*The late Russell Hunter and I began investigating George Speight's failed 2000 Coup nearly two decades ago for a book we were jointly writing on coups in Fiji. |  |
*Chaudhry secretly got that money from India after he was released by George Speight following 56 days in captivity. The FLP leader denied hiding $2 million from Fiji's tax authorities.
*As we have reminded Fijians for years, COUPS pay in Fiji, for overnight Chaudhry became a multi-millionaire from Speight and his shadowy coup conspirators that allegedly involved the current Vunivalu of Bau, Ratu Apenisa Cakobau, and the present Tui Cakau and Speaker of Parliament, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
As for Sitiiveni Rabuka's role in the Speight coup, the verdict is still pending.
"George Speight, Josefa Nata and Timoci Silatolu were found guilty of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment. Nata and Silatolu were released recently but Speight is still serving time. They are widely seen as the fall guys, the frontmen who took the rap. The question to this day remains: who are those figures in the shadows who are still walking free but were key players in the plot to oust the government? Commander of the 3 FIR in 2000, Lt-Col Viliame Seruvakula is on record as saying there were 7 key figures in the conspiracy. He has not named them. The Prosecution believed that Speight was about 6th in the line of those who conspired."
FLP statement, 19 May 2024
At 10.30 am on Friday 19 May 2000 George Speight with armed members of the CRW invaded Parliament and took Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and members of his Cabinet hostage in a bid to grab power.
Today, on its 24th anniversary, we denounce this act of treason which led to the most violent, turbulent and devastating of the four coups that have wrecked our nation since the first armed takeover of a democratically elected government in Fiji in May 1987.
The Prime Minister and most members of his government were held captive at gunpoint in Parliament for 56 days; riots in the city of Suva on the day of the coup resulted in widespread damage as Indian shops were smashed, looted and set alight. Damage was put at $38m.
The invasion of Parliament led to months of violence and lawlessness as Speight’s rebels terrorised the rural Indian community in the Tailevu area and later in the North, seizing their crops, vehicles and property, setting fire to homes, terrorizing women. Hundreds of families fled their homes in fear.
On the political front as the hostage crisis in Parliament deepened, President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara was removed from office as the Army took over executive authority, rebels seized Police stations, and later the Monasavu hydro power station creating frequent power disruptions and general mayhem. Thousands again fled the country seeking refuge overseas.
Yet 24 years later, the nation is still looking for closure. We are still in the dark as to the main instigators of the mayhem that engulfed our nation in 2000.
George Speight, Josefa Nata and Timoci Silatolu were found guilty of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment. Nata and Silatolu were released recently but Speight is still serving time.
They are widely seen as the fall guys, the frontmen who took the rap. The question to this day remains: who are those figures in the shadows who are still walking free but were key players in the plot to oust the government?
Commander of the 3 FIR in 2000, Lt-Col Viliame Seruvakula is on record as saying there were 7 key figures in the conspiracy. He has not named them.
The Prosecution believed that Speight was about 6th in the line of those who conspired.
Who are these 7 people? Will the country ever know? Must we not make an attempt to identify these traitors? We believe they are some very prominent people who have escaped the brunt of the law.
George Speight refuses to divulge names, probably fearing for his life, but is on record as claiming: “If the Police were honest with even the shoddy evidence on the table at the moment my case was called, I would be in very distinguished company on Nukulau, not only in numbers but in names as well.”
There was plainly a conspiracy to silent Speight. He was given to understand that should he plead guilty, he would get away with a lighter sentence. Once he entered a guilty plea, the entire treason case collapsed and the nation was cheated of the truth about the 2000 crisis.
George Speight’s family felt betrayed and cheated after he was sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment (FT 19/2/2002). Speight’s brother said- “his brother had gone in good faith only to be betrayed by those with a special agenda.”
Several names, of course, have been in the forefront of those suspected in the conspiracy. One is that of former Commissioner of Police, the late Isikia Savua. The evidence against Savua was so strong that the Qarase government was forced to set up an inquiry. Shortly afterwards Savua was rewarded with a diplomatic posting.
