Blog Archives

Thakombau: “The interlacing has come. Fijians as a nation are of an unstable character, and a white man who wishes to get anything out of a Fijian, if he does not succeed in his object today, will try again tomorrow'

29/9/2015

“Any Fijian Chief who refuses to cede cannot have much wisdom…If matters remain as they are, Fiji will become like a piece of drift-wood on the sea, and be picked up by the first passer by…By annexation the two races, white and black, will be bound together, and it will be impossible to sever them.” - Chief Thakombau

Sir Hercules Robinson’s note to Lord Carnarvon: “That day was occupied in receiving and paying visits of ceremony, and on the morning of the 2nd, Thakombau brought Maafu, the Chief of Lau, and Tui Thakau, the Chief of Thakaundrove, on board the Pearl, where the Deed of Cession was fully explained to and executed by them. I am now on my way to Ritova, the Chief of Mathuata in Vanua Levu, and propose, when I have received his assent to the cession, to return to Levuka, where I hope to find assembled the few remaining chiefs whose signatures it is desirable to obtain. Practically, however, with Thakombau’s, Maafu’s, and Tui Thakau’s unconditional tender of cession, the question may be disposed of. When the chiefs have all executed the deed, I shall formally accept the country in the Queen’s name, and assume the administration of Government."

The Deed of Cession: A Historical Snapshot,

Part One of the three part series by
VICTOR LAL in the Fiji Sun, 2008

A Fijian language explanation of the Deed of Cession of 1874, recently found in Levuka, has once again excited our interest and imagination in the historical document, especially at a time when the traditional authority of the chiefs, their traditional institutions, and their land rights, are being trampled upon through the agency of a military coup, and supported by a few pro-coup taukei chiefs, and unelected politicians.

How did the chiefs come to cede the country to Great Britain on 10 October 1874? Which chiefs affixed their signatures to the historical deed? What was ceded to Queen Victoria of England and the Empress of India? It should be pointed out that the offer of cession was made as far back as 1859 but I will confine myself to the last few months leading up to the cession.

The article is written primarily for the general reader because the research findings of academics (including my own work), who have worked on the historical documents in the National Archives in Fiji and the Public Records Office in London, are seldom available to the general public.

Here I will give a fragmentary historical snapshot from the documents. I have also decided to retain the original names of all those involved in the cession as it appeared in the documents and also of the places, to give the narrative a sense of history and immediacy.

On 15 July 1874, the Earl of Carnarvon (Lord Carnarvon), the British minister responsible for the colonies, informed Sir Hercules Robinson, the governor of New South Wales in Australia, that the British government had determined that it was necessary to decline the acceptance of the cession of Fiji on the conditions appended, with the signature of Mr Thurston, to the Commissioner’s Report, but would recommend Queen Victoria to accept it on the general understanding, namely, that the chiefs, withdrawing all conditions, would trust to the generosity and justice of Her Majesty - the Queen of England.

Sir Hercules was invested with authority to act alone on the question of annexation. In telegrams dated the 15th, 16th, and 17th August, Sir Hercules replied to Lord Carnarvon and asked, first, whether, in the event of an unconditional cession being made, he had the authority to act as he did in the case of Kowlun, near Hong Kong, i.e., to accept the cession in the Queen’s name, and make the best available temporary arrangements for the establishment of a provisional government, pending the issue of an Order in Council prescribing a form of constitution and providing for legislation

He next inquired what was to follow in the event of the chiefs declining to make an unconditional offer, as the existing temporary arrangement under which order was maintained by the Consuls supported by men of war could not continue. On 25 August, Lord Carnarvon telegraphed to Sir Hercules that he was at liberty to accent the cession of Fiji if it should be unconditional or virtually unconditional, and to make arrangements for a temporary government.

Sir Hercules telegraphed on 6 September that he now only awaited Mr Parkes, the NSW Premier’s return to Sydney, and expected to start for Fiji in the Pearl on Saturday 12 September, which he did, and after a passage of eleven days, including a stopover of 24 hours at Norfolk Island, he arrived in Levuka harbour on the afternoon of 23 September.

Sir Hercules at once learnt that the general feeling amongst the white settlers, and also amongst some of the natives, in favour of annexation, was less strong than it had been in consequence of the recent debate in the British House of Lords upon Fiji, a report of which had been received at Levuka before his arrival. Persons whose interests were adverse, Sir Hercules told Lord Carnarvon, to the establishment of good government had taken advantage of expressions in Lord Carnarvon’s speech as to the Crown right of pre-emption in all lands, and as regards the “severe” form of government which would have to be adopted in the event of annexation, to excite distrust in the minds of both Europeans and natives on these subjects.

The wildest reports, Sir Hercules claimed, were circulated. All private lands were to be confiscated, and Fiji was to be a penal settlement. Already 300 marines had left Portsmouth to garrison the place and coerce the inhabitants! Sir Hercules merely mentioned these absurd rumours as their prevalence obliged him, in his subsequent negotiations, to correct as far as he could such “mischievous misrepresentation”.

Upon the day after his arrival, Sir Hercules paid a formal visit to King Thakombau and four other principal ruling chiefs, who had come to Levuka to meet him. Sir Hercules annexed an extract from the Fiji Times of 26 September 1874 giving an account of this interview, during which no business was transacted; but he informed King Thakombau that whatever he (the King) felt inclined to enter upon business, he (Sir Hercules) would explain to the King frankly and fully the object of his visit.

On 25 September, Thakombau went to see Sir Hercules by appointment on board the ship Dido (the Pearl being engaged in coaling) and they then discussed unreservedly the question of annexation in all its bearings. Sir Hercules placed clearly before Thakombau the views of the British government. At first, according to Sir Hercules, Thakombau seemed much depressed and reserved, but before the close of the interview, which lasted for more than two hours, he became cheerful and communicative, illustrating the opinions which he expressed with much force and humour, and in a manner which showed clearly that he perfectly apprehended the points under discussion.

At the commencement of the interview, according to Sir Hercules, Thakombau said he would take time to think of his position, and would consult with other chiefs as to what was best to be done; but towards the close he expressed himself strongly in favour of an unconditional cession of Fiji to Queen Victoria, observing that, “any Fijian Chief who refuses to cede cannot have much wisdom…If matters remain as they are, Fiji will become like a piece of drift-wood on the sea, and be picked up by the first passer by…By annexation the two races, white and black, will be bound together, and it will be impossible to sever them.”

Thakombau ended as follows: “The interlacing has come. Fijians as a nation are of an unstable character, and a white man who wishes to get anything out of a Fijian, if he does not succeed in his object today, will try again tomorrow, until the Fijian is either wearied out or over persuaded, and gives in. But law will bind us together, and the stronger nation will lend stability to the weaker.” The result of the interview was, Sir Hercules concluded, on the whole, entirely satisfactory, and the views expressed by Thakombau displayed “so much intelligence and unselfishness that I am sure your Lordship will feel interested in perusing a full report of the conversation”.

On 28 September it was intimated to Sir Hercules a message from Thakombau that, after two days’ discussion in Council, he and the other chiefs then present in Levuka had agreed to the following resolution: “We give Fiji unreservedly to the Queen of Britain, that she may rule us justly and affectionately, and that we may live in peace and prosperity.”

Sir Hercules then forwarded to Thakombau a draft of the Deed of Cession which he (Sir Hercules) had prepared, and stated that, when it had been interpreted and fully explained to the chiefs, Sir Hercules would be prepared to accept the signatures of such of them as were in Levuka, and on its execution by the remainder of the ruling authorities Sir Hercules would formally accept the cession, and establish a provisional government until the Queen’s pleasure as to the future constitution of the islands could be known.

The following day, the 29 September, was devoted by the chiefs to the consideration of the Deed of Cession, and in the evening it was intimated to Sir Hercules that Thakombau and chiefs would be prepared to sign at Nasova, the public offices of Levuka, on the morning of the 30 September.

Sir Hercules accordingly proceeded to Nasova at 10 o’clock on the morning of the 30th, when Thakombau read and handed to Sir Hercules the formal resolution of the Council giving Fiji “unreservedly to the Queen”. The Deed of Cession was then read in Fijian, and the instrument executed by Thakombau and the four other ruling chiefs who were present.

Sir Hercules then invited Thakombau to accompany him on a tour of the islands to obtain the signature of Maafu and of other chiefs not then in Levuka, whose assent was necessary to the validity of the cession. This Thakombau at once cheerfully agreed to, and they left Levuka the same afternoon in the ships Pearl and Dido for Lomaloma, Maafu’s capital, at which place they arrived on the morning of 1 October.

According to Sir Hercules’ note to Lord Carnarvon: “That day was occupied in receiving and paying visits of ceremony, and on the morning of the 2nd, Thakombau brought Maafu, the Chief of Lau, and Tui Thakau, the Chief of Thakaundrove, on board the Pearl, where the Deed of Cession was fully explained to and executed by them. I am now on my way to Ritova, the Chief of Mathuata in Vanua Levu, and propose, when I have received his assent to the cession, to return to Levuka, where I hope to find assembled the few remaining chiefs whose signatures it is desirable to obtain. Practically, however, with Thakombau’s, Maafu’s, and Tui Thakau’s unconditional tender of cession, the question may be disposed of. When the chiefs have all executed the deed, I shall formally accept the country in the Queen’s name, and assume the administration of Government.”

There was one clause in the Deed of Cession upon which Sir Hercules thought it as well to make a few explanatory observations, and that referred to Clause 4, which dealt with the land in Fiji.

9 Comments

DEMOCRACY and Separate State: Radrodro: 'We [of Naitasiri] remember like yesterday, the experiences our people were made to go through in 2000 by [political manipulators] who remain ambiguous to us to this day

27/9/2015

18 Comments

For Your Diary: Fijileaks will not be updated between 29 September - 2 October

HON ASERI M RADRODRO

RESPONSE TO PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH FOR OPENING OF 2016 PARLIAMENTARY SESSION
(Thursday 24th September, 2015).

SALUTATION
Madam Speaker,
The Honorable Prime Minister
The Honorable Leader of the Opposition,
Honorable Cabinet Ministers
Fellow Honorable Members of Parliament.

I rise to make my contribution to his Excellency the President’s opening address delivered last week in this August House.

From the outset, I must state that I experienced a mixture of feelings as I listened to his Excellency’s address!
EXPIRY OF PRESIDENT’S TERM IN OFFICE

Nevertheless, I now wish to speak briefly on the last part of it.
Madam Speaker, all good things come to an end.

His Excellency has acknowledged his term as President of the Republic of Fiji Islands will end in November of this year, 6 years after he took office. I take this time to thank His Excellency, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau for his leadership to Fiji. The work could not have been easy. He would be aware Madam Speaker, of the great expectations the people of this Nation had of his services and leadership. He no doubt would also be aware, that at times, he was questioned on some of the decisions he took, or the silence he adopted, during certain times when many expected him to take a position, on matters that had a significant impact on people’s lives.
I am a great believer in the human spirit and in acknowledging that as humans, we will not always have the right answers for everything. I wish you well Sir, and pray you enjoy your twilight years, in whatever capacity you will play God willing.

Vinaka Saka vakalevu.

DEMOCRACY/ SEPARATE STATE

Madam Speaker, His Excellency took great pains to inform this house of our new found Democracy, and why it needs to be protected.

On that, I will quote from Subha Wijesiriwardena.

She is from Colombo, Sri Lanka, is a recognized blogger and a regular contributor to online discourse about Sri Lankan politics.

