TRIBAL MEAL DEAL FOR RABUKA IN SYDNEY: Food for Thought. 2006 Coup prepared many from Kubuna, Burebasaga and Tovata for greener pastures in Australia, and now they can AFFORD $200 Black Tie DINNER
GOOD MORNING, AND GOOD NIGHT, FIJI: Why is the Opposition SILENT over the continued employment of VISHNU MOHAN, Chairman of PSC, who is operating virtually from Canada since he migrated there from Fiji?
*Because of the Opposition’s deafening silence over the highly irregular nature of Mohan's appointment (which means that the Minister of Public Service can abuse this process for his political and personal benefit), will this be taken as a precedent for future appointments to Government Independent Commissions and independent Statutory Boards and Commissions should the FFP win the 2022 elections?
By A POST COURIER REPORTER
The Chinese Embassy are exploiting and corrupting our media institutions. I have evidence. Money has spoken and there is now no independence and integrity in PNG media. My complaints have been ignored for too long. I can no longer hide these dirty secrets from our people and jeopardise my family future and our country’s future.
This corruption goes much further than capitalising on the greed and selfishness of these journalists. Once the Chinese Embassy have you hooked on money, they treat you like the puppet you are. Controlling you through threatening and intimidating emails and text messages to apologise, change or hide stories that criticise China or do not advance their political agenda. There is a very good reason why we publish no stories about sensitive Chinese issues. On many occasions, I and others have been threatened by the Chinese Embassy to not write about stories that they want hidden.
I have seen stories about Chinese companies, Chinese political leaders and Taiwanese independence being heavily edited or removed by the Chinese Embassy in Port Moresby.Sun Jia, the supposed ‘Director of Political Affairs’, Diao Yixiao and others at the Embassy censor and corrupt our journalistic independence and integrity. In my years of journalism, I have never heard of diplomatic staff from another nation trying to bribe and threaten local media. Diplomatic staff usually act with integrity and respect to best represent their nation but this is not what I am seeing.
Buying and threatening editors, managers and journalists to publish or hide stories does not seem to be the best way to represent China to our country. Or is this what the current Chinese leader and their Embassy representatives call diplomacy and respect? Quality journalism at the Post Courier and The National has not existed for a long time. We are often accused of not investigating stories properly. At the Post Courier, journalists have come under scrutiny for plagiarism many times and have even been publically humiliated by The Guardian.
I used to be proud of my career as a Journalist but now I am embarrassed. How can I have professional dignity when staff at the Post Courier and The National are accepting bribes and allowing themselves to be controlled by Sun, Diao and others at the Chinese Embassy? This is a breach of both our country’s sovereignty and the Media Council of PNG General Code of Ethics for the News Media.
In order to maintain public trust, freedom of speech and credibility of the news media, journalists are required to remain within the following guidelines derived from international standards.
The code clearly state;
“Disclose any conflicts of interest that affect or could be perceived to affect the accuracy, fairness or independence of your report. Never use your journalistic position for personal gain”
“Do not accept any benefit or gratuity that might be seen as personal gain in conflict with fair and unbiased news coverage at the time or in the future. When it is given it should revealed in the story
“Do not plagiarize”
It is clear that staff at the Post Courier and The National are not abiding by these ethics. They are allowing Sun, Diao and the Chinese Embassy to buy their loyalty and profit at the expense of PNG’s independence. They are no longer real journalists but mouth pieces of the Chinese government.
I will not sit quietly and allow my country to suffer because of the greed and selfishness of others.
I cannot act without integrity – being a journalist is an honour and I will not stand by and allow this corruption to go unnoticed.
I will not continue knowing my family and future generations will not be able to rely on the institutions that are created to inform and protect them. I will not allow PNG journalism to be corrupted and controlled by the Chinese embassy. Sun Jia, Diao Yixiao and the Chinese Embassy. Stop corrupting, controlling and threatening us. Managers, editors and journalists at the Post Courier and The National, uphold your journalistic integrity and independence.
The Government of PNG must investigate this and protect our media industry. The people demand and deserve it. The suppression of truth is harming us and our nation. If you then do not change, we will know. And we will expose you. We know much more.
GET OUT OF ELECTION RACE: NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD must leave the political arena with his political flock. How can THIS MAN state PAP-NAG 'Girmit Pact' will see, not HIM, but Sitiveni Rabuka as Prime Minister
The New Australian Prime Minister: No one will describe him as nothing but the Australian Prime Minister, even though Anthony Albanese, 59, was born in March 1963 in Darlinghurst, an eastern suburb of Sydney, to an Irish-Australian mother and an Italian father
"History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies."
Alexis de Tocqueville, French political scientist and historian
PRASAD is taking the NFP into the election campaign like a castrated political bull in a China Shop, wanting his 'girmit partner' Rabuka to become Prime Minister, the very man who wished Indo-Fijians left Fiji in their thousands so he could replace them with Chinese labourers
* People’s Alliance Party (PAP) and the National Federation Party (NAG) have agreed that Sitiveni Rabuka will be appointed prime minister if they win the 2022 General Election. Mr Rabuka told supporters in Lautoka yesterday that following discussions between their members, both parties agreed that he would take on the role of PM
IF SO, NFP's POLITICAL EUNUCH SHOULD GET OUT OF POLL RACE
Fijileaks to Indo-Fijians: Wake Up, and Smell the Treachery. Your ancestors failed to smell it in 1879, but this 'Political Hijra' must NOT be allowed to sign away our birthright to become Prime Minister in Fiji. *Either he knows he stands no chance in narak (hell), or he is willing to go along and inflict the biggest pap in our 143-year history by publicly declaring that he has signed a GIRMIT for Racist-Coupist to become PM.
*Basically, both of them can take their 'GIRMIT HOLIDAY' pledge and shove it up where the Fijian Sun NEVER SHINES.
*Bloody TRAITOR, or he is already in cahoots with Rabuka for an indigenous uprising in the event Aiyaz Khaiyum becomes PM. A Repeat of 1999-2000 when his predecessor JAI RAM REDDY declared that Fiji was NOT ready for an Indo-Fijian PM after Mahendra Chaudhry was deposed on 19 May 2000
RACE CARD: CHAUDHRY Fights CORNER to Become PRIME MINISTER. 'A Tale of Greedy Political Hares Chasing after the GALLOPING HOUND'
By VICTOR LAL, Daily Post, 2000, Part Three
Our current Founding Editor-in-Chief had blamed the flawed and mandatory power-sharing concept in the
Rabuka-Reddy 1997 Constitution partly for 2000 Coup. In any event, that Constitution was designed for Rabuka to become PM and Reddy as his Deputy but the voters in 1999 consigned them to rubbish heap
They demanded the top post for a Fijian not on merit and electoral numbers but based on the crude politics of race and fear. What is more surprising, is that it was Adi Kuini Bavadra's FAP, which was the most vocal in pushing for a Fijian prime minister on the spurious argument that it represented the Fijian electorate in Parliament. It was a surprising demand on her part because Adi KuIni should have known better than any other Fijian politician, based on her own personal experiences of the 1987 coups, that her own late and former husband, Dr Timoci Bavadra, had been overthrown from power despite being a Fijian, and was married to a paramount Fijian high chief. Adi Kuini hails from the chiefly clan of Navosa and is also a niece of the great Fijian leader Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna.