He was despatched to New York as Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
The inquiry was headed by then Chief Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaqa who found him not guilty. The inquiry was held in camera and the report was never made public. When the DPP’s office began to look for the report, Tuivaqa said it was handed to the President’s Office. Government House said it didn’t have it. Check with the Police.
Police say it never came to them. Indeed, the DPP’s office at the time claimed its entire treason case was jeopardized because of missing files and documents.
There was a massive conspiracy in government circles to protect the perpetrators.
The nation needs a closure on these coups. That is why an immediate action on establishing a credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission is so imperative. The longer it takes to set one up, the more difficult it will be as people involved are ageing with some suspects having already passed on.
Today, on its 24th anniversary, we denounce this act of treason which led to the most violent, turbulent and devastating of the four coups that have wrecked our nation since the first armed takeover of a democratically elected government in Fiji in May 1987.
The Prime Minister and most members of his government were held captive at gunpoint in Parliament for 56 days; riots in the city of Suva on the day of the coup resulted in widespread damage as Indian shops were smashed, looted and set alight. Damage was put at $38m.
The invasion of Parliament led to months of violence and lawlessness as Speight’s rebels terrorised the rural Indian community in the Tailevu area and later in the North, seizing their crops, vehicles and property, setting fire to homes, terrorizing women. Hundreds of families fled their homes in fear.
On the political front as the hostage crisis in Parliament deepened, President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara was removed from office as the Army took over executive authority, rebels seized Police stations, and later the Monasavu hydro power station creating frequent power disruptions and general mayhem. Thousands again fled the country seeking refuge overseas.
Yet 24 years later, the nation is still looking for closure. We are still in the dark as to the main instigators of the mayhem that engulfed our nation in 2000.
George Speight, Josefa Nata and Timoci Silatolu were found guilty of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment. Nata and Silatolu were released recently but Speight is still serving time.
They are widely seen as the fall guys, the frontmen who took the rap. The question to this day remains: who are those figures in the shadows who are still walking free but were key players in the plot to oust the government?
Commander of the 3 FIR in 2000, Lt-Col Viliame Seruvakula is on record as saying there were 7 key figures in the conspiracy. He has not named them.
The Prosecution believed that Speight was about 6th in the line of those who conspired.
Who are these 7 people? Will the country ever know? Must we not make an attempt to identify these traitors? We believe they are some very prominent people who have escaped the brunt of the law.
George Speight refuses to divulge names, probably fearing for his life, but is on record as claiming: “If the Police were honest with even the shoddy evidence on the table at the moment my case was called, I would be in very distinguished company on Nukulau, not only in numbers but in names as well.”
There was plainly a conspiracy to silent Speight. He was given to understand that should he plead guilty, he would get away with a lighter sentence. Once he entered a guilty plea, the entire treason case collapsed and the nation was cheated of the truth about the 2000 crisis.
George Speight’s family felt betrayed and cheated after he was sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment (FT 19/2/2002). Speight’s brother said- “his brother had gone in good faith only to be betrayed by those with a special agenda.”
Several names, of course, have been in the forefront of those suspected in the conspiracy. One is that of former Commissioner of Police, the late Isikia Savua. The evidence against Savua was so strong that the Qarase government was forced to set up an inquiry. Shortly afterwards Savua was rewarded with a diplomatic posting.
He was despatched to New York as Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
The inquiry was headed by then Chief Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaqa who found him not guilty. The inquiry was held in camera and the report was never made public. When the DPP’s office began to look for the report, Tuivaqa said it was handed to the President’s Office. Government House said it didn’t have it. Check with the Police.
Police say it never came to them. Indeed, the DPP’s office at the time claimed its entire treason case was jeopardized because of missing files and documents.
There was a massive conspiracy in government circles to protect the perpetrators.
The nation needs a closure on these coups. That is why an immediate action on establishing a credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission is so imperative. The longer it takes to set one up, the more difficult it will be as people involved are ageing with some suspects having already passed on.
