JULIAN Moti in conversation with the veteran former NFP parliamentarian and lawyer K.C. Ramrakha

In this rare and exclusive interview with Julian Moti QC, veteran Fiji lawyer and politician Karam Ramrakha chronicles the background of the Fiji-born former Attorney-General of Solomon Islands and interrogates him on his perspectives on law and politics in Melanesia.

Pearl of the Pacific

Most Melanesians probably won’t know that “Moti” is the Hindi and Urdu word for pearl. The Brits certainly did.

“You must be the other pearl of the Pacific” is how retired appellate judge and former Fiji Ombudsman Sir Moti Tikaram was greeted by a distinguished Law Lord at a London diplomatic cocktail party two decades ago. Julian Moti had already left his footprints there.

Those who know Julian Moti appreciate his trademark wit. Self-mockingly, he delights in telling me: “my surname is a four-letter word.”

Perhaps so it is for those who have sought to abuse, demonise and crucify Moti since 2006 when he was appointed Attorney-General of Solomon Islands.

His continuing spell there in that role obviously spelt trouble for Australia’s reign in Solomon Islands.

Early fame

Outside Fiji (where he was born and grew up before migrating to Australia), not much is known of Moti’s fame and family.

He is surprised that I still remember him making front page news in the late 1970s and retorts: “Yesterday’s poster boy from Lautoka has become today’s whipping boy for Australia!”

As right as he is, he does have a way with words.

The fact that he could also spell faultlessly was why he initially rose to prominence in his first year as a student at Natabua High School in Lautoka. Moti was undefeated as Fiji’s National Spelling Champion. At Natabua, he was also an orator, debater, quiz kid, prefect, and school magazine editor.

He feels quite shy talking about all his scholastic achievements: “Guruji, let’s focus on something else, shall we?”

He has always addressed me as “Guruji” - a privilege I share with his mentor, Professor Upendra Baxi (whom Moti considers “the star of India’s legal galaxy”).

Pioneer family

Tracing his ancestry allows us to acknowledge the old ties that still bind us. Moti’s grandfather was a friend of my father, Odin Ramrakha.

After completing his ‘indenture’ on the sugarcane fields of Fiji, Moti “Mahajan” chose to settle down with his family in Lautoka in the 1890s instead of returning to India.

His estate then comprised most of the land situated in the heart of today’s sprawling metropolis.

When he died in 1927, the “gift” of a substantial tract of prime land to the Catholic mission enabled all of Moti Mahajan’s children to be educated.

The residue of that estate is the old family house where Moti also grew up, opposite today’s “urban village” of Namoli. He knows where he comes from.

“The Motis are kai-Namoli. Our kinship with Namoli’s chiefs has spanned three generations,” he says, trying to recall the names and faces of all his childhood friends who descended from Nasoki, Bouwalu, Baravi and Satala with whom he used to play and go fishing on weekends in his father’s boat.

I try to steer him back from nostalgia to more topical issues:
So how does an Indo-Fijian boy from Lautoka who becomes a lawyer in Australia end up making waves in Melanesia?

“We Indians are like tuna - a highly migratory species. No wonder some see value in having us captured and canned! My fascination with Melanesia and its unique legal traditions began as a child overhearing conversations between Ratu Jone Bouwalu, Baravi and my father.

It was rekindled by Professor Peter Lawrence (the renowned expert on Melanesian cargo cults) who taught me legal anthropology at the University of Sydney.

With his encouragement and the guidance of Professors Ron Crocombe, Alice Tay, Peter Sack and others, I chose “Law, State and Custom in Oceania” as the focus of my honours thesis.

Ratu Mara pointed me in the right direction. He saw a “bright future” for me in law and politics in Fiji.

What happened there in 1987 caused me to reconsider my career path.

A fateful meeting with Christopher Abe and Solomon Mamaloni landed me in Solomon Islands.

My loyalty to both of them was tested when they lost office in the 1993 general elections. I didn’t see eye to eye with those who held the balance of power in Billy Hilly’s coalition government.

I returned to Australia to engineer its constitutional demise while teaching law at Bond University.

When Mamaloni was re-elected Prime Minister after the constitutional crisis in late 1994, he offered me the Attorney-General’s job. I refused.

I was too young. I nominated Reginald Teutao instead and spent the next decade shuttling between the Port Vila and Honiara offices of Motis Pacific Lawyers - the regional law firm I had established with my Melanesian partners.

With Willie Jimmy, Maxime Korman, Serge Vohor, Father Walter Lini and others as clients, my firm couldn’t also avoid getting involved in Vanuatu’s politico-litigious battles.

My attempt to take a break from Melanesia was short-lived.

I was a Visiting Professorial Fellow at Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Centre for the Study of Law and Governance in New Delhi when I was again offered the Attorney General’s post.

Twice in fact. Once by Sir Allan Kemakeza in 2004. Then by Manasseh Sogavare in 2006. What followed, as they say, is history.”

Based on your close involvement with the legal and political affairs of the region for more than two decades, what can you say about the controversy over Fiji’s turn to host the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) meeting?