Chaudhry, Wily Old Fox had Outfoxed the Political Bears - He fights his corner to be PM
The race for the prime ministership was like a tale of running with the hare and hunting the hound. But Chaudhry, the wily old political fox, had outfoxed the political bears. Labour’s overwhelming victory had put Chaudhry at the political helm. Once the official election results were announced, the Labour Parliamentary caucus elected him as the party’s nominee for prime minister. Soon afterwards, he was appointed Prime Minister by the President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. The Fijian Coalition partners claimed that they were neither consulted nor informed, and reacted angrily claiming Chaudhry’s appointment a breach of an implicit agreement to have an ethnic Fijian as prime minister. The FAP had decided that they would only join the FLP if party leader Adi Kuini was made Prime Minister. They said they would not join unless their stipulation was met.
Viliame Saulekaleka said instead of waiting to discuss the issue with them, they were shocked that the FLP had gone ahead in getting Chaudhry sworn-in. It was believed that PANU was also considering opting out of the coalition. PANU would have wanted their leader Apisai Tora to be PM had he won his seat. But Chaudhry was forthright in his desire to become PM: ‘It is the Labour Party which has the majority in this election and that’s what democracy is all about, and the people have given their mandate, and that mandate must be respected’, he said. Chaudhry was the obvious party choice for the position, although there were other contenders, including Tupeni Baba. Chaudhry also had the tacit support of his political adversary, the defeated NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy, who told the press: ‘One thing is very clear-the people’s mandate must be carried forward. And the people have overwhelmingly voted for the Fiji Labour Party. And the leader of the Fiji Labour Party, I think, is entitled to being the Prime Minister. And I sympathise with that point of view so that’s the correct thing to do. And their support is not marginal, its quite overwhelming. And as he (Chaudhry) put it, I think, the verdict of the people is crystal clear. So I’m hoping that he will be the Prime Minister.’ (Reddy changed his tune later after the coup saying Fiji was NOT ready for an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister)
Adi Kuini Bavadra Speed missing from Chaudhry's Swearing-in Ceremony as Prime Minister
Chaudhry was sworn-in as the new and first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister of Fiji. The swearing-in ceremony was delayed because officials had to look for the Hindu holy book, the Gita. This small but significant piece of religious item of historical importance, just goes to show that the Government House had never been prepared for such an eventuality, for it was the Bible that had been used since the first elections in post-independence Fiji to swore-in prime ministers of Fijian origin. One noticeable absentee at the swearing-in-ceremony was Adi Kuini Vuikaba Speed. Her non-attendance, for whatever reason, was later to be taken as a snub and a detrimental move for her party by the FLP. Adi Kuini asked President Ratu Mara to revoke the decision and appoint her as head of government because she was the leader of the largest ‘Fijian’ party in the winning coalition. Poseci Bune, the VLV leader, reportedly began canvassing the possibility of heading a broad coalition of Fijian parties in opposition. Tora threatened to pull out of the coalition altogether. The Fijian nationalists proposed to march against the government. Ratu Mara however rejected a request from the FAP to install their leader, Adi Kuini as the new PM.
Ratu Mara rebuffs Adi Kuini's letter for her to be appointed Prime Minister based on Race and Party Identity
The letter was delivered to Ratu Mara by FAP official and Bau chief, Ratu Viliame Dreunimisimisi. Mara rejected the letter, saying he had already installed Chaudhry as the leader of the Coalition, and asked them to work with the Coalition. Mara did Chaudhry no favour: he did what the Constitution required him to do as President of Fiji: to appoint as prime minister the member of the House of Representatives who in his opinion commanded majority support. In turn, Chaudhry offered Adi Kuini the post of Deputy Prime Minister. He had outmanoeuvred her. She had two choices: to accept the second top post in the government or sit on the Opposition benches with her former opponents from the SVT. Labour also threatened to invite VLV into Cabinet. After hours of deliberations with party colleagues, Adi Kuni accepted the second deputy prime minister position in the new Cabinet.
She quoted Mara’s advice: ‘It was basically appealing to us as leaders to consider the importance of co-operation rather than be at loggerheads with the new government.’ But coalition partner, PANU, expressed its disappointment with Chaudhry’s invitation to the VLP. PANU officials said they did not appreciate the fact that Chaudhry asked another party before even approaching them, their coalition partner. PANU however also accepted Chaudhry’s offer to join the government. Its parliamentary leader-Meli Bogileka-said they had accepted Chaudhry’s offer of two Cabinet seats to them: ‘The Prime Minister has offered us two ministeries positions. And I would like to thank Prime Minister for that being so generous because PANU-if you look at our constitution-there are only four elected members of parliament there. We are not entitled as far as the constitution is concerned. We’re supposed to have the number eight as you well know. So he has given us in realisation of PANU coming from the province of Ba-where more than 60 per cent of ALTA is based-the concentration of the population of our brother and sister Indians-who are mainly cane farmers-and that’s where the economy of the country lies-in the western division.’
Tora seems to have belatedly given his blessing. ‘He said your decision is totally yours and he has given us his blessings. He says whatever your decisions are-those are your decisions-and I leave it at that. I don’t like to intervene or interfere and he said so you have my blessings’, Bogileka said. Chaudhry also extended an invitation to the VLP and SVT to join Labour in forming government. ‘I hope they respond soon. Labour has the numbers to form government on its own but I would like them very much to join us so that we can have a government representative of all the people in Fiji. I have a duty to provide a stable government as soon as possible.’ Chaudhry was confident that the two parties would take up the offer: ‘There is not much difference between us except for (Sakeasi) Butadroka.’ On calls by some VLV members for Fiji to be made a Christian state and for a re-imposition of the Sunday ban, Chaudhry said VLP leader Bune had made it clear that there will be no Sunday ban and neither will Fiji be declared a Christian state.
Chaudhry makes Cabinet broad church but dismisses Rabuka's demand to make him Deputy PM
Chaudhry also invited the two Independent General MPs (Leo Smith and Bill Aull) and the lone Rotuman MP Marieta Rigamoto to be part of his Coalition. Chaudhry was suddenly under a siege situation as minority parties made impossible demands for places in his new Cabinet. In fact, Chaudhry had to delay naming his Cabinet because of demands made on him, especially from the SVT which was soundly thrashed at the polls. STV leader Rabuka wrote to Chaudhry saying his minority group will join a multi-party Cabinet if it is given four Cabinet portfolios, including the position of the Deputy Prime Minister for himself, the Ministry of Works portfolio for Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, and Ministry of Finance portfolio for Jim Ah Koy. Rabuka also demanded seats in the Senate and in the boards of state-owned enterprises. The results of the general election had given Chaudhry such an overwhelming majority to lead the country in the 21st century. But the Constitution had required of him to make an offer to the SVT. It was possible, some argued, that some of the demands being made, especially from the SVT, were being designed to put Chaudhry in a situation where he was damned if he said ‘yes’, and damned if he said ‘no’.
Rabuka's demands for Cabinet positions were cunning ploy to remain on Opposition bench
What is surprising is that the SVT caucus, according to Rabuka’s biographer John Sharpham, had agreed shortly after the election results were announced, to remain on the Opposition benches, and not be a part of the multi-party government. Rabuka later claimed that, ‘We had accepted the Prime Minister’s invitation to be part of the multi-party Cabinet on the condition that I become the Deputy Prime Minister. Our collective decision was that because we structured the new Constitution, we should join the multi-party Cabinet of Chaudhry’s government. Our collective decision is that because we were party to the Constitution, we structured the Constitution in our belief that it was good for the country, good for us to have a multi-party Cabinet and to uphold those we decided to be part of the new Government’.