She made the following comments about democracy following the recent change of leadership in Shri Lanka in January of this year after a decade of authoritarian leadership by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. And I quote,

“Democracy is not just a system, a structure; it is also a feeling. It is a feeling within each one of us; a desire to be led by the things we believe in; and the people we see those things in. It is a desire to stand up, to feel powerful in our own way, to wield that power in the face of despair and frustration. It is a feeling that inspires other feelings; it gives us courage, it gives us hope. It allows for Army officials- men who have made their entire careers out of respecting rank and taking orders- to say ‘No, ’ when they are asked to deploy their troops to help a desperate and frightened man stay in power; best of all: that they say ‘NO’ with pride, that we all say ‘NO’ with pride”.

Madam Speaker I will now turn my attention to the issue of sedition or the setting up of alternative States. I noted his Excellency’s address spent a considerable time on this subject. I am of the view that any right minded, Honorable Member of this House, will take for granted the firm denouncing of any seditious acts against the ruling of any elected government. Personally, I have and will always denounce the illegal attempts by anyone whether military or civilian, for the overthrow of an elected government, for whatever purpose or argument.
I, hold the firm view, that should we the people find discontent with any ruling government, we must exercise fairness in respect of the People’s majority will, and await Elections, to express our implicit desire for the government we wish to have.

Recently, at an event for Naitasiri High School where, I spoke to my fellow kinsmen to respect and abide by the rule of Law and cautioned against negative political agitation as the mechanism of democracy has been undertaken; and that due recognition and respect is accorded to the government elected by the people.
It is the fair thing to do! Besides, when we the Opposition will become the government of the day; I would expect nothing less than the same respect and call, to be made by our fellow Honorable Members on the other side of this August House.

I reiterate that call today.

We the people of Naitasiri remember like yesterday, the experiences our people were made to go through at Kalabu and at the Tikina of Nabobuco in 2000, as a result of the political manipulation of some people, who remain ambiguous to us to this day.

Some of our people served time for their part in those events, temporarily losing their freedom.

Some nurture scars emanating from the beatings received at the hands of soldiers and the Police, sent in to disperse the groupings and bring to judgment those that it needed to.

I remain outraged with the treatment they received at the time; however, I also believe the actions of our people could have been better.

“Sa rauta na vakayagataki!”

On that note Madam Speaker I conclude by relaying the famous words of ‘Martin Niemoller’, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

He uttered these words as a result of the lack of resistance to the Nazi ordeal, which the world ignored for some considerable time, before it finally acted.

And I quote, “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me” (Unquote)

The question, for Us will then be;

“In our democracy, what are we willing to sacrifice in order to achieve development?”
I look forward to this question being answered, as we approach 2016 Budget announcement.

Thank you and Vinaka Vakalevu.

Read Full Speech

From Fiji's Daily Post archive, October 2000

The Doctrine of Necessity Revisited: George Speight and the Immunity Decree
By VICTOR LAL

One of the world’s leading international authorities on the subject, Professor J.W. Harris of the University of Oxford, in his book entitled Legal Philosophies, has the following imaginary conversation, which takes place at the office of Kelsen Tours Ltd. On page 64 of the book, Professor Harris writes: (The following exchange takes place at the office of a travel agent soon after the democratic government of a holiday island country has been ousted by a military coup whose leaders have promulgated a constitution and effectively taken over all aspects of government.)

Traveller: Are you saying that I ought to pay the new airport tax on arrival?
Agent: That’s the new regulation.
Traveller: Yes, I know that. But do you mean that I ought to pay?
Agent: Well, they won’t let you through unless….
Traveller: I am not asking you for predictions. Ought I to pay?
Agent: Morally, of course not, given the undemocratic and unjust nature of the regime…
Traveller: I am not interested in your subjective political opinions. Answer my question.
Agent: On the assumption that they were entitled to launch the coup and promulgate their constitution, you ought to pay.

Professor Harris [my former law tutor in Jurisprudence] told me that the above-mentioned exchanges in the office of Kelsen Tours Ltd related to Sitiveni Rabuka’s 1987 coups. He said he was updating his book when there was a change of regime in Fiji.

We thought that one way to test the Doctrine of Necessity in the May 2000 crisis was for us to come up with an alternative imaginary situation, which involved an equally important institution of the State and its actors.

Hence, I came up with the following scenario involving the Judges in the imaginary Fantasy Islands.

‘Criminals hold Chief Justice, Lawmen Hostage-Demand total control of Justice System’

The following imaginary headline is reported by one of Fantasy Island’s leading radio stations, The Coconut Voice, on 17th May 2000. The story goes as follows.

Reporter: A group of criminals, led by one self-styled Mussolini Spite, burst into the Palace of Justice at 10 a.m. this morning and are holding five judges hostages. They are also holding the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Fantasy Islands as hostages. They dragged the two from their chambers to join the judges.
Editor: Why?
Reporter: The hostage takers do not like the sentences that were passed on their fellow criminals, and the way the criminal justice system is run on Fantasy Islands.
Editor: But why? They committed serious offences and were punished according to the law of the land. The judges who punished them had been appointed under the 2000 Constitution of Fantasy Islands.
Reporter: Yes. But the hostage takers no longer believe in the law of the land or what the lawyers and judges call the rule of law. They have no faith in the judges to deliver justice. They also argue that they had no hand in the drafting or promulgation of the Constitution and the laws of the Fantasy Islands. They want to have their own laws. They want laws that only apply and protect them, and their criminal activities.
Editor: Where is the Chief Justice of Fantasy Islands?
Reporter: They are, in fact, holding him hostage also. They have already punched and kicked him, breaking his ribs. He fainted at one point from the beatings at the hands of these criminals. They are threatening to shoot him if their demands are not met. They say that the prisoners, their relatives, and sympathisers in several parts of Fiji, will riot and burn the prisons, police stations, and courthouses down if their demands are not met.
Editor: Jesus! Do you think we should starve them off the oxygen of publicity before things go out of control?
Reporter: Its up to you. But even the international press have arrived on the scene. In fact, they have already begun interviewing Spite. He has asked me to join the press corp. Christ!
Editor: What?
Reporter: Spite tells me that several prisoners and their sympathisers have already begun rioting in the prisons, and the areas from which these hostage-takers come from. He also tells me that inmates from Tiboro Prison have overpowered the prison guards and are heading towards the Palace of Justice to swell and strengthen their numbers. Their relatives and sympathisers have joined them. They are even bringing pigs, cows, and God knows what, with them in prison trucks. They are prepared to sit it out until their demands are met?
Editor: Jesus? Where are the policemen? They are normally around the Palace of Justice.
Reporter: Can you believe it, some have been withdrawn from the premises? Others have in fact crossed over to Spite. One told me that although he is a lawman, he thinks Spite has genuine grievances. The laws must be changed. In fact, he says that he is related to Spite. He can’t let him or his comrades down.
Editor: Where is the Police Chief? I phoned the police station but nobody knows his whereabouts.
Reporter: One loyal policeman who had defied the hostage-takers and tried to stop convicted criminals from entering the Palace of Justice, and was just now punched and kicked outside the Palace of Justice, tells me that even senior police officers do not know his whereabouts.

On 29 May 2000, the Prime Minister of Fantasy Islands finally steps in, handing the control of the Palace of Justice and the prisons around the affected areas, and the country, to the military high command. The military, in turn, declare martial law throughout the country. We continue the drama with The Coconut Voice radio.

Editor: Can you tell us, what is happening?
Reporter: The military have made it clear that they will not storm the Palace of Justice because of the fear of the loss of lives. They have, however, opened negotiations with the hostage-takers, with the hope of securing the safe release of the Chief Justice, his four brother judges, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, so that they can return to their rightful jobs of administering justice in this country under the 2000 Constitution.
Editor: Return to their respective jobs? I thought the hostage-takers are blaming these Judges, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, for all their suffering and punishment. Do they want a complete overhaul of the judiciary?
Reporter: Well, well, it might be possible according to Spite. Christ!
Editor: What now?
Reporter: Oh, Spite has just got into a police van. I am told he needs some fresh air. Also, he wants to take a tour of KuaKua. He wants to see for himself the so-called damage the escaped prisoners have caused to the city on their way to the Palace of Justice. In fact, it is a carnival atmosphere here but with menacing consequences.
Editor: Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ!
Reporter: What happened, what, eh, what?
Editor: Some of Spite’s men are here. They are wrecking our radio station. I must run. They did not like your interview with the brutally bashed and loyal policeman.
The Coconut Voice radio is back on the air. The drama continues
Editor: Hello! Are you there? We are back on the air?
Reporter: Back! Spite is also back from his tour of the city.
Reporter: Mr Spite, Sir, would you kindly grant us an interview.
Spite: Sure, sure. I love the Press and the Press loves me.
Reporter: What are your demands?
Spite: I want to become the new Chief Justice of Fantasy Islands, and some of my comrades who have a wealth of experience in the criminal underworld in this country to replace the four judges. We also want one of our men to become Controller of Prisons. We also want one of our men to be the new Attorney-General. As you know, the A-G is a political appointee. He represents the Government of the day.

We also want one of our highly experienced comrades to become the Director of Public Prosecutions, so that he could concentrate on the public offenders, as the titled suggests, and leave our comrades alone to continue with their habits and pursuits. We do not want non-criminals to tell us how we should run our lives; who we should or should not choose as our victims. Non-criminals do not understand our needs and our desires or our criminal lifestyles. They have no right to legislate or punish us. Our demands are being fully supported by the National Council of Ex-Prisoners Association.

Reporter: Are you mad? The Chief Justice, his brother judges, and the other two lawmen, were appointed under the 2000 Constitution of Fantasy Islands. They have the support of the vast majority of the law-abiding peoples of this country. They are under oath to uphold the rule of law on the islands.
Spite: If you ever call me mad, you are dead, understand? We will throw you in our prison dungeon.
Reporter: Sorry, your honour. Please can you answer my question!
Spite: Good!. I just surveyed the ruins in KuaKua. My men had been so frustrated for years because they could not help themselves to what they liked under our current system of the rule of law. Today they finally had the chance to practice their professional arts, and even operate some of the video cameras, which had been set up to spy on their legitimate activities. We also proved to the police and the nation that it is we who dictate the rule of the game i.e. rule of law.
Reporter: Your honour! When will the hostages be released?
Spite: In fact, we have come to an agreement. We have been granted amnesty provided we fulfil certain conditions. The Chief Justice, the four judges, and the A-G and DPP, will be freed tomorrow, after 56 days as our guests. We know each other better now. They now understand our demands and our needs to take control of our own lives. We have got what we wanted. One of the deals is that we return all the prison keys so that when we return to our prisons for a good nights sleep, we can sleep in comfort and style. We had shut behind us all the prison gates, the cells, and even some prison guards as we headed to take part in this historic festival for 56 days. It had been a long and hard celebration but as you can see, we have finally triumphed in our demands.

The Chief Justice and his fellow captives are finally released after 56 days. The hostage-takers hug and kiss their captives a warm good-bye. The prisoners give a three cheers salute to their leader, Mussolini Spite, and his comrades who led the initial attack on the Palace of Justice. We pick up the aftermath with The Coconut Voice radio.

