*The current coalition government appears to be recklessly advancing the Indigenous Rights Bill on the erroneous assumption that key elements within the RFMF, invoking matanigasau as a basis for restraint, will refrain from publicly opposing it, notwithstanding their strong and well-documented resistance to the previous Qoliqoli Bill that helped trigger the 5 December 2006 coup.
*The Qoliqoli Bill was never passed. Instead, it became the obituary of the Laisenia Qarase government.
 |  |
*Many observers have long argued that Bainimarama's opposition to the Qoliqoli Bill was not merely principled concern for national sovereignty, but a calculated shield at the moment when he faced imminent sedition charges and unresolved allegations over his alleged complicity in the killing of CRW soldiers after the 2000 mutiny. |  |
*Yet whatever his private motive, and those of his senior military officers, the Qoliqoli Bill arrived as the perfect public pretext, a sweeping, polarising piece of legislation that allowed Bainimarama and his loyal military officers to cloak self-preservation in the language of national rescue. It gave him the ideal opportunity to intervene, topple the Qarase government, and reframe a personal crisis as a constitutional crusade.
*As for the 2006 coup itself, I remain determined to complete the book that has suffered a deep setback following the passing of my co-author, and former Fiji Sun publisher, the late Russell Hunter, who had chosen the title of the book as, TREASON IN PARADISE: The Inside Story of Fiji's 5 December 2006 Coup.
*The book, which includes a dedicated chapter on Qarase's Qoliqoli Bill, Reconciliation Bill, and the Indigenous Claims Tribunal Bill, is based on hundreds of hours of interviews with key players, politicians, diplomats, as well as highly confidential government, military, police, and diplomatic documents, including incriminating materials that were passed to us by the late Andrew Hughes, the former Fiji Commissioner of Police.
*To provide context for the 2006 coup, we also incorporated chapters and new material on the 1987 and 2000 coups.
*The so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission is, therefore, an absolute farce, a pointless drain on Fijian taxpayers' money, and it should be shut down immediately.
*In Fiji, TRUTH is a ghost, invoked, feared, and buried whenever it threatens the powerful. Truth is a ghostly apparition
THE BILL THAT BROKE FIJI: HOW THE QOLIQOLI BILL LIT THE FUSE FOR BAINIMARAMA’S 5 DECEMBER COUP
The Qoliqoli Bill 2006 (Bill No. 12 of 2006) proposed a sweeping transfer of proprietary ownership of all qoliqoli areas - seabeds, reefs, rivers, mangroves, wetlands and foreshore areas - from the State to the customary qoliqoli owners, with the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB, now ITaukei Land Trust Board, TLTB) administering the new property regime.
Key features of the Bill included:
In short, the Bill represented the most radical restructuring of land and resource ownership since independence.
Why the Bill Became the Flashpoint of 2006
The Qoliqoli Bill was the third core element of the Qarase government’s “Tripod Package” (alongside the Reconciliation Bill and Indigenous Claims Tribunal Bill). It was the element that:
From the RFMF’s viewpoint, the Qoliqoli Bill was not merely a policy mistake. It was a structural transfer of sovereign authority away from the State, executed without safeguards, without clarity, and without national consensus.
The military publicly argued that the Bill:
Whether these claims were right or wrong is secondary. What mattered was that the Bill became the RFMF’s constitutional justification for intervention.
Key features of the Bill included:
- Automatic vesting of ownership in qoliqoli owners by operation of law (Clause 4).
- Exclusive possession of qoliqoli areas by owners (Clause 6), subject to limited public access rights (Clause 7).
- A powerful Qoliqoli Commission with licensing, enforcement, search, seizure, arrest and regulatory authority (Clauses 10–20, 29–46).
- Commercial fishing and tourism operations criminalised without Commission licences, with penalties reaching $100,000 and 10 years imprisonment (Clause 16, 37).
- Creation of qoliqoli trust funds for all revenue streams (Part 5).
- Amendments to State Lands Act and Fisheries Act, stripping State control previously exercised over foreshore and marine resources (Clause 58).
In short, the Bill represented the most radical restructuring of land and resource ownership since independence.
Why the Bill Became the Flashpoint of 2006
The Qoliqoli Bill was the third core element of the Qarase government’s “Tripod Package” (alongside the Reconciliation Bill and Indigenous Claims Tribunal Bill). It was the element that:
- Shifted public resources into exclusive ethnic ownership, affecting hotels, tourism operators, fisheries enterprises and foreign investors.
- Threatened national economic stability, with resort owners openly warning of mass closures.
- Convinced the RFMF that Qarase intended to dismantle the State’s authority, replacing it with ethnically-defined customary power, an existential challenge to the military’s self-assigned role as “guardian of national security”.
From the RFMF’s viewpoint, the Qoliqoli Bill was not merely a policy mistake. It was a structural transfer of sovereign authority away from the State, executed without safeguards, without clarity, and without national consensus.
The military publicly argued that the Bill:
- Undermined equal citizen access to national resources,
- Threatened investor confidence,
- Compromised national security, because ownership of waterways and foreshore impacts maritime operations and coastal defence.
Whether these claims were right or wrong is secondary. What mattered was that the Bill became the RFMF’s constitutional justification for intervention.