The terms put forward to Chaudhry included that Rabuka be also made the Minister for Fijian Affairs. As we have already noted, Chaudhry found these demands unacceptable, specially from a party which was not only soundly thrashed at the polls, emerging with only eight seats, but the fact that it was not even part of the People's Coalition in the first instance. 'I invited them and they wanted to dictate to me their terms which I just can not entertain’.
Fijians dominate Chaudhry Cabinet: He bent backwards, angering Indo-Fijians, to form Government
While Chaudhry seemed like he was under a lot of pressure, political observers insisted he was in too strong a position to be bullied. Unfortunately, while Chaudhry refused to be bullied, he however, bent over backwards to appease the Fijian community at large, and in the process drawing the wrath of his own community in the appointment of his Cabinet. He had to appeal to his Indo-Fijian members of his Government to accept his desire to share power with Fiji’s other communities. Chaudhry picked a Fijian dominated Cabinet as he moved to bring the two major races together. He had made a great political sacrifice after 11 Fijians were sworn into the 17-member Cabinet. Many thought the Cabinet was going to be dominated by Indo-Fijians. There was widespread rumours that Ratu Mara had a hand in shaping his Cabinet. ‘I must admit that His Excellency played a very major role in the naming of my Cabinet and he did it in his usual way’, Chaudhry said. Asked why his cabinet weighed heavily in favour of Fijians, Chaudhry said: ‘Why not?’.
Chaudhry blunders in appointing Adi Kuini as Fijian Affairs Minister, to face Rabuka as GGC Chairman, for after all he also demanded that he be made Minister for Fijian Affairs to enter Cabinet
Chaudhry’s strategic move was seen by political observers as sensitive to the sensitiveness of the Fijians. He was trying to fulfil the multi-racial, multicultural and multi-party spirit of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji. Chaudhry left the post of the crucial Ministry of Home Affairs vacant until further consultation with his FLP partners. He however intimated that the post will go to a FAP MP and not to the VLP as speculated. It was rumoured that the post would go to the defeated VLP candidate and one of its founders, Ratu Epeli Ganilau. While Chaudhry seemed to have won the first round of the battle, Rabuka resigned from his embattled leadership of the SVT, and went on to become the chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs. Chaudhry allocated Adi Kuini the powerful but sensitive Fijian Affairs portfolio which made her chairperson of the Great Council of Chiefs, from where she was expelled by the Rabuka Government because of her leadership of the FAP.
From hindsight, it was a strategic mistake, for now Adi Kuini suddenly found herself having to deal with Rabuka as the leader of the powerful body when she and her party expected a senior Fijian chief to fill the revered role. Moreover, Rabuka had wanted her Fijian Affairs post as part of the condition to enter Chaudhry’s government. As he exited from the political scene, Rabuka again blamed the Indo-Fijians for rejecting his party’s philosophy of multi-racialism. There was no call to the indigenous Fijians to shed their own insular and inward looking nationalism, and to reciprocate by accepting the People's Coalition’s version of multi-racialism. We have already pointed out elsewhere why the charges against the Indo-Fijians are false. What had caused SVT’s defeat, according to Rabuka, was ‘the personal weaknesses of the candidates, the personal weaknesses of those that were sitting in the last [Rabuka] government, failing to visit their Constituency regularly, the unpopularity of some of the Government policies, the weaknessesin our party machinery and structure’, and of course, ‘my coalition with the National Federation Party (NFP) was one of the causes of the SVT downfall’. It was not THE cause of SVT’s downfall.
The Mara family and STV’s downfall? Mara to Rabuka: 'My conscience is clear.'
What role did the Mara family play in the SVT and Rabuka’s downfall was another topic of speculation, for the family was very closely aligned to the VLP? Rabuka himself raised the issue with Mara, who told him ‘my conscience is clear’. Rabuka recounts to The Review: ‘I don’t know whether that is true...whether they [the Mara family] were instrumental in the formation of that party [VLP] or whether they supported it for...can’t be ideological reasons because ideologically they were not different from the SVT. In fact, when I handed in my resignation, I asked the President whether he was involved. I asked him whether he was actively involved in the VLP. All he said to me was ‘my conscience is clear’ which is very non-committal. I asked him whether he was actively involved in the VLP and I related to him the Saul/David situation in the Bible where Saul was anointed King. While he was still reigning as king, Samuel the prophet anointed David to be his successor. Then David went and killed Goliath and was brought into the palace and lived with Saul as an entertainer. On three occasions Saul tried to kill David and David’s followers said ‘kill him’. He had so many opportunities to kill Saul but David said ‘The Lord forbid that I should lift up my hand against the Lord’s anointed’. I related that to the President and said: ‘Sir, even if you are, I believe that you were called to that position and I was called to this position and I will not lift my hand or raise my hand against you because I believe that you were anointed. All he said to me was ‘my conscience is clear’.’
Before the 1992 general election, Rabuka stood for the presidency of the SVT, beating Mara’s wife, Adi Lady Lala Mara to the post. Was that where things went from bad to worse in his relationship with the Maras. Rabuka replied as follows: ‘It shouldn’t have been because my selection was done the proper way. Hers was only thought of at the meeting. Yes! My candidacy was lobbied for by Cakaudrove. We went to Bua and Macuata and asked Lau for support and some other provinces. At the meeting, someone realised what was going to happen (that Rabuka was going to win) and Tomasi Vakatora stood up and nominated Adi Lala.’
Rabuka on Rabuka: Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and Kubuabola asked me to step down as SVT leader
In the same interview, he gave an insight into his own departure from the leadership of the SVT: ‘Two members of Parliament from Cakaudrove-Kubuabola and Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu-asked me to step down as Leader of the Opposition and party leader. I told them if they had the support of other members of the SVT, the UGP and the Independent members, I would step down. They said they would talk to them. Five minutes later David Pickering called me and asked me if I had agreed to step down. I asked why and he said Ratu Inoke asked him in the morning-we had met at 12 o’clock-whether he would support him for the leadership. This is despite Ratu Inoke saying to me that he would seek support after talking to me. That is a very devious way of doing it. I don’t mind now that I know, but I just want them to be very clear about what they’re doing because if their plot backfires on them, they can only blame themselves.’
When asked whether it was a wise move by the SVT to ask him to step down, Rabuka replied as follows: ‘At that time racial feelings within SVT were very strong. People thought that my conciliatory stance and my leadership of a racially-based party in an inter-racial search for harmonious coexistence in Fiji was incongruous. They felt that a more nationalistic leader should be asked to take over the reigns. I don’t know how those people who came up with that idea are feeling now...whether Kubuabola or Ratu Epeli Mataini who are now Leader of the Opposition and SVT president respectively are doing what those people wanted.’ Rabuka then ventured to comment on other Fijians, notably people like Ratu Tu’uakitau Cokanauto, who was harbouring leadership ambitions and saying Fijians should be invited.
Rabuka told The Review: ‘I think the very simple-minded will probably believe him. The serious thinkers won’t. They will see through that very thin veil. Fijians lost the government because they were not united. We had the first when the Fijian Association (FAP) ceded from the SVT in 1993. Now members of the FAP, particularly those who were behind that split are calling for unity. You see the hypocrisy of these people like Cokanauto and other people now calling for unity. They were the ones who started the break.’