“This week’s MSG summit in Fiji is the triumph of sense over sensibility. A basic grasp of elementary principles of international law is all that is needed to question what the fuss was all about.

The Agreement establishing the MSG as a ‘sub-regional organisation’ is a treaty entered into between international legal persons.

The signatory parties to MSG’s constituent instrument are not governments but nation states and a national liberation movement.

That ‘innovation’ was based on my advice and sponsored by Prime Ministers Sogavare and Somare to overcome delays and legal complications in concluding a draft ‘inter-governmental’ compact which included the Government of Fiji and Front de Liberation National Kanak et Socialist (FLNKS) as members. We were able to rally support for the adoption of a collective approach to the recognition of both Fiji and FLNKS.

Acknowledging the permanent and unalterable feature of our geographical proximity and neighbourhood as well as our cultural unity and solidarity, we pressed for the entry of both the Republic of Fiji (as a state in its sovereign capacity) and FLNKS (as a national liberation movement) as founding members of MSG.

My argument held sway: an entity is not a state or international legal person because it is recognised; it is recognised because it is a state or international legal person.

Instead of recognising regimes on the basis of who habitually obeys them, I argued, we should recognise regimes on the basis of those to whom they are accountable.

The draft MSG Agreement was promptly modified for execution by the parties’ signatories in Port Vila on March 23, 2007.

With tongue-in-cheek, I’d like to say my contribution to the change of the MSG Agreement’s architectural design was an exercise in instant ‘capacity building’ which was effected without the assistance of any AusAID-deployed personnel.

Now, Frank Bainimarama was Prime Minister when the Republic of Fiji became a signatory party to the MSG Agreement.

Vanuatu’s Parliament legislated to ratify that Agreement with effect from May 15, 2008.

Sooner or later, hypocrisy had to be jettisoned to salvage Vanuatu’s integrity.
Prime Minister Sato Kilman wasted no time in doing what was right and just.”

You are obviously monitoring the progress of the MSG meetings in Suva. Do you have any ideas to float for its future?

“Yes, I’m observing from a distance and quite pleased with the news I’m receiving from there.

Future modifications to MSG’s compact could capitalize on the region’s linguistic base and adopt its lingua franca, Melanesian Pidgin, as one of its official languages.

At a practical level, Fiji’s diplomatic cadre would be well-advised to learn Pidgin to bolster their Melanesian credentials. I mean that quite sincerely.

I’d like to see concrete and meaningful steps being taken to embrace not only West Papuans but also indigenous Australians (be they Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander) within the fold of the different categories of membership created under Articles 1.3 and 1.4 of the MSG Agreement. I’m being equally sincere in that quest.”

You’re no fan of the Pacific Islands Forum. Any reasons for your reservations?

“Now is not the time to delve into all the reasons why I contend that the Forum should either be completely overhauled, dissolved or have its Secretariat relocated to the Canberra headquarters of Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

My criticisms of the Forum have nothing whatsoever to do with Tuiloma Neroni Slade, his predecessors or successors. It is not them but the nature of their outfit’s mission which have created an anti-nation industry in the Pacific.

Surprisingly for those who don’t know any better, the revised Agreement establishing the Pacific Islands Forum which was adopted in 2005 has not been ratified by all of its signatory members and remains inoperative.

That Agreement and its precursors designate Fiji as the depositary government.

With Fiji’s suspension from the Forum and the unenlightened position adopted by one or two of its fringe-dwelling constituents and principal financiers, the organisation remains beset with major constitutional problems affecting its legitimacy and future.”

Do you think the Forum is being used by Australia and New Zealand to advance their own strategic interests?

“Most definitely, and that was why there was initial resistance to their inclusion by the Forum’s founders. Back then, Australia predicated its desire to become involved in our affairs with ‘due sensitivity for Island susceptibilities.’

That concern has been long forgotten.

The text of paragraph 76 of the Cairns Communique and paragraph 80 of the Port Vila Communique answers your question rather poignantly.

It is stipulated there that the ‘Leaders reaffirmed their strong and unanimous support for Australia’s candidature for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the two year term 2013-2014 and New Zealand’s candidature for the two year term 2015-2016.’

It is the case of the pot calling the kettle black when Australia condemns the practice of corruption in the Pacific yet resorts to buying votes to secure a seat for itself in the UNSC by dispensing billions of dollars to Africa and the Pacific in aid funds.

As noble as it might otherwise appear, one cannot de-link Australia’s practice of sovereign charity from its national aspirations nor Kevin Rudd’s personal ambition to sit where H V Evatt once did.”

Australia’s ‘Last Blackbird from Melanesia’

Moti does not want to dwell on his unlawful capture, kidnapping and rendition to Australia from Honiara on December 27, 2007.

He declares: “I am Australia’s last blackbird from Melanesia - hopefully its final and not most recent one!”
He has given the opportunity to Australia’s High Court to vindicate that (and him) when its full bench sits to decide the fate of his appeal on April 8, 2011.

By Karam Chand Ramrakha in Sydney, Australia