The Chiefs Feast And the Commoners Scramble For Leftovers: How the Qoliqoli Bill Was Designed to Feed the Chiefs And Starve The Commoners
| Let’s cut through the political deception. The Qoliqoli Bill was never designed to uplift the ordinary iTaukei. It was engineered to ensure that chiefs, already protected by colonial-era structures and the Native Land Act (1961), remained the first in line for every dollar earned from ancestral land and coastal resources. |  |
Under the distribution formula attached to the Qoliqoli Bill:
And in many iTaukei communities, one chief holds all three titles, meaning he personally pockets 30% of the payout, on top of TLTB’s cut.
Now let’s apply that to a $350,000 payout, the kind of figure politicians used to parade as “transformative wealth” for indigenous people.
The ugly truth:
That already removes $192,500 before a single cent reaches the people who actually depend on the land and sea for survival.
What remains for the ordinary iTaukei? $157,500, the so-called “people’s share.”
Now divide that among a typical clan of 100 members:
Each commoner receives: $1,575.00
That’s it.
Not even two weeks’ wage in many urban jobs.
A one-off payment that cannot start a small business, cannot lift a family out of poverty, and certainly cannot sustain a life.
Meanwhile, a single chief walks away $105,000 richer, plus the untouchable TLTB siphons off the biggest cut second only to him.
This was the economic reality the Qoliqoli Bill quietly concealed behind political slogans:
And as long as the colonial land-distribution architecture remains intact, where chiefs are structurally favoured and the masses structurally sidelined, no bill, no payout, and no “empowerment initiative” will ever deliver true economic independence to the ordinary iTaukei commoners.
- 25% automatically was to go to TLTB,
- 5% to the village chief,
- 15% to the clan chief,
- 10% to the tribe chief.
And in many iTaukei communities, one chief holds all three titles, meaning he personally pockets 30% of the payout, on top of TLTB’s cut.
Now let’s apply that to a $350,000 payout, the kind of figure politicians used to parade as “transformative wealth” for indigenous people.
The ugly truth:
- TLTB grabs its 25%:
- $87,500 gone instantly.
- The chief (if holding all three titles) takes 30%: $105,000 straight into one man’s pocket.
That already removes $192,500 before a single cent reaches the people who actually depend on the land and sea for survival.
What remains for the ordinary iTaukei? $157,500, the so-called “people’s share.”
Now divide that among a typical clan of 100 members:
Each commoner receives: $1,575.00
That’s it.
Not even two weeks’ wage in many urban jobs.
A one-off payment that cannot start a small business, cannot lift a family out of poverty, and certainly cannot sustain a life.
Meanwhile, a single chief walks away $105,000 richer, plus the untouchable TLTB siphons off the biggest cut second only to him.
This was the economic reality the Qoliqoli Bill quietly concealed behind political slogans:
And as long as the colonial land-distribution architecture remains intact, where chiefs are structurally favoured and the masses structurally sidelined, no bill, no payout, and no “empowerment initiative” will ever deliver true economic independence to the ordinary iTaukei commoners.
Isireli Fa, in 2025 The Fiji Law Society says the government's Qoliqoli Bill, which is at the centre of its impasse with the military, is unconstitutional.
The chairman of the society's Qoliqoli Bill sub-committee, Suva lawyer Isireli Fa, has given this assessment in a submission to the parliamentary sub-committee hearing public views on the Bill.
The society says it opposes the Bill on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, it infringes the Native Lands Trust Act and it has the potential to create conflict among the Qoliqoli owners.
It says the Bill does not state why it is necessary to transfer the ownership of Qoliqoli areas from the state and it is necessary to examine the facts and the law surrounding this issue.
The Law Society says the objectives of the Bill are misconceived and flawed.
It says by transferring to the landowners the Qoliqoli right as defined in the Bill, the state will in fact be transferring to them the state's rights of sovereignty within these areas.
The Law Society says the effect of this would be that the Qoliqoli could become autonomous areas where the owners of the Qoliqoli could implement their own rules outside the regulation and control of the state.
As well, the society says the transfer of Qoliqoli areas to owners over and above their customary rights to a preference on the grounds of ethnicity and race amounts to discrimination. Source: Radio New Zealand International, 2 November 2006
NEXT INSTALMENT: Qoliqoli Bill Number 2: Coalition government Revives Customary Control of Marine Areas with New Commercial Use of Marine Areas Bill 2025.
The chairman of the society's Qoliqoli Bill sub-committee, Suva lawyer Isireli Fa, has given this assessment in a submission to the parliamentary sub-committee hearing public views on the Bill.
The society says it opposes the Bill on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, it infringes the Native Lands Trust Act and it has the potential to create conflict among the Qoliqoli owners.
It says the Bill does not state why it is necessary to transfer the ownership of Qoliqoli areas from the state and it is necessary to examine the facts and the law surrounding this issue.
The Law Society says the objectives of the Bill are misconceived and flawed.
It says by transferring to the landowners the Qoliqoli right as defined in the Bill, the state will in fact be transferring to them the state's rights of sovereignty within these areas.
The Law Society says the effect of this would be that the Qoliqoli could become autonomous areas where the owners of the Qoliqoli could implement their own rules outside the regulation and control of the state.
As well, the society says the transfer of Qoliqoli areas to owners over and above their customary rights to a preference on the grounds of ethnicity and race amounts to discrimination. Source: Radio New Zealand International, 2 November 2006
NEXT INSTALMENT: Qoliqoli Bill Number 2: Coalition government Revives Customary Control of Marine Areas with New Commercial Use of Marine Areas Bill 2025.
