’s freeing up of secondary and tertiary education “for those who qualify” must have reduced dropouts from school.
The result that students who have dropped out for financial reasons has declined from 32% to 5%  (another table) is quite credible.

Doubtful Claims 2 and 3:  Few Jobs Created
Unfortunately, the FBS Preliminary release does not support the claims by Minister Khaiyum and Minister Usamate that the massive infrastructure investments and high economic growth of the last five years has created a great number of jobs.  Indeed the statistics in Table 1 suggest the opposite.
Line 3 in Table 1 shows that those “Working for Money”  has declined between 2010-11 and 2015-16 by a large 10,138 or 3.7%.
The massive two billion of infrastructure spending and high rates of economic growth have not translated into cash economy jobs.
Indeed, those working for wages (Line 3a) has increased by a mere 1,168 over the five years (or just 233 jobs per year) or less than 1 percent over a five year period. This is a shockingly small increase in jobs given the rates of increase of GDP.
Those working for salary has increased by 20,734 and a large 43% (Line 3b) but I suspect these were probably largely in the public sector or in one of the few private economy growth areas such as tourism.
In any case, these job increases are the middle income or upper income jobs, not at the low income level were wage jobs usually are.  Remember that there are twice as many wage earners in Fiji than salary earners (compare Lines 3a and 3b).
So Khaiyum’s claim that their economic growth was “inclusive” and for “ordinary Fijians” is not supported by the data.
Equally worrying is that those who are “Working But Not For Money” (Line 4) or Family work, Community Worker and Subsistence declined by a massive 16,256 or massive 20%.  Subsistence workers declined by 16,690 while Community Workers increased by a mere 496 (Line 16).
Overall, the data indicates that the Labour Force (Line 2 and 6) declined by a huge 34,000 or 9%. This is an extraordinary result given that the 15 and over age group has increased over the period (slightly by 1%).

Claim 4   Number of Employers
Khaiyum correctly quotes the FBS result that the number of “employers” increased by 37.5% (Line 3c).
However, his claim that this was “a major victory for Government’s pro-growth policies that have supported private sector activity in the Fijian economy” is on very shaky grounds indeed.  The “employers” category in the survey covers a mere 1% of those employed and the 37.5% percentage increase over 5 years amounts to a total of 1,539 only (Line 3c) and most are the very small employers in the informal sector.
It would not surprise me if this number also includes some who have started their own small businesses after being retired by the Bainimarama Government at the age of 55.
The overall reality is that this increase in numbers of small employers, did not bring about any great increase in jobs in the economy while those who are classified as “Self-employed” (Line 3d) fell by a massive 37, 406, both in Agriculture (-31,126) and Other areas (-6,280).
These numbers all taken together suggest that far from the private sector being dynamic and growing, it has been contracting between 2010-11 and 2015-16.

Claim 1:  The Unemployment Rate
Yes, the “Unemployed” as technically defined by ILO may have declined  from 7.1% to 5.5%, a decline of 7,974 persons.  But I remind you about how the “Unemployed” is defined by FBS and ILO:  those who are not working and “Looking for Work”.
But what about all those simply stopped looking for work because there is no work available? That will explain far better the hundreds of unemployed persons (mostly youth) who are hanging around all the major city centers and highly visible.
While the narrowly defined “Unemployment Rate” shows that it is declining, the harsh reality is that it is not through any great increase in the number of jobs.
The reality also is that a large number of so-called “Employed” persons (especially those “Working But Not For Money”) are significantly “underemployed”, working only part of the day, week, month or year.
From the 2010-11 EUS data which I have analyzed, the extent of this underemployment was more than 30% of the Labor Force, NOT the 7% or 5% officially “Unemployed”.
It is a terrible pity that Fiji’s political leaders are focusing only on the little bits of data that suits their propaganda purpose, coming out of the Fiji Bureau of Statistics, while ignoring the real substantive results.
Thankfully, such cherry-picking of FBS statistics to suit political purposes, is all too easily caught out.

Postscript 1      A rich data source underutilized
These Employment and Unemployment surveys are treasure troves of information on not just employment and unemployment, but also underemployment, gender inequalities in incomes, hours of work done in paid and unpaid household work, on time spent on leisure activities like religious activities, sports, kava drinking, television and video, and even reading.
My Report on the 2010-11 Employment and Unemployment Survey (Fiji Women and Men at Work and Leisure), financed by AusAID, was ready for publication in 2013.  That Report was full of policy recommendations which would have been of great use not just to the Minister for Labour and Employment creation, but also the Minister for Women, Youth and Health and civil societies.
That valuable report was not published because the Minister for Economy refused to give permission, probably because it had some negative results on employment creation between 2005 and 2011.
It is tragic for Fiji that politicians have prevented the public from accessing the reports that their taxpayer (and donor) funds have paid for, another “First in the history of Fiji” for the Bainimarama Government.
Four years later, it is still not published while the Preliminary Findings from the 2015-16 EUS is now slowly dribbling out from the FBS.
Do these Ministers have the courage to demand that the FBS to make available to them that 2013 Report and indeed have it published so that civil society can make use of this valuable source of information, paid for by taxpayers?

Postscript 2   Another example of localization reversed
The only Fijian expert on analyzing such household surveys has been  banned from analyzing that survey data, writing the reports and organizing the national workshops at which Government and NGO stakeholders could discuss the valuable findings.
Because of the Bainimarama Government wish to control the official statistics, the FBS has now gone back to being dependent on foreign experts, usually from WB and ILO, who come and go, without any accountability to the people of Fiji.
Who knows when the Final Reports from the 2015-16 EUS will come out?

Postscript 3      Where is the Final Report from the 2013-14 HIES
I remind the public that there is still no Final Report from the 2013-14 HIES which was being analyzed by the World Bank, apart from some initial poverty results.
No policy recommendations have been brought out on poverty, income distribution,  or food security, or the myriad other fascinating aspects which HIES data can reveal.
See my Report on the 2008-09 HIES) and the many workshops I ran in conjunction with Dr Mahendra Reddy (then at FNU). To date, there have been no workshops run on the results from the 2013-14 HIES results.

Who knows what is in those statistics that this Bainimarama Government does not want the public to see?

It seems that nobody in the Bainimarama Government or the public cares at all.

Methodist Church wants all their head teachers and principals to be Methodist
Fijivillage News, 17 August 2017

Yet another Christian denomination is pushing for one of their own to be always appointed as headteachers and principals of the church run schools.

The Methodist Church in Fiji claims that there has been no prior consultation done in regards to leadership roles in the Methodist Church run schools, and non Methodists are being appointed as headteachers and principals in these schools.

This has been highlighted by the Methodist Church President Reverend Dr. Tevita Banivanua at a Methodist Education Workshop held at Dudley Methodist Church today.

Reverend Banivanua says that they had asked the Ministry of Education for all their school heads to be Methodists.

The Education Ministry pays the salaries of all these teachers.

The Catholic Education Department had also raised the issue a few years ago that they wanted Catholics to be the heads of their schools.

However the government made it clear that the ministry pays for the salaries of the teachers at the schools and they choose the best people for the job.

The Ministry also made it clear that the church run schools can have their religion classes however they should not dictate and choose only to have their own to head the schools.

Fijivillage also asked the Methodist Church if they do not agree with the current school system that involves the appointment of school heads.

There are 33 Methodist schools in Fiji with 17 Primary schools and 16 Secondary schools.

We have sent questions to Acting Prime Minister, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. He is yet to comment.

Meanwhile the Methodist Church Secretary of Education Waisake Ravatu says that the Methodist Education Workshop will help them in trying to form a Methodist Teachers Association.

From the Archives
The Fiji Sun, 2007


Chiefs, Church, and Coup Culture

The “Tagi ni Taukei” mantra the root of all evil in Fiji

By VICTOR LAL

“Sit down everybody, sit down. This is a takeover. We apologise for any inconvenience caused. You are requested to stay cool, stay down, sit down and listen to what we are going to tell you. Please stay calm, ladies and gentlemen,” announced a man cowardly hiding behind a mask. Another man who was sitting down quietly in the public gallery soon joined the masked man: “Mr Prime Minister, please lead your team down and remain calm. Mr Prime Minister, Sir, will you lead your team down to the right…”

One Captain X, and a 38-year-old Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, twenty years ago, at 10am on 14 May 1987, spoke these treasonous words as a “hit squad” of ten soldiers toppled Dr Timoci Bavadra’s NFP/FLP Coalition government in the first military coup in the South Pacific.

As the parliamentarians were being detained, one Cabinet minister Dr Tupeni Baba, related to Rabuka, naively but defiantly, shouted, “What kind of a joke is this?” What was being played out in Parliament was no joking game; it was part of a fulfilment of an obnoxious prayer, “The Tagi ni Taukei – Cry of the Taukei”, that had been earlier recited in the home of Methodist Church minister (once the head of the Methodist Dilkusha Indian Circuit), Reverend Tomasi Raikivi, a cousin of Rabuka’s: “Save us, and save our land. You saved the Israelites, when foreigners took their land from them. Dear God, please answer our prayer and do the same for us. Amen”.

Although the prayer ended with “Amen”, what should have been intoned was “Amin” – for the plan was to hunt and hound out fellow Indo-Fijians like Idi Amin did in Uganda.

The other so-called “Man of God” beseeching his Heavenly Lord for guidance was Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, a cousin of the late President Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau. Kubuabola was President of the Fiji Council of Churches and Secretary General of the Bible Society of the South Pacific. It was Kubuabola, who had first termed the extreme Fijian nationalist organization that had sprung up following Dr Bavadra’s election victory as the Taukei Movement, and he was its direct link with Mr Rabuka leading up to the coup.

The two men of the robe were not alone. At the prayer meeting were others, who would later carve out respectable standing and careers from the debris of the 1987 coups: Ratu Finau Mara, the son of the late President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara; Ratu George Kadavulevu, son of the Paramount Chief of Fiji, the late Ratu George Cakobau; Ratu Keni Viuyasawa, the brother of Brigadier Ratu Epeli Nailatikau; Daniel Veitata, Apisai Tora, the late Jone Veisamasama, Qoriniasi Bale and Filipe Bole. There were other countless and faceless chiefs, thieves, and others who were part of Rabuka’s Operation Kidacala (Surprise) plan to seize power.

Some other bogus nationalist taukeis would later crawl out of the shadows, among them Isikeli Mataitoga, a legal officer under the Director of Public Prosecutions and a Captain in the Territorials. He is today ensconced in the Foreign Ministry, charged with making the world understand another coup – “Frank’s 2006 Coup”. Looking back at the 1987 television tapes from Britain’s Channel Four television, in which he (a spokesman for Rabuka) and I prominently featured during the 1987 coups on the opposite sides of the racial divide, I had asked one forthright question: “How many generation does it take for one to become a native?”

I had angrily pointed out to the world television viewers in 1987 that most of those running around beating up Indo-Fijians and claiming to be “indigenous” were themselves “bloody foreigners” – from outer islands of Fiji, from Lau and Bau, which are not connected to the mainland, and from Vanua Levu. “These Fijians have been the cause of all our racial and political problems on the mainland which houses the Parliament. Just look at the western division of Viti Levu – a model of peaceful existence to be emulated by the world.”

Of course, it was an exaggeration to blame all the so-called “bloody foreigners”, but the backgrounds of most of the key players surely pointed to in that direction, except maybe for the backgrounds of Apisai Tora, Sakiasi Butadroka, and the assistant Roko Tui Naitasiri, Ratu Meli Vesikula. An examination of the key players in the 1987 coups does reveal that the majority had come from Navatu-Natewa in Vanua Levu. Dr Baba later observed: “A lot of them, when we were released, took off their masks and came over and actually shook hands with me. They come from my part of the island.”

“They arrive on the mainland of Viti Levu, and in order to stay put, raise the chant – the Cry of the Fijians”, I told Channel Four and BBC television viewers. Their principal target has always been Indo-Fijians, as expressed by coup executioner Rabuka, I said.

Just listen to his racist nonsense about his coup: “It was a matter of cultural survival. Sink or Swim. There was no way we were going to go down. The Indians had become an unbearable presence in Fiji. The Hindus and Muslims are pagans who must be converted to Christianity.” We could say the same about him and other non-Viti Levu born Fijians, I told BBC: “Send these bloody foreigners, including their paramount chiefs, back to their islands and villagers, like the British did in the old colonial days. Rabuka should swim back to his village, Nakobo, or wherever he has come from, in Vanua Levu. He has become an unbearable presence and a disgrace on mainland Viti Levu. But no, we believe that Fiji belongs to all. We should be judged by the content of our character, and not by the colour of our skin.”

Race, I argued, was a mere smokescreen for Fijian chiefs, thieves, and other taukei who just want to reach the economic and political mountaintop.

Meanwhile, if the coup was planned in a pastor’s house, it was to be eventually sanctioned in the house of the chiefs – the Great Council of Chiefs - all in the name of “Tagi ni Taukei”. Shockingly, the prominent chiefs had other racial agendas, including Ratu Mara and Ratu Penaia. Instead of criminalizing the coup, they constitutionalized post-coup racism in the new 1990 Constitution that was now being drafted to ensure Fijian paramountcy, irrespective of the fact that the coup was introducing a culture of violence and violations, and terror and terrorism.

To be sure, their own chiefly, political, and economic survivals, was their primary agenda.

In fact, Mr Rabuka would later argue that Ratu Mara, despite his protestations, had sanctioned Rabuka’s coup. It seems poor Babu Singh, an Indo-Fijian and life-long personal bodyguard to Ratu Mara, had been more faithful to his oath than his boss to parliamentary democracy, multi-racialism, and the rule of law. In the interim, Fiji would become another country, for the taukei to plunder and prosper from the blood, toil, tears, and taxes of non-taukei, all disguised under the rubric of affirmative action and chiefly rule.

The Tagi ni Taukei slogan again found expression in the 2000 Speight coup, with Ratu Mara, now as President, sacking Mahendra Chaudhry as Prime Minister and appointing a caretaker administration. While describing George Speight and his gang as terrorists, Ratu Mara however noted the concerns of those holding the Chaudhry government hostage, stating “These will be thoroughly examined and solutions considered to further protect and enhance the position of the indigenous Fijian community”.

In the late 1960s Ratu Mara notoriously claimed that if the Indo-Fijians ever gained political power in Fiji, then “Suva would burn to the ground, and all the indigenous Fijians would lose would be the Indians’ records of their debts”. He had never envisaged that he might be consumed in those bogus nationalist flames. Forty years later, in 2000, the Fijians did burn Suva down.