Editor: Are you there?
Reporter: Yes.
Editor: I just heard that Spite has been arrested by the military. Can you go and find out more. We will remain on the air.
Reporter: Yes. The military has just confirmed that Spite has been arrested. Also arrested with him were other key hostage-takers.
Editor: For what?
Reporter: Travelling in stolen prison trucks, being in possession of stolen pigs from Her Majesty’s prisons, and for not returning the prison keys as stipulated in The Hostage Release and Criminal Justice Accord, which saw the release of the Chief Justice and the other hostages.
Editor: Will Spite be charged?
Reporter: Yes. He has already been charged with kidnap, hostage-taking, theft of State property and other related charges.
Editor: Where are the Chief Justice and his fellow hostages?
Reporter: The Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, and the DPP, have just left the country. They have gone abroad to drum up support from their brother judges and lawyers around the world for their re-instatements, and a demand for the respect and the upholding of the rule of law and the proper and legal functioning of the judiciary in the country. The other judges, who were held as hostages, have returned to their Government quarters and are refusing to vacate their premises.

The Chief Justice, A-G and the DPP returned home to find that they were no longer going to be part of the judiciary, including the freed judges. They had been dismissed under the so-called Doctrine of Necessity. We continue with The Coconut Voice radio.

Editor: Have you managed to get hold of the Chief Justice?
Reporter: Yes. He still insists that he is the Head of the Judiciary, and that his fellow brother judges are still judges of the Bench.
Editor: Who is running the Judiciary?
Reporter: The Prime Minister and the military generals have appointed a team of specialists to run it. They have also appointed a new Attorney-General to assist them.
Editor: Who are the team?
Reporter: I must make it clear that no one from the criminal world, including Spite and the hostage-takers, is on the Bench. The Judiciary is made up of respectable and highly-experienced citizens of the country under the doctrine of necessity. They warn that if the Chief Justice and the other freed hostages are reinstated, more prisoners will riot and burn down the prisons and courthouses throughout the country. There will be anarchy, chaos, and a complete breakdown of law and order. They are taking the threats of some criminals, who have been threatening further uprisings, very seriously.
Editor: What next?
Reporter: The Chief Justice, his freed brother judges, the A-G and the DPP, are mounting a legal challenge against their dismissals. A team of overseas judges will hear the case.
Editor: Exciting times ahead, eh! Thank God. We still, after all, subscribe to the theory, if not in practice, to the rule of law in this country.
Reporter: We hope all those involved in this bitter crisis will respect the judgment. The Chief Justice and the freed hostages claim that they were merely hostages at the hands of a bunch of hardened criminals. Now that they have been released, they want their jobs back.

The new team however claims that they are now effectively in control of the judiciary. The criminals and hostage-takers, they claim, have vanished or have been banished to The Devils Island, and the citizens of the state are freely abiding to the rule of law in the country. The tourists and overseas investors are returning to the islands. The new A-G has just returned from an overseas conference on law and order. He claims that his trip is a testimony that the Government of Apollosia has recognised the new team as legal. Even taxi drivers are paying their fines for minor traffic offences, and market stallholders for violating hygiene regulations.

The new team have however warned that those threatening or questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of their rule, even if it’s a peaceful protest, will be severely dealt with. Some aggrieved citizens and organizations are still fervently supporting the ousted Chief Justice, the freed hostages, and the rule of law concept. They fear that if the new team goes unchallenged, we might be opening the doors for copycat take-over of institutions by some groups who see these institutions and its heads as ‘oppressive’ to their causes. What, one pro-Chief Justice supporter asked me, would stop a group of people from even taking the Prime Minister and his Cabinet hostage, for they don’t like certain government policies?

Editor: By the way, where is the Prime Minister? What is he saying?
Reporter: What I gather from private sources is that the Prime Minister, in order to continue in office, and run the nation albeit under some constraints, had effectively given in to the hostage-takers demands. He, in fact, had a hand in formulating the military’s response to the hostage-crisis. This has just been confirmed by the Prime Minister’s Office.
Editor: We would like to wish the Chief Justice and his fellow freed hostages all the best in the forthcoming court hearing. God Bless our country. A very good night from The Coconut Voice radio staff to all our listeners who shared the Chief Justice and his fellow hostages agony for 56 long days in the first months of the 21st Century.

If only Mussolini Spite had returned the damned prison keys, he would be roaming around in our midst today as a free man: a criminal villain to some no doubt, but a nationalist hero to his comrades, both inside and outside the prisons, for standing up to his version of their rights on Fantasy Islands.

But, as the Greek mythological saying goes, ‘Whom the Gods would destroy, first send them mad’. There is, after all, no substitute for law and order. Justice is meant to be blind. The symbol of a court of justice is a pair of scales held evenly by an important and blind but sagacious woman. Fate has purposely made her blind, in order that she may not judge a person from exterior but from his or her intrinsic worth.

What a pity! Our Mussolini Spite, if he had only returned those damned prison keys, he could have been repeating the immortal words of his counter-part, Joseph Goebbels, one of Nazi Germany’s and Adolf Hitler’s greatest propagandists: ‘This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed’.

After all, the commander of the army is satisfied that those involved in the May uprising at the Palace of Justice were of the perception that the Chief Justice and his fellow judges were watering down their rights, restricting their allegedly legitimate activities, and were duly harsh in meting out punishment. He had to get rid of the lawmen and the Constitution of Fantasy Islands to solve the hostage crisis. He acted under the Doctrine of Necessity.

Mussolini Spite might have also been elevated to the Judicial Bench to keep his criminal comrades at bay and happy. He might have occasionally threatened to unleash his comrades onto the streets if things did not go their way. He would have invoked his own diluted version of the Doctrine of Necessity.

Fijileaks Editor: Professor Harris died in 2004; most of the events in the above exchanges did take place during the 2000 crisis except I had changed the actors and the institutions.

18 Comments

CART before the horse: Land Minister Vuniwaqa confused, misinterprets Bulitavu's claim; he referred to $600,000 fair share of royalty still with Land Ministry - how did State come up with figure without a formula?

27/9/2015

1 Comment

For Your Diary: Fijileaks will not be updated between 29 September - 2 October

From Fijileaks Archive?

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/digging-beneath-the-surface-audit-report-found-aurum-bauxite-mining-didnt-give-fair-share-of-payment-to-landowners-over-extracted-bauxite-in-breach-of-lease-bainimarama-had-gifted-lease-to-aurum

1 Comment

FNU LAW CAMPUS: Lawless bunch also hired (and then fired) SODELPA MP and lawyer Niko Nawaikula, at the directive of higher authorities, from teaching Legal Writing and Administrative Law; Ana Rokomoti accused!

26/9/2015

11 Comments

Fijileaks: Nawaikula was appointed to do these 2 units. But was sacked by Rokomoti just after 2 weeks and she took up the class. Nawaikula didn't even know. He turned up at the class. She took him outside and told him that FNU can not employ him. If that is the case, then why was Nawaikula employed in the first instance?
Full story coming soon!

For Your Diary: Fijileaks will not be updated between 29 September - 2 October

TROUBLESOME CAREER:
ROKOMOTI was sent as a Counselor by Frank Bainimarama to High Commissioner Yogesh Karan in India before she had to be pulled out. And was sacked from there for constant undermining and subversion of Yogesh Karan. She made his life hell until she was caught red-handed. She is a seasoned racist towards Indo-Fijians, some claim. She was allegedly protected by Foreign Minister Inoke Kubuabola.

From Fijileaks Archive:

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/teaching-treason-major-ana-rokomoti-the-former-coup-lawyer-and-decree-enforcer-joins-the-fnu-to-teach-students-there-public-law

11 Comments

CHIEFTAINCY v DEMOCRACY: Fijileaks produces Part Two (with Part One) of Victor Lal's analysis following Speight coup in light of new spat that has engulfed pro and anti SODELPA factions - re Ro Teimumu Kepa

26/9/2015

14 Comments

For Your Diary: Fijileaks will not be updated between 29 September - 2 October

From the Archives

By VICTOR LAL
Fiji's Daily Post,
August 2000

The Fijian Commoners will be imprisoned by George Speight and Chiefs’ escapades: 'One dead, the other powerless to be born'.

The failed businessman turned rebel coup leader, George Speight, might have succeeded in ousting a democratically elected government and escaping criminal charges but in the process he and his henchmen have set back the progress and development of ordinary Fijian commoners.

In their crude racist submission to the Great Council of Chiefs, the group have once again silenced the voices of their ordinary fellowmen who seemed to have been coming out of the shadow of their chiefs. In stripping Mahendra Chaudhry of his political power, the group have, in fact, stripped the ordinary Fijian of his or her power.

For once again, it is the traditional chiefs who are being called upon to decide the fate of the Fijians and non-Fijians alike: the very role they were groomed to perform during Fiji’s turbulent history.

The Circus Showman and Educated Mule

In the old and dusty records of the British Colonial governors experiences, stored in the vaults of Rhodes House, the University of Oxford's library on Colonial and Imperial studies, I found the following letter to the Colonial Office in London from one of the many governors to Fiji, Sir George O' Brien. The letter, written from Government House in Suva, is dated the 14th of December 1897. The subject matter is Britain's policy of governing Fiji through the native chiefs. Governor O'Brien, who successfully argued against the federation of Fiji with New Zealand and Australia, wanted to express his mind on 'native policy' in a few words privately. And he did indeed, in a language which made me cringe on the first reading of his letter.

But first I would like to make a declaration, followed by a qualification, for venturing into such a sensitive subject as chiefly rule in Fiji. I must confess that I hold the Fijian chiefs in high esteem; although having being brought up in Raiwaqa, I had spent a lot of time in rural Tailevu; am the son of a former Indo-Fijian president of the Tailevu North Alliance District Council (I remember campaigning for the re-election of Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, Ratu William Tonganivalu, and Ratu Sir George Cakobau, and visiting the residence of the then Prime Minister and current President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, with my late father in the 1970s), and was among the first pioneer batch of Indo-Fijian students to be educated at the Fijian dominated Ratu Kadavulevu School in Tailevu. Sadly, some of my classmates and former workmates are now in Speight’s self-styled government, most notably Jo Nata, Speight’s media spokesman.

The Governor O’Brien’s Letter

The colonial governor O'Brien begins his letter by informing the Colonial Office that 'the situation in Fiji reminds one of nothing so much as the story of the circus showman & and his educated mule.' He continues the letter in the following vein: ''Ladies & gentlemen'', he (the showman) is reported to have said, ''you see before you a most remarkable animal - an educated mule. I have educated him myself. For the last 15 years I have done nothing but educate him. And the consequence is that I am in the proud position to-night, as I shall presently show you, of being able to make him do anything I like.'' Governor O'Brien continues:

'So with the Fiji Government and the Chiefs. After many years of governing Fiji through the chiefs we are able to make them do anything we like.'

It is not surprising, therefore, that some radical native Fijians have branded the chiefs as 'colonial or bureaucratic chiefs'. Others have accused them of being experts at political manipulation; they are fronts for big-time multi-national companies and commission agents, they promote racial hatred; they thwart every genuine move towards national cohesion and democracy; in short, theirs is, in many senses, a role actually subversive of the unity, progress and stability of this country. They have held back the economic, educational, and political progress of commoner Fijians. The very existence of these traditional rulers is inconsistent with the main goal of our struggles and efforts: building a united country, democracy, and a just, fair and stable political order.

Some claim that the Great Council of Chiefs, based as it is on inheritance, is not only thoroughly undemocratic, but most of those who man it are part of the tiny class of Fijians whose activities are some of the main causes of the country's racial problems. If democracy is to grow and flourish, its roots must be planted in a healthy, vibrant soil, and not on a murky and undemocratic foundation. The radical Fijians claim that at the grass-roots level, democratic structures, specifically democratically elected village, district, and local government councils and committees, manned by the elected representatives of the people should be established to decide matters of Fijian and national concern.