The 2000 Speight Coup: Mahendra Chaudhry's road to Millionairehood
2016, London. Finally, after three decades of co-operation, our Founding Editor-in-Chief and the late Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter met in person for the first time over a pint of beer and their favourite fish and chips in a Earls Court pub, London.
2024: Frank Bainimarama carted off to prison in handcuffs |  |
Fiji Court of Appeal dismisses Chaudhry's appeal against his conviction, August 2014
Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry's appeal against his conviction have been dismissed and his sentence varied by the Court of Appeal in Suva today. In handing down its judgment, the appeals court affirmed Chaudhry's conviction and other orders in his initial sentence following his conviction for breaching the Exchange Control Act in April this year. A fine initially imposed on him however has been reduced to $F1million. The court said the initial fine of $F2million was excessive. On Chaudhry's appeal against his conviction, the court said there was lack of merit in the 10 grounds that was presented. "We reiterate our view that we expressed earlier regarding the proviso to section 23 (1) of the Court of Appeal Act (Cap.12) that there is no substantial miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the appellant as there was sufficient evidence to convict him," the judgement said. The ruling means Chaudhry would not be eligible to contest the forthcoming election. Addressing the media afterwards, Chaudhry declined to comment on the ruling saying he needed time to go over the judgment. He also says he remains the leader of the FLP and is expected to issue a statement later. Justice Suresh Chandra, Justice Salesi Temo and Justice Chandrasiri Kotigalage presided over today's seating.
Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry's appeal against his conviction have been dismissed and his sentence varied by the Court of Appeal in Suva today. In handing down its judgment, the appeals court affirmed Chaudhry's conviction and other orders in his initial sentence following his conviction for breaching the Exchange Control Act in April this year. A fine initially imposed on him however has been reduced to $F1million. The court said the initial fine of $F2million was excessive. On Chaudhry's appeal against his conviction, the court said there was lack of merit in the 10 grounds that was presented. "We reiterate our view that we expressed earlier regarding the proviso to section 23 (1) of the Court of Appeal Act (Cap.12) that there is no substantial miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the appellant as there was sufficient evidence to convict him," the judgement said. The ruling means Chaudhry would not be eligible to contest the forthcoming election. Addressing the media afterwards, Chaudhry declined to comment on the ruling saying he needed time to go over the judgment. He also says he remains the leader of the FLP and is expected to issue a statement later. Justice Suresh Chandra, Justice Salesi Temo and Justice Chandrasiri Kotigalage presided over today's seating.
Fijileaks: We wonder if it is time for Chaudhry to step down as FLP leader
FROM THE ARCHIVES
By VICTOR LAL
Fiji Sun, August 11, 2006
Fiji Labour Party needs leadership change
In another country, the Leader of the Opposition after loosing a parliamentary election for the second time in his political career might have gracefully stepped down. Even if the leader lost with a razor-thin minority, it is never prudent for him to cling on to the leadership. Such a practice is disdainfully frowned upon in most democratic systems, except in Africa, where dictatorial leaders hold on to party leadership in the hope of capturing power at the next election.
On the other hand, if the twice-defeated party leader in a western-style democracy refuses to relinquish control, he is humiliatingly forced out of the Opposition office through a ‘palace coup’ by one or some of his colleagues, supporters, or by a potential challenger.
Why should the Fiji Labor Party change its leader? Firstly, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry had his chance in 2001, and now again in the 2006 general election, to wrest political control of the nation from the Laisenia Qarase-led SDL party, but has failed.
This should be sufficient ground for him to take a parliamentary back seat, and let another Fiji Labor Party parliamentarian take the helm.
As his deputy Poseci Bune indicated during the campaign, there are parliamentarians in the party who have the clout and the experience to even become Prime Minister.
Secondly, I still believe that it was a strategic blunder on the part of Mr. Chaudhry to have boycotted Parliament for a long spell over the issue of the allocation of Cabinet portfolios following the 2001 elections.
I pleaded with him to be visibly and vocally present in Parliament while continuing to pursue his legal case but it was to no avail. After all, his new found coalition partner Mick Beddoes, had stepped in and did a sterling job as Opposition leader.
