The Squeakiest Wheel.

Kitione Vuataki, Lawyer for the GCC members contesting their recent suspension has been taken in for questioning as the Fiji Live article reports. Vuataki has been accused by the Fiji Military of inciting the passions of the indigenous populace. This very allegation was raised by a S.i.F.M post, in particular regards to the affidavit filed in the Suva High Court by Vuataki.

The following is an excerpt of the Fiji Live article:

Army blames GCC lawyer of inciting
Friday May 25, 2007

The army says Great Council of Chiefs lawyer Kitione Vuataki has been detained for "inciting the indigenous people" against the military.

Vuataki was taken from his office in Lautoka earlier today by soldiers and later questioned at the Edinburgh Barracks.

It remains unclear when Vuataki will be released.

"I don't know when he will be released," said army spokesman Major Neumi Leweni.

"He will definitely be questioned for his statements on radio."

Vuataki and his colleague Savenaca Komaisavai filed fresh papers in court this week on behalf of several members of the 52-member GCC who are challenging their suspension by the interim Fijian Affairs Ratu Epeli Ganilau.

Vuataki said outside the court that the documents would enable the GCC to meet without interference saying the interim government had no right to suspend the council.

He said that the interim administration must keep in mind that the GCC was not formed for the benefit of the (interim) Prime Minister or the interim Government.

He said that discussions on how to make changes in the Native Lands Act would be impossible without the GCC.

"So now we have for the third time in our history an attempt to get our land back while the GCC is not sitting to amend the Native Lands act. We are not going to sit behind and let that happen," Vuataki said on radio fiji.

"From 1873 the British Government knew the Great Council Of Chiefs would keep the peace, now they have been dispelled. The protection of our land is now at stake.

Vuataki also questioned Ratu Epeli's authority to bring about changes to the GCC.

"This time the Minister in question is not one that is entrusted by our people... we don't know where he came from... his appointed by the interim regime who looks after their own benefits and not the benefit of our people."

Ratu Epeli was replaced as GCC chairman by Ratu Ovini Bokini, one of the plaintiffs in the case, amidst much debate two years ago.

The GCC's case will be heard in the High Court on June 29.

Undoubtedly, the allegations against Vuataki represents a similar strain of the ethnonationalistic ideology framed, before and after the 2000 coup in Fiji. Scoop publishes a letter addressed to the GCC, written by coupster, George Speight.

This is an excerpt:

Speight's Letter To Great Council Of Chiefs
Thursday, 25 May 2000, 3:23 pm
Press Release:
22 May 2000 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Parliamentary Complex, Suva Fiji 21st May 2000

Excellency


I am writing on behalf of the group of indigenous Fijians who took over the Parliaments of Fiji on Friday 19th May 2000. The illegal and unconstitutional action that was taken is acknowledged. It represented a year's efforts on the part of a wide spectrum of the indigenous community to bring to the attention of the Government, our increasing concern in the way the People's Coalition Government began to address issues that are of fundamental importance to the indigenous community of Fiji.

For example, the nature of the tenancy of indigenous-owned landed to Indo-Fijian cane farmers, the progressive removal of affirmative action for the indigenous community which has lagged behind in every sector of the Fiji economy - in education, in commerce, in the professions, in Management, in technical staff, etc.

The 1997 Constitution was rejected by eight of the fourteen Fijian Provinces, however by a combination of Parliamentary and no-so- Parliamentary manoeuvring, the Great Council of Chiefs approved the amended Constitution. In fact, the 1997 Constitution is not an amendment of the 1990 Constitution but represents a brand new Constitution.

To compound this serious error of judgement on the part of the indigenous political leadership, the SVT Government with lack of foresight and prudence, at the tai1 end of its Administration, introduced a completely New Electoral Legislation. Worse still, it did not give itself sufficient time, nor made any effort to understand the complications to the new Electoral Law.

There was also at this point of time, a growing discontent on the part of segments of the indigenous community. There was a 'ganging up' of at 1east two indigenous parties in its allocation of their preferences which ultimately led to the defeat not only of the SVT-led political party but also of the National Federation Party (NPP) which had been the premier party, overseeing the interests of the Indo-Fijian community over the east 30 years.

The People's Coalition Party was the major beneficiary of the Constitution and the new Electoral Legislation. Of the 71 seats in Parliament the Fiji Labour Party won 35 seats. With the support of other parties it was able to control some 61 seats in Parliament. The Government that was subsequently formed comprises the Fiji Labour Party, the Fijian Association and two other smaller parties.