The defenders of the chiefs, on the other hand, have welcomed them as 'boundary-keepers' or mediators between different races who have used their authority and prestige, not to mention the strong weapon of coercion at their disposal, to stabilise crisis situations, and only to re-establish their chiefly control of Fiji.

Understandably, the deposed President and the paramount chief of Lau, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara was concerned with the way politicians played with the lives of his people during the last elections. Addressing a meeting of the Lau Provincial Council in Moala, Ratu Mara said these were evident in the statements made, in which chief's were insulted. In a sombre tone, the President and Tui Lau, Ratu Mara asked why statements such as 'don't elect your chiefs but elect a commoner because its easier to deal with them' were made to his people only. And according to Ratu Mara, the situation was worsened when the leader making those statements said nothing about other high chiefs from other provinces. He named numerous provinces whose high chiefs also contested the May elections.

Ratu Mara was referring to statement by the former Prime Minister and leader of the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT), Sitiveni Rabuka, now the chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs. The former PM had made such statements saying it is easier for the common people to approach commoner parliamentarians with their needs than it is to go to chiefs for help. Ratu Mara said he has been dwelling on the issue for quite sometime and has reminded his people, that those who are chosen to lead in government must always respect their chiefs. He asked the meeting to discuss ways in which all the chiefs in the province could support each other.

Traditional Authority in Colonial Era

British colonial rule was established following the Deed of Cession in 1874 whereby Fiji became a possession and dependency of the British Crown. In Ratu Seru Cakobau's words, the self-styled 'King of Fiji', the British were called upon to 'exercise a watchful control over the welfare of his children and people; and who, having survived the barbaric law and age, are now submitting themselves under Her Majesty's rule to civilization'. Of the several factors that had compelled the Fijian chiefs to pass their country to the British Crown, one was the menacing threat from the restless white settlers. Soon after the Deed of Cession the British government appointed the aristocratic Sir Arthur Gordon Hamilton (later Lord Stanmore), as the first Governor of Fiji.

The youngest son of the forth Earl of Aberdeen, in Scotland, Gordon, who had earlier ruled Trinidad (1886-70) and Mauritius (1870-74), arrived in Fiji with a reputation-although his true intentions have since been closely questioned-as 'an uncompromising guardian of native rights', and his influence can still be found in the land policies in Fiji. He also introduced a new ethnic group into Fiji-the indentured Indian labourers-in order to provide a work force for the colony's cane fields, while simultaneously safeguarding Fijian culture through the chiefs.

Consequently, the chiefs-Fiji's traditional rulers-were recognized by the British colonial government. Through the system of indirect rule, evolved by Lord Lugard in West Africa, and applied by his successors elsewhere, separate Fijian institutions were established to facilitate ruling them. These institutions, while creating a 'state within a state', gave the Fijian chiefs limited powers to rule their subjects, and to deeply influence the subsequent history of the colony. The objectives underlying Gordon's policies were similar to those which had given rise to colonial practices elsewhere: a divide and rule policy whereby the colonial government divided in order to rule what it integrated in order to exploit.

The partnership between the chiefs and Gordon not only enabled, according to the historian R. T. Robertson, 'the domination of the eastern chiefs particularly over the west, but it also resulted in the rise of a new type of bureaucratic chief, aware of the need to adjust to the demands of the colonial state if they were to achieve their class aims'. Others have written elsewhere that the ruling Fijian class had greatly benefited from colonial education, as the Council of Chiefs demanded that Fijian commoners should not receive education in the English language. The result was that very few Fijians, mostly of chiefly rank, entered the civil service as junior members of the 'bureaucratic bourgeoisie'. The white planters of the colonial era, however, condemned Gordon's native policy, and saw one of the most powerful chiefs in Fiji as only fit to be a white man's gardener. But the chiefs saw their roles through a different mirror-as guardians of the commoner Fijians.

It must be pointed out that the Deed of Cession was never universally accepted by Fijians, especially those of western and central Viti Levu. These people were the first to rebel against the colonial order, 'believing that it implied also domination by eastern chiefs who had signed the Deed of Cession'.

Chiefs in Post-Independent Fiji

When Fiji became an independent nation on 10 October 1970, it was the traditional eastern chiefs in the Alliance Party who took control of the nation's political leadership, with only two brief interruptions in 1977 and 1987. It was only in the recent elections that the chiefs found themselves not at the helm of government. The first high-profile challenge to chiefly rule came from one Apolosi Nawai [described as the Rasputin of the Pacific], who was banished to the island of Rotuma in 1917, 1930 and 1940 for portraying himself as the Messiah of the Fijian people. The demise of Nawai, however, failed to discourage other Fijians from taking up the challenge.

In the 1960s it was Apisai Tora who was in the forefront of western dissent against the eastern chiefs; in the 1980s it was Ratu Osea Gavidi and his Western United Front. But in 1973, the late Sakeasi Butadroka, a former Assistant Minister in the Alliance government, declared an all-out verbal war on Ratu Mara. The legitimacy of chiefly rule, based on traditional norms, faced an internal challenge. Butadroka himself is from a non-chiefly background and hails from Rewa province whose paramount chief is Adi Lady Lala Mara. But Butadroka described his dispute with Ratu Mara as a political one claiming that 'European politics and traditional matters are two different things'.

He went on to state that 'in traditional matters I greatly respect this man of noble birth and I have also reverence and try at all times do what is right'. Thus Butadroka (a man who had 'lost his senses', according to Ratu Mara) permanently revolutionized Fiji's politics, paving the way for other disgruntled Fijians to follow suit in the future. He had finally broken the tenuous thread of political tolerance for the chiefs, and the effects were to be felt in the future, especially during elections in Fiji.

In the 1987 general election, the Co-Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tupeni Baba, than the chief spokesman for the NFP/FLP Coalition, offered the following explanation as to why the Fijians were no longer going to elect people merely because they were chiefs: 'The Fijians have always viewed the Alliance as being the Fijian party. That base is being eroded. For the first time Fijians are being offered a list of credible Fijians standing against the Alliance. These Fijians can match the Alliance on its own front. They have comparable experience and now-how. For the first time there are Fijians who are willing to sacrifice their jobs and positions. Fijians will no longer elect people merely because they are chiefs.'

The Coalition seemed to have caught the Fijian people's imagination. The message to them was clear, as the late Prime Minister Dr Timoci Bavadra told one Fijian political gathering: 'There is a need to realize the difference between the traditional role and our democratic rights as citizens of this country.' He also called on the Alliance Party to stop employing abuse of Fijian tradition as a means of furthering its political ambitions. In a statement apparently directed at other Fijians caught in the traditional struggle, Bavadra made his position clear: 'I have great respect for both my great uncles, the Tui Vuda and the Taukei Nakelo in so far as the traditional chiefly system is concerned. But I beg to differ from both of them as far as political belief and standing are concerned…My loyalty to the Tui Vuda as chief of the Vanua is unshakable. But as far as my political affiliation is concerned I owe allegiance to my party. We belong to two different parties and we have different ideologies.' Moreover, the sorry state of the Fijian's plight must be blamed on the Alliance, for it was under the Alliance government that the Fijian remained in the economic backwater. The Alliance hit back with a vengeance.

Some leading Alliance candidates demonstrated the resurgence of Fijian nationalism in a bewildering variety of pronouncements. For example, Ratu David Tonganivalu warned that the Fijian chiefs must remain a force for moderation, balance and fair play against such extremism. He said the chiefs were a 'bulwark' of security for all and custodians of Fijian identity, land and culture. Ratu David, himself a high chief, said to remove chiefs would 'pave way for instability'. Ratu Mara also joined the political fray. Declaring that 'I will not yield to the vaulting ambitions of a power-crazy gang of amateurs-none of whom has run anything-not even a bingo', charged that there was an FLP ploy to destroy the chiefly system.

Dr Baba, speaking for FLP, denied these charges. He accused Ratu Mara and others of attempting to reverse the tide of history in order to prevent the old Fijian order from dying, saying it was a desperate bid by Ratu Mara to cling to power, and added that political manipulation of Fijian people's emotions on the eve of a general election devalued democratic leadership. Whether the Alliance was attempting to reverse the tide of history or not is questionable, but one thing is clear; history was not only repeating itself but had come full swing, except that the main players now were Fijian commoners versus the chiefs. In the past, it was the Indo-Fijian politicians who used to take the Fijian chiefs to task over political and traditional authority. The establishment and perpetuation of the separate Fijian Administration however made it extremely difficult for them to establish alternative bases of legitimacy.

The Chiefs and the Indians

The Indo-Fijians are all chiefs and no commoners. In the context of Fijian politics, therefore, their political leaders have always found themselves caught in the conflicting traditional, bureaucratic, and charismatic forms of authority in Fiji. The Indo-Fijian leaders had agreed to confer veto power to the chiefs in the Senate during the 1970 Constitutional Talks in London, which meant that for the first time in Fiji's history, the Great Council of Chiefs suddenly enjoyed its say in the mainstream of Fijian politics. In the old colonial days, much of what was deliberated was often decided in advance by judicious consultation between the chiefs and the colonial administrators.

Ironically, in post-independent Fiji it was the very Indo-Fijian leaders who attracted virulent criticism whenever they condemned the 'political chiefs' in the Alliance Party or their traditional institution-the Great Council of Chiefs.

In the 1982 general election the Indo-Fijian leaders were accused of collaborating with the infamous 'Four Corners' programme on elections in Fiji which claimed that the present leaders of Fiji were descendants of the Fijian chiefs who 'clubbed and ate their way to power'. But the most vicious attack on the Indo-Fijian leaders was made in the Senate where one Fijian senator, Inoke Tabua, stoutly defended Ratu Mara, his paramount chief. He warned: 'I want to make it clear in this House that whoever hates my chief, I hate him too. I do not want to make enemies but to a 'Kai Lau' like me, if someone is against my chief he is also against me and my family right to the grave.'

Tabua refused to isolate politics from chieftaincy. Understandably, as Ratu Mara himself had told the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 1982 election that his evidence should be considered and treated in the light of his three main roles in Fiji: 'On the one hand I live, think and act as an ordinary citizen of this State and also as a chief in the Fijian traditional social system. I am also a politician and leader of the Alliance Party, which is closely interested in these proceedings. And, lastly, I am Prime Minister of this State and leader of its government.' It was these three roles that dominated the sentiments and minds of Fijians when it came to passing judgement on the actions of Indo-Fijian leaders during the general election. They invoked their traditional ties with their chiefs to condemn the Indo-Fijian leaders.

The Ra Provincial Council and the Great Council of Chiefs, through two resolutions, tried to reassure the Fijian people of their determination that Fijians should, and always would, rule Fiji. The first tentative step was taken during a meeting of the Ra Provincial Council which resolved that the offices of Governor-General and Prime Minister must be reserved for Fijians and that this should be the subject of constitutional changes, a demand first voiced by Butadroka's FNP in the 1970s.

The Council also proposed that the composition of the House of Representatives should be two-third Fijian and one-third all other races. The Council also resolved that the two resolutions be forwarded for inclusion on the agenda of the Great Council of Chiefs meeting scheduled for November 1982. Council members were of the opinion that the issues should be discussed at the Bau meeting, when the chiefs from the various traditional Fijian confederacies discussed issues of Fijian interests.

Both resolutions were condemned by the Western United Front (WUF) and the NFP, then in a Coalition pact for the 1982 election. The WUF expressed surprise that some Fijians still felt so strongly about the last general election and dismissed as totally unfounded the allegations that the Fijians and their traditional systems had thereby been insulted. WUF also considered that there was nothing derogatory in the 'Four Corners' programme. While linking the programme with the Alliance's involvement with the Carroll team, WUF's general-secretary said, 'Cannibalism was part of life in Fiji in the early days and we Fijians are descendants of cannibals. What is wrong with that? Only powerful chiefs in those days enjoyed on bokolas. I cannot find why some Fijians are annoyed about the Four Corners programme'.