Ironically, he lost his own presidency, with the looter’s leader George Speight remarking that, “From where I sit he [Ratu Mara] has no legal claim to the title of president”. In the end the great chief was forced to make a humiliating exit to Lau, a broken and bitter man, blaming among others, the coup godfather Sitiveni Rabuka, for being involved in the 2000 coup.

And yet Ratu Mara’s downfall did not discourage another of his clansman Laisenia Qarase to once again take up the “Tagi ni Taukei” slogan, as he told the UN General Assembly in 2000 in his capacity as the military installed Prime Minister:

“The crux of our political crisis in Fiji is that indigenous Fijians and Rotuman communities felt threatened by certain policies which non-indigenous leadership of the Peoples Coalition Government had implemented following their decisive victory in our national elections in May 1999. It was this fear and anxiety about their future that led to mass demonstrations and ultimately the coup d’etat on May 19th this year. It manifested itself also in the mass looting of shops, destruction of property, and threats to people and their families, and unfortunately and tragically, the victims were mainly members of our Indian community.”

The Rotumans had also joined in the unmusical Tagi ni Taukei hymn.

Even Commodore Bainimarama had been temporarily sucked into the nationalist cause, for he had refused to allow Mr Chaudhry and his Peoples Coalition government back into power after ending the hostage crisis. His court affidavits to the High Court had similar nationalistic tune. He had even signed away Speight’s freedom, subject to conditions, in the Muanikau Accord. The military high command, supported by the chiefs, went on to openly embrace Mr Qarase’s racialist demands for political and economic supremacy for the taukei. His regime, despite his racist rhetoric, became the darling of Australia, New Zealand, the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the United States.

As for Mr Rabuka, the godfather of the coup culture in Fiji, he should be expelled from the Great Council of Chiefs, which had made Mr Rabuka its only life member to honour him for staging his two military coups in 1987. It will be a fitting punishment, although it is twenty years too late. After all, the chiefs are now saying that they do not recognise Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s coup because they do not believe in coups.

To recall Mr Rabuka’s own words in his book “No Other Way”: “I respect chiefs. I do not like the composition of the Great Council of Chiefs. There are so many non-Chiefs there who will try to dictate the resolutions of the Great Council of Chiefs. The Chiefs are so humble, their personalities and their character do not make them forceful enough when they discuss matters. They will agree, they will compromise…whereas those who are not Chiefs in there tend to very, very selfish.”

Whether Mr Rabuka sees himself as one of those self-seeking commoners is another matter, but he only recently indicated that he was willing to lead any reconstituted Great Council of Chiefs.

A complex set of domestic and foreign variables account for the 1987 and 2000 coups. The most prominent has been the Tagi ni Taukei slogan from the chiefs, the church and a vast majority of native Fijians. Now when they are at the receiving end, the mantra of the day is the rule of law, democracy, human rights, and elections. The way forward, as I proposed previously, is Government of National Unity, made up of those who genuinely have Fiji and not merely taukei Fijians, at heart.

There is also no room for the obnoxious views of Mr Rabuka who told his official biographer in 2000: “My hope is that Indians will migrate. We tighten the controls, then Fiji is no longer attractive to the Indian settler as it has been over the last 120 years.”

Reflecting on the 1987 coups he declared: “I have no regrets about the coup. I apologised in the recent (1999) election campaign for the suffering it caused and I am sorry for that, not for the coup. If I was in that situation, I would do it again. It was right. I conducted the coup to seal off the threat of sustained and widespread violence, and to move the country to a form of civilian rule that would be acceptable first to the Fijians. I am at peace with the coup. The history of Fiji would have been tragically different had I not “lanced the boil”.

Let us hope that never again will we hear the Tagi ni Taukei nonsense, that has been the root of all evil and coups in the country, beginning with the 1987 Rabuka coups, which took place on 14 May, 108 years to the day the Indians were introduced as indentured labourers to toil the sugar, copra and tea plantations of Fiji.

Methodist Church run schools do not want to actively participate in non-Methodist religious festivals

The Fijivillage News, 18 August 2017

The Methodist Church in Fiji will soon write to the Ministry of Education, clearly stating that the Methodist Church run schools will not actively participate in non-Methodist religious festivals.

Methodist Church Secretary of Education Waisake Ravatu says the church’s standing committee has approved this as a policy for the church-run schools.

Ravatu says they do carry out awareness sessions because we live in a multi cultural society however the church has taken the stand that they will not actively participate in other religious activities like Diwali, Eid and Holi.

He says each school has special things that they value and the Methodist Church values it’s beliefs. Ravatu says the policy is clear that there will be no celebration of the festivals at the Methodist Church-run schools. When asked on whether the schools will observe the Diwali holiday, Ravatu said that will be done as it is outside the school period.

The Methodist Church in Fiji also claims that there has been no prior consultation done in regards to leadership roles in the Methodist Church run schools, and non Methodists are being appointed as head teachers and principals in these schools. Church President Reverend Dr. Tevita Banivanua says that they had asked the Ministry of Education for all their school heads to be Methodists.

The Education Ministry pays the salaries of all these teachers. The Catholic Education Department had also raised the issue a few years ago that they wanted Catholics to be the heads of their schools. However the government made it clear that the ministry pays for the salaries of the teachers at the schools and they choose the best people for the job.

The Ministry also made it clear that the church run schools can have their religion classes however they should not dictate and choose only to have their own to head the schools.There are 33 Methodist schools in Fiji with 17 Primary schools and 16 Secondary schools.

Acting Prime Minister, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said It is not constitutionally possible to accede to the request from the Methodist Church in Fiji for all principals and head teachers in schools run by the church to be members of the Methodist Church. The same applies to any religious organisation that has established and manages primary or secondary schools throughout Fiji.

The Fijian Constitution (section 22(4)) expressly states that every religious community or denomination and every cultural or social community has the right to establish, maintain and manage education institutions, however, no such community has the right to dictate who should be appointed as a principal, head teacher or teacher.

It is in the best interest of our students, first and foremost, to have the most qualified head of school in place to ensure the delivery of the most effective learning environment. It is also in the best interests of teachers and of the educational institution to appoint the most qualified head of school available.

Teachers, head teachers and principals are all civil servants with salaries financed by every Fijian taxpayer. As mandated in Sections 123 and 127 of the Constitution, recruitment and promotion within the Fijian civil service are based solely on merit. Government will not allow for discrimination on the grounds of religious adherence as it is contrary to our supreme law, the Fijian Constitution. The appointments and promotions of all civil servants, including teachers, will continue to be made following an open, transparent and competitive selection process based on their qualifications and experience.

Government deeply appreciates the commitment from our religious communities and denominations that establish and maintain education institutions in Fiji. As stated in Section 22(4) of the Constitution, religious communities and denominations have a right to provide religious instruction at those institutions, and students have a right not to participate if they choose to do so.

The Fijian Government is mandated by the Constitution to realise the right of every Fijian to free early childhood, primary and secondary education. As part of the commitment to meet that mandate, Government introduced the free education scheme, free textbooks initiative and free bus fares for travelling students, and recruits teachers, principals and head teachers solely on the basis of merit to put the most qualified people possible in schools throughout the country. These initiatives and policies have, together, led to a remarkable increase in access to high-quality education in Fiji.

Navua River gravel #scam

Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry has questioned why no action has been taken in the past three years to address issues of environmental impact created by gravel extraction works on the Navua River.

Mr Chaudhry is reacting to a front page report in the Fiji Times today (18/8) that indiscriminate gravel extraction from sections of the river have imperiled the food sources, livelihood and mode of transportation for some 1000 villagers as well as tourism activities that used to be based on the Navua River.

“This is an extremely serious environmental issue and I cannot see why the authorities have been dragging their feet on it for three years. Not only the livelihood but the security of these villagers is in question and yet nothing has been done to regulate extraction works on the river,” Mr Chaudhry said.

“Our Prime Minister is travelling the globe preaching climate change and sustainable development taking account of the need to protect the environment yet here at home, his government is allowing commercial environmental exploitation which is endangering the lives and livelihoods of villagers,” he said.

“We do not accept the comment from Acting Permanent Secretary for Lands and Mineral Resources, Malakai Nalawa that the companies extracting gravel had valid licences.

“What kind of Environment Impact Assessment was carried out when over three years the Navua River has become shallower by about two metres ( according to the village headman) exposing gravel and big rocks, disturbing the river’s ecosystem and endangering fish stock as well as boating activities in the river? he asked.
Mr Chaudhry has called for an immediate suspension of all extraction works on the river to allow for a proper environmental impact study to verify the concerns of the villagers affected by it.

“In fact, all extraction should be stopped in the future to allow the river to regain its natural flow and ecosystem. Further extraction works should only be allowed after credible EIAs have been undertaken and it must be monitored to ensure sustainable extraction,” he said.

Mua v State [1991] FijiLawRp 5; [1991] 37 FLR 27 (4 June 1991)[1991] 37 FLR 27

HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AFASIO MUA & OTHERS
v
THE STATE

[HIGH COURT, 1991 - (Scott J), 4 June]

Appellate Jurisdiction

Crime - offence - sedition- effect of failure to consider statutory defences - whether proof of sedition requires proof of incitement to violence.

The Appellants were convicted of sedition. On appeal against conviction the High Court HELD: (1) the magistrate's failure to consider the statutory defences to the charge was fatal to the convictions and (2) that there was no evidence of incitement to violence and accordingly no proof of sedition.

Cases cited:
Boucher v The King (1951) 2 DLR 369
Bullard v R. (1957) AC 635,642
Comptroller of Customs & Excise v Burns Philp (SS) Co. Ltd. 17 FLR 1
DPP v Chike Obi (1961) ANLR 186
DPP v Masson (1972) MR 204
Issa v R (1962) EA 186
Kachikwa (1968) 52 Cr.App.R. 538,543
Kedar Nath Singh v The State of Bihar 1962 AIR SC 955
Niharendu Dutt Maiumdar v King Emperor 1942 AIR SC 22
R. v Falconer-Attlee (1973) 58 Cr.App r. 348
R. v Jai Chand 18 FLR 101
R. v Pilcher & Ors (1974) 60 Cr.App.R. 1
R. v Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox CC 44, 45
R. v Wallace-Johnson 5 WACA 56
Regina v Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ex parte Chaudhary [1990] 3 WLR 986
Rex v Millien (1949) MR 35
Shannon Realties v (Ville de) St. Michel [1924] AC 185 192
Wallace-Johnson v R [1940] 1 All E.R. 241

Appeal against convictions entered in the Magistrates' Court.

T. Fa for the Appellants
I. Mataitoga (Director of Public Prosecutions) for the Respondent

Scott J:

This is an appeal by the seven appellants against convictions for the offence of sedition entered against them by the District Officer's Court  Rotuma  (A.M. Seru Esq., Chief Magistrate) on 27 October 1989.

Under the provisions of section 308(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code such an appeal may be in respect of a matter of fact as well as a matter of law.

The statement and particulars of offence were as follows:

Statement of Offence

Sedition: contrary to section 66(1) (a) and section 65 (i) (iv) of the Penal Code Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

Afasio Mua, Hiage Apau, Jioji Aisea, Fredi Emosi, Uafta Veresoni Elario, lane Savea, Ian Crocker, Vesesio Mua and two others on or about the 15th day of April 1988 at Juju,  Rotuma  in the Eastern Division held a meeting with seditious intention.

Upon conviction the appellants were each fined the sum of $30 and bound over for two years to be of good behaviour.

The facts and background as substantially agreed may be summarised as follows:

On 14 May 1987 there occurred a military coup d'état in" Fiji. On 16 May 1987 the  Rotuma  Council met and a message of support for the coup was sent to the Governor General. It appears that the stance adopted by the Council had the broad but not unanimous support of the people of  Rotuma .

For some years some inhabitants of  Rotuma  had been striving for greater autonomy for  Rotuma  or even complete independence. They came together and formed their own clan the Mulmahau Clan under the leadership of Henry Gibson also known as Gagaj Sau Lagfatmaro. Mr Gibson's claim to the title of chief was not recognised by the seven traditional and duly appointed District Chiefs of  Rotuma  who are ex-officio members of the  Rotuma  Council ( Rotuma  Act, Cap. 122 section 12(1) (a)).

In about June 1987 Mr Gibson sent representatives of his clan to visit the paramount chief of  Rotuma , Gagaj Maraf Solomoni and to give him the message that  Rotuma  should become independent. This request was rejected.

On 25 September 1987 the 1970 Constitution of Fiji was abrogated by military decree and on 7 October 1987 Fiji was declared a Republic.

In about the beginning of April 1988 the appellant Afasio Mua received a letter from Mr Gibson requesting him to call a meeting of the Mulmahau Clan to elect seven new chiefs. Although there was some dispute to the intended nature of these seven new chiefdoms the prosecution evidence tended to establish that the seven chiefs were to replace the seven traditional district chiefs already referred to.

On 15 April 1988 a meeting was held at Juju,  Rotuma , the subject of the charge. The meeting was held in a private house and therefore was not apparently very large. In addition to the seven appellants there was an unknown number of other persons present. Two decisions were taken. The first was that the seven appellants were elected chiefs and the second was that a letter would be sent to His Excellency the President of Fiji advising him of the results of the election. On 26 April 1988 the following letter was received by the Office of the President:

(Exhibit 3A)

C/o Kausakmua
(Chief Ministers for Gagaj Sau Lagfatmaro)
Kalvakta,
Noatau,
 Rotuma .

MULMAHAU CLAN ELDERS

Private Box
Post Office
 Rotuma 
15.4.88

The President of the Republic of Fiji
Government Buildings
SUVA

Your Most Honourable,

This is a formal letter declaring publicly known that the terms of the 7 former chiefs of  Rotuma  have been suspended from office for misuse of powers invested upon them in joining the Republic of Fiji without prior consultation of the people of the Island of  Rotuma .

The 7 newly legally representatives from the only legal cabinet of  Rotuma  are as follows and only will be recognised now.

1.Noatau DistrictHiagi Apao
2.Oinafa DistrictJioje Aisea
3.Malhaha DistrictFereti Emoase
4.Itutiu DistrictMausio Managreve
5.Juju DistrictGagats Uafta Versoni
6.Pepejei DistrictIane Savea
7.Itumuta DistrictGagats Gargsau Mose

We refer to the Deed of Cession of  Rotuma  to Her Majesty Queen Victoria of Great Britain in 1881 stating very clearly that the 7 chiefs cannot finalise any decisions without prior consultations and approval from the people of  Rotuma .

We regret very much for the steps taken and apologise for any inconveniences caused.