One of the basic concerns of the indigenous people when the draft of the Constitution was being discussed was the like1y loss of indigenous politica1 leadership and contro1. The indigenous people remain distrustful of the Indo-Fijian political intentions. The subsequent events following the formation of the People's Coalition Government in May 1999 confirmed and convinced indigenous body politic that their fears and trepidation of Indo-Fijian political leadership were well founded.

The SVT Party, which lost the election, won only 8 seats even thought they obtained 38 percent of the votes. One small indigenous parties which won 9% of the votes where given 2 seats in Cabinet. Another indigenous party which won l9% of the vote was given a Deputy Prime Minister post plus three other Cabinet positions. A provincial based indigenous was given two Cabinet seats. The SVT party, which had won 38% votes, had given certain conditions when it was invited to join the Government, Understandably, the Prime Minister, the Hon Mahendra P Chaudhry rejected the response of the SVT.

If the Prime Minister were to lead the country successfully he would have allowed the dust to settle, temperatures to coo1, and then come back for a dialogue with the party that represented 38% of the electorate.

Over the 1ast 12 months the indigenous pcep1e have watched, with dismay, concern and resentment, Mr Chaudhry's blatant attempt to weaken, or if possible destroy important indigenous institutions, namely the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB), the Great Council of Chiefs(GCC).

Of course central to indigenous concern is their land. The indigenous people of Fiji own some 86% of the land. But the ownership is not by individuals but by clans (mataqali). In fact every indigenous generation has the right of usage of the land for which they have. It is their obligation to ensure the land, which the clan owns, is protected and passed on to next generation.

It is interesting to note though that some of the best land has been completely alienated to private ownership, or has been used by Indo-Fijian cane farmers far the last 100-120 years. The 1ease fees for these lands, under cane farming, to put it charitab1y, are miserable. In the last 25 years for instance, Fiji has been allowed to sell 160,000 tonnes of sugar to European Union, at a rate that is three to four times the world price. Not a cent of this windfa11 has been given to the indigenous landowners, apart from their uneconomic lease fee. More over, it should be noted that over the years cane farmers owe a substantial amount of arrears to the NLTB.

The Agriculture and Landlord Tenancy Act (ALTA) which originally came as the Agriculture and Landlord Tenants Ordinance (ALTO) is now coming to an end. Under the Act, farmers were given 30 years to lease the land.

Every farmer that entered a leasing arrangement, under the Act, new that he had 30 years to farm the land, after which the lease expires. When lease expires, unless the landowners wish to renew the lease, the tenants have to move out. Since 1997 or thereabouts, a number of farms under the ALTA arrangement have their 1eases expired, and tenants are expected to go elsewhere if the indigenous 1andowmers decide not to renew the lease.

Since Mr Chaudhry came into power he has attempted to coerce the NLTB to continue granting leases to tenants under ALTA. This goes right against the face of a clearly stated policy of the Great Council of Chiefs and the NLTB that any renewa1 of 1eases will come under Native Land Trust Act.

As far as indigenous landowners are concerned, ALTA must and should be repealed. As far as the indigenous landowners are concerned, ALTA is dead. Yet Mr Chaudhry has continued to fight the indigenous landowners on this issue. He seems unable to accept that the indigenous landowners have the right to decide the terms and conditions on which their land can be leased.

The Fiji Labour Party since 1987 has advocated the establishment of a Land Use Commission. The late Dr. Timoci Bavadra who subsequently became Prime Minister when the Fiji Labour Party won the election in l987 first presented the proposal to the Great Council of Chiefs. Since the Government came into power in 1999 one of the most important elements in its policy p1atform is the establishment of a Land Use Commission.

Again the NLTB representing the indigenous landowners rejected this proposa1. What is worse is that the Government, ie, PM Chaudhry with his usual arrogance, which has become the trade mark of his sty1e of political leadership is dismissive of the stand taken by the NLTB and his insistence that Land Use Commission be established in spite of the indigenous landowners opposition.

In fact, in an attempt to hoodwink and subvert traditional indigenous leadership, a representative group of indigenous chiefs were sent by PM Chaudhry to observe traditional 1and owmership in Sarawak, Ma1aysia.

The troubling aspect of the Chaudhry-led Government is its ongoing attempt to divide the indigenous people of Fiji. He has certainly mastered the tactics of Divide and Rule.

For some time the previous Government (SVT) had to put in place policy initiatives to assist the indigenous community to catch up', particularly in the feild of education, and commerce, where indigenous participation, is non existent.