Mr. Chaudhry’s entire political posture on the land issue, despite his genuine concern for the Indo-Fijian tenant farmers, was a potential vote loser among the Fijian voters.
It would be no exaggeration to suggest that its Coalition partner [Party of National Unity] PANU felt the full brunt of the Fiji Labor Party’s posturing on the land question at the ballot box.
The SDL was able to privately persuade the Fijian voters that PANU would not hesitate to ‘sell’ the landowners in a post Chaudhry-led government.
What other explanation can be put forward to explain why PANU was trounced in its own backyard in Ba and other western constituencies?
Cynics will attribute it to the politics of preference sharing and the electoral system.
Thirdly, despite being frequently described as a wily and cunning old political fox and one of the shrewdest of political operators in the country, I think Mr. Chaudhry miserably failed to take the Fijian pulse and gauge the political tempo of the 2006 election.
I was surprised that, having secured the Indo-Fijian communal seats through last-minute deals with the National Federation Party, he again popped up in the midst of electioneering to explain the alleged frauds and malpractices in terms of race i.e. that there was a sinister plot to disenfranchise the Indo-Fijian voters.
In the minds of many Fijian voters, he stamped an image of being a closet ‘Indo-Fijian nationalist and racist’, a charge that was frequently hurled at his political opponent and rival, Mr. Qarase.
In view of the dramatic shift in population where Fijians are now a majority race in the country, it is very important for any non-Fijian political leader to pitch at the Fijian voters, even if it means ‘betraying’ a part of the Indo-Fijian constituents. Elections, after all, are about winning, and Mr. Qarase played his cards very cleverly and strategically.
For example, once he forcefully made the point that Fiji was still not ready for an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, his view, even if it was construed as racist, was relegated to the political backburner.
Mr. Chaudhry did not have the same fall back opportunity. He still needed the Fijian voters to make up the winning numbers.
Worse, by speaking the counterfeit sudh (standard) Hindi, the Fiji Labor Party failed to reach the 30 per cent of Fijians who speak Fiji Hindi.
These are just some of the reasons why I personally think it is time for Mr. Chaudhry to honorably relinquish the party leadership.
And if he refuses to go, well, it is up to those parliamentarians with clout and experience to become the next Prime Minister to come out of his political shadow.
Leaders and supporters come and go but the party has a life of its own.
There is nothing stopping Mr Chaudhry from becoming the elder statesman of the party that he helped found in 1985 with many visionary and multi-racialist Fijians.
The Fiji Labour Party blunderingly placed all its political eggs in one basket: it calculated that if it won at least 30 seats, and PANU and UPP their share of seats, it would go on to form the next government.
It was also hoping that the leader of the National Alliance Party, Ratu Epeli Ganilau, was going to win his seat until the NFP disclosed its preference against the paramount chief.
It also seems likely that the Fiji Labor Party had expected that Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s frightening and threatening statements might just persuade a sufficient number of Fijian voters to swing the results in the Fiji Labor Party-UPP-PANU’s favour.
I had thought otherwise, that the Commodore’s intervention in politics would backfire on the Fiji Labor Party.
Why does the Fiji Labor Party need a new leader? There are other indisputable reasons.
This was the last general election where race really mattered. In 2011 the Fijians will be the majority of the voters, and fully groomed in democratic politics. For this reason, the Fiji Labour Party will have to broaden its outlook, and cannot rely on Indo-Fijian voters in the Open seats to win future elections.
It will need a leader who has a ‘clean slate’ and preferably speaks the Fijian language (there are many Indo-Fijian parliamentarians who are fluent in Fijian).
It must also stop clinging to the politics of land to win votes.
I also think the NAP should spend the next five years building up a multi-racial platform, and if need be, replace the Fiji Labour Party as a truly genuine multi-racial party.
Over the years, Fijians from outer islands and other areas of Fiji have migrated to these areas, and the SDL ‘secret agents’ had done preparatory election homework by routinely attending funerals, church meetings, weddings, solis etc, and were able to exploit demography and democracy to their electoral advantage.
