Fijileaks
  • Home
  • Archive Home
  • In-depth Analysis
    • BOI Report into George Speight and others beatings
  • Documents
  • Opinion
  • CRC Submissions
  • Features
  • Archive

UNCONSTITUTIONAL NOOSE that SODELPA will not TALK or REMIND us about, for the HANGMAN is now their party leader. Yes, coupist Sitiveni Rabuka's 1990 Constitution of Fiji which oppressed us for seven years!

6/9/2017

5 Comments

 

"Unlike the independence [1970] constitution, which was a negotiated document, the 1990 constitution was basically imposed on the people and in the face of the unanimous opposition of one major community, the Indo-Fijians, along with considerable opposition from others...
While native institutions intruded upon the constitutional scheme, the 1990 constitution was not allowed to impose its discipline over them. For example, the acts of the GCC were excluded from the purview of the ombudsman, an office established by the 1970 Constitution. Not accountable to any institution or process, the GCC was now effectively above the law...the indigenous institutions had been largely freed of constitutional supervision; many of the native institutions had been so recomposed and manipulated they could no longer be regarded as indigenous but, rather, as instruments of those Fijians who controlled the state."
Professor Yash Ghai and Jill Cottrell, 2007

Picture
Dr Singh beaten up
Picture
Picture

We publish below an excerpt from Professor Yash Ghai and Jill Cotlrell's "A tale of three constitutions: Ethnicity and politics in Fiji",  International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 5, Issue 4, 1 October 2007, focusing on the 1990 RACIST Constitution that was imposed on us!

The 1990 constitution

Space does not allow for a detailed examination of the 1990 constitution, which functioned as a bridge between the 1970 and 1997 constitutions—a reaction to the former, it triggered a crisis that gave rise to a search for new values that find expression in the latter.

Unlike the independence constitution, which was a negotiated document, the 1990 constitution was basically imposed on the people and in the face of the unanimous opposition of one major community, the Indo-Fijians, along with considerable opposition from others.

The new constitution rejected multiracialism in favor of Fijian dominance and attempted to close constitutional loopholes that might have frustrated the goal of ensuring Fijian supremacy for all time. It reinforced the segregation of races and the political subordination of Indo-Fijians. Finally, it aimed at the enhanced dominance of purely Fijian institutions over the state. In what follows we summarize some of the features of this constitution.

The new constitution retained the parliamentary system of government and a bicameral legislature, though with significant changes meant to guarantee Fijian dominance. No cross-voting seats were provided for, so all representation became communal. In the seventy-member House of Representatives, thirty-seven seats were reserved for Fijians; this meant that they would not need to make alliances with any other community in order to form a government. Other Pacific islanders, who previously had appeared in the electoral roll of Fijians, were reclassified as so-called “general” electors.

The registration of all Fijian voters was now tied to the traditional rules of descent for each subordinate communal group within Fijian society; final decisions were left to the Native Land Commission (which also affected land rights).

This led to some separation of traditional groups within the Fijian community, a tendency that was further reinforced by making the provinces the basis for Fijian constituencies. In the allocation of seats, there was also discrimination against urban Fijians, who were assumed to be less strongly bound by communal ties than rural people.

The Senate consisted of twenty-four members nominated by the GCC, one by the Rotuman Council, and nine members nominated by the president of Fiji to represent other communities (without any requirement for consultations). The president himself was to be appointed by the GCC and would presumably be a Fijian, although this was not specified in the text as a qualification. This over representation of Fijians, when they also had an absolute majority in the other house, belied the justification for the second chamber.

In addition, the 1990 constitution enhanced the entrenchment of legislation protecting Fijian land and other interests. And the protection given to these specific acts was now extended to any bill “which affects land, customs or customary rights.” Amendments required the support of not less than eighteen of the twenty-four Senate members appointed by the GCC. The 1990 constitution also changed the rule whereby minerals belonged to the state. Now minerals were vested in the owners of the land where they were found—potentially, a major shift of resources from the state to the one community that owned most of the land.

Provision was made to guarantee a Fijian administration: only a Fijian could be prime minister. Because the president had to appoint to this office a person who commanded the support of a majority in the House, the implicit assumption was that there would always be a clear Fijian majority bloc. This constitution gave even more power to the executive than the 1970 text had, since the moderating role of the leader of the opposition (a post traditionally held by an Indo-Fijian) was much diminished, and the prime minister was given a direct and decisive say in appointments to various offices. The chairman and one other member of the three-member Police Service Commission had to be Fijian —an arrangement clearly designed to establish dominance over the police, in which institution there had previously been racial parity. Further, the legislature and the executive were given unlimited powers to establish programs and policies for “promoting and safeguarding the economic, social, educational, cultural, traditional and other interests of the Fijian and Rotuman people.”