Fijian infighting embroils Chaudhry, again, and overthrow of Adi Kuini as FAP Party Leader
In fact, the petty rivalry and factionalism that saw the split of the SVT in 1993, was once again to resurface with greater ferocity between the FAP MPs in Chaudhry’s People's Coalition Government. This time the principal actors were Ratu Tu’uakitau (Tuki) and Adi Kuini over leadership and Senate nominations. Chaudhry’s troubles began when Adi Kuini did not name Rewa chief and former President of the Telecom Employees Association, Ratu Timoci Silatolu, in the Cabinet. He went on to establish a Foundation for Indigenous Fijian People. The main objective was to reportedly ensure that indigenous rights were safe guarded, so that nothing that would be done by the Chaudhry Government or any other interest group would affect the interests of the indigenous people. Silatolu became its chairman.
The SVT's Kubuabola said he personally supported the principles of the foundation. Silatolu later went on to overthrow Chaudhry from power. He was named by George Speight as his Interim Prime Minister, and is currently with him on Nukulau Island awaiting treason charges.The infighting between the different factions of the FAP intensified when Adi Kuini left for Australia for medical treatment. Ratu Tuki tried to bring out an injunction to stop Dr Isimlei Cokanasiga, a Cabinet minister in Chaudhry’s government, from leading the FAP. The High Court refused to issue an injunction. Cokanasiga claimed he was nominated acting leader by Adi Kuini. The Fijian Association Party crisis had deepened with unconfirmed reports claiming that the executives who ousted their leader, Adi Kuini, were planning on also removing their general secretary, Josaia Gucake. It was understood the executives were also not happy with Gucake. A party insider told the press that the decision was taken at the executives meeting. It was alleged that Gucake would be replaced by senior journalist, Jo Nata.
Like Silatolu, Nata also crossed over to join Speight’s storm troopers in the overthrow of Chaudhry. Nata became the press spokesman of Speight and one of its most anti-Indo-Fijian critics (Nata was this writer's classmate at Ratu Kadavulevu School and workmate at the old Fiji, closed down by Rabuka in 1987) inside the parliamentary complex during the 56 day siege. He is currently awaiting treason trial on Nukulau Island. Meanwhile, Adi Kuini threatened to take legal action against the FAP executives. She claimed that the meeting of the executives to have her replaced by Ratu Tuki and change the Senate nominees were illegal and unconstitutional. Ratu Mara however rejected FAP’s lists, calling upon the Leader of the Opposition Kubuabola to submit only five and not 10 names. Instead of submitting eight names to the President Mara for endorsement, as stipulated in the Constitution, Kubuabola sent a list containing 13 names. Three of those names were his own nominees which Mara accepted. The remaining ten, however, came from two factions involved in a bitter power struggle for control of the FAP. The first list of five names was submitted by Adi Kuini Speed to Kubuabola on Monday, September 6, in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.
A second list of five names however, was submitted to Kubuabola by Ratu Tuki, who was elected new FAP leader at an emergency national executive council meeting of the party on Saturday, which forcefully ousted Adi Kuini as party leader. However, instead of sending only five names, Kubuabola decided to send both lists-resulting in the President throwing it back at him for non-compliance. Meanwhile, Adi Kuini filed papers in court seeking a judicial review on the controversial meeting which overthrew her as party leader. In that meeting, Ratu Tuki was voted FAP leader, ousting Adi Kuini allegedly with the votes of the executive's majority, which included five parliamentarians. Ratu Tuki claimed that meeting was perfectly legal and Adi Kuini was no longer party leader.
FAP rift damages Chaudhry
The Daily Post, in its editorial comment, captured the impact the infighting was having on Chaudhry’s leadership and the image of the People's Coalition Government among grassroots Fijians throughout the country. The paper wrote as follows: ‘The division and leadership struggle within a political party is nothing new in Fiji politics and certainly won't be the last we hear of. It is part of the game politicians play in their quest for power and dominance, even though in the process they confuse the ordinary people who cannot understand the intricacies of the party system. As the biggest Fijian party in the Government, the Fijian Association Party supporters would be devastated to see their leaders already divided only four months after the general elections. Party leader Adi Kuini Speed, a high chief of the Navosa district, suddenly finds herself being dethroned by a group of disgruntled party members who are not happy with her list of Senate nominees. The breakaway group has elected its own party leader and officials and picked its own list of Senators The last thing the party members want is anything to jeopardise their numbers in the House of Representatives and the strong power-sharing position they currently enjoy in the People's Coalition Government.’
The Post noted that, ‘The Government too has rightly expressed its disappointment with the rift. It should be angry because this does nothing to strengthen the People's Coalition which is fighting to address many national problems, the most menacing of which is the land leases under the Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Act. Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has worked hard to solidify the Coalition, beginning with the composition of his Cabinet. He recognises the importance of the FAP in his Government by appointing its party leader, Adi Kuini, as one of his two deputies. Not only that, his confidence in her leadership quality and political influence prompted him to allocate the important and sensitive Fijian Affairs Ministry to her’.
The spectre of PANU spoiling the party was also of grave concern. The Post continued: ‘Apart from the FAP division, the Government also faces the threat by another of its Coalition partners, the Party of National Unity which meets this week to withdraw its two Cabinet ministers. Mr Chaudhry does not want this adverse development at this point in the life of his Government. The power struggle within the Fijian political parties has also been deemed by some as a reflection the political quandary some indigenous Fijians find themselves in today. There is a general feeling of instability and insecurity among those who still cannot accept a non-Fijian leading the nation. They choose to be blind to the results of the elections and the requirements of the new Constitution. And this is not healthy for democracy and the political development of this nation.’
Was it a Coup?
Ratu Tuki said the main reason behind the change in leadership was the lack of consultation within the party. ‘If its a multi-party Cabinet, one of the unwritten rules is greater consultation in parties on national issues and especially in addressing the more sensitive issues. Consultation is first and foremost under the existing system of multi-party government, and we just wish to continue with that and that is what we wish to promote under our new leadership because it has been frustrating elected members due to a lack of consultation and one cannot act unilaterally when it comes to party interests," said Ratu Tuki. Was it a coup? The Post’s acting editor and political columnist Mesake Koroi neatly summed up the infighting. He wrote as follows: ‘The talk around the tanoa at the weekend is that it was. Others have described it as just another crisis. The central figure in the power struggle, Adi Kuini Vuikaba Speed, prefers to call it a storm in a tea cup. That is how she is treating the events of Saturday morning in which she was unceremoniously removed as Leader of the Fijian Association Party. "As far as I am concerned, I am still the Party Leader and very much in control of the activities of the party," Adi Kuini said yesterday. "The majority of the party executives are with me, including all FA parliamentarians who are in Cabinet. I still enjoy the majority support within the party." Yesterday she met party executives to decide what is to be done. While Adi Kuini downplays Saturday's events, she cannot ignore the danger which threatens her party now. They say that where there is smoke there is fire. She must act decisively now to maintain party unity and solidarity for the sake of the country. She must not allow the split within the party go any further. When the FAP dissident group, led by Party President Ratu Viliame Dreunimisimisi, took over the party operation on Saturday, it became obvious that it was not just a simple take-over bid. Whether the FAP dissident group were aware of it, their action of forcefully removing Adi Kuini from party leadership was the beginning of a well-planned move to destabilise Mahendra Chaudhry's government.’ Mesake Koroi said that was not an isolated event but part of a bigger plan to derail the Chaudhry Government. ‘
The main cause of this leadership struggle can be found on page 13 of the September issue of The Review where it is said that Ratu Tu'uakitau Cokanauto is to be made the compromise Prime Minister of Fiji, leading a grand Fijian coalition government with Ratu Inoke Kububola and Poseci Bune becoming Deputy Prime Ministers. If Ratu Tuki can depose Adi Kuini as leader and take the FAP out of the coalition government, the next step is for the Party of National Unity (PANU) to withdraw from the People's Coalition. The plan is for the grand Fijian coalition parties to woo across two Fijian members of the Fiji Labour Party (FLP). Under the present Constitution, this wooing across of two FLP members may not be possible because any MP who crosses the floor, loses his seat in Parliament. Ratu Inoke and the chiefs of Cakaudrove are now using the ALTA issue as the leverage to force the new government to its knees’.