Indeed, when one reflects on the debate that led to the passage of the 1997 Constitution, the Indo-Fijian political parties, conceded absolutely nothing particularly in the field of commercial participation where their community hold all the cards.

Even before the People's Coalition Party came to power, Mr Chaudhry was a leading opposition spokesperson, who was always critical of affirmative action in favour of the indigenous community. And Mr Chaudhry made sure when he came to power that this affirmative action, in favour of the indigenous community was removed.

In its place, the social justice provisions of the 1997 Constitution was implemented with unbelievable speed and lack consideration and consultation with the indigenous community. As of now every community in Fiji will be put on an equal basis in spite of the fact that the Indo-Fijian community control the economy.

The events that took place on May 19, 2000 represents the culmination 12 months of frustration, anger, disappointment, and outrage in the manner in which Mr Chaudhry Government dealt with matters of importance to the indigenous community. What is worse is that the 9 indigenous Ministers in the Cabinet, two of who are Deputy PM appear to be completely 'under the thumb' of the PM.

They are, to put it elegantly, are impotent almost to the point of being eunuchs in their inability and failure to safeguard what was perceived by the indigenous community, as important to them. In fairness to the indigenous Cabinet Ministers the above judgment may appear to be unduly harsh. It would seem that none of the indigenous ministers was ever able to articulate either privately, let alone publicly, what was important to the indigenous electorate, which they purport to represent, and had elected them to Parliament.


It is useful to view the current crises in Fiji in the context of numbers. The indigenous people of Fiji, represent some 51% of the Fiji population of approximately 790,000. From a global perspective, the indigenous community of Fiji does not merely have to dea1 with the 300,000 Indo-Fijians who are now citizens of the country.

Against this number, the indigenous community of Fiji have to take cognisance of the one billion people of India itself, and a substantial number of people of Indian origin, in other parts of the world, notably Mauritius, Trinidad, Guyana and parts of East Africa. As well as this group, there are those who man some of the most important international institutions, such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the United Nations system for development.

As an indigenous people, we are part of the world's indigenous communities whose interests and precarious position (some of which borders on extinction) were singled out for special attention by the international community through declaration, the Decade of Indigenous People.

Indeed, the indigenous peop1e of Fiji are under threat and this dangerous threat is being undertaken by a Government that was constitutionally elected and uses the provisions of the Constitution that would put in place laws that would bring greater disadvantage to the indigenous community of Piji.


This letter is an attempt to provide your Excellency, with a background of why the events of May 19th 2000 have taken place. There is no going back. If the indigenous community do not assert their rights now and with urgency, to govern their own country, they will in next to no time become history.

The indigenous people of Fiji are not alone in this precarious position. Even the indigenous communities in our largest South Pacific states often find the going difficult.

The President of Fiji's dismissal of the genuine concerns of the indigenous community compounds the impasse of the last two days. The president appears reluctant to address these real and growing concerns.

The events of May 19, 2000 could have been avoided if Mr Chaudhry has the ability and the politica1 courage to listen to the growing unrest of the indigenous people and step down. The country would have avoided all trouble if in his place a leader was appointed who would at least listen and dialogue with the indigenous people with urgency, from the start of his administration.

In fact from all his recent pub1ic statements, PM Chaudhry dismissed the marches as being the work of agitators and those who could not accept that they had lost the election. The present crises lies squarely at the door of Mr Chaudhry, whose arrogance and refusal to listen to other view points, contrary ta his, are hallmarks of his style of governance. This of course is nothing new to those who knew him in his days in the opposition. Chaudhry banked very much on the fact that he had an absolute majority in Parliament, and that was sufficient mandate for to run "rough shod" over the concerns of the indigenous community.

Added to this, the grievance of the indigenous community was that the President ignored the grounds of dissatisfaction of the indigenous community as expressed throughout the media over the last 12 months. This then led to the two public demonstrations which was then subsequently followed by a third demonstration that culminated in the entry of representatives of the indigenous people into Parliament.

There is no denying that the events of May 19, 2000 represents an assault of democracy and constitutionality. The events represent 'the last straw' to many members of the indigenous community. It was not meant to be vengeance nor violent. Those who did what they did on May 19, 2000 did so because it was the only way available to them to bring to the attention of the powers that be, that the concerns of the indigenous are real and need to be addressed with urgency.

It is well within the high moral position of the President of Fiji to persuade the PM and his Government to voluntarily resign. It would give the opportunity, under the State of Emergency, to appoint an Interim Government drawn from all major political parties. The task of such a Government is first and foremost to address the grievances of the indigenous community in the light of the 1997 constitution.