The 1990 constitution enhanced the role of indigenous institutions. It gave special status to Fijian customary law, which also increased the separation of Fijians from the other communities. In its proceedings, Parliament had to take into account the application of this customary law and had to have a “particular regard to the customs, traditions, usages, values and aspirations of the Fijian people.” Native Fijian courts had to be revived. The interpretation of native customs, traditions, and usages (including land rights) and the determination as to the existence, extent, or application of customary laws were to be made by the Native Lands Commission. Customary laws were freed from the application of the right to equality.

While native institutions intruded upon the constitutional scheme, the 1990 constitution was not allowed to impose its discipline over them. For example, the acts of the GCC were excluded from the purview of the ombudsman, an office established by the 1970 Constitution. Not accountable to any institution or process, the GCC was now effectively above the law. It was also placed beyond criticism, as Parliament was authorized to curb freedom of expression in order to protect “the reputation, dignity and esteem of institutions and values of the Fijian people, in particular the Bose Levu Vakaturaga [Great Council of Chiefs] and the traditional Fijian system and titles or reputation, dignity and esteem of other races in Fiji, in particular their traditional systems.”

The ombudsman was also prevented from reviewing the actions of the Native Land Commission, the Native Fisheries Commission, and the Native Lands Trust Board. Similarly, many of these decisions, especially those made by the Native Lands Commission, were removed from the jurisdiction of the courts.

On the one hand, the indigenous institutions had been largely freed of constitutional supervision; on the other, however, many of the native institutions had been so recomposed and manipulated they could no longer be regarded as indigenous but, rather, as instruments of those Fijians who controlled the state. This is evident in the way in which the leaders of the coup changed the membership of the GCC to exclude the supporters of the democratically elected government they overthrew, thereby increasing their own power to nominate members.

Another consequence was that the close control of the state by the native institutions prevented other races from influencing the state's policies and undermined the capacity or willingness of the state to promote interethnic bargaining and accommodation.

Predictably, the weakening of institutions of accountability facilitated corruption and impropriety in public life and produced an inefficient government. This state of affairs led to a major crisis of confidence in the future of Fiji and to the emigration of a substantial number of talented citizens. The situation that emerged was perceived as a principal cause of the stagnation of the economy, retarding the social and economic advancement of all the communities; was much criticized abroad; and, finally, secured Fiji's expulsion from the Commonwealth.

Most importantly, the new constitution reinforced internal divisions among Fijians. Once Indo-Fijians were sidelined, there was little to maintain the political unity of Fijians. The passing of power to commoners undermined the chiefly class, which had sedulously cultivated both the ideology of traditionalism and a sort of unity under eastern hegemony. Given the resultant multiplicity of parties among Fijians, no one party could form a government without the support of an Indian party.

Needing that support, Rabuka agreed to a speedy review of the constitution, in accordance with a provision for a review at the end of seven years.

Conclusion:

The self-proclaimed mission of the 2006 coup maker is to resolve this ambiguity (consociation and the political integration of different communities) in favor of integration. In a recent statement by the new government, which calls itself the interim government, it announced plans for the review of the 1997 Constitution with the goal of “rid[ding] the Constitution of provisions that facilitate and exacerbate the politics of race [in] such areas as the registration of voters and the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through separate racial electoral rolls.”

The government claims to advocate the abolition of voting in “terms of racial classifications,” so that “each voter should vote for a candidate of his/her choice in a common roll, with each vote having equal value.”

If this is achieved, the pendulum will have swung to the opposite extreme from past preoccupations with race.

And Fiji's fortunes may then tell us something more about the relative merits of consociation and integration.


Picture
Picture

Fijileaks: SODELPA's current pronouncements under Rabuka have all the echoes of 1987 and the stirrings of racial oppression of Indo-Fijians, as in the 1990 Constitution, a CONSTITUTION that SODELPA will not want to remind us

5 Comments
Najib
7/9/2017 08:10:22 am

While u we may disagree with them surely we must admire individuals who stand up for their people. During the colonial period GBB was an honorared term, "Gaoled by the British" and illustrious leaders like Ghandi, Nehru, Nkrumah, Makarios and Kenyatta were all part of that exclusive club. This week Iliesa Duvululivo, the alleged and misguided mastermind of the Speight 2001 coup, was buried at his village in Verata, Tailevu, Duvuloco served time on Nukulau and Naboro for his crime and bore the scars of his beating by the military that probably hastened his end. Khaiyum was a bomb maker during the 1987 coup and that would classify him as a terrorist in today's world. Now he runs Fiji as the Chief lawmaker. As much as we can belittle him now Rabuka put into action what he believed in at the time and etched his beliefs in specific provisions in a constitution he promulgated. On the other hand, Bainimarama hides the supposed entrenched protections of indigenous Fijians that he likes to preach about in the preamble of his Constitution, not in the text which is the actionable and enforceable part. This is just tomfoolery, and smoke and mirrors that so far Bai and Kaiyum have been able to get away with. But sooner or later people will wake up. What then?