The Great Council of Chiefs moved to endorse the two manifestly racist resolutions thus presenting itself in the eyes of the Indo-Fijian community as the political champion and promoter of Fijian nationalism, as preached by the FNP. The resolutions were finally passed despite the abstention from Ratu Mara and then Deputy Prime Minister, Ratu Penaia, who pointed out that to change the Fiji Constitution required the consent of a two-thirds majority in both Houses. The role of Ratu Mara, who abstained from voting, did nothing to allay Indo-Fijian fears. As an NFP/WUF Coalition statement later charged: 'It should be apparent even to a political novice that the whole exercise was carefully stage-managed to intimidate non-Fijians, especially Indians and the Fijian supporters of the Coalition'.

It also expressed surprise that Ratu Mara had abstained from voting rather than opposing the two resolutions. Ratu Mara replied angrily that he 'was is no way obligated to his political party to say what he did or said in the Council'. It was during the debate on the resolution that trade unionist Gavoka had likened Indo-Fijians to dogs; and Mrs Irene Jai Narayan, branding the Bau resolution as racist, went on to state: 'To liken Indians to dogs…is a grave and unwarranted provocation to the entire Indian community. It is now obvious that those indulging in the abuse of Indians are not reacting to any so-called insults…[but] because the NFP/WUF Coalition dared to challenge for power in the last general election and came within a whisker of wresting it from the Alliance.'

Mrs Narayan further observed: 'It is indeed curious that the controversial motion came up while the Prime Minister claims that the worst insults he received were from Fijians themselves, why the focus of attack and resolution adopted by the Great Council of Chiefs have been designed to rob of the few rights they (Indians) have left to live in the country of their birth.' Clearly, the statement continued, racial policies espoused by the FNP leader, the commoner Butadroka, had found greater favour with the chiefs than had the so-called multi-racial policies of the paramount chiefs leading the Alliance Party.

Another Fijian senator, Ratu Tevita Vakalalabure, warned that unless Indo-Fijians united with Fijians and if what happened in the 1982 general elections was repeated at the next, probably 1987 election, 'Blood will flow, whether you like it or not. I can still start it. It touched me, and also touched my culture, tradition and my people. We have carried this burden too long'. The political maverick Apisai Tora also entered the fray, claiming in Parliament that the action of the NFP in the 1982 election was a show of arrogance (viavialevu) and insults heaped on the Fijian chiefs could only be made by people belonging to the lowest caste (kaisi bokola botoboto). Tora's passionate outburst however came as no surprise to many political observers who had closely followed his political career.

In 1977 he had hit out at the chiefly system in Fiji and said many Fijians were getting 'fed up' with the 'archaic' system, and that Fijian chiefs were using chiefly status to gain and keep power. He had also told another political rally in September 1977 that the Fijian chiefs were out to 'threaten' Indo-Fijians by indirectly telling people not to vote for the then leader of the NPF, Koya. 'Do not subjugate the future of Fiji in the hands of the power-hungry Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. And whatever provocation people are under we do not want any violence in this (1977) election'.

It is not surprising therefore that a decade later the rightful place of the chiefs in the national life of the Fijians again became a burning issue when the Fiji Labour Party went into coalition with the Alliance Party's political arch rivals, the NFP. But it was also to herald the arrival of a military-cum civilian dictatorship following the two military coups in 1987. In fact, the writing was already on the walls, as a Fiji Sun editorial had feared shortly after the Bau meeting in 1982:

'The Great Council of Chiefs has passed an incredible resolution calling for a constitutional change which, if it occurred, would change Fiji overnight from a democracy to an autocracy, or even a dictatorship. It is a horrendous thought. For many years Fiji has been held up to the world as a multi-racial society which works-where two races with widely disparate religions, culture and ethnic backgrounds have lived and worked harmoniously for a hundred years. Now, with a stroke of a pen, a group of our most respected elders and statesmen are prepared to throw all that away and march backwards into the 19th Century and beyond.’

The Fijians in the Fiji Labour Party

The rise, fall, rise, and the fall of the Fiji Labour Party can be attributed to two primary reasons. In the perspective of history, the formation of the FLP and the statements of its leaders saw the rebirth of the 'agitational politics' whose origins can be traced to militancy among the Indo-Fijian labourers on the sugar plantations. The most notable were the strikes and riots of 1920 which, in the words of the historian turned Alliance government minister Dr Ahmed Ali, 'heralded a new facet of Indians: their assertiveness and willingness to enter into confrontation with other groups in their effort to obtain what they considered equality of treatment in a land to which they had come as immigrants but where they were fast anchoring permanent roots'. Their descendants have since continued the struggle and, with one notable exception, the strikes these days have assumed a multi-racial rather than a racial dimension.

We have already recalled Dr Baba's explanation on the shift in Fijian political thinking. In 1987 a Fijian sociologist, Simione Durutalo, who later became a founding vice-president of the FLP, blamed the British for introducing communal politics into Fiji and creating a situation of occupational specialization along communal lines. Durutalo, in terms of class struggle, condemned the Alliance and the NFP for perpetuating those divisions. He further maintained that the political nature of the crisis confronting the people of Fiji could not be discussed without a closer look at the state structure built up during the colonial period. He noted that in the phase of decolonization, power was transferred through virtually unchanged government institutions, to largely hand-picked heirs, the new ruling group in Fiji. For example, laws were changed from Ordinances to Acts but their contents remained the same. The colonial Parliament changed its name from Legislative Council to House of Representatives (with an appendix, the Senate) but its whole racial foundation and electoral system remained the same, as did the education and public health system, the Council of Chiefs, and the army and bureaucracy.

Durutalo also recalled the remarks of Professor Ron Crocombe of the USP that many Fijians failed to realize that what they believe to be their ancient heritage is in fact a colonial legacy. He claimed that the British used the economic disparity between the Indo-Fijians and the Fijians to increase the Fijian ruling class dependence for protection on the colonial government. The creation of the 1944 Fijian Administration, the NLTB and the constitutional guarantee on Fijian matters were cited as examples. Durutalo also charged that the British manipulated local, regional, and ethnic differences to emphasize divisive rather that unifying national interests.

Such divisions were then deposited in the independence Constitution to assail the cohesion and survival of the new Fijian state from its inception. Ethnic differences, he maintained, and the use of the new Fijian chiefs, were the main instruments used by the colonialists to defuse and neutralize the 1959 Oil and Allied Workers' strike. In summary, Durutalo, himself a commoner, indirectly appealed to the underprivileged Fijians and Indo-Fijians to unite and undermine the established political order. In his opinion this could be achieved 'if Fijian society produces the political will that is required to overcome the present impasse, and the labour movement, with the trade unions at the centre, is the only force which now has the potential to produce that political will to take us out of the present inertia'.

The Alliance Party responded in kind. Tradition was mixed with politics. For example, Ratu Mara, in his September 1986 address to a mini-convention of the Fijian Association, called upon the Fijians to remain united in order to retain the nation's leadership. He told the meeting that despite being outnumbered by Indo-Fijians, Fijians had political leadership; if they became divided this leadership would slip away from them. In reply, the future prime minister Dr Timoci Bavadra immediately criticized Ratu Mara for raising the race issue. He also lodged a formal complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking him to investigate whether Ratu Mara's remarks contravened the Public Order Act, under which Butadroka was jailed for six months in 1977 for inciting racial hatred.

Bavadra went further: 'In previous elections, the Alliance fear tactic [included] asking people whether they wanted an Indian Prime Minister; now, with the historic uniting of all races under the umbrella of the Coalition, the leader is a Fijian, so the question is whether a non-chief should be Prime Minister. One would thus imagine that if an equivalent chief from another province challenged Ratu Sir Kamisese, the Alliance question would be: 'Can we let a Prime Minister of Fiji come from any province but Lau?'.

From this analysis emerge two inherently contradictory tendencies of exclusivism and accommodation among the conservative, nationalist and moderate Fijians. While the traditionalists were advocating the retention of the old established order, Durutalo was calling upon the disgruntled Fijians, especially the Fijian commoners, to respond to the demands of practical politics, rather than surrender to the forces of conservatism.

The rest is history. The FLP-NFP Coalition romped to power in the 1987 election with Dr Bavadra as prime minister, only to be cut down by a third-ranking Fijian soldier Sitiveni Rabuka and his cohorts. As for the change in the political landscape in 1987, with the Alliance, comprising mostly chiefs, becoming the major Opposition party, with Ratu Mara as leader, Ramrakha's words are instructive: 'And the Chiefs who have yielded so much power, and have made Fiji what it is today. Yes, they too have to recognise this change…a political adjustment has to be made. The genius of the Fijian people allowed them to cede this country and remain in charge of it. Their society has come down the centuries intact; their people still cling to their valued culture, tradition and customs.' But with a fundamental difference; the mutli-racial FLP-NFP Cabinet was like 'a new marriage taking place, a meeting of minds of the educated elite in Fiji, an elite which will bring in a new era to the country'.

In April 1987 it seemed that a majority of Fijians had quietly accepted the leadership change. Ratu Mara's resignation statement was also greeted quietly. He told the nation: 'You have given your decision. It must be accepted. Democracy is alive and well in Fiji…The interests of Fiji must always come first. There can be no room for rancour or bitterness and I would urge that you display goodwill to each other in the interest of our nation. We must now ensure a smooth transition to enable the new government to settle quickly and get on with the important task of further developing our country. I wish them well…Fiji was recently described by Pope John Paul as a symbol of hope for the rest of the world. Long may we so remain. God bless Fiji.'

But almost as soon as Bavadra and his ministers were sworn in, they began to attract not good wishes but a stream of curses. A Fijian nationalist movement calling itself the Taukei, led by no other than Tora and a few prominent Alliance personalities, sprang up. Tora announced a campaign of civil disobedience and called for the 1970 Fiji Constitution to be changed in so far as to guarantee Fijian chiefly leadership in government permanently. Shortly after the Alliance's defeat, its most powerful arm, the Fijian Association, convened a meeting and passed a vote of no confidence in the new government. Among those who attended this meeting, which was chaired by the newly-elected Alliance MP and FNP convert of old, Taniela Veitata, were Ratu Mara's eldest son, Ratu Finau Mara who was a lawyer in the Crown Law office; Qoriniasi Bale, the former Attorney-General; Filipe Bole, the former Minister of Education; and Jone Veisamasama, general secretary of the Alliance Party who, in 1983, was secretary to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 1982 general election. What followed shortly before the historic coup can be summed up by two key players. Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, now the Leader of the Opposition, told Islands Business magazine of May 1988 that for more than six hours on April 19 he and Rabuka, later joined by Jone Veisamasama, 'talked about different options'.