Respectfully Yours,
Chairman,..Hiage Apao (Signed) Security .... Afasio Mua (Signed)

cc. The Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji
H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain
The Prime Minister of New Zealand
The Prime Minister of Australia
Fiji Times Media
Radio Fiji
F.M.96

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
REPUBLIC OF FIJI
26.4.88

A second letter apparently enclosed was with the first was also received by the President's Office as follows:

(Exhibit 3B)

"C/o Kausakmua (Chief
Ministers for Gagaj Sau
Lagfatmaro)
Kalvakta,
Noatau,
 Rotuma .

MULMAHAU CLAN ELDERS

 Rotuma  Island
15.4.88

The President of The Republic of Fiji
Government Buildings
SUVA

Your Most Honourable,

The undersignees are the only legally elected chiefs of  Rotuma  representing the Island today and recognised are known as:-

1.Hiagi Apao...(Signed)Hiagi Apao...(Signed)
2.Jioje Aisea...(Signed)Jioji Aisea...(Signed)
3.Malhaha DistrictFereti Emose...(Signed)
4.Itutiu DistrictMausio Managreve...(Signed)
5.Juju DistrictGagats Uafta V...(Signed)
6.Pepejei District.Iane Savea...(Signed)
7.Itumuta DistrictGagats Gargsau Mose...(Signed)
Respectfully Yours,

Chairman Magi Apao...(Signed)
Security Afasio Mua...(Signed)

cc. The Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji
H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain
The Prime Minister of New Zealand
The Prime Minister of Australia
Fiji Times Media
Radio Fiji FM 96"

It will be noted that both letters

(i) bear at their foot an intention that they be copied, inter alia, to the Fiji Times Media (sic)

and

(ii) are signed by each of the appellants with the exception of appellant No. 7 Visesio Mua.

Shortly after the receipt of the letters by the Office of the President one or more articles appeared in the Fiji Times, a newspaper which circulates in  Rotuma . Although the newspaper was not tendered the District Officer Rotuma , Tui Wesley Malo (PW7) told the Court that the Fiji Times "published the election of seven chiefs". Kaiko Kauata (PW8) also told the Court that he "heard that they (the seven chiefs) were installed and read in the newspapers".

The District Officer who had been in Suva returned to Fiji. On his return he found the situation was tense. Although "there was no violence traditional chiefs were not happy with what had happened". He "wrote to HQ and told them of tense situation and would need assistance. On 30th April 1988 a police party arrived."

PW8 told the Court that "people were disturbed, angry and have fear because of news going around that new chiefs will rule the Island". Another witness Naniu Vilisoni (PW9) told the Court that "we were shocked sad and angered because of what the papers say and that our elected chiefs were suspended". He however went on to say that "no doubt my chief was still chief. What I read was not true. I was insulted. Much insulted if not a joke. Difference here is that claims were made and the paper printed it that Malhaha has a new chief".

Between 2 and 5 May 1988 the appellants were each interviewed by the police under caution. The precise words of the caution varied to some extent but were typically (interview of Hiage Apau) as follows:

"I wish to interview you in connection with a letter that you and other Rotumans wrote to the President of Fiji on 15th April 1988 to say that you have appointed yourself as chairman of the Council of  Rotuma  without any legal authority. This has caused disaffection amongst the people of  Rotuma . You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so and whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence".

Each of the seven appellants gave statements to the police and these were tendered. Each appellant admitted having been present at part or all of the meeting at Juju and having agreed that a letter be sent to the President. Six admitted signing the letter.

When it was put to the appellants that they must have been aware that there would be a likelihood of opposition (in some cases the word "disaffection" was used) as a result of what they had decided, some agreed but some disagreed. It is clear from the statements that some of the appellants were claiming to have acted as they did merely because they were told to do so by Mr Gibson. Some had a clearer appreciation of the likely consequences of their action. Thus Hiage Apau who chaired the meeting agreed when it was put to him by the interviewing officer that he had "blindly signed" the letter whereas Visesio Mua admitted that he knew that "the people" would not like what they had done.

A similar range of views was expressed when the appellants were charged. Only three charge statements were tendered. While Afasio Mua gave a concise statement of his political views, Uafta Veresoni apologised and sought pardon whereas Visesio Mua said he had done what he had been told to do.

After a trial lasting eight days between 12 December 1988 and 26 October 1989, Judgment was delivered on 27 October 1989 convicting all seven appellants as charged. Appellants appealed on 22 November 1989, additional grounds of appeal were filed on 4 April 1991 and the appeal was heard on May 1991.

At the hearing of the appeal I was much assisted by comprehensive and scholarly written submissions filed both by Counsel for the Appellants, Mr T. Fa and by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr I. Mataitoga for which I am most grateful.

The 14 grounds of appeal were argued together in three groups and as three groups they were described. Grounds 1, 3, and 6 were not pursued.

Group 1consisting of Ground 7 was a submission that the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in ruling at the end of the prosecution case that there was a prima facie case against each of the appellants.
Group 2consisting of Grounds 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 together with the original ground of appeal of 22 November 1989 together amounted to a submission that the learned that magistrate erred in law and in fact when he found that the case against the appellants had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Group 3comprising Ground 2 was a submission that the learned trial magistrate had misdirected himself by failing to consider and exclude the statutory defences opened to the appellants and that accordingly the conviction could not stand.I will take Group 3 first.

The relevant parts of section 65 of the Penal Code are as follows:

Section 65 - (1) "A seditious intention" is an intention –

(iv) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst .... inhabitants of Fiji.

But an act speech or publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends –

(a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in any of her measures; or

(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or constitution of Fiji as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects; or

(c) to persuade Her Majesty's subjects or inhabitants of Fiji to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Fiji as by law established; or

(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters which are producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Fiji."

It will be noted that for the purposes of the Code  Rotuma  is a part of Fiji (Interpretation Act, Cap. 7, section 2) and that the references to Her Majesty and Her Majesty's subjects must be read as references to the President of Fiji and Fiji citizens by virtue of the Existing Laws Decree 1987.

Paragraphs (a) to (d) of the sub-section are very wide and comprehensive and have the effect of imposing considerable limitations on the applicability of paragraphs (i) to (v). They are exceptions to the section. The onus of establishing such exceptions lies on the defence (Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 21) section 144). If established on the balance of probabilities such exemptions represent a complete defence to the charge.

In a Magistrate's Court the Resident Magistrate, sitting as he does alone, must perform the functions of both Judge and Jury. He must therefore analyse the various legal and factual issues and his judgment must contain these points and his determination upon them (Criminal Procedure Code, section 155(1)). A mistake of law will have the same effect as a misdirection of law to a Jury and a non direction of law will have the same effect as a failure direct a Jury on a matter which calls for direction.

Among the matters which must be determined is whether the party upon whom the burden of proof lies has discharged that burden. The primary burden of course rests upon the prosecution and the learned Chief Magistrate referred to that burden in his judgment. He said:

"I have reminded myself that the prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt .... Should there be any doubt at all, even the slightest, that should be resolved in favour of the accused".

He then analysed the basic ingredients of the offence, compared these with the evidence, found himself satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence had been proved and proceeded to conviction.

Apart from a section in the judgment dealing with the seventh appellant which is not relevant to this group of grounds of appeal the only passage referring to the evidence led for the defence reads as follows:

"All accused persons statements were recorded by police and exhibited. They were taken without any threat being made or promises given or any kind of inducement made to them. They had opportunity to correct, add to, or vary their statements.

All accused persons gave evidence on oath. There were slight variations to their version of their appointment. Some say they were to be chiefs, not of  Rotuma , but chiefs of the Mulmahau Clan in the districts allocated to them. Some say they were to be elected leaders of the Mulmahau Clan only and not as chiefs. They also agreed that they held a meeting on or about 15/4/88 and the substance of what was discussed was reduced to writing as exhibited in Exhibits 3A and 3B. The documents, as I reiterate what I said in my ruling yesterday, speak for themselves."

I have already briefly referred to the statements and pointed out that they revealed a range of attitudes to the questions being put. A number of examples will illustrate.

Hiage Apau, while accepting that he had been misguided stated that at the time the meeting was held he was under the impression that the election was legal. He did not think that the suspended chiefs would rise in response.

Afisio Mua, evidently more of an historian, indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to take a step towards independence. Although the precise meaning of the interviews in translation is not always as clear as one might wish, he apparently supported the view that what had been done was lawful.

Fredi Emosi did not agree that what had been done would "bring disaster to the people of  Rotuma ". He did not accept that what had been done was in breach of the law.

Visesio Mua told how he had attempted to gather support for the view that  Rotuma  should be independent.

Uafta Elario stated that he did not sign his name "to cause disaffection". He did not agree to the letter in the form it was typed. Furthermore, he disagreed that the purpose of the meeting was to elect new chiefs for  Rotuma  as opposed to leaders of their own party.

In his charge statement Afasio Mua said:

"I wish to state that myself and my supporters did this because we wanted our Island of  Rotuma  to retain its ties with England as our forefathers had signed the Deed of Cession in 1881. Furthermore we did this on our instructions that came from New Zealand and other parts of the world that officially declare us. We did this as we believe what Gagaj Sau Lagfatmaro had told us is correct".

Each of the appellants gave evidence on oath. The first six appellants denied that they-had appointed themselves as chiefs for  Rotuma  as opposed to chiefs in the Mulmahau Clan. The seventh appellant Visesio Mua denied being at the meeting at all during its formal parts, claimed not to have agreed to the letter and of course did not, as a matter of fact, sign it.

As will be seen from the portion of the Judgment already quoted, the learned Chief Magistrate did not refer to the statutory defences at all. Neither did he refer to the general points of dispute raised by the appellants. In the case of Visesio Mua he did not specifically reject his defence.

He did, it is true, refer to section 65(2) of the Penal Code which reads:

"In determining whether the intention with which any act was done, any words were spoken, or any document was published, was or was not seditious, every person shall be deemed to intend the consequences which would naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the circumstances in which he so conducted himself."

He took the view that the existence of discontent and disaffection had been proved by the prosecution, that they had as their source the publication of the letters to the President, that they had "naturally followed" from the publication and that therefore the consequences had to be deemed to be intended by the appellants.

This reasoning, however, overlooks the fact that even if discontent and disaffection are proved to have occurred it does not follow that an offence is proved to have been committed if all that was actually intended was one of the intentions set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). Accordingly, paragraphs (a) to (d) must be excluded before section 65(2) can fall to be considered.

Now it is true that in his closing address to the court Counsel for the appellants did not directly refer to paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 65(l). He did, however, submit that what had been done did not amount to subversion, that no actual attempt had been made to take over the  Rotuma  Council and that generally what had been proved to have occurred did not amount in law to sedition.

In my view the defences statutorily and in law open to the appellants should each have been considered and rejected before the learned Chief Magistrate could properly move on to conviction. As has been seen, the statements and the evidence of the appellants showed that there was at least an argument that the appellants were of the view that the status of  Rotuma  had been wrongly decided, that the laws of  Rotuma  should be changed and that the existence of these matters was a source of ill-will and enmity. Whether the argument was strong or weak, valid or invalid was not the point. The question which the failure to address these statutory defences left unanswered was whether the court was satisfied that the appellants were not merely exercising their legitimate rights preserved for them by paragraphs (a) to (d) of Section 65. That the defences may not have been raised at all or may only have been obliquely referred to does not affect the position in law. A failure to consider a statutory defence is an omission of an extremely important direction (R. v. Falconer-Attlee (1973) 58 Cr. App. R. 348) and this is so whether or not the defence has actually been raised (Kachikwa (1968) 52 Cr. App. R. 538,543 and Bullard v. R [1957] AC 635,642). Whether raised or not such a defence, being statutory, must specifically be rejected before it can be safe to convict. Group 3 of the grounds of appeal succeeds.

Group 2 of the grounds of appeal may be taken next. Counsel for the appellants advanced two principal arguments in support of the submission that the learned Chief Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding the case against the appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted first that the sending of the letter to the President was not a seditious act and that accordingly the meeting at Juju was not held with a seditious intent and secondly that such discontentment as may have been proved to have occurred in Rotuma  was not proved to have occurred as a result of the sending of the letter to the President or of its publication in the Fiji Times.

The first submission raises the very important question as to the meaning of sedition in Fiji. I was advised from the Bar that this is the first case of sedition to have been prosecuted in Fiji.

The dilemma which has faced the courts in other jurisdictions is this: What limits are imposed on the freedom of expression by the law of sedition given the fundamental freedom of expression enshrined in the constitution?

As previously mentioned, the 1970 Constitution was abrogated on 7 October 1987. On 1 February 1988 section 12 of the 1970 Constitution was replaced by section 11 of the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual Decree 1988. This Decree is therefore the relevant protective law for the purposes of this appeal although by virtue of its similarity with the parallel provisions in the Constitution much of what is hereinafter set out will apply to all three documents. Section 11 reads as follows:

"Protection of freedom of expression

11. - (i) Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1 of this section no person shall without reasonable justification or excuse cause:-

(i) any expression to be made that would tend to lower the respect, dignity and esteem of institutions and values of the Fijian people, or, that would tend to show disrespect to the Great Council of Chiefs and the traditional Fijian System and titles;

(ii) any expression to be made that would tend to lower the respect, dignity and esteem of institutions and values other races in Fiji, or, that would tend to show disrespect to their institutions and traditional systems;

and any person making any such expression may be liable for Sedition under the Penal Code.

(3) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision -

(a) in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health;

(b) for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights or freedoms of other persons or the private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts, or regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television; or

(c) for the imposition of restrictions upon public officers, except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in A society that has proper respects for the rights and freedoms of the individual."

It is clear that if a literal interpretation of section 65 is adopted then very substantial inroads on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Decree and by the 1970 and 1990 Constitutions would be the result. A simple example will illustrate the point.

Let us suppose that a well financed pressure group decided to mount a campaign in Fiji with its principal objective the outlawing of some controversial activity such as smoking, therapeutic abortion or the sport of boxing. It is probable that such a campaign would lead to feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Fiji and would therefore prima facie fall foul of section 65 (1) (v) of the Penal Code. Given section 65 (2) and the likelihood that these feelings of hostility and ill-will would have flown from such a campaign the mounting of such a campaign would appear on the face of it to constitute an act of sedition. Does this mean then that expression may be free only to the extent that it does not have as one of its consequences the occurrence of any of the events set out in paragraphs 65 (1) (i) to (v) of the Penal Code?