Like Silatolu, Nata, and others, Ratu Tuki was also reported to have backed Speight’s coup against Chaudhry. He was reported by the newspapers to be among several People's Coalition Government backbenchers that had given their support to Speight’s short-lived Interim Administration that was to be led by Silatolu. Ratu Tuki, other FAP MPs and former Minister for Health Leo Smith, were escorted out of Parliament where they were locked up with other Fijian MPs and ushered into a meeting with coup leader Speight. In a press conference Speight announced their support. Ratu Tuki is currently in Qarase’s Interim Government alongside PANU’s Apisai Tora. In a most recent press statement Ratu Tuki said he no longer supported Chaudhry’s leadership because the former Prime Minister was directly responsible for the events of 19 May. The Bau chief said the members of the People's Coalition should be realistic and move away from the call for a Government of National Unity.
He said now was the time for political parties to move away from the Coalition and ‘ask themselves how much they contributed to the situation we are now in’. Ratu Tuki said individual politicians and members of the Coalition espousing the return of the 1997 Constitution and promoting the Gates Judgement should first seek mandate of their people. He said those calling for the set up of a GNU had the opportunity to do the same before 19 May. ‘So, why know? Too many times we have played issues for our own political gain and political survival. We should not talk multi-racialism as a political front to gain yardage’, he said. Ratu Tuki went on to single out Chaudhry for special criticism: ‘Chaudhry has been identified as one of the people directly or indirectly [who] caused the problem. He never addressed the concerns raised by various expressions of dissatisfaction-they may have been small and isolated but they were part of the same unrest that became part of May 19. People should be realistic. They call us unelected but what are the consequences-it could become a firebomb. It could allow people to resurrect what they could not complete on May 19. The army put the Interim [government] in as a body that could carry out the governance of the country and give security at a time when the country was at the verge of anarchy.’
Interestingly, Chaudhry had never been a member of Speight’s anarchists, nor endorsed or condoned their actions, which brought murder and mayhem to the streets of Fiji. He was its unwarranted victim. As expected, Tora, the political chameleon of Fiji politics, had suddenly re-emerged from the shadows. He not only revived the fearsome and, at times, violent Taukei Movement, but went on to become the Minister for ALTA in the Qarase regime.
On 22 August 1999, Tora said that he did not want an Indo-Fijian prime minister. ‘I'm bounded by the majority rule and they want a Fijian prime minister’, he said. Tora said that he had dissociated himself from Chaudhry and he would stand by that. Tora said that Chaudhry had broken promises and would continue to do that while in power. He said he was disappointed with what had happened and that was the reason he would not align himself to the prime minister of the day. He said that when they formed the coalition they had discussed many things but unfortunately Chaudhry took things into his own hands when his party won the election with a good majority. ‘They used us and they rode on our backs to win the majority seats and once they got in they forgot all about our coalition agreements.’ Tora said that the FLP and the prime minister should bear in mind that they were not fooling the Fijians but themselves.
In September, however, Tora himself was faced with the possibility of being ousted as general secretary of PANU. Like the rivalry inside the FAP, Chaudhry was once again saddled with another political infighting inside his Coalition, this time it was PANU. Tora, as general secretary of PANU, also reacted to claims that he was working against the Chaudhry government and siding with the SVT. ‘Because of divisions in the Fijian community, we have lost the elections. I think it's in our interest if we want to make sure that our rights, our privileges, our resources are protected. What I am doing is part and parcel of my job as secretary of a very important political party to unite Fijians,’ he said. The possibility of PANU pulling out of the Coalition again intruded into the running of the government.
One seasoned political commentator, writing elsewhere, has this to say about Tora’s entry into the 1999 elections: ‘Tora first broached a coalition with the SVT, and wanted a seat sharing arrangement which would recognise his influence in the west. He was rebuffed by western Fijian members of the SVT, especially Isimeli Bose and Ratu Etuate Tavai. Tora, they felt, was a spent force, his reputation for integrity and probity tainted by his impressive record of political bed-hopping. Moreover, the seat-sharing formula sought by Tora would have ended SVT’s reign in western Viti Levu, a prospect no serious party could countenance. Tora then turned to labour, which responded favourably. It was a coalition of convenience. Labour gave Tora wider platform upon which, relying on his cunning, he no doubt hoped to enlarge with his own agenda. Tora promised Labour western Fijian support and assistance in resolving the issue of the expiring leases. Tora held or seemed to hold powerful cards.’
The commentator continued: ‘Tora’s own seat was contested by Labour, whose candidate beat him. Out manoeuvred, Tora refused to attend any of the Peoples Coalition rallies. Towards the end of the campaign, he became a vocal critic of the Labour Party, chiding Labour president Jokapeci Koroi for not forgiving Rabuka for his past actions and accusing Chaudhry of treachery. Tora refused to give preferences to his coalition partner, the Fijian Association Party, which had fielded candidates against his own. But by then, he mattered little. For once, the Machiavellian politician had been marginalized.’ Ironically, it was not for too long. Tora would re-emerge to set the stage for Chaudhry’s final exit from power.
Rebels don't scare me, says Chaudhry
Chaudhry said he was not bothered by moves to topple the government. Chaudhry, who had returned from abroad, said that he was aware of these actions initiated by ‘a group of defeated elements’. ‘Government is aware of such a move, but let me assure the public that we're the least bothered,’ he said. Chaudhry said his government was elected into office by the people. And he did not see why the defeated politicians of this country were going around asking for people's support to oust the government. He urged the group to come forward with positive recommendations for the betterment of the country. Chaudhry said his government had five years in office and they should be given the opportunity to deliver their promises. He said that it would be up to the people in the next general election which government they want to lead the country.
Chaudhry’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tupeni Baba, said Tora had every right to work constitutionally under the law to change the Government. Tupeni Baba said the rights of Tora would not be denied. Tora had told Radio Fiji News that he was taking moves to overthrow the Government. ‘Any Fijian in his right mind, anything and everything that this Government is brought down off course when I say brought down I mean legally, lawfully, constitutionally brought down,’ Tora said. When asked as to how he would achieve this, Tora said ‘Well we are thinking of mobilizing the Fijian Political Parties to form a coalition and move on from there, but I must stress it must be done legally’. Baba said Tora had been misinformed. ‘It saddens me to see that a very senior citizen of this country and politician being mis-advised about the Chaudhry Government, obviously he has got other agenda's and he is using the land negotiations, which is currently in process as a vehicle to segregate us’ he said.
Baba also said the Government was not trying to deny Fijians of their land rights. But Tora was unstoppable. The racial bandwagon was in full swing and hurtling out of control towards the Chaudhry government.
