The contemporary claim that the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) should be vested with the sole authority to appoint the President and Vice-President of Fiji invites a return to history, not as nostalgia, but as constraint. For the GCC has not existed as a continuous, unquestioned sovereign body. It has been shaped, curtailed, suspended, and even abolished when its authority collided with the priorities of the state |  |
Vinaka to the "Old Boy" for his imaginative scene from 1905
*During his tenure, Governor Everard im Thurn sought to rationalise colonial administration, reduce the influence of chiefly institutions, and promote policies that aligned more closely with economic development objectives.
*His most notable, and controversial act, was the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs in 1905, reflecting his view that the body had become an impediment to efficient governance in Fiji. Im Thurn’s administration was shaped by broader shifts in imperial thinking, including changing attitudes toward race, land use, and the role of indigenous populations within colonial economies.
*While his policies did not dismantle the system of communal land tenure, they marked a clear move away from the earlier protective ethos toward a more utilitarian and administrative model. His governorship remains a defining moment, illustrating how quickly entrenched structures, such as the Great Council of Chiefs, could be curtailed when they ceased to align with the priorities of the Fijian state.
Governor im Thurn Suspended, Abolished, Revived: The Great Council of Chiefs from im Thurn to Bainimarama and the Limits of Exclusive Authority
The contemporary claim that the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) ought to be vested with sole authority to appoint the President and Vice-President of Fiji invites a return to history, not as nostalgia, but as constraint. The GCC has not existed as a continuous or uncontested sovereign body. It has been shaped, curtailed, suspended, and at times abolished when its authority has come into conflict with the priorities of the state.
Two moments, separated by more than a century, illustrate this pattern with particular clarity: the suspension of the GCC under Everard im Thurn between 1905 and 1912, and its dismantling under Frank Bainimarama in 2012. These episodes are not anomalies. They reveal a deeper constitutional truth. Chiefly authority in Fiji has always been contingent and never absolute.
The Gordonian Foundation: Chiefs as Instruments of Governance
The GCC emerged in the late nineteenth century as part of the system established by Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon. Under Gordon’s model of indirect rule, chiefs were recognised as intermediaries between the colonial administration and iTaukei society. Communal land tenure was preserved, and the GCC functioned as a consultative body that lent legitimacy to governance.
This arrangement depended upon a careful balance. Chiefs were empowered, but only within a framework controlled by the colonial state. The GCC did not exercise sovereignty in its own right. Its authority was recognised and sustained by the governing structure within which it operated.
The im Thurn Intervention: From Recognition to Suspension
By the early twentieth century, that balance had begun to shift. When Everard im Thurn assumed office in 1904, he encountered a system in which chiefly authority, exercised collectively through the GCC, had become both influential and, in his view, obstructive. Several factors informed his decision to suspend the GCC in 1905. There was administrative frustration with a body seen as deliberative without sufficient executive effect. There were policy conflicts, particularly in relation to taxation, labour, and economic reform. There was also an emerging colonial outlook that placed greater emphasis on economic development than on preservation.
A central element in this shift concerned land. Earlier administrations had treated land as the foundation of communal identity. Im Thurn’s approach regarded it increasingly as an economic resource to be organised and utilised more systematically. The GCC, as the institutional expression of chiefly authority over land and society, stood in tension with this approach.
Its suspension was therefore deliberate. Between 1905 and 1912, the GCC ceased to function as a collective advisory body. Decision-making moved more directly into the hands of colonial officials, and chiefs were repositioned as administrative agents rather than autonomous actors. The implication was clear. The GCC could be set aside when it obstructed the objectives of the state.
Restoration and Recalibration
The restoration of the GCC in 1912 did not restore it to its earlier position. It represented a recalibration. Colonial authorities recognised that complete centralisation risked alienating iTaukei society. The GCC provided a necessary channel of communication and a source of legitimacy. Indirect rule required some accommodation of indigenous structures.
The GCC was therefore revived, but within defined limits. Its authority remained derivative and functional rather than inherent or sovereign.
The Post-Independence Trajectory: From Influence to Contestation
Following independence, the GCC acquired greater prominence. It came to be seen as a symbol of indigenous identity and unity. It also assumed a role within national political processes, including participation in the appointment of the President under earlier constitutional arrangements.
Even in this period, however, its authority was not uncontested. Fiji’s political history, marked by coups and constitutional change, repeatedly placed the GCC within wider struggles over governance. Its influence expanded, but it remained subject to competing institutional forces.