Two views of the meaning and effect of section 65 may be taken and these correspond to the two views which have been taken of the scope and limits of the laws of sedition as existing in countries with Penal Codes similar to our own.

The first view is that the Penal Code represents a complete and comprehensive statement of the law of sedition and must be interpreted in its own terms free from any glosses or interpolations derived from any expositions however authoritative of the laws of other jurisdictions. This view has its purest expression in the decision of the Privy Council in Wallace-Johnson v. R [1940] 1 All E.R. 241. Such an approach to the interpretation of the laws of Fiji was adopted in Comptroller of Customs & Excise v. Burns Philip (SS) Co. Ltd. 17 FLR 1 a case turning on the interpretation of the Customs Tariff Ordinance (Cap. 171 - 1967 Edition).

The inevitable effect of adopting such an approach would in my view be to accept the very substantial inroads into the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and by the Decree to which I have referred.

The second view starts from the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Supreme Law of the Nation (see Section 2 of the 1970 and 1990 Constitutions of Fiji) and proceeds to an interpretation of the law of sedition which enables the latter to be operated without doing violence to the overall purpose of the former. The consequences of adopting the second view are that before the offence of sedition can be made out it must be proved that there was an incitement to violence against an institution of the state.

At the hearing of this appeal the Director broadly advanced the first approach as being correct while counsel for the appellants broadly advocated the second view. Both counsel very fairly acknowledged the difficulty of drawing a line between what was prohibited and what was guaranteed and I was most helpfully referred by counsel to a number of authorities supportive of both points of view.

The quest for a resolution to the question can best begin with the decision of Wallace-Johnson already referred to. This was an appeal against a conviction for sedition brought from the West Africa Court of Appeal which had dismissed an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast entered against the appellant in 1936. The appellant argued that a prosecution for the offence of sedition could not succeed unless the words complained of were themselves of such a nature as to be likely to incite violence and unless there was positive extrinsic evidence of seditious intention. The Board rejected this argument and held that there was nothing in the Code to suggest that its interpretation could be approached in the light of decisions reached by the English and Scottish Courts under Common Law. Wallace-Johnson is important since the relevant parts of the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast colony were closely similar to the relevant parts of Section 65 of our Penal Code. It should however be noted that the Gold Coast colony had no constitution containing the fundamental freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of Fiji and accordingly the dilemma posed by the present case did not fall to be addressed by their Lordships.

Wallace-Johnson was followed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in the case of Rex v. Millien (1949) MR 35, it being again held that the proof of seditious intent did not require proof of an intention to incite violence. But, in 1972, Mauritius having by then achieved its independence together with a constitution embodying fundamental freedoms including the freedom of expression, the Supreme Court found it necessary to depart from its earlier approach and to interpret the Mauritius Penal Code Ordinance in a manner broadly reflective of the approach adopted by a number of other jurisdictions both Common Law and Code. The Court held (DPP v Masson (1972) MR 204) that the incitement to disorder or the tendency or likelihood of public disorder or the reasonable apprehension thereof was an essential ingredient of the offence of sedition under the Mauritius Penal Code. Although I do not have access to the entire Mauritius Penal Code Ordinance it is clear from the cases referred to that its wording is similar to that of the Penal Code of Fiji.

In reaching its decision the Mauritius Supreme Court placed heavy reliance on a number of decisions of the Federal and Supreme Courts of India both before and after independence which had considered previously the question now before the Court namely the interpretation of a Penal Code Offence of Sedition given the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

In Kedar Nath Singh v. The State of Bihar 1962 AIR SC 955 the Supreme Court of India referred to the two views previously mentioned. In declining to follow Wallace-Johnson the Court observed that if the meaning given by the Privy Council were adopted the section would be much beyond the permissible limits of restrictions which the State was empowered to impose under Article 19(2) (Freedom of Expression) of the Constitution of India. But, on the other hand, if the meaning given to the section by the Federal Court in Niharendu Dutt Maiumdar v King Emperor 1942 AIR FC 22 were accepted the section would be in accordance with the Constitution. In Niharendu's case the Federal Court had held that the gist of the offence of sedition was incitement to violence or the tendency or the intention to create public disorder by word spoken or written which have the tendency or the effect of bringing the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or creating disaffection in the sense of disloyalty to the State. In other words the Federal Court brought the law into line with the Law of Sedition in England.

In reaching its decision the Supreme Court, following a number of decisions of Supreme Courts of other jurisdictions, also prayed in aid the principle of the presumption of constitutionality, that is to say where a provision of law is capable of two interpretations one of which makes it constitutional and the other unconstitutional then the interpretation which makes it constitutional is to be preferred.

It should be noted that the present Penal Code of Fiji is the successor to the original Penal Code of Fiji, Ordinance 18 of 1944 which itself, in common with most Penal Codes of the former Pacific and African colonies of Britain was derived from and broadly followed the Penal Code of India (Act XLV of 1860).

By comparison with the decision in Kedar Nath Singh and DPP v. Mason a decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Nigeria, DPP v. Chike Obi (1961) ANLR 186 must be referred to. The Federal Court was faced with the same question of reconciling the Constitution with the Penal Code. Section 50(2) of the Code including the statutory defences, was in precisely the same terms as Section 65 (1); The Constitution of Nigeria also guaranteed freedom of expression. The Court held that the statutory defences constituted a sufficient protection of the guaranteed rights and that accordingly Section 50(2) was not invalidated by the Constitution. However, in later declining to follow the course adopted by the Federal Court of Nigeria the Supreme Court of Mauritius pointed out that there is to be found in the judgment of the Federal Court no mention of Kedar Nath Singh nor of the very important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Boucher v. The King (1951) 2 DLR 369 to which further reference will be made below. It is also clear that the Federal Court had in mind precedent established by itself or the doctrine of stare decisis. Thus, at page 192 Ademola CJF. said:

"In this respect it is necessary to point out that an incitement to violence is not a necessary ingredient of the offence. This has been laid down in R v. Wallace-Johnson 5 WACA 56 at page 60 and this decision has been followed in all our cases of sedition in Nigeria."

This Court is not similarly constrained.

The question now is what view of the law of sedition should be taken in Fiji? I have come to the conclusion that the correct view is the second. I have come to this view for four reasons.

First, I accept with respect, the correctness of the reasoning behind the decision in Kedar Nath Singh and DPP v. Masson. The Penal Code of Fiji which predates both Constitutions and the Decree must be interpreted in their light and so as not to do violence to their plain meaning. The need for consistency between the penal Code and the Supreme Law of the State is particularly evident. As has been said:

"Where alternative constructions are equally open that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be regulating; and that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty friction or confusion into the working of the system."
Shannon Realties v. (Vlle de) St. Michel [1924] AC 185 192.

Second, if the first view were to be taken then it would be impossible for a citizen of Fiji to know with reasonable precision where the limits on his freedom of expression lay. It need hardly be stated that such a situation is quite unacceptable. The Director, responding to the simple illustration set out above met the difficulty by characterising sedition as being a crime against society, nearly allied to that of treason and submitted that since a campaign of the type I have referred to would not involve the deliberate stirring up of opposition to the authorities of State, no sedition would be involved. With respect I am of the opinion that to adopt such an approach, however consistent it may be with the approach adopted by other jurisdictions (see E.G.R. v. Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox CC 44, 45) is to place a gloss upon the words of the Section which is precisely what, on the first view of the meaning of the Section, is not allowed.

Third, Section 3 of the Penal Code, the interpretation section, reads as follows:

"This Code shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of legal interpretation obtaining in England and expressions used in it shall be presumed, so far as is consistent with their context, and, except as may be otherwise expressly provided, to be used with the meaning attaching to them in English Criminal Law and shall be construed in accordance therewith".

Now, although there is in England no Code offence of sedition, the basic question as to when behaviour becomes seditious is in both jurisdictions the same. The object both of Common Law and the Penal Code is to prevent public mischief while at the same time allowing legitimate dissent. As has been pointed out by this Court (R. v. Jai Chand 18 FLR 101) the Privy Council is not the repository of English Common Law and a decision of the Board, though of the highest persuasive authority may not be binding in Fiji. The abolition of appeals to the Privy Council from the Courts of Fiji is perhaps also relevant. It seems to me that the correct approach, bearing in mind the difficulties involved in the alternative view, is to interpret section 65 in a way which both accords with the interpretation of the English courts and which avoids the uncertainty to which I have already referred.

Fourth, the result of the judicial interpretation of the Law of Sedition by the highest courts overseas has been in the great majority of cases to restrict its operation to instances of incitement to violence against this State or its institutions. The leading authority is Boucher v. The King supra wherein is to be found the most complete analysis of the nature and history of the development of the law of sedition. In that case the Supreme Court of Canada declined to follow Wallace-Johnson and specifically concluded that proof of an intention to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of subjects did not alone establish a seditious intention. Although the 1930 Criminal Code of Canada did not define sedition in exactly the manner it is defined in our Code the statutory defences (section 133A) are essentially the same and it will be noted that the specific conclusion of the Court dealt directly with the wording of section 65(1)(v) of our Penal Code. To constitute sedition the Court held that there had to be proof of incitement to violence for the purpose of disturbing constitutional authority. This approach which has been widely accepted was also recently approved by the divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division in Regina v. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ex Parte Chaudhary [1990] 3 WLR 986 and accordingly represents the law in England.

It will be seen that by favouring and adopting the second view the result is an interpretation consistent with the Supreme Law of the State, an interpretation which complies with section 3 of the Penal Code itself and an interpretation of the law which is precisely the same as that arrived at in other democratic states which share our Common Law background. In this context it should be noted that such restrictions on the protection of Freedom of Expression as are permitted under the Constitution of 1990 by section 13(2) are subject to the proviso that they are not to be shown not to be "reasonably justifiable in a democratic society".

In the present case I find no evidence of any incitement to violence by the appellants against the constituted authorities be they the office of the President, the Central Government or the Council of  Rotuma . I find no evidence of any disaffection, that is, "political alienation or discontent, a spirit of disloyalty to the Government or existing authority" Oxford English Dictionary caused by the actions of the appellants. Given the inclusion of the reference to the Law of Sedition in the Decree (such reference, it will be noted, does not appear either in the 1970 or the 1990 Constitutions) I also find no evidence that anything done by the appellants had any tendency to lower the respect, dignity or esteem of the traditional chiefs of the Council of  Rotuma . On the evidence it is clear that such ill-feeling as there was, was directed at the appellants themselves, which is not at all the same thing. I find that the learned Chief Magistrate erred in law in finding the offence of sedition proved.

Given my findings on Group 3 of the grounds of appeal and the legal element of Group 2 the remaining grounds may be shortly taken.

As to the error of fact complained of in Group 2 I find it sufficient to say that I have grave difficulty in seeing how the meeting at Juju, which after all was the subject of the charge, was shown to have been seditious at all. It was held in private. It resolved to send a letter to the President. The meeting then ended. Some time later a letter was sent. But it is not the letter which appears in the charge, it is the meeting and I am not at all persuaded that there was any evidence that the meeting itself was held with any seditious intent.

I also accept that there must be serious doubts over the correctness of accepting the results of the publication of the articles in the Fiji Times and on the wireless as having flown from what the appellants wrote to the President. Although marked for distribution to the Fiji Times there was no direct evidence at all that any of the appellants actually sent a copy of the letter to the Fiji Times. The article or articles which appeared were not tendered. It cannot be assumed that the cause of discontent was not journalistic comment of a sensational nature coupled with ill-informed gossip rather than the mere self-appointment of an insignificant group as chiefs, appointments which, it was conceded were not even recognised as being legitimate according to Rotuman customary law. No attempt was made to take over the workings of the Council. It is clear to me from the transcript that there was a deep confusion of thought on the part of some of the prosecution witnesses. The traditional chiefs were properly and understandably upset at what the seven had done but what they did in appointing themselves as chiefs though illegitimate was not illegal and as such provided no cause for interference by the Criminal Law.

As to Group 1 of the grounds of appeal, in view of the findings on Groups 2 and 3, examination of the position would be somewhat academic and is in my view unnecessary It should however be mentioned that in construing a section of the Tanganyika Code similar to section 2(10) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Appeal Court held that the decision whether or not to call upon the accused to make his defence was essentially a matter for the trial court and that an appellate court would not set aside a conviction solely on the ground that there was no case to answer. See Issa v. R. (1962) EA 186.

There remains the question of proviso (a) to section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. For the avoidance of doubt I have concluded that I am not satisfied that had the learned Chief Magistrate not so misdirected himself as I have found, the result of the case against the seven appellants would have been the same (see R. v. Pilcher & Ors. (1974) 60 Cr.App.R. 1, 6). Accordingly, I decline to apply the proviso.

In the result the appeals of the seven appellants succeed. The convictions are set aside. The fines if paid must be refunded.

I desire to add two postscripts. First, this case from hearing to appeal has taken over 3½ years to dispose of. I do not think this is a satisfactory state of affairs given that our Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to secure protection of law which includes a fair hearing within a reasonable time. Second, as is frequently mentioned by the authorities probably no crime other than sedition has been left in such vagueness of definition. What however is clear beyond all doubt and argument is that each State has a right and duty to protect itself and its citizens against incitement to violence, public disorder or unlawful conduct including unlawful expression. Thus, section 13(2) of our Constitution makes provision for restrictions on the freedom of expression inter alia in the interests of defence, public safety and public order. Nothing in this judgment should be taken as casting any doubt whatever upon these and similar provisions.

(Appeal allowed; convictions quashed)

Tebbutt/Times poll results

In the most recent Tebbutt/Times poll published Saturday, the Fiji First government received a 76% approval rating for its performance.

This is difficult to accept given the number of serious governance issues facing our nation.

The Fiji Times has itself run a series of articles in recent months pointing to people’s dissatisfaction with the very high cost of living, rising unemployment and poverty levels, shortage of drugs and doctors in our hospitals, problems faced by cane farmers, lack of security of employment for civil servants … the list goes on.

“I have been to several gatherings in recent weeks – social functions, weddings, funerals – where the talk has all been about the need to change the government come next elections,” said Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

If despite such evidence of socio-economic frustration among the people, the government can continue to get a high approval rating, then there is something really wrong somewhere with the manner of the poll itself.

Apart from problems affecting people’s daily lives, Fiji faces serious issues centering on lack of respect for human rights, huge gaps in accountability and transparency in the affairs of the State, restrictions on media freedom, over regulation of the business environment as well as corruption in high public office, not to mention cultural nepotism and crony capitalism.