The Ghost of Pinochet and Tora
I have written elsewhere about the likelihood of the former military dictator turned late prime minister of Fiji, Sitiveni Rabuka, and his conspirators, facing legal prosecutions for their roles in the 1987 coups following the decision of the highest British court that former heads of state are not immune from prosecution from crimes against humanity. It is no secret that Tora played a leading role in the downfall of the Bavadra government, and in the process escaped the sedition charges that had been filed against him before the coups. His actions during the 1987 coups, and most recently, again smacks of paradox. In 1980 Tora led demonstrations against the Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet’s visit to Fiji. A picture of him in the Pacific Islands Monthly of June 1980 shows Tora at his vintage; being restrained by two Indo-Fijian police inspectors, he holding a microphone and a banner headline reading: ‘Death to Pinochet’. Many commentators of the day attributed Pinochet’s humiliating retreat from Fiji to the protests of Tora, his human rights followers, and the combined churches of Fiji who encouraged churches to hold a special day of prayer for persons known to be then suffering gross violations of human rights in Chile. They also ignored the protestations from the then prime minister Ratu Mara that the protests against Pinochet was ‘unchristian’ and that the visit was an opportunity for citizens of a free country to persuade and influence General Pinochet.
A group of Fijians wearing traditional grassskirts performed ceremonial mourning. Others wore black arm bands, chanted protests and held placards in Spanish and English, some of which read: ‘We hate dictators-Chile si, Pinochet no’. Pinochet’s car was pelted with several eggs and water bombs splattered across the windshield. Pinochet had enough of Tora’s hot taste of Fiji. He cut short his visit to the country and fled to his oppressive Chile. Now, Pinochet is likely to be tried on murder, torture, and genocide charges in his own country.
The late Fijian nationalist, Sakiasi Butadroka, had put up a sign outside a house in the Suva suburb of Flagstaff shortly after the election of Chaudhry as Prime Minister. The sign read: ‘Wake up Fijians, the Indians are taking over.’ He also tried to get a permit to stage protest rallies around Suva. He also planned to meet army commander Frank Bainimarama sparking fears of a third military coup. Butadroka did not have to wait for long. George Speight and his storm troopers did the job for him.
Chaudhry was bundled out of the political office by the machinations of those who remained on the fringes of power while their colleagues and opponents taunted and haunted them from inside the Peoples Coalition Government.The Fiji Labour Party, and its leader, remained constitutionally impotent ringside spectators as the various non FLP groups tried to settle political scores with their rivals.
The political show is over, and perhaps it is time for the Fiji Labour Party to go home: to leave the kingdom of the People's Coalition Government.
VIOLATING THE SANCTITY OF THE HINDU MANDIR IN BA TO HOLD PAP-NAG CAMPAIGN
Essex boy, Ajay Bhai Amrit it is NOT MANDIA, as you introduced the venue. Its MANDIR. Imagine the barking political dogs if Aiyaz Khaiyum had held the FFP campaign in a MOSQUE
BIMAN PRASAD: 'INDO-FIJIANS WILL NEVER RULE FIJI AGAIN, BUT MY GIRMIT PARTNER AND 1987 COUPIST WILL BECOME PM AFTER 2022.'
CAGED FOR SWINDLING TAXPAYERS: Rabuka's firebrand NATIONALIST NIKO NAWAIKULA jailed for fiddling with his parliamentary allowances. Tragically, victim of Coupist's bogus nationalism but willing executioner
From Buca Plantation to Parliament to PRISON
This means he will spend 2 years in prison.
Nawaikula had lied about living in Buca Village between August 2019 and April 2020 and obtained $20,201.35 in parliamentary allowances. He was convicted of one count of Giving False Information to a Public Servant and one count of Obtaining Financial Advantage.
While delivering the sentence, High Court Judge Justice Dr. Thushara Kumarage says Nawaikula committed the highest breach of trust to the people and the nation.
He says the money could have been used to provide more computers to a school in his village or better health care.
Justice Dr. Kumarage says he betrayed public trust in honourable Members of Parliament and his action decreased the confidence in democratic processes of the country.
He adds Nawaikula's actions were also premeditated.
Meanwhile Police Chief of Operations, ACP Abdul Khan says they escorted Nawaikula out through the judges chambers for security reasons.
ACP Khan says this is to ensure they follow a professional and smooth operation after the sentencing of a high profile person. Source: FijiVillage News
PAP Candidate LILIANA PARETI WARID: In her acceptance speech she was waxing lyrical about leader RABUKA. She 'forgot' two years ago he tried to force her Uncle's widow to pay outstanding loan he made to him
"The plaintiff (Sitiveni Rabuka), in cross-examination agreed that she [Emmaline Biu Mavoa) was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of EM. In my judgment, the claim against the second defendant is misconceived and is declined."
Judge, 3 July 2020
"My name is Liliana Pareti Warid and I am deeply honored to be nominated as a provisional candidate for The People’s Alliance. I am originally from Daliconi village in Vanuabalavu, Lau, with maternal links to Kabara, Lau."
Fijileaks: Has she also recently forgotten her leader's blatant lies when he blamed the late Lauan chief Ratu Mara for being behind his COUP?
"I stand here today on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. Those that sacrificed and worked hard so that you and I could have better lives so that we could be better people and achieve greater things. My grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and many others have built the foundation that I stand on today."
PAP Candidate Liliana Pareti Warid's Acceptance Speech
Fijileaks: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief, who knew her late grandfather JONATI MAVOA from the Alliance Party days (he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, Civil Aviation and Tourism; died in June 1985), and her uncle, the late ERONI MAVOA (her mother Olivia and Eroni are the daughter and son of Jonati Mavoa), was surprised to hear Liliana Pareti Warid wax lyrical about her party leader Sitiveni Rabuka in her acceptance speech.
* Sadly, only four years ago, he tried to fleece thousands of dollars from her uncle's widow, EMMALINE BIU MAVOA, claiming that she must be held responsible for paying as executor of her late husband's estate the outstanding loan. As expected, the Fiji High Court threw out his claim.
* Rabuka, in cross-examination agreed that Emmaline Biu Mavoa was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of Eroni Mavoa. The Fiji High Court ruled the claim against her was misconceived and was declined.
*All the time, Rabuka was pleading poverty, claiming he was collecting and selling bottles to make a living.
Liliana Pareti Warid
Please let me begin by acknowledging our Party President, Na Momo na Tui Nadi, Ratu Vuniani Navuniuci; Party Leader Sitiveni Rabuka; ladies and gentlemen. Cola vina riki!
My name is Liliana Pareti Warid and I am deeply honored to be nominated as a provisional candidate for The People’s Alliance. I am originally from Daliconi village in Vanuabalavu, Lau with maternal links to Kabara, Lau.
Politics was never part of my plan however I serve a God whose plans supersede mine and late last year he called me into this season. After I had finally accepted that this was the new plan, I realised that the whole 45 years of my existence has prepared me for this season. My experience and achievements personally and professionally - in the corporate world, in the community, in church, in my family has all been to equip me for this season. And I believe that the final nominated candidates for The People's Alliance would have all been prepared and called for such a time as this.
I stand here today on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. Those that sacrificed and worked hard so that you and I could have better lives, so that we could be better people and achieve greater things. My grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and many others have built the foundation that I stand on today.
With this foundation, just like they did for me, I now stand for those coming after me. For my children and grandchildren - for your children and grandchildren of Fiji. So they can be better, do better, achieve greater!
Now more than ever, we need to stand for our children, the future of Fiji.
* I am tired of having our children see 16 years arrogant, selfish, disrespectful leadership - bearing witness as leaders lie through their teeth.
* I am tired of seeing our children losing the battle with substance abuse such as drugs and alcohol - with no appropriate rehab facilities to help them.