The Bainimarama Era: Abolition and Rejection
The most decisive rupture occurred in 2012, when the GCC was formally abolished under the government of Frank Bainimarama. The reasons advanced at the time were that the GCC had become politicised, that it entrenched ethnic division, and that it conflicted with a vision of equal citizenship.
The consequences were immediate. The GCC’s institutional structure was dismantled, and its constitutional role was removed. The 2013 Constitution made no provision for its existence. This was not a temporary suspension. It was intended as a permanent removal. The principle was again evident. No institution, however deeply rooted, stands beyond the reach of state authority.
Revival and Rapid Reassertion
In 2022, the Coalition government under Sitiveni Rabuka restored the GCC, presenting its revival as a recognition of cultural identity and institutional dignity. It has not remained confined to a symbolic role. It has moved quickly into active engagement in national debates, seeking to influence the constitutional and political direction of the state.
Among its early interventions has been the demand that the name ‘Fijian’ be reserved exclusively for iTaukei, reversing the civic definition adopted in the post-2013 constitutional framework. It has also asserted a claim to exclusive authority over the appointment of the President and Vice-President. These positions indicate not only revival, but an attempt to reshape national identity and constitutional structure.
This rapid shift from restoration to active intervention reflects the persistence of earlier tensions in a contemporary form.
The Present Claim: Exclusive Authority Revisited
The GCC’s claim to exclusive authority over the appointment of the President and Vice-President must be assessed in light of this history. The claim is for sole control rather than shared participation. It raises serious constitutional concerns. It concentrates authority within a single body. It limits broader institutional involvement. It risks aligning the highest offices of state with particular networks of influence.
Historical experience suggests that such concentration is unstable.
The Recurring Pattern
Across the periods considered, a consistent pattern emerges. The GCC is recognised and empowered. Its influence expands. Tensions arise between its authority and broader governance objectives. The state intervenes by limiting, suspending, or abolishing it.
This pattern reflects a structural tension between traditional authority and the centralising tendencies of the modern state.
Constitutional Implications
Modern constitutional design rests on principles that extend beyond historical legitimacy. These include the separation of powers, the maintenance of checks and balances, and the requirements of accountability and transparency. The exclusive vesting of presidential appointment in the GCC would depart from these principles. It would concentrate authority, reduce oversight, and narrow the range of institutional participation in a critical constitutional function.
The experiences of both im Thurn and Bainimarama demonstrate the risks inherent in such arrangements.
History as Warning
The history of the GCC is not one of uninterrupted authority. It is a history marked by recognition and withdrawal, empowerment and limitation, continuity and rupture. From its suspension under Everard im Thurn to its abolition under Frank Bainimarama, and now to its renewed role following restoration under Sitiveni Rabuka, the institution has repeatedly been reshaped by the demands of governance.
That history offers a clear lesson. The GCC has never exercised exclusive and uncontested authority within Fiji. To vest it now with sole power over the appointment of the President and Vice-President, or to redefine national identity along exclusive ethnic lines, would not restore a traditional order. It would introduce a constitutional innovation that risks reproducing the very tensions that have, in the past, led to the curtailment of the institution itself.
The past, properly understood, does not support the claim. It cautions against it.
The contemporary claim that the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) ought to be vested with sole authority to appoint the President and Vice-President of Fiji invites a return to history, not as nostalgia, but as constraint. The GCC has not existed as a continuous or uncontested sovereign body. It has been shaped, curtailed, suspended, and at times abolished when its authority has come into conflict with the priorities of the state.
Two moments, separated by more than a century, illustrate this pattern with particular clarity: the suspension of the GCC under Everard im Thurn between 1905 and 1912, and its dismantling under Frank Bainimarama in 2012. These episodes are not anomalies. They reveal a deeper constitutional truth. Chiefly authority in Fiji has always been contingent and never absolute.
The Gordonian Foundation: Chiefs as Instruments of Governance
The GCC emerged in the late nineteenth century as part of the system established by Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon. Under Gordon’s model of indirect rule, chiefs were recognised as intermediaries between the colonial administration and iTaukei society. Communal land tenure was preserved, and the GCC functioned as a consultative body that lent legitimacy to governance.
This arrangement depended upon a careful balance. Chiefs were empowered, but only within a framework controlled by the colonial state. The GCC did not exercise sovereignty in its own right. Its authority was recognised and sustained by the governing structure within which it operated.