It was on 19 April that the groundwork for the coup was laid and according to Kubuabola, 11 May was the day his co-conspirators decided to proceed with its execution. He also claims that when it was learnt that Parliament would not sit on Friday they had agreed to bring forward the coup to Thursday. Another crucial intermediary between the Taukei Movement and the military, the Rev Tomasi Raikivi, provided his house in Suva as a centre for overall planning. Thus it was there that Rabuka met the other conspirators on Easter Monday, nine days after the defeat of the Alliance Party. We will let Rabuka explain the rest, as he did to Eddie Dean and Stan Ritova in his infamous autobiography No Other Way. He went to Rev Raikivi's for,

' … What he understood was an ordinary 'grog' party. It was early evening, and he just walked in, as he normally would, throwing his 'sevusevu' of yagona towards the bowl where the 'grog' was being mixed. 'I saw all these people sitting down, and realised it was some kind of a meeting. Some of the people greeted me, although I could not see everyone clearly because it was fairly dark in the lounge-room. Nobody asked me to leave.' When his eyes adjusted to the darkness, he discovered the gathering was 'quite a formidable group'. He says it included Ratu Finau Mara, Ratu George Kadavulevu, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, Ratu Keni Viuyasawa, the brother of Brigadier Epeli Nailatikau, Filipe Bole, Ratu Jo Ritova of Labasa, Ratu Jale Ratum, 'Big Dan' Veitata, and the host Raikivi. Another leading light at this meeting was Apisai Tora.

This handful of allegedly God-fearing men, some of chiefly rank, told their plans to Rabuka, exchanged opinions, and turned to Gold for help. On 14th May 1987 when the parliamentary session began at 9.30am, one of the conspirators, Taniela Veitata, stood on his feet to repeat to the House his October 1985 'Tribute to Chiefs' speech. The chiefs in Fiji were the guardians of peace, he declared. As long as chiefs were there, political power would never grow from the barrel of the gun. Unfortunately other races had not thanked the Alliance Party for its racial harmony. He did not spell out the punishment for the other races 'ingratitude' or pose the rhetorical question: what if chiefs are not in power?; in fact he did not have to, for shortly afterwards Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka, and a 'hit squad' of ten soldiers, led by Captain X, launched the first military coup against a democratically elected government of the South Pacific, ending the Coalition's 33 days in office.

In short, democracy died in Fiji on Thursday 14 May 1987; albeit temporarily. Captain X has been identified as Isireli Dugu, and his second in command was Captain Savenaca Draunidalo, the ex-husband of Adi Kuini Bavadra Speed. Rabuka later explained that it was the calling of God to execute the coup. Another was the frontal attack on the 'chiefly system' and its rightful place in national politics; and the personal attacks on Ratu Mara, that Rabuka claimed were too much for ordinary commoner Fijians

What happened in the next years until the passing of the new non-racial Fiji Constitution; the rise to power of FLP, and the demise and rise of Rabuka - the 'Hero of the Fijian Revolution' need not ve revisited except to point out that the Great Council of Chiefs appropriated to themselves a high profile role during these turbulent years.

The Great Council of Chiefs

In 1972 the Great Council of Chiefs (Bose Levu Vakaturaga) took a bold step forward-the Council decided that members of Parliament in both Houses who were indigenous Fijians would be members of the Great Council of Chiefs. By doing this, they gave out three NFP Members of Parliament, Captain Atunaisa Maitoga, Isikeli Nadalo, and Apisai Tora a voice in the Council of Chiefs. This move, taken quietly and without any fuss or bother, according to Ramrakha in 1978, came as a great surprise to the Members concerned, and they took full advantage of it all. But it was a major concession to make. Here were these members who belonged to a Party that was undoubtedly predominantly non-Fijian in membership, and was often suspect in the eyes of the rank and file Fijian, and its members were freely allowed to participate in the deliberation. It was a thoroughly progressive move on the part of the Council. And yet the leader of the NFP, Koya, made a blunt call for its abolition.

The NFP had often advocated absorption of the Fijian Affairs Board into the mainstream of political life and coming under the ageis of one single administration, and it had advocated the ultimate redundancy of the NLTB by giving titles to the Fijians, and giving them the incidents of ownership short of power of sale. Reaction to Koya was savage. Personally, Ramrakha remained unconvinced that the Council of Chiefs had outlived its usefulness. On the other hand, the Chiefs themselves 'must recognise that we live today in a basically democratic society, and that changes will have to come'. Ramrakha continued: 'I would ask the Chiefs to behave as Chiefs: there are many mountains to be moved; there is a great deal they have to do. Your society still looks to you to deliver the goods-you are subjected to old pressures, and new ones. The only reservation I make of the Great Council of Chiefs is that we do not hear enough from them.' Ramrakha had uttered these words two decades ago; in the 1987 street demonstrations against the Bavadra government, led by Tora and others, he however found himself the target of Fijian anger through one of the placards which read: 'K.C. Ramrakha-the deserter, shut up.'

Ironically, these Fijian demonstrators were totally oblivious to Ramrakha's role at the 1970 Constitutional Talks where he and other NFP delegates gave the Council of Chiefs the power of veto on decisions affecting the Fijian race. Another irony, in fact a comical farce, was the pronouncements of Tora at the demonstrations: 'We shall recover the rights of Fijians sold out in London in 1970. We have no need for your system, your democracy. We shall never have such things imposed on our paramountcy…They [Indians] have tried to blackmail us with economic power. It is becoming Fiji for Fijians now. We took in the Indians which Britain brought us…They won't learn our language, our customs, join our political parties. It is time for them to pack and go.'

What Tora failed to tell his fellow demonstrators was that he had changed his name from Apisai Vuniyayawa Tora to Apisai Mohammed Tora after becoming a Muslim while serving with the Fijian forces in Malaya. He had provided the prefix 'National' to the Federation Party to form the NFP. As recently as July 1986 he asserted that 'Government policy is that Indian people are here to stay whether people like it or lump it. Without Indians Fiji would never have been what it is today, economic-wise and otherwise.'

Moreover, the Great Council of Chiefs finally gave to Ramrakha more than he may have bargained for in the 1970s. In the name of Fijian ethnicity, they hurriedly endorsed Rabuka's revolution and seized a large chunk of responsibility on behalf of the Fijian people through the promulgation of a new Constitution in 1990. In their pursuit for total and absolute control the chiefs, however, were also beginning to lay the foundation for their own gradual destruction for history, time, and the people were no longer totally on their side, not to mention the Colonial government.

As a Maori professor, Ranginui Walker, declared in Auckland in 1987: 'The coup is nothing more than a shameful use by an oligarchy that refuses to recognize and accept the winds of change in Fiji. It would appear from this distance that the Great Council of Chiefs, still living in their traditional ways, have been misled. Their land rights are secure under the 1970 Constitution. But because they have not been taught their rights, they are readily manipulated and swayed by demagogues.'

The chiefs also launched a new political party, Soqososo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT), that it hoped would unite the Fijian people under one umbrella. The reality, as we know from the recent election results, turned out to be quite different. Some Fijian leaders questioned the wisdom of the Council of Chiefs, as a formal non-political institution, to sponsor a political party. Tora wanted to know what would happen to the dignity of the Council if it failed to capture all the Fijian seats. 'Our firm view,' he said, 'remains that the Bose Levu Vakaturaga should be at the pinnacle of Fijian society, totally removed from the taint of ordinary politicking'. The biggest shock was the election of Rabuka, a non-chief, to lead the SVT, who defeated Ratu William Toganivalu and Adi Lady Lala Mara. Butadroka was quick to respond: 'If the SVT delegates can put a commoner before the chief, then I don't know why a chiefs-backed party can do such a thing. - putting a chief-in this case the highest ranking chief, Ro Lady Lala-before a selection panel.'

The greatest shock of all was the recent election of Rabuka as the first 'independent' chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs. It is not surprising therefore to read of Ratu Mara's expressed concerns. Shortly after the first coup Rabuka wanted to exclude commoners from the Great Council of Chiefs altogether: '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 be very, very selfish.'

After Rabuka secured the prime ministership, he however began to develop ideological justifications for his ambitions. In August 1991, while professing to be a loyal commoner, he wondered whether it was appropriate for chiefs to involve themselves in electoral politics. Their proper role was at the local village level, because 'when it comes to politics, the chiefs do not have the mandate of the people'. While counting himself as an ideal candidate for leadership he reiterated that 'there are a lot of capable commoners who can play a very, very important role in the Fiji of the next decade'. He pointed out that 'the dominance of customary chiefs in government is coming to an end' and soon 'aristocracy' would be replaced by 'meritocracy'. Ratu Mara, who thought Rabuka was an 'angry young man, speaking off the cuff in any instigation', also faced Rabuka's wrath. Rabuka described Ratu Mara as a 'ruthless politician who has been allowed to get away with a lot. Maybe it's because of the Fijian culture that he is a big chief and because he was groomed well by the colonial government'.

The sudden change of Rabuka's tune on chieftaincy can be best illustrated by quoting Jone Dakuvula. Accusing the 'colonial' chiefs of keeping the commoner Fijians in political subjugation and economic morass, Dakuvula had personally challenged Rabuka on Fijian unity, specifically for his remarks during the two coups that 'I want all the Fijian people to be on one side. The whole thing is a solidarity of the Fijians and then we can compete'.

In Dakuvula's words, 'This reactionary notion has no basis in history or current realities. We Fijians have never been united at any time, either at the village level or national level. The various confederations of competing and warring vanuas, now roughly reflected in the provinces, outline these divisions. Any experienced village chief will tell Colonel Rabuka that all Fijian villages are riven with competing divisions along family, tokatoka, mataqali and other lines.' Furthermore, Dakuvula maintained that any chief who claimed to command his villagers' loyalty and unity at all times these days was 'a liar'.

He said Rabuka need look no further that the position and history of his mataqali. Dakuvula went on the claim that 'what the Taukei Movement and the Great Council of Chiefs proposal will achieve is the exact opposite of what they desire: it will result in provincialism, parochialism, unhealthy rivalries, patronage, corruption and the discrediting of the chiefly system'. Strangely Rabuka, on becoming prime minister, himself began to invoke the 'Melanesian' model of achieved leadership against the 'Polynesian' model of ascribed leadership. He compared his paramount chiefs (Mara included) to the banyan tree 'where you don't see anything growing', and suggested that they should step down.

Chieftainship versus Democracy

A general review of the trend of events clearly reveal that commoner Fijians have become increasingly strident in their criticism of the traditional chiefs, displaying spontaneous or calculated outbursts of individualism. One governor, Everard im Thurn, in 1905, dared to point out that excessive subordination of the Fijian people by their chiefs was a serious impediment to their progress and, indeed, a danger to their survival as a race. In his opening address to the Council of Chiefs, he outlined what were to him the worst aspects of chiefly rule in Fiji:

'You Fijians have done very little to help yourselves. You few chiefs are fairly prosperous. But your people-such of them as are left-are mere bond servants. They work for you partly because the law to some extent compels them. The reason why they do not care to work more for themselves is that your chiefly exactions prevent them from gaining anything for themselves-and property to make life interesting to them…Do you know what we mean by the word 'individuality'?…the man that has individuality uses his own brain to guide his own actions. He thinks for himself…he uses his own hands for his own benefit. To him life will be worth living. That is the habit of thought which we and you should encourage the Fijians.’

The late Dr Rusiate Nayacakalou, in his study of modern and traditional Fijian leadership, warned that 'attempts to displace existing leaders are viewed with suspicion and jealousy and may be met with drastic action'. It also reflects the trauma of an indigenous people struggling to encompass tradition within the framework of democracy. Ratu Mara's call for respect of the chiefs is a familiar one. When the SVT was formed, Durutalo said: 'This is the last hurrah of the chiefs. It is an attempt to stem the tide and salvage their hold and support of the Fijian people. There has been a gradual erosion of their political influence, accelerated particularly in the urban areas and this is a last ditch attempt to contain that'. The perennial question is how: through chiefship or democracy?

We often hear in Fiji that 'a chief is a chief by the people'. On 6 May 1972 Ratu Mara told the Fiji Times that 'there is a misconception that the chiefs form a club and think as group…The chiefs are the chiefs of a group of people. They think more in line with the groups of which they are chiefs rather than their own class'.