* I am tired of seeing our children experience abuse.
* I am tired of not being able to speak freely
* I am tired of watching our children turn on the taps and get no water, even worse, dirty water - making them sick.
* I am tired of hearing that no Fijian gets left behind when everywhere I look, I see my people are suffering.
NOW is the time for us to stand. If we don't stand for our children, then who will?
How will our children know what's right and wrong if we don't stand and put a stop to this moral violence that is taking over our country?
There is no one else - the time has come where you and I have to put our foot down and REFUSE to have any more stolen from our future.
Finally, we know there is a mess waiting for us when we get into Government. One that will require a high calibre team with out of the box solutions. We understand it will require personal sacrifice and a strong will. It can seem impossible. However we draw confidence from the God of the impossible whom we serve.
To use the words of where my children come from - “vucukia a vuravura qa to so!”
Malo vakalevu sara.
Liliana Pareti Warid
9 May 2022
Nadi Civic Centre
Civil Action No. HBC 296 of 2017
Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka
The Estate of the late Eroni Baleiwai Mavoa
Emmaline Bui Mavoa
Bruce Rokosiga Ferguson
Counsel : Ms A. Vuki with Mr J. Lanyon for the plaintiff
Ms S. Nayacalevu with Mr V. Seduadua for the second and third defendants
Date of hearing: 7th and 8th November, 2019
Date of Judgment: 3rd July, 2020
- The plaintiff (Rabuka] brings this claim against the defendants to recover the monies he loaned to the first defendant. The first defendant is the estate of the late Eroni Mavoa, (EM). The second defendant is his legal wife. The third defendant is a businessman trading as Kiodai Enterprise, (KE). The plaintiff obtained default judgment against the first defendant.
- The statement of claim states that KE “used to purchase, harvest, process and retail mahogany logs and timbers”. EM, acting as business investment collaborator for KE approached the plaintiff with a proposal to invest in the mahogany project of KE. The plaintiff agreed to the proposal. On 7th May, 2015, the first defendant provided a financing proposal, which outlined that the plaintiff’s initial loan of $70,000.00 would secure an annual return of $177,065.00. The plaintiff advanced the second loan of $98,000.00. He was paid interest for the total loan advanced. On 13th September, 2016, EM passed away. The second defendant has not taken out letters of administration.
- The second defendant in her statement of defence states that the plaintiff failed to make an application to appoint and bring an action against the personal representatives of the late EM. The institution of this action is a nullity. There are no assets to distribute in his estate. She is not in a position to take out letters of administration.
- The statement of defence of the third defendant states that KE is a solely owned enterprise of the third defendant. It was never in partnership with EM. EM had no authority to negotiate on behalf of KE. The third defendant was not a party and unaware of the loan agreement between the plaintiff and EM. EM advised the plaintiff that he was personally responsible for the funds invested.
- The question for determination is whether the second and third defendants are liable for the loan given by the plaintiff to the first defendant.
- The claim against the second defendant is made on the ground that she is the “legal wife and next of kin of the late (EM) and the person entitled to take out letters of administration for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant”.
- In my view, the second defendant is entitled to take out letters of administration of the estate. But that does not make her personally liable for the loan given to EM. The plaintiff, in cross examination agreed that she was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of EM.
- In my judgment, the claim against the second defendant is misconceived and is declined.
- The case for the plaintiff is that he loaned monies to EM, the investment collaborator for the business of the third defendant trading as KE. It is alleged that EM represented KE. The third defendant denies the claim.
- The plaintiff, (PW1) in evidence in chief said that he paid the monies to EM. EM paid him interest. He signed an agreement with EM at a restaurant in the presence of its owner, Ms U. Fa. He did not have a copy of the agreement.
- PW2, (Ms U. Fa, Barrister and Solicitor) in her evidence said that she was asked by EM to peruse a loan agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant and witnessed by the third defendant regarding a project for mahogany. She was present when it was signed. The agreement stated that EM was an agent for a company, but she could not recall the name of the company.
- The third defendant, (DW1) said that EM, his father in law) was never involved in his business. He did not have any discussion with the plaintiff nor authorize EM to make any representation. He was not involved in any mahogany project. He got angry when he read the email of 21st April, 2015, which referred to KE and himself.
- The plaintiff, in cross examination agreed that the averments in his statement of claim stating that he advanced monies to the third defendant were incorrect. EM, in his email to him of 21st April, 2015, and copied to the third defendant said that he will be personally responsible for the funds. There was no deal between him and the third defendant. He did not have any discussions with the third defendant on the transactions at any stage.
- In my judgment, the evidence reveals that there is no cause of action against the third defendant.
- I reproduce an excerpt from the email of 21st April, 2015, sent by EM to the plaintiff and copied to the third defendant:
Funding will be to him from you but via me. That is, I will be personally responsible for the funds – its use and repayment. So the agreement will be between you and me. I hope this arrangement will be fine with you.(emphasis added)
- It is clear from the words that I have highlighted that the first defendant was solely responsible for the loan provided.
- The action against the third defendant is declined.
- (a) The action against the second and third defendants is declined.
- (b) The plaintiff shall pay costs summarily assessed in a sum of $1500 to the second defendant and $1500 to the third defendant.
19 MAY 2000, George Speight Coup: President Ratu Mara on RABUKA: 'He telephoned me to say, *I am ready*. I then pointed to Rabuka and Police Commissioner Isikia Savua and accused them of hand in Coup.'
The Price of a COUP: 19 May 2000
"May 19 marks the 22nd anniversary of the 2000 coup that removed the popular Labour coalition government of Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry after just a year in office. Some 22 years later, people are realizing that had the Chaudhry government been allowed to stay for its full term in office, Fiji would have been a much more advanced and happier place to live in." FLP, 19 May 2022
*Basically, he was disowning the very 1997 Rabuka-Reddy Constitution that PAP-NAG is now brandishing around the country. The typical opportunist in time of crisis
Rabuka: "I supported every move to destabilise the Chaudhry government, but I was not part of the coup. I was not involved in any of the [pre-coup] marches. But I was going to be involved in the next one because it was [to be held at] the time of the signing of the successor to the Lome Convention this month.’
*Rabuka said he had known Speight and had played golf with him and knew of his commitment to indigenous rights. However, he did not agree that Speight represented the ‘soul’ or the ‘voice’ of the indigenous people, or the i-Taukei. ‘Why should he consider himself the voice of the iTaukei? His grandfather was a European. The military has only [negotiated with] Speight because of the security of the hostages. He has no legal claim. I don't have any moral stance on whether his actions are right or wrong. I cannot say anything about that because I was in the coup in 1987. I am giving my opinions as a private citizen.’ But Speight ‘has lost the plot and right now he is trying to hang onto every little straw that floats by. He is living in a bubble, and very soon that bubble will burst’
DEPOSED PRIME MINISTER MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY, after being released, said he had been told of Rabuka's complicity by the leader of the CRW unit in parliament, Ilisoni Ligairi. In talks with Chaudhry, Ligairi had claimed he was very angry with Rabuka because he had ditched them at the last minute.
LAUGHING COUPIST: Sitiveni Rabuka laughs [above] as he announces in Suva on 20 May 2000 that he is certain the crisis will be over by the end of the day, following the overthrow of Prime Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry. The hostage crisis dragged on for 56 days
The Guns of Lautoka: Some of the weapons the CRW soldiers who stormed Parliament had on them were those seized by Rabuka in 1988
Fijileaks: Our Editor-in-Chief had consistently opposed the mandatory multi-party power-sharing government provision in the 1997 Constitution and still stands by his criticisms. The following excerpt, part of a longer article, first appeared in the Fiji Sun in 2003 and was reproduced by online websites and quoted in academic journals.