The im Thurn Intervention: From Recognition to Suspension
By the early twentieth century, that balance had begun to shift. When Everard im Thurn assumed office in 1904, he encountered a system in which chiefly authority, exercised collectively through the GCC, had become both influential and, in his view, obstructive. Several factors informed his decision to suspend the GCC in 1905. There was administrative frustration with a body seen as deliberative without sufficient executive effect. There were policy conflicts, particularly in relation to taxation, labour, and economic reform. There was also an emerging colonial outlook that placed greater emphasis on economic development than on preservation.
A central element in this shift concerned land. Earlier administrations had treated land as the foundation of communal identity. Im Thurn’s approach regarded it increasingly as an economic resource to be organised and utilised more systematically. The GCC, as the institutional expression of chiefly authority over land and society, stood in tension with this approach.
Its suspension was therefore deliberate. Between 1905 and 1912, the GCC ceased to function as a collective advisory body. Decision-making moved more directly into the hands of colonial officials, and chiefs were repositioned as administrative agents rather than autonomous actors. The implication was clear. The GCC could be set aside when it obstructed the objectives of the state.
Restoration and Recalibration
The restoration of the GCC in 1912 did not restore it to its earlier position. It represented a recalibration. Colonial authorities recognised that complete centralisation risked alienating iTaukei society. The GCC provided a necessary channel of communication and a source of legitimacy. Indirect rule required some accommodation of indigenous structures.
The GCC was therefore revived, but within defined limits. Its authority remained derivative and functional rather than inherent or sovereign.
The Post-Independence Trajectory: From Influence to Contestation
Following independence, the GCC acquired greater prominence. It came to be seen as a symbol of indigenous identity and unity. It also assumed a role within national political processes, including participation in the appointment of the President under earlier constitutional arrangements.
Even in this period, however, its authority was not uncontested. Fiji’s political history, marked by coups and constitutional change, repeatedly placed the GCC within wider struggles over governance. Its influence expanded, but it remained subject to competing institutional forces.
The Bainimarama Era: Abolition and Rejection
The most decisive rupture occurred in 2012, when the GCC was formally abolished under the government of Frank Bainimarama. The reasons advanced at the time were that the GCC had become politicised, that it entrenched ethnic division, and that it conflicted with a vision of equal citizenship.
The consequences were immediate. The GCC’s institutional structure was dismantled, and its constitutional role was removed. The 2013 Constitution made no provision for its existence. This was not a temporary suspension. It was intended as a permanent removal. The principle was again evident. No institution, however deeply rooted, stands beyond the reach of state authority.
Revival and Rapid Reassertion
In 2022, the Coalition government under Sitiveni Rabuka restored the GCC, presenting its revival as a recognition of cultural identity and institutional dignity. It has not remained confined to a symbolic role. It has moved quickly into active engagement in national debates, seeking to influence the constitutional and political direction of the state.
Among its early interventions has been the demand that the name ‘Fijian’ be reserved exclusively for iTaukei, reversing the civic definition adopted in the post-2013 constitutional framework. It has also asserted a claim to exclusive authority over the appointment of the President and Vice-President. These positions indicate not only revival, but an attempt to reshape national identity and constitutional structure.
This rapid shift from restoration to active intervention reflects the persistence of earlier tensions in a contemporary form.
The Present Claim: Exclusive Authority Revisited
The GCC’s claim to exclusive authority over the appointment of the President and Vice-President must be assessed in light of this history. The claim is for sole control rather than shared participation. It raises serious constitutional concerns. It concentrates authority within a single body. It limits broader institutional involvement. It risks aligning the highest offices of state with particular networks of influence.
Historical experience suggests that such concentration is unstable.
The Recurring Pattern
Across the periods considered, a consistent pattern emerges. The GCC is recognised and empowered. Its influence expands. Tensions arise between its authority and broader governance objectives. The state intervenes by limiting, suspending, or abolishing it.
This pattern reflects a structural tension between traditional authority and the centralising tendencies of the modern state.
Constitutional Implications
Modern constitutional design rests on principles that extend beyond historical legitimacy. These include the separation of powers, the maintenance of checks and balances, and the requirements of accountability and transparency. The exclusive vesting of presidential appointment in the GCC would depart from these principles. It would concentrate authority, reduce oversight, and narrow the range of institutional participation in a critical constitutional function.
The experiences of both im Thurn and Bainimarama demonstrate the risks inherent in such arrangements.