Reply
Rajend Naidu
7/9/2017 09:42:48 pm

When the " alleged and misguided mastermind of the Speight 2001 coup" was given the beating of his life by our brutal military bully boys and landed in the CWM Hospital, I visited him twice and took him some roti and curry to remind him that all Indians, who he was scapegoating to advance his political agenda, were not the bastard he and his fellow political travellers were making out to be. Illiesa
Duvuloco was very grateful for the visit my wife and I made to see him at the hospital.
I hope he had changed his racist political thinking by the time the call had come for him to meet his Maker...

Reply
Welcome Home
7/9/2017 08:39:22 am

There can be no one more able or conversant with the intricacies of Fiji's troubled constitutional situation than Professor Yash Ghai, a Kenyan citizen. Now this angle has become focused and truly relevant. The professor and Dr Jill Cottrell could not have been more patient, understanding and attentive to the great concerns expressed to them privately and publicly about safety and security for vulnerable civilians.The public consultation was recorded at Girmit Centre Lautoka. Numerous instances of significant gaps in security and instances of aggravated attacks upon civilian homes including a humiliating nighttime attempted gang rape of an elderly female were told of. The attack and holding hostage of the Gurukul School Principal and her family using a cane knife and crowbars which lasted for many hours. The bluntness of the knife used was emphasised by the brave lady later when we visited her. Professor Ghai was known to us from 1996 when he was so helpful and supportive during the long months of the Constitutional Commission Consultations under the chairmanship of Sir Paul Reeves. After his time at the University of Hong Kong, he might well have been taken aback by the unseemly treatment meted out to him in Fiji? An effusive apology is due to him for the lack of courtesy and failure to show fulsome appreciation for his efforts. In God's good time, we must trust that this is forthcoming. His visit to The Waterfront Hotel facilitated by Mr YP Reddy was a godsend. Without it, there was nowhere else to go and YP must be readily aware of this. "Manners makeyth Man". Amidst the grinding violence, withering hope and suffering, people wish to know that their protection and safety MATTER unconditionally because they are Human Beings above all.

Reply
Donu
7/9/2017 10:03:43 am

And yet Siti also brought about the 1997 Constitution. Doesn't this vindicate the man? What bigger atonement must one show for us to forgive him for 1987 and then the 1990 Constitution. He paid a subsequent heavy price for 1997 Constitution and his subsequent alliance with NFP, another act of atonement, where he showed that he believed that the ITaukeis and Indo Fijians were equally Fijians and must work together to build our nation. Just imagine where we would have been if a Rabuka-Reddy Government had become a reality. We probably would never have seen another facist government take control of Fiji to rule by thugery and treat the tax payer as their cash cow.

Reply
Samisoni Domuni
7/9/2017 12:24:51 pm

I dont know about Rabuka's noose but reddys court case reflects the noose that kaiyum is putting around indo-fijian ministers especially hindus. kaiyum with the help of saneem and aslam of ficac seems to have framed reddy to get rid of him. if my memory serves me right, this saneem guy with the help of another muslim girl were very influential in getting rid of the hindu lady who was indian high commissioner. neil sharma, sanjeet patel, pio tikoduadua and now mahen reddy are all victims of the noose that kaiyum and his muslim henchmen is putting around anyone that they fear. the problem with you Indians are that your own is screwing you. Indian businessmen financed all coups and now muslim Indians through kaiyum are screwing hindu indians by isolating them. Rabuka was atleast upfront with his intentions. kaiyum is putting a friendly face in front and backstabbing the same people who has given him the mandate to rule. I ask Fijileaks if Rabuka is bad, what does such devious actions says of bainimarama and kaiyum? If rabuka tourted and backlisted indians, kaiyum and bainimarama has done the same to many i-taukeis and hindus. why two different standards when both did same crime. i dont see you writing about the noose that kaiyum is putting on hindus and i-taukeis with his divisive actions? Prove me wrong and do investigations and write about kaiyums worse than coup antics if you have any spine.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    editor@fijileaks.com

    ARCHIVES

    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    Picture
    Picture