But one Tevita Vakalomaloma argued five years later (2 February 1977), in a letter to the Fiji Times to the contrary: 'Most of the Fijian chiefs no longer serve their people. In fact most of them think that the people have nothing to do with their privileges and status. What they are forgetting is that they are what they are because they have people below them. In other words, a chief is a chief because he or she is supposed to have some people to lead'.

The Alliance however blamed the Fijian Nationalist Party for the sorry state of affairs. In the Nai Lalakai (14 November 1977) it charged: 'They [the FNP] have divided families, mataqalis, villages, vanuas and our race, severing our Fijian bonds, weakening our traditional and religious life and our political unity.' The FNP, however, argued to the contrary, claiming that it was under the Alliance chiefs that Fijians so-called special rights and interests had been exploited for the chiefs' own economic and political benefits. In 1989 the FNP submitted that the chiefly system be abolished altogether.

What is really at issue, then, is what form of leadership should the Fijian commoners follow to remain within the traditional communal system? In 1982, the old Fiji Sun newspaper editorial, commenting on the Bau resolution, called for its rejection as well as a firm statement from the Alliance government, and put the issue in perspective: 'The sticking point is the question of the place and role of the chiefly system, now and in the future. It is not possible for the two systems to operate in tandem successfully at national level.' It is clear from recent pronouncements that the modern day chiefs still live, or pretend to live, in two worlds, 'one dead, the other powerless to be born'.

The great Fijian leader Ratu Sukuna was also a man of two worlds, that of the traditional Fijian and the official European. His biographer, the Australian Deryck Scarr, a rabid anti-Indian historian, argues that Sukuna attempted to keep the Fijian society close to its 19th century moorings, to the 'classic patterns of his childhood'. For Sukuna, 'the true religion of the Fijian is the service to the chief'; he was cynical on the value of democracy, and as an aristocrat, remained sceptical about 'how far ability can carry a man in modern society'. Ratu Mara, in the preface to Scarr's biography, Ratu Sukuna: Soldier, Statesman, Man of Two Worlds, (1980), hails Ratu Sukuna for bringing the Fijian society into the 20th century.

But as one reviewer of Scarr's book put it, 'the Fijian people cannot afford to contract out of the 20th century and seek succour in the traditional society of Sukuna's childhood'. Moreover, Ratu Sukuna had little understanding of, and even less sympathy for, the predicament and aspirations of Indo-Fijians, 'Mother India's more enlightened children', who should have accepted their designated place in the colonial hierarchy instead of challenging it, and whose lives were deeply affected by Ratu Sukuna's activities.

The self-contained, self-sufficient Fijian world of Ratu Sukuna's time, and that of other high Fijian chiefs like Ratu Mara, has vanished beyond recall. Ratu Sukuna's view on the rightful education of Fijian commoners may be the starting point of the historical departure. He believed, 'in bigger and brighter villages, with schools teaching, for the most part, agricultural subjects and handicraft rather than academic groundwork'. It seems that the modern day commoner Fijian has other perspectives on education and political power in contemporary Fiji. He believes in 'ability' and not 'chiefly' status for his or her rightful place in Fijian society.

The Educated Fijian Commoner: A Mule or a Galloping Horse?

It is interesting to draw a parallel with educated commoner Fijians and their rightful place in Fijian society with those of the sons and daughters of Indo-Fijian indentured labourers. There was firm opposition towards education of Indo-Fijians. A former chairman of the Levuka School Board, D.J. Solomon, told the 1909 Education Commission:

'If an Indian desires to educate his children let him pay for it himself. This question should not be considered one moment by the Government, for to educate an Indian is to create inducement for crime on the part of the educated Indian and oppress the uneducated Indian'. The Methodist missionary, Rev J. W. Burton, had this qualification: 'The training which suits admirably a boy at Eton (in England) or one in our Australian High Schools may not be useless., but probably vicious in its effect upon a Fijian nature. We have made a tragic mistake in India in raising up a few to inordinate heights of suitable education and thus divorcing them from usefulness to the Commonwealth. A half-educated Indian babu, with his staccato English and metronomic syllables is torture enough; but a Fijian babu-! May heaven forfend'.

The manager of the Vancouver-Fiji Sugar Company, E. Duncan, in 1914, was not to be outdone: 'We most emphatically do not require an Indian community of highly educated labourers, with the attendant troubles the 'baboo' class has brought to the Indian government teaching and preaching sedition and looking generally for immediate treatment on a parity with educated Europeans accustomed to self-government for many centuries. We require agriculturalists only and the education provided by the colony (or planter) should for that reason be but elementary, and in as far as possible, technical on these lines'.

The quotations provided illustrate in detail, according to Dr Ahmed Ali, the former Education Minister in Mara's Alliance government, 'European attitudes towards Indians and the place that they felt Indians should have in Fiji. Not surprisingly their views were in conflict with Indian aspirations. Their determination to keep Indians as labourers and to deny them equality and reserve for them a separate compartment in the colony were also steps that thwarted the integration of Indians into the wider society. Europeans who opposed them did so not only because of beliefs in Anglo-Saxon racial superiority but also through fear and resentment of Indian competition'.

A similar parallel can be drawn between the role and place of commoner and individual Fijians in the overall Fijian traditional society vis-a-vis the chiefs and the Great Council of Chiefs. The rise of commoner Fijians through the Fiji Labour Party in 1987 brought the conflict between commoners and chiefs to the forefront of Fijian politics. Their dissent and criticism of the chiefly leaders could not be dismissed as racially motivated attacks upon Fijian institutions. They refused to abide by the tenets of tradition and custom while the chiefs were entering the world of commerce and business and doing well for themselves.

As Bavadra asserted: 'By restricting the Fijian people to their communal life style in the face of rapidly developing cash economy, the average Fijian has become more and more backward. This is particularly invidious when the leaders themselves have amassed huge personal wealth by making use of their traditional and political powers'.

It can be argued that modern-day Fijians (teachers, doctors, journalists, skilled workers, and civil servants) represent, in many ways, the coming of age of a new generation of Fijians who have achieved success by the dint of their individual efforts and sacrifices. They are role models for the young Fijians and not the tradition-bound chiefs of the Fijian villages.

Why? As Professor O. H. K. Spate had reminded us in 1959, 'The functions of the chief as a real leader lost much of their point with the suppression of warfare and the introduction of machinery to settle land disputes, but constant emphasis seems to have led to an abstract loyalty in vacuous, to leaders who have nowhere to lead to in the old terms and, having become a sheltered aristocracy, too often lack the skills or the inclination to lead on the new ways. Hence, in some areas, a dreary negativism: the people have become conditioned to wait for a lead which is never given.' The impasse could only be broken with the advent of liberal democratic values, of which individualism as the defining characteristic.

But it seems that the chiefs, averse to individualism, have once again turned to the chiefly system, a system which according to the late Bavadra, 'Is a time-honoured and sacred institution of the taukei. It is a system for which we have the deepest respect and which we will defend. But we also believe that a system of modern democracy is one which is quite separate from it. The individual's democratic right to vote in our political system does not mean that he has to vote for a chief. It is an absolutely free choice'.

Democracy, that great swear word which denotes freedom and choice, is the Achilles heel of Fijian politics. The question is: whose version of democracy - the Fijian or European one?

On 16 December 1965, speaking in the Legislative Council, Ratu Mara, while arguing against common roll which would bring Indo-Fijian domination, argued that it was European culture 'to which only we will submit as Fijians, and to no other culture'. In 1987, on losing power, he claimed that 'Democracy is alive and well in Fiji'. In other words, the people of Fiji, including the commoner Fijians, had exercised their democratic right to choose who should lead the Government of Fiji. The FLP-NFP victory brought to the fore also the true and proper place of the traditional rulers and the chiefly system in modern Fiji.

Overall, in the 1987 general election there was a genuine meeting of minds of educated commoner Fijians and the descendants of educated coolie Indo-Fijians, the two groups most feared by the chiefs, colonialists, and Indo-Fijian merchants in Fiji. For the next 33 days, the people of Fiji enjoyed their choice of government until Rabuka, with his 'men on horseback', came on the scene to proclaim: 'The chiefs are the wise men in Fijian society, guardians of our tradition. Take that power away and give it to the commoners and you are asking for trouble.'

Will he now, as a commoner, hand back the power - the chairmanship of the Great Council of Chiefs- to the traditional chiefs, as many are demanding from him, including Georghe Speight.? The Great Council of Chiefs has once again ridden on the minority crest of Fijian racism and nationalism to portray themselves as ”fathers of the nation”, George Speight and a circle of inward-looking commoner Fijians, it seems, have once again set back the opportunity for commoner Fijians to create a multi-racial Fiji where their own individuality and voices could be heard in the affairs of the nation. They have consigned commoner Fijians to be the subservient 'educated mules' of the chiefs, as the chiefs allegedly were in colonial days to the British.

It will take a long time for Fijian commoners to be individual, strong-minded, and fiercely independent 'galloping horses' in a multi-racial and modern Fiji, and the larger world around them? The Great Council of Chiefs has once again re-inserted itself at the helm of Fijian politics – through the backdoor and with the help of a barrel of a gun. In the guise of Fijian nationalism, George Speight has escaped from the clutches of the law for his alleged criminal activities in a court of law and the Great Council of Chiefs have once again stepped into the centre court of power which was gradually slipping away from their clutches.

The commoner Fijians will be made to pay the price for Speight and the chiefs’ great escapades.

The release of the hostages means that Fijian commoners, led by their chiefs, have once again being imprisoned in the cloth of tradition, although 'tradition should be a guide and not a jailor'.

From Fiji's Daily Post Archive:

What role did Commodore Frank Bainimarama play in the post-2000 crisis?

By VICTOR LAL

There is no denying that I have on numerous occasions condemned some of the politics and perceived racist policies of the Laisenia Qarase government but I feel it would be wrong and undemocratic for political parties and their leaders to publicly align themselves with Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s open campaign against the SDL in the run-up to the May general election. There is no denying that some of Bainimarama’s pronouncements and outbursts are true but in a democracy he must not be allowed to dictate the outcome of the election.

I am equally sure that a vast majority of the voters are eager to find out ‘the truth’ from Commodore Bainimarama about the events of May 2000. What is the truth? The truth is that we will never know the whole truth. But there is one truth, and that is that Bainimarama did not put the SDL into power. It was the electorate of Fiji, NFP’s preference votes, and the eventual coalition with CAM, that saw the SDL come to power in 2001.

The Doctrine of Necessity

For many of you memory is short but MESAKE KOROI, than editor of the Daily Post, opened the pages of the Daily Post for me to voice my opinions. I wrote a long treatise explaining the meaning and application of the Doctrine of Necessity, than hardly heard of in Fiji. I had years ago written extensively on ‘Revolution, Illegality and the Doctrine of Necessity in International Public Law’. Now, applying the concept in Fiji immediately after Chaudhry and others were taken hostage, I concluded that ‘the doctrine of necessity at this point, it seems, however, cannot be satisfied in the current Fijian crisis because the actions of Speight, his advisors, and his gunmen are purely of a criminal nature, and who should be prosecuted for treason, hostage-taking, kidnapping, blackmail, and incitement to violence and murder (the innocent policeman).

Moreover, the Fijian State as a whole is not on the brink of civil war or facing widespread violence and revolution. It is only the capital Suva that has been plunged into chaos by a bunch of hoodlums following the illegal seizure of Parliament. What the Fijian military and the President ought to do in this instance is to declare 'Parliament' a no-go zone' and treat the whole crisis as a hostage situation. It thus follows that the invocation of doctrine of necessity at this stage is not an issue in the whole sordid affair. In other words, the Fijian State is not on a brink of total collapse.’