Astonishingly, in June 2000, shortly after George Speight and others seized Parliament, Rabuka told the world that the old South Africa might be a model for Fiji. He no longer seemed to believe in a multi-racial chamber. Rabuka said Fiji might need racially segregated houses of parliament, ‘like pre-Mandela South Africa’, as part of a constitutional settlement to its problems. The solution to Fiji's problems ‘must come with a constitutional arrangement that Fijians can work with ... and at the moment they cannot work with the 1997 Constitution’. Interviewed at his office in Suva by Malcolm Brown, where he presided as chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs, Rabuka made it plain he had sympathy for Fijians who thought indigenous rights had been eroded under the government of Chaudhry and the 1997 Constitution, under which Fiji returned to a multiracial democracy.
‘Let us go along with them [the critics of the 1997 Constitution] and see what arrangements they want,’ he said. ‘Whatever we come up with, there will be problems. We must be prepared to face the consequences, as did the South Africans. However, we can prove that under 138 years of Fijian and colonial leadership we have done very well.’ Rabuka denied he had any warning or role in the coup executed by Speight. But as leader of the two coups in 1987, he believed indigenous rights needed continuing protection and that in the Chaudhry government's 12 months in office it had attacked institutions sacred to the indigenous people.
‘Fijians saw them try to erode the Fijian institutions such as the Fijian Affairs Board, Fijian Administration and the Native Lands Trust Board’.
He did not think that by backing the 1997 Constitution he had eroded the gains made by the indigenous people.
‘But the people were disillusioned with my leadership. When they voted last year  they were voting me out. I did not agree with an Indian prime minister, but it was a product of the Constitution. And in 12 months there were 42 bills, 23 aimed at eroding the Fijian institutions. (Fijileaks: Now, same allegations are made against Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and his Bills).
Rabuka: "I supported every move to destabilise the Chaudhry government, but I was not part of the coup. I was not involved in any of the [pre-coup] marches. But I was going to be involved in the next one because it was [to be held at] the time of the signing of the successor to the Lome Convention this month.’
He said the convention, which provided for co-operation between African, Caribbean, Pacific and European states, would have attracted world leaders and drawn attention to the problems of indigenous Fijians. There had been resistance in the 1999 Parliament to the Chaudhry bills which affected indigenous interests and only one of them had gone to the Senate, he said. It would probably have gone to the Great Council of Chiefs for an opinion, and on that occasion the 1997 Constitution would probably have been tested as well. The coup leaders had jumped the gun by invading the parliamentary complex on May 19, he said. But had the 23 pieces of legislation gone through the process and become law, the political power of the Indo-Fijian MPs would have been well established.
Rabuka said he did not think he was being racist. ‘I believe the best interests of the indigenous people can only be served when there is a very strong Fijian economy, of which the Indians are a very strong part. I believe we can still maintain political control if we [as indigenous Fijians] do not split.’
Rabuka said he had known Speight and had played golf with him and knew of his commitment to indigenous rights. However, he did not agree that Speight represented the ‘soul’ or the ‘voice’ of the indigenous people, or Taukei. ‘Why should he consider himself the voice of the Taukei? His grandfather was a European. The military has only [negotiated with] Speight because of the security of the hostages. He has no legal claim. I don't have any moral stance on whether his actions are right or wrong. I cannot say anything about that because I was in the coup in 1987. I am giving my opinions as a private citizen.’
But Speight ‘has lost the plot and right now he is trying to hang onto every little straw that floats by. He is living in a bubble, and very soon that bubble will burst’.
RABUKA ON THE MUANIKAU ACCORD:
The military has only [negotiated with] Speight because of the security of the hostages. He has no legal claim.
Fijileaks has decided to conceal the identity of the Fiji High Court Judge, delegated with ruling on the question of Amnesty in the
Muanikau Accord, signed between Bainimarama and Speight on Sunday, 9 July 2000 at Muanikau, Suva
While this couple and thousands of descendants of Girmitiyas tried to once again rebuild their lives following the 2000 coup, the deposed Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry became a DOUBLE-DIGIT MILLIONAIRE. The Indian Government secretly funnelled $2million into his Sydney bank account, which he later claimed before the Fiji High Court was for him and his FAMILY to relocate to Australia. Today, Chaudhry, Rabuka and Bainimarama are fighting for the political spoils while George Speight and his comrades are languishing behind the prison bars. COUPS, if they succeed, really PAYS in Fiji
KNEECAPPED: PAP leader Sitiveni Rabuka says his general secretary Sakiasi DITOKA got it wrong. 'I didn't go to meet Indian defence team, or to address NGOs but to get medical update on my 2006 knee-operations'
Statutory Declaration: On the events of 5 December 2006 by Sakiasi Ditoka. A statutory declaration by Sakiasi Ditoka, who was the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister of Fiji from 2002 to 2006, on the early days of the military coup of 5 December, 2006. Witnessed by Daiana Buresova (Ms), Barrister & Solicitor, High Court of Fiji, Commissioner of Oaths. Fijileaks: For too many years, we helped these TRAITORS, from Ditoka to NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD, only to wake up and discover that they have betrayed us, especially by jumping into bed with Sitiveni Rabuka. Its time to hold them to account. Meanwhile, the India TRIP:
DITOKA is another former military man who had been groomed by Rabuka and was Laisenia Qarase's Private Secretary before the 2006 Coup. It is pretty possible PAP leader kept the reason for his trip to India SECRET from DITOKA (suspected of being a SODELPA mole in PAP) or DITOKA (on Rabuka's instructions) brazenly lied to the country. We wonder if Rabuka's political coalition wife, BIMAN PRASAD, knew Sitiveni Rabuka's reason for the India trip?
NO UNIFORM NARRATIVE:
This man has never been consistent with TRUTH. Like the confusion over the India trip, Rabuka refuses to clarify which of his two statements is true or false. He and his witnesses told his INCITING MUTINY trial in 2006 that he did NOT have his UNIFORM with him when he entered RFMF at the height of the bloody mutiny raging at the camp.
IS THIS THE ARMY UNIFORM HE WAS WEARING A DAY BEFORE THE BLOODY 2 NOVEMBER
"I have offered to be a WITNESS if necessary where a Policeman is seen beating up a bus driver," Lenora Qereqeretabua. We suggest Policeman Apologize to Driver just like NFP claims Rabuka has apologized for 1987
BEATING IS BEATING: Qereqeretabua and her leader Biman PRASAD has signed a girmit with COUPIST RABUKA to form a coalition government. He should have been charged with Treason, Kidnapping, Hostage-Taking, Crime Against Humanity (Disenfranchising Indo-Fijians), Rape, Torture, Assault, and Sacrilege (burning and looting of Hindu temples, Mosques, Gurudwara, and a host of other crimes in 1987. We are told the criminal has apologised on many occasions. No, he is hiding behind Immunity. NFP can't have one law for Rabuka and another for the Policeman.
Let us not forget that Rabuka was a serving military officer when he overthrew a democratically elected government and went on to rape, beat, and torture half of the population. We call on the Policeman to apologize to his VICTIM, and just like Rabuka, carry on as a Policeman.
Sitiveni Rabuka had carried on as Commander, RFMF after two coups