Since taking office, the FF government has abused parliamentary powers and privileges to further its own interests and undermine the role of the Opposition. It has failed to comply with key provisions of its own hand-crafted Constitution (Freedom of Information and Code of Conduct legislation, appointment of an Accountability and Transparency Commission etc (Sections 121,149,150). The Constitution itself is fundamentally flawed and carries several provisions which demonstrate disrespect for the rule of law (Sections 155 -158 and 174).

Unless these fundamental problems are addressed, the long term well-being of our people and the nation stands jeopardized. These bad governance issues may not be ‘bread and butter’ problems for our people, but they are equally important in terms of democratic values and the long term prosperity and progress of our nation and people.

With a record such as this, it is highly unlikely that our people should want them back in government.

Just because the Prime Minister goes around being generous with tax payers’ money on freebies, does not make him a good prime minister.

They are clearly vote buying gimmicks that do nothing to contribute to the overall development and sustainability of the nation. They merely foster a handout mentality amongst our people which must be denounced.

The Electoral Commission should take action to investigate these vote-buying campaign tactics employed by the Fiji First government using public funds.

August 22, 2017
 
MEDIA RELEASE
 
Teachers’ salary increment a colossal disaster
 
The teaching fraternity has been exploited and held to ransom by the current Government, which has forced them to enter into discriminatory contracts under the pretext of offering them salary increases.
 
Principals, Vice Principals, Heads of Department (HOD), Head Teachers, Assistant Head Teachers and other post holders have been demoted to a lower rank and then offered acting appointments to the substantive positions they previously held.
 
Teachers who held substantive positions have been first appointed to a rank lower than the position they were holding, and then given a second contract offering them an acting contract to the position they held substantially and an acting salary of 95% of the substantive salary.
 
We have cited contracts of several teachers to confirm the exploitation and discriminatory nature of the contract.
 
In one case a principal was first offered the contract of a vice principal. The person has been holding the position of Principal prior to this ill-conceived reform. On the same day, the person was given another contract of Acting Principal of 95% of the increased salary.
 
In another case a teacher holding the position of HOD (Head of Department) was first offered the contract of Assistant Teacher. On the same day, the person was offered an Acting HOD Contract at a salary of  95% of the new salary.
 
Furthermore, teachers who have been in the service for over 25 years have been given a meagre pay rise of 6.4 percent and the same as teachers with far less experience because they do not hold a Diploma. The teachers are furious because their experience counts for nothing.
 
Worse of all, all contracts render meaningless the teachers’ employment security and make them totally subservient to Government.
 
Some of its regressive provisions are: -

1. Renewal of the contract is at the absolute discretion of Government
2. The Civil Servant irrevocably agrees that non-renewal of the Contract will not give rise to any course of action whatsoever against the Government
3. The duration of the Contract expires immediately upon a civil servant reaching the retirement age of 55
4. Renewal of the Contract is subject to Government requiring the services of the civil servant and that too if he or she agrees to enter into another contract on mutually agreed terms
5. The decision of Government to transfer a civil servant on the existing terms of the Contract to anywhere in Fiji is final
6. Government has the right to change or vary the Contract anytime

 
This discriminatory and exploitative contractual employment that is being forced upon our teachers will not result in a harmonious, unified and productive civil service. 
 
Such draconian contracts are subjugating our teachers and have no place in a genuine democracy.
 
The two teacher unions must rise and take immediate action to protect their members and prevent this Government from eroding their employment conditions and all teachers must also reject this enforced condition.
 
Authorised by:
Professor Biman Prasad
NFP Leader

One of the greatest strengths of Mahendra Chaudhry and the Fiji Labour Party (FLP), of which he was one of the original co-founders, was their politics of multi-racialism. An analysis of the results of the elections under the previous first-past-the post voting system would show that the FLP would have won the majority of seats to form a government of its own choice and complexion.

But in the May general elections the party made a fatal political mistake by embracing the splinter Fijian political parties into its fold to form a Peoples Coalition during the run-up to the elections. We have already dealt with the VLP. Whoever was advising Chaudhry and the FLP had not immersed himself/herself into the impetuous character of Fijian history and politics. Like his political foes in the NFP (Notoriously Faction-Ridden Politicians), the Fijians in the Peoples Coalition had convinced themselves that it was only in the company of FLP that they could find new jobs as Ministers and Backbenchers. Some Fijian politicians were merely using the coalition with the FLP to achieve their dreams of becoming Prime Minister of Fiji after the May elections.  

Having demolished the once invincible and faction-ridden NFP, as well as the chiefly sponsored and Rabuka led SVT, Chaudhry however found himself chained to a new 1997 Constitution with its mandatory provision for power sharing, entitling any political party with more than 10 per cent of the seats in the Lower House to a place in Cabinet (in proportion to its percentage of seats). The party with the most number of seats provided the Prime Minister, who allocated portfolios in Cabinet. Because of this provision for a multi-racial cabinet, the parties in the Peoples Coalition formed only a loose coalition among themselves, leaving the details of power sharing and leadership to be decided after the elections. More importantly, the politics of race was, for once, relegated to the background because both the coalitions, the Peoples Coalition and the SVT/NFP/GVP Coalition were multi-racial in character, at least for electoral purposes.

Chaudhry charms and alarms Taukeis

It is no secret that disgruntled Fijian politicians under the guise of Taukeism played a leading role which set the stage for George Speight and his henchmen to overthrow the Chaudhry government. Land and race was mixed with politics, even though these sensitive issues were not on the voters minds. A Tebbutt Research on behalf the Fiji Times in April 1999 revealed that 26% of the voters thought unemployment was the most important issue in the election (Fijians 30% and Indo-Fijians 23%); followed by land issues/ALTA (14% - Fijians 8% and Indo-Fijians 21%). According to SVT official Jone Dakuvula, a SVT-inspired agitation and destabilisation against Chaudhry began almost immediately after Chaudhry’s win. Jim Ah Koy, who was Finance Minister in Sitiveni Rabuka’s last government, while distancing himself from Speight’s take-over of Parliament, said he understood the Speight’s groups frustration and anger. He blamed the Chaudhry government’s ‘arrogance and obduracy in not listening to the sensitivities of the indigenous Fijians’.  

Chaudhry sought to introduce a Land Use Commission to restructure land ownership. On 3 April 2000, based on World Bank Report and other reputable sources, Chaudhry declared Fiji would remain poor as long as the land remained underdeveloped. That ‘development’ required larger plantations and more secure titles in order to attract investment. Chaudhry also offered small Indo-Fijian growers $28,000 each to leave their farms and proposed that leases be extended for 60 years at the current low rents. Both the Council of Chiefs and the NLTB opposed these measures, accusing Chaudhry of favouring the Indo-Fijian tenant farmers and undermining the Council of Chiefs. Ironically, as the plight of the Indo-Fijian farmers worsens, with frightening consequences for the econony in general, the Interim Administration has agreed to pay the displaced farmers $28,000 or less depending on their circumstances.  

On the day of Speight’s coups, about 5,000 people marched through Suva, demanding Chaudhry’s removal, following a similar march on 28 April. Marchers denounced the Government’s planned changes to land use, accusing it of moving to ‘usurp land’ from native landowners. They also attacked Chaudhry for showing ‘disrespect’ for the Council of Chiefs. The marches were called by the Fijian chauvinist Taukei Movement and led by Apisai Tora, who lost his parliamentary seat in the general elections. Tora revived the Taukei, which also staged marches and carried out racial attacks on Indo-Fijian citizens and politicians as a prelude to the 1987 coups.

SVT secretary Jone Banuve gave his endorsement to Speight as he entered the besieged Parliament to meet him. He also issued a statement in the SVT’s name, saying: ‘We will never accept the reinstatement of the Chaudhry, nor any non-Taukei leadership’. The SVT’s parliamentary leader, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, said he knew nothing about the statement. Whether or not Kubuabola, the principal architect of the 1987 coups, knew of the statement, most of the Fijian politicians and leaders were attempting to leverage favourable outcome. While Sitiveni Rabuka issued a statement saying there should be ‘no amnesty’ for Speight and his followers, his ambiguous position was summed up in comments to the media: ‘I sympathise with your [Speight’s] cause, but I don’t agree with your methods.’

Tora, like Rabuka, said he sympathised with the cause but did not approve of the methods. He said the Taukei Movement had its own plan which he says was a much more logical approach.

Chaudhry, on the other hand, had impressed and charmed even some of the die-hard Taukei members with his leadership qualities. Taukei activist Sivoki Mateinaniu said members of the Taukei Movement and Fijian politicians should learn from Chaudhry. ‘Mr Chaudhry’s policies are simple. He is just trying to implement what he promised; unlike the SVT government who forgot its election promises as soon as they were elected. Now the Fijians are still confused because our so-called leaders forgot to protect us in the [1997] Constitution. They did not even formulate legislation to protect our cause’, Mateinaniu said. ‘In the 1999 elections, they could not promise the Fijians anymore because they had failed to deliver in 1992 and 1994’. He called on Fijians not to listen to the hollow calls to disrupt stability and good governance. ‘The Taukei Movement now supports Mahendra Chauhdry’.

Emperor Without the Prime Ministerial Robe

It was a remarkable transformation on Mateinaniu’s part and an honest and accurate assessment of Chaudhry’s leadership qualities. As the veteran politician and political commentator Sir Vijay Singh observed that, ‘Of all the major political parties, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry alone retained a clear vision of his party’s constituency-workers and farmers, the poor, and the deprived’ of all the races in Fiji’. Furthermore, the FLP had an extensive network to communicate that message. The Fiji Public Service Association, of which Chaudhry was the head, reached out to the public sector. He was also able to galvanise the farming community through the National Farmers Union, of which he was the head.

The Labour candidate, Pratap Chand, as head of the Fiji Teachers Union, was able to reach out to primary and secondary teachers who play an educative role in our muti-racial community. For many Indo-Fijian voters, the NFP’s, and in particular its leader, Jai Ram Reddy’s, achievements on the promulgation of the 1997 Constitution and talk of racial harmony were abstract issues. Also, the coalition with Rabuka’s SVT was insignificant. As Sir Vijay put it, ‘in restoring the democratic constitution’, Rabuka ‘did the Indians no favour’. He ‘restored what he had stolen in the first place’. The FLP also promised policies and initiatives of its own: the removal of the 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) and Customs Duty from basic food and educational items, review taxation on savings and raise allowances for dependants, provide social security for the aged and destitute, and lower interest rates on housing loans.

The FLP had caught the peoples imagination. It was ‘Time for a Change’.  

And it was indeed a refreshing political change of scene.  

The voters of Fiji elected by a landslide the ‘Peoples Coalition’ consisting of the FLP, the Party of National Unity (PANU) and the Fijian Association Party (FAP), with Labour winning 37 of the 71 seats, enough to govern on its own. However, it was the beginning of the end of Chaudhry’s government. The root and arguably the most significant cause of the demise of the Chaudhry government was not the Taukei Movement marches, the puppeteer George Speight and his financiers or Chauhdry’s arrogance but (i) the provisions of 1997 Constitution of Fiji, and (ii) the non-Fiji Labour Party Fijian politicians in the ‘Peoples Coalition’.  

At the end of the day, these Fijian politicians had entered the government not on the platform of multi-racialism but as representatives of the various fractious Fijian political parties. They had racial and communal outlooks both in history and their pronouncements.

The Constitution and the election results had left the other half of the Fijians to brood, sulk, make political, provincial and tribal alliances, and plot or if necessary, to club their way back to political power under the guise of indigenous rights. Chaudhry had inherited a ‘Divided House of Representatives’ and as a result his antagonists were able to run through and occupy it illegally. He became a ‘Fall Guy’. Race and not tribalism triumphed on that fateful day, 19th of May 2000. The failed coup was executed to effectively oust his Fijian Association Party (FAP) and other Fijian guests from the House, who should not have been invited as his honoured guests in the first place under the 1997 Constitution. Chaudhry-the King Maker-had overnight become an Emperor Without the Prime Ministerial Dhoti (Indian sarong).  

The 1997 Constitution, with its provision for multiparty government, had made him both the victor and the vanquished. His political gurus also slavishly allowed him to be dictated by Ratu Mara in the formation of his new government. As we have already pointed out, Chaudhry was caught with his Indian night political dhoti down in the company of ‘liu muri’ Fijian political bedfellows. Pre and post-cession Fijian history was repeating itself.

The new Constitution had brought Fijian political quarrels to the Fiji Labour Party’s doorsteps. Chaudhry, the ‘misguided saint’, foolishly opened the political and multi-racial gate to his FLP-led government and in the process the ‘devils’ ignominiously and unceremoniously bundled him out of the political kingdom. ‘The King is Now Politically Dead but the Memory of Fijian Infighting Still Lives On’.  

To be continued: The Fijian Seeds of Chaudhry’s Troubles and Downfall

Summary

Over 15 years experience implementing change in the public sector with successful outcomes in the Education, Law and Justice, Health, Transport, Electoral sectors and for whole of government through central agencies. Experience leading and managing multi disciplinary teams in diverse and challenging environments.

Specialities: Human Resource Management (policy development, HR planning, HRD planning). Public Sector change management and organisation development. Project management including leading multi disciplinary teams.

Election Specialist (Human Resources), Australian Civilian Corps Deployment
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
November 2013 – November 2015 (2 years 1 month)
Work with the Fijian Elections office to develop the Human Resource plan, recruitment plan and human resource manual to support the 2014 Fijian National Election. Support the recruitment, training and deployment of ongoing and temporary staff for the Fijian Elections office. Following the 2014 Election, continue to support the FEO in the review of election operations, the development of the Human Resource Policy Manual and to plan the staffing requirements for the 2018 National Election.

HR / Finance Specialist, Australian Civilian Corps
AusAID
June 2012 – September 2012 (4 months)
Support the introduction of Electronic Voter Registration in Fiji. Organise the contracting, payment, training and deployment of over 1000 temporary staff throughout Fiji to undertake electronic voter registration.


Causes Jane cares about:

• Animal Welfare
• Civil Rights and Social Action
• Human Rights

Full CV, click below:

https://au.linkedin.com/in/jane-curran-45bb3825

This article published in the Fiji Sun in November 2006 is especially pertinent now when SITIVENI RABUKA is again talking of the Great Council of Chiefs, chiefly authority, indigenous rights,  land...

THE GREAT COUNCIL OF CHIEFS IS A COLONIAL INVENTION

By VICTOR LAL
(From Tanganyika (Tanzania), the ancestral home of Chief Lutunasobasoba and the Kaunitoni voyagers

'Wherever I go now,’ the first British colonial governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon wrote, ‘the natives shout Woh! and crouch down, as before their own great chiefs, and they admit and understand that I am their master’.