Most commentators, including the Fiji Labour Party, were too busy concentrating on the displaced farmers from Labasa, while some parties were exploiting their misery for political purposes.
When his own political obituary is written one day, Mr Chaudhry’s Fijian political rivals will sorely miss him: his towering and controversial presence on the political stage has so far welded the taukei Fijians into one political unit.
His presence has suppressed the politics of tribalism and regionalism so rampant on the continent of Africa, where their own ‘Chief Lutunasobasobas’, after expelling or marginalising the Asians (Indians) in their midst, are tearing their countries apart as they vie for political, economic, and military supremacy.
The Fiji Labor Party needs a complete political makeover if it is to win the next general election.
It needs to attract significant taukei Fijian political ‘kai vatas’ of its own to achieve that goal.
And the Indo-Fijian farmers will have to realise that in the rapidly changing demography they, and not their political representatives, will ultimately pay a price if they leave the decision on the land question in the hands of their new chosen Fiji Labour Party Members of Parliament..
And any new Fiji Labor Party leader must begin his leadership on that cautionary note.
By VICTOR LAL
Fiji Sun, August 11, 2006
Fiji Labour Party needs leadership change
In another country, the Leader of the Opposition after loosing a parliamentary election for the second time in his political career might have gracefully stepped down. Even if the leader lost with a razor-thin minority, it is never prudent for him to cling on to the leadership. Such a practice is disdainfully frowned upon in most democratic systems, except in Africa, where dictatorial leaders hold on to party leadership in the hope of capturing power at the next election.
On the other hand, if the twice-defeated party leader in a western-style democracy refuses to relinquish control, he is humiliatingly forced out of the Opposition office through a ‘palace coup’ by one or some of his colleagues, supporters, or by a potential challenger.
Why should the Fiji Labor Party change its leader? Firstly, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry had his chance in 2001, and now again in the 2006 general election, to wrest political control of the nation from the Laisenia Qarase-led SDL party, but has failed.
This should be sufficient ground for him to take a parliamentary back seat, and let another Fiji Labor Party parliamentarian take the helm.
As his deputy Poseci Bune indicated during the campaign, there are parliamentarians in the party who have the clout and the experience to even become Prime Minister.
Secondly, I still believe that it was a strategic blunder on the part of Mr. Chaudhry to have boycotted Parliament for a long spell over the issue of the allocation of Cabinet portfolios following the 2001 elections.
I pleaded with him to be visibly and vocally present in Parliament while continuing to pursue his legal case but it was to no avail. After all, his new found coalition partner Mick Beddoes, had stepped in and did a sterling job as Opposition leader.
Mr. Chaudhry’s entire political posture on the land issue, despite his genuine concern for the Indo-Fijian tenant farmers, was a potential vote loser among the Fijian voters.
It would be no exaggeration to suggest that its Coalition partner [Party of National Unity] PANU felt the full brunt of the Fiji Labor Party’s posturing on the land question at the ballot box.
The SDL was able to privately persuade the Fijian voters that PANU would not hesitate to ‘sell’ the landowners in a post Chaudhry-led government.
What other explanation can be put forward to explain why PANU was trounced in its own backyard in Ba and other western constituencies?
Cynics will attribute it to the politics of preference sharing and the electoral system.
Thirdly, despite being frequently described as a wily and cunning old political fox and one of the shrewdest of political operators in the country, I think Mr. Chaudhry miserably failed to take the Fijian pulse and gauge the political tempo of the 2006 election.
I was surprised that, having secured the Indo-Fijian communal seats through last-minute deals with the National Federation Party, he again popped up in the midst of electioneering to explain the alleged frauds and malpractices in terms of race i.e. that there was a sinister plot to disenfranchise the Indo-Fijian voters.
In the minds of many Fijian voters, he stamped an image of being a closet ‘Indo-Fijian nationalist and racist’, a charge that was frequently hurled at his political opponent and rival, Mr. Qarase.