History as Warning
The history of the GCC is not one of uninterrupted authority. It is a history marked by recognition and withdrawal, empowerment and limitation, continuity and rupture. From its suspension under Everard im Thurn to its abolition under Frank Bainimarama, and now to its renewed role following restoration under Sitiveni Rabuka, the institution has repeatedly been reshaped by the demands of governance.
That history offers a clear lesson. The GCC has never exercised exclusive and uncontested authority within Fiji. To vest it now with sole power over the appointment of the President and Vice-President, or to redefine national identity along exclusive ethnic lines, would not restore a traditional order. It would introduce a constitutional innovation that risks reproducing the very tensions that have, in the past, led to the curtailment of the institution itself.
The past, properly understood, does not support the claim. It cautions against it.
| Sir Everard im Thurn: A Brief Biographical Note Everard im Thurn (1852–1932) was a British colonial administrator, explorer, and ethnographer whose career spanned several parts of the British Empire, but whose tenure in Fiji remains one of the most consequential for the evolution of colonial governance. Born in London and educated at Oxford, im Thurn first established his reputation not as an administrator but as a naturalist and explorer. He is particularly remembered for his 1884 ascent of Mount Roraima in colonial British Guiana (now Guyana), an expedition that combined scientific curiosity with imperial ambition. |  A presentation of the feast at Savusavu to Governor, Sir Everard Im Thurn. The governor and his aides are seated under a pavilion with the locals seated in the foreground. Photo held at the National Library of Auckland |
He entered the colonial service in British Guiana, where he rose through administrative ranks before being appointed Governor of Fiji in 1904. His governorship marked a significant departure from the earlier policies of Governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon. Where Gordon had emphasised the protection of indigenous iTaukei society and the centrality of chiefly authority within a system of indirect rule, im Thurn adopted a more interventionist and centralising approach.
During his tenure (1904–1910), im Thurn sought to rationalise colonial administration, reduce the influence of chiefly institutions, and promote policies that aligned more closely with economic development objectives. His most notable, and controversial act, was the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs in 1905, reflecting his view that the body had become an impediment to efficient governance.
Im Thurn’s administration was shaped by broader shifts in imperial thinking, including changing attitudes toward race, land use, and the role of indigenous populations within colonial economies. While his policies did not dismantle the system of communal land tenure, they marked a clear move away from the earlier protective ethos toward a more utilitarian and administrative model.
After leaving Fiji, im Thurn continued his career within the colonial service and later served as Governor of Ceylon (Sri Lanka). He died in 1932, leaving behind a complex legacy: that of a scholar-administrator whose reforms exposed the limits of indirect rule and reshaped the relationship between colonial authority and indigenous institutions.
In the context of Fiji’s history, his governorship remains a defining moment, illustrating how quickly entrenched structures, such as the Great Council of Chiefs, could be curtailed when they ceased to align with the priorities of the state.
During his tenure (1904–1910), im Thurn sought to rationalise colonial administration, reduce the influence of chiefly institutions, and promote policies that aligned more closely with economic development objectives. His most notable, and controversial act, was the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs in 1905, reflecting his view that the body had become an impediment to efficient governance.
Im Thurn’s administration was shaped by broader shifts in imperial thinking, including changing attitudes toward race, land use, and the role of indigenous populations within colonial economies. While his policies did not dismantle the system of communal land tenure, they marked a clear move away from the earlier protective ethos toward a more utilitarian and administrative model.
After leaving Fiji, im Thurn continued his career within the colonial service and later served as Governor of Ceylon (Sri Lanka). He died in 1932, leaving behind a complex legacy: that of a scholar-administrator whose reforms exposed the limits of indirect rule and reshaped the relationship between colonial authority and indigenous institutions.
In the context of Fiji’s history, his governorship remains a defining moment, illustrating how quickly entrenched structures, such as the Great Council of Chiefs, could be curtailed when they ceased to align with the priorities of the state.
"You Fijians [ITaukeis] 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.’
Governor im Thurn, in his opening address to the Council of Chiefs, 1905
 | The rise of commoner iTaukei 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 Dr Timoci Bavadra asserted during the 1987 election campaign: 'By restricting the Fijian [iTaukei] 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'. |
More of Fiji's elite families caught up in NBF losses The abuse of affirmative action for poor Fijians: |   |
His Excellency Governor Sir Everard Im Thurn on visit to Savusavu
 |  |
 |  |
 |   |
BURNING DESIRE: In 1987 coup, Qio was GCC nominee in Senate
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