On 29 May 2000, the Commodore however abrogated the Constitution, declared martial law, and became leader of the Interim Military Government. In July the military appointed an Interim Fijian Government with Laisenia Qarase as Interim Prime Minister. What about George Speight? Bainimarama signed the now infamous Muanikau Accord with Speight under which he and his supporters were to release the hostages, surrender their weapons and receive immunity from prosecution. In his defence Bainimarama said he signed the Accord because the crisis had gone on for too long and a peaceful solution was needed. In a cruel twist of irony, Ratu Mara himself was to be removed as President.

No sooner Speight was released, he began swaggering around the city with a pistol on display, making a mockery of the Accord. Again, Koroi asked me to analyse the Muanikau Accord. I came to the conclusion that Speight could be nabbed because of the violation of clause (c) – re the handing of all weapons. The Director of Public Prosecutions Office personnel had been wrongly claiming that the Muanikau Accord was invalid because it was signed under duress.

It was not until I published the three part series on the Accord showing why and how Speight could be brought to justice that the army finally, on 26 July 2000, summoned its muscles to nab Speight. I put forward the 1994 precedent in Trinidad which was later employed by the DPP that saw Speight stripped of immunity and the gang behind bars. Don’t get me wrong, I am not blowing my own trumpet nor that of Koroi.

(P.S. I had authorized DPP officers to take an advance copy of my analysis off Koroi at 2am, English time before its publication; in fact, it was none other than the then Interim Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase (a cousin of Koroi) who had taken the copy of my analysis to the military and DPP for consideration. Ratu Ului Mara had captured George Speight.)

And where was Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum? He was in Hong Kong, busy decrying corruption in the Fiji Muslim League by writing Letters to the Editor in the Fiji Times; now he and his FFP Indo-Fijian MPs and supporters are wagging fingers at VICTOR LAL

Letter: Critique of FML decision to make submission to Constitution Commission

(Letter from A S Khaiyum)

The claim by some executive members of the Fiji Muslim League ('League') that Muslims support a review of our [1997] Constitution and demand separate seats merely because the executive says so is a gross misrepresentation of the views of the everyday and majority of Muslims in our country. The executive lack the mandate to speak as a representative body for Muslims since the League has been and is essentially an administrative institution managing and maintaining mosques, schools, orphanages, a sugar cane farm and real estate. In addition to the lack of mandate the arguments and justifications espoused by the executive for a review and separate seats are flawed.

They are flawed because our Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, namely sections 38(2) and 35 more than adequately guarantee and protect religious freedom and minority rights. Indeed if an almost identical South African Bill of Rights provision protects the rights of the minority South African Muslims then what is so special about and differentiates Muslims in Fiji? On the basis that last century the then nascent League made submissions on separate seats, it is argued today that so called Muslim rights will be achieved if these seats as submitted then are allocated now. To refer to a resolution passed some seventy years ago, in an era with its own specificities and dynamics, as justification for separate seats in today's Fiji illustrates a complete ignorance and denial of our political, social and constitutional history/experience as a nation-state. Indeed if we were to hark back and uphold the standards of 1929 then commoner indigenous Fijians and women would not have the right to vote. Fiji and the rest of the world have moved along.

Clearly such absurd referrals to the past illustrate an enormous vacuum in basic critical thinking and analysis, discourse and a general prevalence of obscurantism within the executive. Furthermore, it aptly demonstrates a complete ignorance of contemporary developments in and interpretations of Islamic law and jurisprudence vis-a-vis constitutional, human rights and international law and conventions. More tragically, however, the opportunism of the executive displays the absence of and lack of belief in justice, compassion, selflessness and basic human decency. Most Muslims in Fiji know that certain officials treat the League and its branches as their own little fiefdoms.

Fiefdoms, where nepotism is known to be rampant at most times; where certain families and individuals have reigned as executives literally for decades; where children and families of well-to-do officials benefit from scholarships which were and are meant for poor students; where chairs of numerous committees are held by single individuals; where businessmen and business interests are over represented; where women, the youth, various provinces and other denominations are either underrepresented or not represented at all; where appeals to religious dogma and unity are utilized in response to queries of administrative/financial discrepancies and where certain individuals view the League merely as a means to acquire access to power, influence and ultimately money - all under the guise of "protecting Muslim interests."

Indeed the absence of proper representation, transparency, accountability and ultimately legitimacy also plague other local institutions in contemporary Fiji. The executive of the League cannot and does not represent the political opinion, views, philosophies of individuals or the bulk of Muslims in Fiji. These self appointed guardians do not speak for the masses. Therefore, the current administration and all Fiji Islanders must understand and recognize the majority of Muslims who believe in basic human decency, justice, democracy and constitutionalism reject the idea of separate seats and/or a review of our Constitution.
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
sayedkha@hkusua.hku.hk

14 Comments

FNU LAW CAMPUS: Lawless bunch hound out law lecturer and former army major turned law lecturer Ana Rokomoti accused of verbally abusing students; Reddy's replacement Ram Karan principal culprit!

25/9/2015

5 Comments

Full story coming soon!

5 Comments

"One Year On, A Racist Minister Continues to Hide in the Cabinet of a Government Reputedly a Government of 'A New and Better Fiji' and a Government He Reviles" - Damning Verdict on Ratu Inoke Kubuabola!

25/9/2015

2 Comments

"Dear Editor

I just saw an article about the first anniversary of FijiFirst Party in power. But what about the claims made by Foreign Minister Inoke Kubuabola, enjoying all the perks of Office, made to his close associates and political foes about the elections being rigged to produce the results predetermined and constructed by Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum.

Is Kubuabola right? He is reputed to be the laziest Minister in the Cabinet; loves travels to collect per diems apart from his salaries and other perks to loot. He is reputed to be ineffective, shy and lacking in confidence when meeting his counterparts. And he hides in his hotel rooms in the expensive capitals he visits, rather than attending meetings, leaving it to junior staff to man the Fiji seats.

There is chatter in the business community why Frank Bainimarama still keeps him inspite of his non-performance and his ultra-nationalist agenda and his constant and serial undermining of Khaiyum. His recommendations for Heads of Missions are known to be ignored by Bainimarama, except the one recent case concerning the wife beater who was known for keeping him stocked up with fresh goat meat.

Again, there is much chatter among the business community about the lack of relevant experience of the wife beater to an important and complex posting. Those in the business community say they know the calibre and ineptitude of this man better than the Foreign Minister as he works closely with them on capacity building issues. They are beginning to question the returns for their compulsory levy to the training institution headed by him.

When will the Prime Minister bite the bullet on this terrible fraud of a politician who cares more about his pocket and racist agenda than the issues of good governance and the welfare of the common man on the street whose tax feeds the enormous greed and appetite of this one man, reputed to be a hungry 'Samoan'. Thanks"

2 Comments

JUST SHUT UP AND CO-OPERATE WITH PAC: Prasad's letter on Khaiyum

24/9/2015

4 Comments

STANDING UP FOR REWA AND HIS CHIEF: Jese Sikivou's stinging e-mail to SODELPA top brass in defence of Ro Kepa and condemnation of those who have been 'trying to belittle the chiefly seat of Roko Tui Dreketi'

23/9/2015

17 Comments

Fijileaks: We had withheld the e-mail (it is not a LETTER) to allow MP Mosese Bulitavu, one of those accused of undermining Ro Kepa, to focus on his graffiti trial

From: Jese Sikivou <jsikivou@connect.com.fj>

To: nlalabalavu@gmail.com; Anare Jale <anare.jale@gmail.com>; Pio Tabaiwalu <piotab8@gmail.com>; Losena Salabula <losalabula@gmail.com>Au Saka,

Sent: Monday, 21 September 2015, 18:36
Subject: OPINION RE: ALLEGATIONS

This statement is submitted through your kind consideration to Mr. Anare Jale as Chair of the Enquiry regarding the allegations and aspersions cast by gauna vinaka 888 which has been supported by some members of our Parliamentary caucus group.

I am also requesting the General Secretary to convey this message to Rt Sikeli Komaisavai. At the outset, please allow me to say that this statement does not have the prior approval nor the prior knowledge of the Gone Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi.Neither is the statement submitted from the perspective of my appointment as Media & Liaison Officer position nor as Private Secretary to the Roko Tui Dreketi.

This statement is submitted at the behest of the Head of my Mataqali, Ro Dona Takalaiyale, Taukei Navolau, Liuliu ni Sauturaga e Rewa, on behalf of our humble Province.He has requested that we notify you of our very grave concern regarding the treatment and the gross disrespect shown to our Gone Marama Bale, specifically by Mosese Bulitavo and the signatories supporting his baseless allegations as well as their fellow travelers standing in the shadows egging them on.

We take this opportunity to remind you and all of SODELPA that our Gone Marama Bale stood alone and stood tall, in darker more difficult times, publicly challenging the Bainimarama regime on various issues such as the revocation of the Great Council of Chiefs, protesting the Namosi Mining venture waste spillage, the cancellation of the Bose Ko Viti 2009 and even marched ahead of her people to hand deliver to Khaiyum, Rewa’s protests regarding the Bainimarama/Khaiyum constitution and the with withdrawal of the Yash Ghai draft.

The likes of Mosese Bulitavo and his fellow travelers were nowhere to be seen or heard. Even as recently as the Fiji flag protest, they did not stand to be counted.We still clearly recall General Secretary Pio Tabaiwalu asking the Gone Marama Bale to launch SODELPA party and to become its Leader.

At a lunch at the Holiday Inn, I specifically asked him to see a copy of the SODELPA constitution and manifesto so we could determine what he was asking the Gone Marama Bale to endorse and lead. Of course neither of the documents were close to being completed at that time. Yet the Gone Marama Bale put her traditional title and her reputation on the line and launched SODELPA, at a stirring speech delivered at the FTA Hall, which had the regime in a tailspin for two weeks.

That was a hallmark speech that opened the floodgates and freed many people to start to voice their opinions against the regime.Since her involvement on the campaign trail, the personal contributions she makes in terms of sacrifices from the provision of kamunaga to her time and at the cost of her own personal campaign, Ro Dona has asked me to convey that SODELPA has responded with ill-mannered and entitled disposition and never was a mere thank you or acknowledgement received in return.

Even in our darkest hours, when the Gone Marama Bale was arrested in the middle of the night from her chiefly residence, there was no material nor moral support from SDL/SODELPA. May I remind you that she defied the regime to defend the Methodist Church in Fiji & Rotuma and the Vanua. Going into the elections last year, we put to you that no other public figure in Fiji, opposed to the regime, carried the same gravitas and reputation as that of our Gone Marama Bale.

The newly launched SODEPA exploited the Gone Marama Bale’s public goodwill and profile, as a launch pad to catapult itself into the public eye and to maintain a strong position, as the single strongest voice against the regime.And after all that, we have come to a point, where weight and consideration are being accorded to cowardly unsigned allegations of gauna vinaka, as touted from pillar to post in the public square by the likes of Mosese Bulitavo, his shadowy supporters and of all things unholy, the Fiji Sun.

Allow me to close by conveying to you behind this scheming and machinations that the Vanua of Rewa is deeply hurt and disappointed by your cowardly and lowly aspersions and cheap pronouncements and in particular how certain parties have connived to trample and disrespect the traditional chiefly seat of the Roko Tui Dreketi.

Vinaka Vakalevu

Jese Sikivou