In view of the dramatic shift in population where Fijians are now a majority race in the country, it is very important for any non-Fijian political leader to pitch at the Fijian voters, even if it means ‘betraying’ a part of the Indo-Fijian constituents. Elections, after all, are about winning, and Mr. Qarase played his cards very cleverly and strategically.
For example, once he forcefully made the point that Fiji was still not ready for an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, his view, even if it was construed as racist, was relegated to the political backburner.
Mr. Chaudhry did not have the same fall back opportunity. He still needed the Fijian voters to make up the winning numbers.
Worse, by speaking the counterfeit sudh (standard) Hindi, the Fiji Labor Party failed to reach the 30 per cent of Fijians who speak Fiji Hindi.
These are just some of the reasons why I personally think it is time for Mr. Chaudhry to honorably relinquish the party leadership.
And if he refuses to go, well, it is up to those parliamentarians with clout and experience to become the next Prime Minister to come out of his political shadow.
Leaders and supporters come and go but the party has a life of its own.
There is nothing stopping Mr Chaudhry from becoming the elder statesman of the party that he helped found in 1985 with many visionary and multi-racialist Fijians.
The Fiji Labour Party blunderingly placed all its political eggs in one basket: it calculated that if it won at least 30 seats, and PANU and UPP their share of seats, it would go on to form the next government.
It was also hoping that the leader of the National Alliance Party, Ratu Epeli Ganilau, was going to win his seat until the NFP disclosed its preference against the paramount chief.
It also seems likely that the Fiji Labor Party had expected that Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s frightening and threatening statements might just persuade a sufficient number of Fijian voters to swing the results in the Fiji Labor Party-UPP-PANU’s favour.
I had thought otherwise, that the Commodore’s intervention in politics would backfire on the Fiji Labor Party.
Why does the Fiji Labor Party need a new leader? There are other indisputable reasons.
This was the last general election where race really mattered. In 2011 the Fijians will be the majority of the voters, and fully groomed in democratic politics. For this reason, the Fiji Labour Party will have to broaden its outlook, and cannot rely on Indo-Fijian voters in the Open seats to win future elections.
It will need a leader who has a ‘clean slate’ and preferably speaks the Fijian language (there are many Indo-Fijian parliamentarians who are fluent in Fijian).
It must also stop clinging to the politics of land to win votes.
I also think the NAP should spend the next five years building up a multi-racial platform, and if need be, replace the Fiji Labour Party as a truly genuine multi-racial party.
Over the years, Fijians from outer islands and other areas of Fiji have migrated to these areas, and the SDL ‘secret agents’ had done preparatory election homework by routinely attending funerals, church meetings, weddings, solis etc, and were able to exploit demography and democracy to their electoral advantage.
Most commentators, including the Fiji Labour Party, were too busy concentrating on the displaced farmers from Labasa, while some parties were exploiting their misery for political purposes.
When his own political obituary is written one day, Mr Chaudhry’s Fijian political rivals will sorely miss him: his towering and controversial presence on the political stage has so far welded the taukei Fijians into one political unit.
His presence has suppressed the politics of tribalism and regionalism so rampant on the continent of Africa, where their own ‘Chief Lutunasobasobas’, after expelling or marginalising the Asians (Indians) in their midst, are tearing their countries apart as they vie for political, economic, and military supremacy.
The Fiji Labor Party needs a complete political makeover if it is to win the next general election.
It needs to attract significant taukei Fijian political ‘kai vatas’ of its own to achieve that goal.
And the Indo-Fijian farmers will have to realise that in the rapidly changing demography they, and not their political representatives, will ultimately pay a price if they leave the decision on the land question in the hands of their new chosen Fiji Labour Party Members of Parliament..
And any new Fiji Labor Party leader must begin his leadership on that cautionary note.
*Shockingly, we didn't know in August 2006 that since 2000, Chaudhry was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account. It was only in February 2008 our Editor-in-Chief revealed the $2million that we still believe was given by India to assist the Indo-Fijian victims of George Speight's 2000 failed coup.