His house was declared tabu: all persons passing it on the road or sailing before it in canoes, gave the tama, or shout of respect to a high chief. The people had no choice, for it was Gordon who had created the Bose Levu Vakaturaga or the Great Council of Chiefs, and had come to see himself as chief of the Fijian chiefs.

The GCC is, therefore, merely a colonial invention, which Gordon had created in order to rule Fiji through the chiefs. In fact, there was nothing new about Gordon’s invention, for the British had devised similar institutions, to rule Africa through the African chiefs on that continent.

The British also introduced the African native system of government into Fiji. In other words, the British were not treating the Fijian chiefs as special although they couched their policies in that term.
However, Gordon mixed and matched titles to create Fijian customs, traditions, and institutions. He borrowed the title ‘Buli’ from Bua, where it applied to a minor chief, and that of ‘Roko Tui’ from the head of the priestly clan in Tailevu and Rewa.

It was not long before the Fijian chiefs began to accept the institution and the paraphernalia and the inventions that went with it as uniquely Fijian. They also swore to obey everything that Governor commanded them to perform during the long years of British colonialism.

As historians of Fiji have argued, there is no evidence that the councils set up by Gordon were ‘purely native and of spontaneous growth’.

The chiefs rarely met in Council until the imported institutions of government required them to do so.
In 1875 the Government interpreter David Wilkinson refused to accept that the GCC was a body based on Fijian tradition: ‘The Fijian custom being that high Chiefs seldom, if ever, meet each other in Council.’ The GCC was directly subject to Gordon’s authority, the regulation that provided for its establishment stating:

‘The Governor is the originator of the Council and he alone can open its proceedings’.
The power Gordon held over the GCC was manifestly demonstrated when he threatened to abolish it on finding out that some of its chiefly members were drunk.

He recorded his dealings with the chiefs in his personal diaries that he published in four volumes between 1897 and 1912.

The disputes over chiefly successions, which are still prevalent today, were rampant. Ratu Bonaveidogo of Macuata, giving evidence on the position of Tui Macuata when asked to explain the customs of his tribe in the matter of chiefly succession replied that the custom was to fight about it.
Another contentious issue was the ownership of land, which has again reared its ugly head following the introduction of the Indigenous Lands Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bills.

The Bua Government was the earliest in the country to have taken the effective measure to control the sale of land in Fiji, passing, in 1866, an ‘Act to regulate the sale and leasing of lands within the kingdom and state of Bua’.

The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners. However, any rebellious tribe who did not conform to Tui Bua or conspired against him, faced expulsion, as the Korovatu people found to their cost in 1866.

The Yasawa islands, conquered by Ma’afu on behalf of Tui Bua, was not spared - the rebellious chiefs of Nacula and Tavewa found their islands sold to planter Hennings as a punishment for supporting Bau.
Other chiefs, especially Ratu Seru Cakobau and the Tui Cakau were equally ruthless. A year before the Deed of Cession was signed, as historian Peter France and others have demonstrated, the survivors from the vanua of Magodro, Qaliyalatina, and Naloto, following the outbreak of war in Ba, were deported from their lands and offered for sale to white settlers, their lands being confiscated and included in the offer of cession to British Crown.

The Lovoni people, who had revolted against Cakobau, had their lands mortgaged and sold by auction, and they themselves were sold as plantation labour at three pounds a head. Cakobau also gave away 200,000 acres of land to the Polynesian Company, including the Suva Harbour, in exchange for the payment of debts to the Americans. King Cakobau’s son Ratu Epeli, on being appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Ba and Yasawa sold most of the northern islands to European settlers.

Commenting on the deeds of sale in Nasarawaqa, Bua, the Lands Commission noted that ‘they bear the signature of an extravagant of chiefs, most of whom had very little to do with the lands sold, culminating with the name of Ratu Epeli of Bau, who had about as much authority at that time, and in that part of Fiji as the Emperor of China’. Chief Ritova had alienated over 100,000 acres of land along the coast of Vanuabalavu.

The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands. The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless.

The missionaries were not behind - they appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation.

It was against that background that Governor Gordon finally summoned the chiefs in 1876 to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could be framed.The chiefs were not sure of the immemorial traditions to land rights. The Land Commissioners equally struggled, with Basil Thomson concluding as follows: ‘The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago.’

In the end the present system of land ownership was devised, with the Native Lands Trust Board as the guardian of land rights in Fiji. Those championing for the introduction of the Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Claims Bill have, as I have written elsewhere, law on their side. However, the whole land debate and legislation of the old was framed in the aftermath of native and settler disputes over land rights in Fiji.

Sir Arthur Gordon had never factored into his policy the likelihood of Fijians refusing to share with other fellow Fijians the proceeds of their tribal lands, seas, and foreshores in the 21st Century. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and other interior Fijians have nothing to benefit from the Qoliqoli Bill, and it is this that I suspect that is driving him and others to oppose it to the bitter end. He even went to the extent of claiming that the Lauans pushing for the Bill will not be affected from its fall out. After all, the Lauan chief Ma’afu was not even a signatory to the Deed of Cession, which had unconditionally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria in 1874.

The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation? It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers.

It was the present chiefs' ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries.
The Governor Sir Arthur Gordon had come up with a land policy in the 19th Century to ensure that Fiji survived under his governorship.

According to one of his successors, Im Thurn, ‘It is too true that all Sir Arthur Gordon’s successors as Governors of Fiji have unquestionably followed him into the pit which he first dug. We-for I am a culprit too-followed his lead in thinking that the Fijians had good claims to the surplus land’.

It should not come as any surprise that in 1907 Gordon, by now Lord Stanmore, supported his land policy in the British House of Lords, for the chiefs had also given away two islands to him as a gift from the Fijian people.

Which Fijian people? And who owned those two lands to which Gordon had become the turaga taukei - a land owning chief in the country? Sadly the Fiji of 1876 is very different from the Fiji of 2006. The current stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Commodore on the Qoliqoli Bill is a testimony to that fact.

The annulment of the presidential poll results has brought into focus the usefulness of foreign observers.

The nine observer missions, including the European Union and the African Union, lauded the August 8 elections as being generally free and fair.

However, the Justice David Maraga-led Supreme Court on Friday said the presidential poll was riddled with so many irregularities that it was impossible to determine who won.

President Uhuru Kenyatta’s lawyer Fred Ngatia cited the observer missions’ endorsement of the result as part of his defence.

Now the observers stand accused of being used to rubber stamp fraudulent elections in friendly regimes across the developing world.  

PRAISED IEBC

In a pre-poll report, the US election monitoring group praised the performance of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission while also pointing to commissioners’ “inadequate communication with stakeholders and insufficient transparency regarding their decision-making”.

In his remarks on behalf of the Carter Centre after the General Election, the immediate former US Secretary of State John Kerry added that there had been some “little aberrations here and there but none that we thus far feel affected the overall integrity of the process”.

Shortly before flying out, Mr Kerry praised the electoral commission for having done an “extraordinary job to ensure that Kenya has free, fair and credible polls”.

He then called on the opposition to “get over it and move on”.

DISAPPOINTED

Nasa (the National Super Alliance) presidential flagbearer Raila Odinga said he was disappointed with international observers.

In an interview with CNN two days after the election, Mr Odinga said the observers concentrated on voting and tallying but not transmission of results.

“I think they have not helped Kenyans resolve this dispute. They have confounded it by giving basically an approval to a fairly flawed process…and therefore I am very disappointed with John Kerry and the other observers,” he said.

Writing in the New York Post, Hellen Epstein, an American author and journalist who covered the August 8 elections, castigated the Carter Centre’s endorsement of the exercise.  

MEDDLING 

“Another rigged election in Africa is not news,” she wrote.

“But that US election observers were quick to endorse it is shocking. Perhaps they believed that wrapping the election up quickly would prevent violence,” she added, alluding to the mayhem that broke out following the disputed presidential election of 2007.

She said the way the observers, particularly the Americans, handled the elections suggested that there was a concerted effort by foreign governments to meddle in Kenyan affairs.

POLITICS

“The US Government has a disturbing history of meddling in the politics of developing countries…In countries like Kenya, where important US interests are at stake, the onslaught of mass media distortions and biased international election observers and Western-backed NGOs, suggest the possibility of concerted strategy,” Ms Epstein wrote.

And on Friday, the EU Observer Mission praised the Supreme Court ruling “since it demonstrates the independence of Kenya’s Judiciary and the effective electoral complaint mechanism in place”.

The statement said while the EU was impartial, it called on the “election administration to consult with stakeholders, to work transparently and to give regular updates on progress being made”. Source: The Daily Nation, Kenya, 3 September 2017

From The Daily Nation, Kenya, 1 September 2017

Failure by the electoral commission to demonstrate that the presidential election was held in a transparent and accountable manner was at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision to void the results.

The court appears to have taken seriously reports presented to it by two teams of experts it directed to examine Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission servers and forms 34A, 34B and 34C that were used to declare Uhuru Kenyatta the winner of the August 8 election.

The report on the servers was written by Prof Elijah Omwenga and Prof Joseph Sevilla, IT experts appointed by the court and Ms Janet Kadenyi, an employee of the Judiciary.

SERVERS

The forms scrutiny was supervised by Supreme Court registrar Esther Nyaiyaki.

The court issued a total of 18 orders to the IEBC to open itself to scrutiny.

Of these, six went to the heart of the technology that the commission deployed in the election.

Related Content The court wanted its experts and those of the petitioner, Raila Odinga, to access IEBC servers to mine some key information.

IEBC stonewalled and delayed the access for hours and when it allowed it, it was not in the manner the court ordered.

TESTS

For example, IEBC declined to provide the internal configuration firewall to its server, arguing that it will affect the security of their system.

In their report to the court, the experts disagreed, saying providing the firewall will not affect the integrity of the system.

That IEBC refused to open itself to scrutiny appears to have convinced the judges the commission had something to hide.

The court also wanted certified copies of certificates of penetration tests conducted on the IEBC election technology system.

HACKING

These are performed to test the integrity of the system and ability to withstand hacking.

IEBC provided copies that were not certified in accordance with Election Technology regulation 10 of 2017.

Again, the experts report indicts the commission and the judges followed suit.

KIEMS

The other order was on log-in trail of users and equipment into the IEBC servers and Kiems database management system.

This could have revealed information on whether there was unauthorised access to the system to change results as claimed by Nasa.

IEBC refused to provide this information.  

On the forms scrutiny IEBC provided 41,451 34As, 291 34Bs and one 34C.

The scrutiny showed a number of anomalies that could have helped sway the judges decision.

They included forms that did not have security features, those that were not signed by agents and returning officers or stamped by the IEBC.

IMPUNITY

An election, Chief Justice David Maraga said, is a process, not an event.

How the winner is declared, from the tallying of the votes to their transmission, matters.
It is not random numbers announced.

They must be backed up by genuine documents and a system that is transparent, accountable and verifiable.

This was simply not the case and with the court’s ruling, Kenya is no longer just another African country where democracy is routinely subverted with impunity.

ELECTION 2014

  INTERIM REPORT ON IRREGULARITIES

  BY

  THE MEMBERS OF THE PARTICIPATING

POLITICAL PARTIES

  INCLUDING

  FIJI LABOUR PARTY

NATIONAL FEDERATION PARTY

SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL PARTY
 
  September 22 2014

1.      INTRODUCTION

The leaders of the joint political parties contesting the 2014 General Elections met on Thursday September 18th 2014 following representations from their respective polling agents at the count center who began comparing notes of incidents and irregularities being noticed by all party agents individually.

The polling agents at the center individually requested their Party officials to convene a meeting so that these concerns could be addressed. This resulted in a meeting taking place at 11am on September 18th 2014.

None of the Party Leaders had had previous communication on these matters and all of them were being briefed by the various polling agents directly for the first time.

Following the submissions of information and the provision of evidence, the leaders agreed that a subcommittee be formed, made up of 2 representatives from each party and they were to prepare detailed reports with specific cases and accompanying evidence and pictures where possible.

They were scheduled to make their submissions to the leaders on September 19th at 11am. This was later pushed back to 1pm because of the need for more time to complete reports and the   fact that more information was being received from agents across the country.

Following the conclusion of a 6 hour briefing and discussion of the irregularities and the provision of some of the evidence, the leaders agreed to issue an updated statement and provide some of the actual evidence.

Copies of the statements and documents issued to the press were delivered to the President, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission and the Supervisor of Elections as the press was being briefed. We attach as Appendix 1 copies of the signed delivery docket for both the first and second communication.

The same delivery process occurred on the evening of the 18th September and officials of the Chairman of the Commission and Supervisor of Elections signed for their copies of the statements issued.

2.      KEY OBSERVATIONS

The joint political party leadership agrees that all of the information provided to them individually and jointly by the polling agents point to a systematic and coordinated effort to alter the ballots cast at various polling stations.

This assumption, which is currently partially confirmed, stems from a number of separate occurrences which, when viewed together could be a possible explanation of how the manipulation may possibly have occurred.

3.      OVERVIEW OF ELECTION CONDUCT

It is the opinion of the Leaders of the participating parties that given all of the evidence provided so far and the various signed statutory declarations by individuals who have witnessed these irregularities, that there is a case to suggest that certain aspects of the process were compromised and that depending on the extent of these irregularities, this may have a material effect on the outcome of the elections.

Given that there is still more details of irregularities coming in from around the country, it is difficult to say at this juncture if the compromised as we now know it is isolated or far more widespread.

The scenario that has emerged thus far suggests that at the close of voting, a number of polling station Presiding officers sent Polling Agents out of the room and in some cases no Police were present. The number of polling stations where this occurred in increasing as more information comes to hand.

It is likely that during this break in proceedings, which itself is a breach of Sec 89 (1) it is possible for unsecured ballot papers to be introduced into the ballot boxes so that when

thepolling agents return to the polling booth after an absence of 1 to 2 hours the count begins and they are none the wiser that anything untoward has occurred.

We do know from a number of different reports that the Presiding Officer calls the resultsthrough to a phone number given to them. They do not know who is on the other end or their name.

Information is still being received from agents and party officials around the country and each discussion ends, another piece of the jigsaw falls into place.

4.      SPECIFIC DETAILS OF IRREGULARITIES

1:         Complaint delivery timeframe:

The Electoral Decree requires that any irregularities that a party may become aware of must be submitted to the authorities within 2 days. Refer below

Sec 17 (2)except otherwise provided in this decree, complaints to the Electoral Commission must be submitted within 2 days of the complainant becoming aware of the decision, action or inaction.

