RFMF Partners With Old Friends: Chiefs Who Backed Speight’s COUP Now Get Leadership Lessons From the Soldiers Who Had to Clean Up Their Mess. RFMF (KALOUNIWAI ) Signs MOU With GCC (SERUVAKULA)

*By creating new “networks of influence", this MOU risks rebuilding the same bridge between politically driven chiefs and young, impressionable soldiers, a recipe for disaster in any future political upheaval.

The Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), the official line is that this is a partnership to “strengthen leadership” among Fiji’s chiefs. But for anyone who remembers 2000, this deal has a bitter aftertaste.

Because here’s the truth: many of the chiefs sitting under the GCC banner were not passive bystanders during George Speight’s coup. They were active enablers. Some chiefs blessed Speight’s so-called “civilian takeover,” while others quietly coordinated behind the scenes.

​Worse, certain GCC figures emboldened elements of the Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit (CRW), leading directly to the Queen Elizabeth Barracks mutiny, where loyal RFMF soldiers were slaughtered defending democracy.

Many of those chiefs were later charged and convicted for their roles in fuelling or legitimising the coup. Yet today, the RFMF is formalising a “leadership partnership” with the very institution that gave Fiji one of its darkest chapters.

But behind the glossy headlines, this partnership carries grave risks, risks the RFMF’s own leadership knows all too well.

The GCC’s Coup Legacy

The GCC’s fingerprints are all over George Speight’s 2000 coup and the CRW mutiny that followed.

• On 23 May 2000, as Speight held Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry’s elected government hostage, the GCC met in emergency session. Instead of unequivocally condemning the coup, some chiefs blessed it, others sat silently, and a few actively helped coordinate events.
• Chiefs later charged and convicted included:
  • Ratu Jope Seniloli: convicted of unlawfully taking an oath as “Vice President” under Speight’s illegal regime.
  • Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu: jailed for his role in the upheaval.
  • Ratu Rakuita Vakalalabure: sentenced for unlawful administration of government.
  • Ratu Timoci Silatolu: convicted of treason.

The late Ratu Inoke Takiveikata, paramount chief of Naitasiri and senior GCC member, was convicted of inciting the 2 November 2000 CRW mutiny at Queen Elizabeth Barracks and served over two decades in prison.

That mutiny left four loyal RFMF soldiers dead, dozens wounded, and an institution traumatised.

Kalouniwai and Seruvakula Know the Truth

The two men now signing this MOU, RFMF Commander Major General Ro Jone Kalouniwai and GCC Chairman Ratu Viliame Seruvakula, are not distant from this history.

• In 2000, Seruvakula was a Lieutenant Colonel in the RFMF. He knows exactly which chiefs blessed Speight’s coup, emboldened the CRW, and whispered mutiny into soldiers’ ears.
• Kalouniwai, serving in the RFMF during the crisis, knows which chiefly figures betrayed the Republic, and which ones are still influential today.

This is not ignorance. It’s deliberate amnesia.

The Real Danger: Cultivating Soldiers

The real problem isn’t just history being rewritten, it’s what these “leadership training” sessions could unlock for the future.

• Many GCC figures today are politically opportunistic, deeply racist, and ethno-nationalist in outlook.
• These training sessions give them direct, informal access to soldiers.
• Over time, that access can erode the RFMF’s institutional scepticism towards chiefly interference in politics.

This is precisely how the 2000 coup took root:

• Chiefs and ethno-nationalists exploited cultural loyalties.
• Rogue soldiers in the Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit were convinced they were defending indigenous supremacy.
• A mutiny was sparked that left soldiers dead and the nation fractured.

By creating these new “networks of influence,” this MOU risks rebuilding the same bridge between politically driven chiefs and young, impressionable soldiers, a recipe for disaster in any future political upheaval.

Blurring Civil-Military Boundaries

Under Section 131 of the 2013 Constitution, the RFMF has a defined role: protect Fiji, uphold the Constitution, and secure national sovereignty.

Training chiefs in “leadership” was never part of that mandate. By taking on this role, the RFMF:

• Politicises itself by empowering traditional elites.
• Gives chiefs an opportunity to embed influence within the military.
• Risks undermining civilian democratic authority by enabling closed-door alliances outside Parliament.​

In short: the guardian risks becoming the gatekeeper for the very forces it once fought.

Fiji Cannot Afford Amnesia

If the RFMF truly wants to strengthen Fiji’s leadership, the first step is not to train the GCC, it’s to confront its history.

The chiefs who backed coups, blessed hostage-takers, incited mutinies, and sent soldiers to their deaths must be part of a process of truth and accountability, not a glossy leadership program.

Otherwise, these “training sessions” could become networking forums for the next coup, and the RFMF may find itself, once again, burying soldiers killed in the name of someone else’s ambition.

This MOU isn’t just wrong because of the past. It’s dangerous because of what it makes possible in the future. The RFMF will not be able to reassure the already nervous minorities, especially the Indo-Fijians, who are anxiously waiting what holds in store following the recent Supreme Court ruling, and the demand by the nationalists to restore the 1997 Constitution of Fiji.

By crossing this line, the RFMF risks politicising itself and militarising the GCC. It risks undoing the fragile separation between cultural authority and constitutional power. And it risks giving the impression, deliberate or not, that the military is once again aligning itself with chiefly networks, rather than the elected Parliament.

This is the same formula that delivered May 2000. Only this time, it would happen with the veneer of official partnership.