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.

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

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

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.