The joint group of Political Party Leaders initially became aware of irregularities on the morning of September 18th 2014 and being mindful of the requirements of the Decree and given that not all of the facts were known at the time of the first meeting, it was decided that an interim notification to the Chairman of the Electoral Commission and Supervisor of Elections be sent to put them on notice that there were irregularities.

The group also felt obliged to keep the media informed of its actions because of the very nature of the issues involved. The first communication was dispatched to the authorities within hours of its release and the attached record of delivery show it was delivered as stated.

The 2nd communication on September 19th with some additional evidence received was dispatched the same evening it was tabled and as with the first communication the copy of the receipt of its delivery is attached.

The 3rd and final communication will be today September 22st, which will summarize examples of the information we have at hand as at Saturday 20th 2014.

The Leaders are satisfied that it has complied fully with the provisions of the Electoral Decree in terms of its delivery of information to the authorities.

Appendix 1:     Copy of delivery of documentation

2.   Closure of Polling Stations        
We have all received information to suggest some polling stations closed for an hour and up to 2 hours. We also have information that both the Police and Agents were ushered out of the Polling Stations at the close of voting.

We are continuing with our verification of this and will establish a list of the names and total number of polling stations involved.

We are also verifying information thatin some instances polling boxes were removed from Polling stations.

As Sec 65 & 89 of the Electoral Decree clearly stipulates below, immediately after the closing of the polling stations the Presiding Officer must immediately undertake the counting.

Sec 65 closing of polls:                     
Immediately after the last voter who was in the queue at 6.00pm has voted, the presiding officer must announce that the polls are closed and the counting of ballot papers shall begin immediately after the close of the polls:                     

Sec 89 (1) Counting Process            
Immediately upon closing of the polls, the counting of ballots papers is to be undertaken and completed in the respective polling station by the presiding officer and such election officials designated by him or her.           

For the purposes of this report we provide a specific case to demonstrate the irregularity in question.

POLLING STATION:                            St John Bosco Primary School-Nadera. The Presiding Agent sent agents away for an hour.No

Police remained inside during this time. We attached a statutory declaration by the agent was involved at the polling station in question.

Other polling stations where polling agents were sent out at 6pm include:

Drasa Primary School

Raviravi Sangam School Station No 5156

Lovu Sangam School

Satya Sai School
                                                

Appendix 2:                                         Statutory Declaration of Luseyane Ligabalavu

                  3:                                       Signed Letter from Ravendra Chand Fiji Labour Party         

No 3:  Transmission of results         
Sec 97 (1) states that ‘following the completion of the protocol of results, the presiding officer must sign it and immediately notify the ‘Supervisor of Elections’by the most expeditious method, including by telephone or any other electronic means, of the results or the total number of votes cast for each candidate, as contained in the final protocol of results.

(2) A copy of the final protocol of results must be immediately posted by the presiding officer in a publicly accessible place at the polling station, such as a notice board, another copy kept inside the ballot box and a third copy sent to the Supervisor by the most expeditious method.                  

(3) The original of the final protocol of results must be enclosed in a tamper free evident envelope.

Sec 102 (3) As the protocol of results are received from each polling station, in accordance with section 97 (1) or (2) the Supervisor of Elections shall progressively  amend the National Results Tally to reflect the total number of votes received by that political party.

There are no other known methods of communicating the results from the polling booths to the Supervisor of Elections stipulated in the Electoral Decree, except as laid out above in Sec 97 and 102.

However, the Leaders have been made aware of the existence during the elections of a ‘Ghost Call Center’ and we now know that the Presiding Officers were instructed to call their results into a certain number and to a certain person, identified only by initials. This has been independently verified by 4 separate agents at different locations as well as a by a Polling official and a Counting Supervisor at the count Center.

None of the Presiding officers were given the name of the person they were calling, just an initial and a mobile number to call.

Likewise at the count center, we have established confirmation from a Count Supervisor that the results they were receiving ‘did not come directly from the polling venues’ but from an unknown person or persons.

Example: The example provided for this report is that from Kalokolevu to ATG, the Presiding Officers were required to call in their results to someone called R.T and not the Count Center.

This variation to Sec 95 & 102 of the process for calling in results has never made known to any of the Opposition Political Parties or their agents and at the time of this report, we cannot find any references about this amendment of the Electoral Decree being referred to by either the Chairman of the Commission or the Supervisor of Elections.

At the time of this report we can verify that a Vodafone owned by a supporter was used by a Presiding Officer to call 9993975 and give the polling results to an unknown person on the other end. The Presiding officer did not know who he was calling, except that he was given the number to call in the results too. It was not the count center.

We have also established that the number called by the Presiding Officer was one of 16 numbers listed as owned by the Elections office.

Therefore the Elections office knowingly broke the requirements of Sec 97 (1) and was operating the ‘Ghost Call Centers’ to which the results were first relayed and not the count centers.

Appendix: 4:                Statutory Declaration of Polling Agent Saini Nabou of NFP

Appendix 5                  Statutory Declaration of Jolame Uludole Polling Agent for SODELPA

Appendix 6                  Statutory Declaration of Peter Waqavonuvonu Count Agent for SODELPA

Appendix 7                  Statutory Declaration of Marika Naseqai supporter of SODELPA

No 4    Unsecured Ballots                  Sec 53 (6)states that during the polling process, it

is prohibited for any person, other than the Presiding officer, to remove any ballot paper from the polling station. (7) (a) and (b) outline the circumstances under which this may occur and (8) outlines the protocols to be followed.

We have the sworn statement of an agent of One Fiji who was suspicious of a parked Kia Sorrento motor vehicle No FR852, registered to Tappoos Limited, parked at the Andrews Primary School Nadi at 3pm on Wednesday September 17th.

The One Fiji official approached the parked Tappoos vehicle and noted that there were stacks of ballot papers in piles in the boot of the vehicle.

He signaled his associated still in his vehicle to take the pictures and when the individual handling the loose ballot papers saw the One Fiji official; he closed the boot and drove off.

This incident was witnessed by 2 other agents from the NFP.

Electoral Commission Response       Mr. Young responded to this complaint on September 20th

As follows:

The black KIA Sorrento vehicle FR 852 is leased to the Elections office and is owned by Tappoos Limited trading as Bula Rental.

The contents in the vehicle were ‘Contracts for Polling day workers, and the vehicle was used to deliver them to the various polling stations.

The Leader’s reject the explanation given by Mr. Young on the following grounds:-

Sec 42 Presiding Officers outlines the positions to be appointed by the Supervisor of Elections from the Presiding Officer, Deputy or as outlined in Sec 42 (5)The Supervisor may appoint as many election officials as he or she considers necessary to effectively conduct an election at any polling station.

We draw the Chairman’s attention to Sec 42 (7) which clearly states and we quote A person appointed under this section must not begin to perform his or her duties unless he or she has signed a declaration or a code of conduct in the approved form.

The incident at Andrew’s Primary School took place at 3pm on September 17th, 2014, the elections ended at 6pm.  So 70% of the voting may had been concluded at that time, hence the question:

        i.            Why was an election official delivering employment contracts to polling stations at the height of polling when 70% of the time for polling had already lapsed?

      ii.            Sec 42 (7) relates to all appointments by the Supervisor and therefore if Mr Young’s explanation is to considered, then hundreds of election officials were performing their tasks in breach of Sec 42 (7).

    iii.            Mr. Young dismisses our witnesses account as false and says the documents were day worker contracts? We put it to Mr. Young that we are not mistaken and that our witness knows the difference in size between an A4 paper and the 2014 ballot paper and it would not be too difficult to measure the size of the documents in the picture to determine if they were ballots or A4 size contract letters.

     iv.            We submit a photo below (Photo A) of the actual ballot paper verses the A4 size that by convention offices use for administrative matters such as letters and contracts. There is a significant difference in size. Unless the Elections office uses paper the same size as the ballots for your normal administration work, Mr. Young may care to display these for verification.

       v.            Given the Chairman’s remarks about the vehicle and its mission, we would ask him to make public the following information:

a.      How many day workers were engaged by the Elections office on Polling and pre polling duties?

b.      How many of them were performing their duties in breach of Sec 42 (7) during this time.

c.       Please show the public copies of your day contracts against a ballot paper size.

d.      Why was the election official in the photo not in uniform?

e.      How many polling stations and contracts did he deliver that day?

f.        How many other polling stations around Fiji required contracts to be delivered after polling was almost over?

g.      How many other cars and election officials were engaged in a similar way on election day

Appendix 8                  Statutory Declaration of Pauliasi Rokosawa Balawa        Fiji One Party

No 5:  Unsecured Ballots II                a second sighting of an unsecured ballot paper was made

On Thursday 18th September 2014 at the Nasinu Forestry Station room. The ballot was discovered the day after counting had been concluded.

The ballot paper was a vote for candidate 255 a photo of the original ballot paper in question is shown below:

With sightings of unsecured ballot papers in the West and East this gives rise to the question of how many other areas are involved?

Photo A:                                                                                 Photo B:



Comparison A4 paper verses ballot paper                             Copy of ballot for Candidate # 255

Appendix 9                                          Statutory Declaration of Peniasi Daveta of Sabeto

Pre Polling                                          Agents from SODELPA & NFP noted discrepancies in some of the Pre-Polling containers as they were off loaded on September 17th at 3pm in the Vodafone Arena in Suva.

                                                            The number of ballot boxes involved was as follows:-

                                                           

Ba-Tavua-Rakiraki   73    Lautoka       42

                                                            Keiyasi 38    Eastern    155

                                                            Northern    124Navua 44

                                                            Nausori14Korovou19

                                                            Vunidawa        40Suva             0

                                                            Total                549     

The Suva container was opened after protest from the polling agent and there were no ballot boxes inside.

All ballot boxes had additional documentation and files and other objects inside them, suggesting that they would have had to have been opened in order to place them inside the box.

            Appendix 10                            Statutory Declaration of Peter Waqavonuvonu of SODELPA

6.      COUNTING IRREGULARITIES 

We attach a summary of the counting irregularities that we have encountered and we have included our responses to the comments made by Chairman Young on some of the irregularities raised.

Reports continue to flow in from around the country and we continue to assess and reconcile the information so that we only deal with those issues that can be verified and which we believe are important to be included.

We will continue with this process until we have got details in from all over the country.

Appendix 11                            Documentation of irregularities

7.      CONCLUDING REMARKS

The leaders of the political party’s believe that the information submitted to them by the polling agents and other party officials around the country suggests that the electoral process undertaken in 2014 was compromised.

The extent of the compromise will only be known once more details become available and more people step forward to verify the breaches of the Electoral Decree and other laws and regulations pertaining to the conduct of the 2014 elections.

At 6pm on Monday 22nd September our team at Natovi witnessed the arrival of one truck full of ballot boxes from the North and Election official NG confirmed another 5 were due in the next day. Yet the Supervisor of Elections and the Electoral Commission have both proceeded to call the result.

The information we have at hand is compelling and suggests beyond reasonable doubt that the election process was compromised.  It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the extent of this compromise may well have contributed to the final outcome.

In this interim report, we are providing details that we have managed to collect and verify over the past 4 days and as soon as practical, we intend to prepare a complete a full report on this matter and make our findings public.

This Interim report is submitted for and on behalf of the undersigned Political Parties.

Glaring Errors In 2016 Auditor-General’s Report

Auditor-General Ajay Nand yesterday (31 August 2017) apologised for glaring errors in the 2016 report.

Unfortunately, for the 2016 report, certain media and others had made observations and arrived at conclusions before the proper scrutiny of the Public Accounts  Committee.

He said these observations and conclusions had been based on the misinformation in the report.

He said: “I would like to sincerely apologise to the Fijian people for the errors in the 2016 report and I wish to assure the Fijian public that this will not happen again under my watch.”

He said the errors arose because of the archaic audit practices within the Office of the Auditor-General.

Mr Nand said the report in question was tabled in Parliament on July 11, 2017. He said it had a number of errors which needed to be corrected and clarified.

Mr Nand said he intended to review the capacity and capability of the staff at the Office of the Auditor-General.

“Reforms are underway to modernise the audit process and methodology and do away with archaic practices that do not enable the true audit position to be correctly reflected,” he said.

He thanked the Permanent Secretary for Economy, Makereta Konrote, and chief accountant for highlighting the errors in the report.

He highlighted the key errors in the 2016 report:

The 2016 report incorrectly highlighted the non-submission of audited accounts for some entities which amounted to a total value of $245.07 million; in fact, a number of draft accounts were already submitted to the Auditor-General’s Office and a number of agency reports have already been audited. I will provide a list to the media on this.

The statement that purchases worth $2,593,374 of ‘family packs’ for Cyclone Winston victims were not properly procured.

However, Mr Nand said this procurement was done in accordance with the Procurement Regulations 2010, which permits the Ministry to make such purchases during times of emergency.

The 2016 report states that the approval from the Ministry of Economy was not obtained by the Ministry of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation in relation to budgeted purchases totalling $6,947,335.

Mr Nand said the Ministry of Economy, however, did not have the power to approve transactions for other Budget sector agencies; approval of transactions is granted by the relevant permanent secretary. The Ministry of Economy merely confirms the availability of funds in the budget for the agency.

The 2016 report raised an issue in relation to use  of funds to the tune of $4,600,000 for the sugarcane replanting programme when the  funds were earmarked for sugar rehabilitation post-Cyclone Winston.

Mr Nand said this was not an issue as the use of funds for the ‘Sugar Development Program’ (Head 35) for the purpose of cane replanting is within the ambit of the objective of the Sugar Development Program, which is to increase cane production.

The 2016 report raised the issue of missing share certificates with a value of $14,684,469 in relation to shares owned by the State.

Mr Nand said entities such as the International Finance Corporation and International Bank for Reconstruction and the Development did not issue share certificates, so such certificates could not be missing.

“This has been confirmed in writing by both organisations”. Moreover, third party confirmations were given by the State Owned Enterprises (SOE’s) advising the value of investment by Government.  He said this gave the assurance and confirmation of Government’s investment as provided by the directors of SOE’s. He also said given that there were no new equity investment during the period report, the office, in line with the modern audit practices could have relied on the share certificates previously provided by the Ministry of Public Enterprises.

He said the public needed to know that the whole of the Government report was unqualified.

He said it meant there were no significant with the financial statements and “this finding remains the same.”

He stated that during his term as the Auditor-General he would ensure more professional and qualified people were appointed and that they engage in an open merit and recruitment selection process.

Mr Nand further said the office was working to improve all external and internal communications to ensure that the reports prepared by their office correctly reflected the true audit position of the Government’s account.

He added that the Auditor-General’s Office intended to compile a supplementary report to the 2016 report to correct the errors in the report.

He said he would table the report via the Attorney-General and Minister for Economy Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at the next Parliament sitting so that when the public scrutiny took place it was not based on fundamental erroneous material. Source: The Fiji Sun, 1 September 2017

ANOMALIES IN THE AUDIT REPORT - And "independence" of OAG?
---------------------------------------
We believe the Auditor General was forced to hold a press conference to correct the so called anomalies in the Auditor General’s Reports.

It is unprecedented and unethical for the Auditor-General to reveal so-called anomalies in the Reports of the Auditor-General through a press conference.

We firmly believe the Reports will be sanitised before being re-tabled in Parliament.

The fact that the Auditor- General revealed the supposed anomalies in a press conference in the presence of officials from the Ministry of Finance raises many questions. Why should they be present with the Auditor-General, which is an independent office?

When Reports of the Auditor General are compiled queries are directed to the Ministry of Economy or the relevant Budget Sector for comments and clarification. In the latest Audit General’s Reports those responsible for management of funds have either not commented or stated they will improve the procedures.

It is apparent that the Ministry did not clarify these matters or was in agreement with the Auditor General.

Furthermore, any anomalies can be clarified through scrutiny before the Public Accounts Committee. The Ministry appears before the Committee and provides evidence. This has been the long standing practice. This is the forum where clarifications and corrections are made before PAC submits its Report to Parliament after intense scrutiny.

We therefore find this totally unacceptable, unethical, in violation of audit practices and a hammer blow to transparency and accountability.

We call on the Auditor General to stop any process of doing a supplementary report that is planned to be presented to Parliament.

Professor Biman Prasad
NFP Leader

A question of accountability and transparency, says Labour Leader

A few errors in the audit of government reports pointed out by the Auditor General yesterday does not mean that the entire 2016 report of the Auditor General stands tainted, says Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

FLP understands that the errors were probably due to circumstances beyond the Auditor General’s control and that he may have been under some pressure to issue a statement.

“It is a question of accountability and transparency in the expenditure of public funds. The Fiji First government has a dismal record in this area as amply revealed through all Auditor Generals reports since 2009. The 2016 report was no exception,” Mr Chaudhry said.

He asked why the Accountability and Transparency Commission, provided for in the Constitution with powers to investigate financial irregularities, has not been appointed even some four years after the constitution was imposed?

“This is a serious lapse on government's part, pointing to a dereliction of duty. The same applies to the Code of Conduct and Freedom of Information legislations both of which, although constitutional requirements, remain unactioned,” Mr Chaudhry said.

“Opposition parties in parliament must do much more than what they have so far demonstrated in holding the Bainimarama government accountable. It can hardly be said that these lapses on the government's part are coincidental.

“It seems that there is a deliberate reluctance to comply with the requirements that impose financial accountability on the government. This must also be noted by donor governments which provide millions to Fiji as development assistance.

"The COP23 and climate change funds being actively solicited by the Bainimarama government may run the risk of being abused unless rigid compliance and accountability standards are insisted on by the donor governments and aid agencies,” Mr Chaudhry warned.

When Law breakers becomes law makers, this is the result.

It is perfectly acceptable to execute a coup and become leaders in the government but totally wrong for mother surviving on $100 Welfare support per month to beg a little to buy clothes for her child.

The child needs diapers and if the mother is not in good health, the child would need bottle milk.

Government needs to open their eyes because people are already opening their eyes on the government.

Fiji United Freedom Party Jagath Karunaratne feels that it is the duty of the government to provide all means available in the welfare program so that mothers would not end up begging. Fiji United Freedom Party said that $100 per month is poverty.

Sodelpa Leader Rabuka feels that law makers must have a heart towards such needy people.

Unity Party and People's Democratic Party feels that sending the mother to prison is not the answer to her welfare needs.

DOOKHEE GUNGAH, born of Indian migrants, began life in 1867 in a shed in Mauritius and worked as a child cutting sugar cane. By his death in 1944, he was one of the island’s richest businessmen. He is a notable example of how some indentured labourers prospered against the odds.

Between the 1830s and 1917 around 2m migrants signed up for ten-year terms (later cut to five) in European colonies (see chart on next page). Most were from India, with smaller shares from China, South-East Asia and elsewhere. Some “coolies” were fleeing poverty and hunger; others were coerced or deceived. In British colonies from 1834, and in French and Dutch ones from later, they replaced freed African slaves on sugar and coffee plantations.

“Slavery under a different name” is how The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society described the indenture system in 1839. It had a point. Many migrants died en route, and at first plantation owners, used to slaves, treated their new workers hardly any better. But conditions gradually improved. When the Indian Legislative Council finally ended indenture, a century ago, it did so because of pressure from Indian nationalists and declining profitability, rather than from humanitarian concerns.

The indentured labourers’ fortunes varied from place to place, according to their numbers, who else lived there, and laws about land tenure and race. But a shared post-colonial identity is now emerging, combining pride in India’s economic rise, religious and cultural traditions—and, increasingly, commemoration of their ancestors’ struggles to establish themselves.

Indo-Mauritians are among the richest and most politically powerful of those descendants. As a British colony, Mauritius took the greatest share of indentured migrants: some 450,000. Their descendants are now two-thirds of the island’s 1.26m inhabitants. Many of the largest businesses are owned by Franco-Mauritians whose ancestors dated from the earlier French colonisation, though they make up just 2% of the population. But Indo-Mauritians dominate the public sector.

Local legend has it that Dookhee (pictured with family, third man from left, around 1912) owed his meteoric rise to finding buried treasure. The true story, says his great-grandson, Swetam Gungah, is that “whatever little he had, he would put it aside.” Unlike slaves, indentured labourers were paid, and since most were unable to leave their plantations, they spent little. Aged 21 Dookhee bought land and started growing sugar cane. “He was savvy enough to diversify. He planted an orchard, started a bakery and much more,” says Mr Gungah. When the price of sugar plummeted in the 1880s most plantation-owners went broke. Dookhee got richer. Other former indentured labourers were also able to buy broke colonists out. By 1933 Indo-Mauritians owned almost two-fifths of all land planted with sugar cane.

Land also gave indentured labourers a start in South Africa, where many were granted plots after their servitude. Koshir Kassie’s great-grandfather arrived in the province of Natal and worked on a plantation and then in a gold mine. He saved enough to pay his employer to end his contract early, and bought land. But under apartheid many Indian South Africans, including Mr Kassie’s family, were forced off their land and into Indian townships. “After indenture, Indians built themselves up,” says Mr Kassie. “Then came apartheid and they had to start again.”

Many managed to rebuild. Today, Indian South Africans’ average income is three times higher than that of black South Africans, and they are nearly twice as likely to have finished high school. But these days they are politically marginalised. In the first democratic elections, in 1994, two-thirds voted for the National Party, which had previously defended apartheid. Those with less education particularly resent South Africa’s new system of racial preferences in jobs and education for blacks.

Seeds in fertile ground

Indentured labourers in Trinidad and Guyana (formerly British Guiana) were also granted land. That was less generous than it seems: much of it was ill-suited to growing sugar cane. The Indians, however, discovered it was perfect for rice. Many prospered. But in both places, though people of Indian origin are the largest ethnic group (35% and 40% respectively), they have struggled to gain the level of influence that Indo-Mauritians have.
In Mauritius the departing British colonists regarded Indians as the heirs to power. In Trinidad, however, the mantle was passed to Afro-Trinidadians, who were settled decades before the indentured labourers arrived. Politics and the public sector operated through a patronage system, which kept Afro-Trinidadians in charge. Even after independence in 1962, Indo-Trinidadians were largely excluded from government and public-sector jobs.

Today, politics is still divided on ethnic lines, with the People’s National Movement supported by Afro-Trinidadians and the People’s Partnership coalition supported by Indo-Trinidadians. But socially, the groups are mingling more—and increasingly intermarrying. Nearly a quarter of the population identifies as mixed-race.

In Guyana ethnic divisions cut much deeper. Compared with Trinidad, its sheer size meant ethnic groups formed more segregated communities. A fragile inter-ethnic harmony, nonetheless, prevailed for the first half of the 20th century. That ended in 1964, when a pre-election conflict broke out between the largely Afro-Guyanese People’s National Congress and the largely Indo-Guyanese People’s Progressive Party. “I had Hindu friends, African, Portuguese, Chinese friends,” says Khalil Ali, a Muslim Indo-Guyanese novelist, of growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. “Then suddenly my black friends stopped speaking to me and I stopped speaking to them.” The resulting violence led to hundreds of deaths and thousands fleeing abroad.

Ethnic divisions persisted after independence in 1966, and were worsened by economic hardship. Even as Trinidad boomed because of oil, disastrous left-wing policies reduced resource-rich Guyana to one of South America’s poorest countries. But in 2015 a multi-racial coalition came to power, promising unity. Although change is slow—the government is still mostly Afro-Guyanese and Mr Ali says Indo-Guyanese who joined the coalition have been called traitors—elections in 2020 offer another glimmer of hope. Younger Guyanese are further distanced from the events of the 1960s. The mixed-race population, now around 20%, is growing.

Indentured workers’ descendants have done least well where their ancestors could not own land, as in Fiji. Its indigenous population resented the new arrivals, and the British made promises about land ownership to their tribal chiefs. Many Indo-Fijians became tenant farmers, and for part of the 20th century did quite well, says Crispin Bates, who leads a project funded by the British Arts and Humanities Research Council entitled “Becoming Coolies”. But when their leases came to an end, starting in the 1980s, their status declined.

Sporadic attempts to improve their position after independence in 1970 ended with a coup in 1987. A new constitution reserved majorities for ethnic Fijians in both houses of parliament. Over 10,000 Indo-Fijians left the island as a result. Two further coups centred on their rights. Finally, in 2013 Indo-Fijians were given equal status in the constitution. And, in 2014, in free elections, Frank Bainimarama (who led the most recent coup, in 2006) won with an anti-racist message. His task is considerable: though land has been made easier to lease, holdings by ethnic Fijians still cannot be sold. Indo-Fijians are still excluded—and ethnic Fijians are newly aggrieved. Anti-Indian sentiment is rampant.

Pride and prejudice

In most places that took indentured labourers, racial animus persists. Their arrival was “a real trauma” for indigenous and former-slave populations, says Mr Bates. In Trinidad and Guyana “coolie” is used as a slur (and the Indo-Guyanese and Indo-Trinidadians have plenty of racist terms for their compatriots of African origin). In Fiji and the French Caribbean “z’Indiens” are stereotyped as money-grubbing, and mocked in expressions such as “faib con an coolie” (“weak as a coolie” in Guadeloupian creole). In the 1970s a Fijian politician, Sakesai Butadroka, said in parliament that “people of Indian origin” should be “repatriated back to India”. As recently as 2014 a popular song by the Zulu band, AmaCde, called on black South Africans to confront Indians and “send them home”.

Strangers in strange lands, indentured labourers and their descendants preserved some traditions, from caste practices to recipes. From the 1880s the Arya Samaj, a religious group, attempted to reinstate Hindu culture in the diaspora—which rallied, in turn, behind Gandhi’s Indian nationalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. During periods of ethnic strife in the 20th century hyphenated-Indian communities turned inwards for self-protection.

In recent years, though, a new kind of “Indian pride” has begun to take form. Mauritius has had strong links with India since post-independence tax and trade deals. But of a recent visit to Mauritius, Ashutosh Kumar, the author of a new book about indenture, “Coolies of the Empire”, says “the way Mauritians were discussing Indian politics: it was like I was back home in India.” In Trinidad, which got its first Indo-Trinidadian prime minister in 1995, there is “a new sense of Indian cultural pride”, says Andil Gosine, an Indo-Trinidadian academic in Canada. “When I go back now I see loads of people wearing saris, which they wouldn’t have done before.”

This cultural revivalism is, to some extent, the work of Hindu nationalists, particularly the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council). It has recently devoted more attention to the diaspora—and stirred up tensions between Hindus and Muslims. More is due to India’s rise as an economic power. Diaspora Indians are seeking to “bask in the reflected glory of their motherland”, says Mr Kumar.

Khal Torabully, a Mauritian poet of mixed Indian descent, has coined the word “coolitude” for a new identity, which mixes heritage from India and the other sending countries with a century of history in racially diverse former colonies. Acknowledging their ancestors’ servitude as part of that can be uncomfortable. Indian South Africans are “proud to be Indian”, says Mr Kassie, but “don’t like to talk about indenture much”. Mr Gosine recalls his grandfather describing his own grandfather: “A Brahmin, riding around the plantation on a horse, dressed all in white. But then my grandmother chipped in: ‘What on earth are you talking about?’”

Making sense of displacement and difference, struggle and success, is also a work in progress for host countries. But some have started to weave the history of indentured labourers into their national narratives. In 2006 Aapravasi Ghat, where they first arrived in Mauritius, was recognised as a UNESCO world heritage site. In the same year the Indian Caribbean Museum opened in Waterloo, Trinidad. Last year the 1860 Indian Museum, dedicated to indenture, opened in Durban. “We still have a lot of problems to think of ourselves as Mauritians,” says Mr Torabully.

“But remembering indenture, just as we remember slavery, is at the heart of that identity.”

This article appeared in the International section of the print edition under the headline "100 years since servitude". The Economist, September 2017

This was stressed by Attorney General and Minister for Economy Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum while officiating at the Ganesh Utsav final rituals at My Suva Park in Nasese organised by the Fiji Sevashram Sangha.

He says sadly there are still some people who try to create division on the grounds of religion for their own selfish agendas.

Sayed-Khaiyum adds that all of us as a society, as one people and as a country should not give heed to such voices of division.

He says it is important for everyone to come together even though we have different religions.

Sayed-Khaiyum says people of all faiths are important in a free society like we now have in Fiji.

He says people of faith give a voice to morality and ethics and when people of all faiths come together in tolerance and understanding, when they love and respect each other and work for the common good  then peace, justice and prosperity will flourish.

Ganesh Utsav, a Hindu festival that celebrates Lord Ganesha has come to an end amidst a lot of singing and dancing.

The 10 day program began on the 25th of August.

President of the Fiji Sevashram Sangha Swami Sanyuktanand says this year’s Ganesh Utsav was celebrated by several mandalis or religious groups, where hundreds of people came together to take part in the final rites, where idols of Lord Ganesh were carried in a public procession with music and group chanting, then immersed in the sea. Source: Fijivillage News, 6 September 2017