Unfortunately to date, the President appears reluctant to adopt this path that could lead to immediate stability, reconciliation among the major communities, economic growth and development. This would be well within the legal powers of the President of Fiji since he has dec1ared a State of Emergency. Such prudent and statesman like action would have found acceptance and approva1 by the international community.


ENDS

Other disturbing perspectives, was Native Lands Trust Board's role in promulgating the Deed of Sovereignity, post 2000 coup.

The following micro excerpt, is an archived article published by Fiji Live:

Fijilive web site, Suva - June 23, 2000

Fiji: Police investigating Native Land Trust Board over Deed of Sovereignty

Police are investigating the Native Land Trust Board [NLTB] for its part in the promulgation of the controversial Deed of Sovereignty document.NLTB's Lautoka office was raided and a senior executive was interrogated by police for three hours before he was released.Originals of the deed were confiscated in the raid.The deed, for which NLTB has claimed authorship, calls on clan chiefs to cede their lands to a Taukei civilian government.

That 2000 article by Fiji Live was corroborated by an article by Radio New Zealand International:

Radio New Zealand International, Wellington - June 7, 2000

Fiji rebels circulate "deed of sovereignty" among clan leaders

The rebels in Fiji have begun circulating a document among indigenous clan leaders, detailing why power should be handed over to rebel leader George Speight, Radio New Zealand International reported on Wednesday.It quoted Radio Fiji as saying that the 24-page "deed of sovereignty" says "all power" should be handed over to Speight's self-appointed interim civilian government.

Subsequent to NLTB's role in the "Deed of Sovereignity" was the application of grease to the indigenous wheels. Scoop published the master plan, which was titled:'Blue Print for the Protection of Fijian Rights' and was presented to the GCC by Laisenia Qarase. As of 2007, it has been confirmed in court testimony of the Kunatuba case published by a Fiji Times article alluding to the greater scheme of misappropriating state funds; which the defendant claimed was willfully ignored by the auditing team employed by the Ministry of Finance.

This is the exceprt of the Fij Times article:

Finance team 'crucified scheme'

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

THE Ministry of Finance team that audited the agriculture farming scheme was accused of carrying out shoddy work because it crucified the scheme without having perused all the necessary paperwork.

Testifying in his trial, former Agriculture permanent secretary Peniasi Kunatuba said the audit procedures were meant for normal times when ministry officials would have had the time to provide all the necessary information to the audit team.

Instead, the audit was conducted on the eve of the 2001 elections when the scheme was at its peak and ministry staff was limited. He said it was near impossible to organise the arrangement of accounts, which was running at about $200,000 a day and to do justice in attending to the audit officers doing the investigation.

He said in all possibilities, records and data while available would not have been readily accessible to the audit team then.

He said while most of the audit team's findings were outlined in an interview it highlighted the major findings and did not go into any in-depth discussion of these.

He said as a consequence the non-availability of what they would be seeking during the audit proper, would have left things hanging and without any follow through.

He said the investigating team faulted firstly in declaring that this was a new scheme.

He added that the prerequisite approval for funding of the scheme was given by none other than the Finance Minister.

He said his home gym set that police seized was a second hand one bought from one Manoj Bhika, a manager for Suncourt for $500.

Meanwhile, Mr Kunatuba said while police had revealed several discrepancies in the operation of the scheme by the ministry, the suppliers including Suncourt, Repina Wholesalers and Asco Motors were an integral part in the investigation.

He said without interviewing them the whole story of the scheme would not be completed and charges laid may not have been appropriate.

He said the hardware suppliers were in a better position to answer the questions of whether they required the recipients to sign invoices and delivery dockets.

Mr Kunatuba said in the absence of the interview records on these shortfalls from the hardware suppliers, things would remain hanging in the air on who were involved in the fraudulent aspects of the scheme that had been highlighted by the prosecution.

It was the same Manoj Bhika, who is the target of extradition requests by the Interim Government, as reported by a Fiji Times article:

Police want to extradite suspects

Thursday, May 24, 2007

POLICE are seeking the extradition of two people from Australia and New Zealand in connection with a conspiracy to steal more than $3million from the government through the agriculture scam.

Director Economic Crime Ravi Narayan yesterday confirmed efforts to extradite the two who have jointly been charged with two other Suva businessmen.

Mr Narayan said one of the men was known to be in New Zealand under a work permit while the status of the individual was still unclear. Manoj Bhika and Jitendra Pratap are being sought by authorities.

Mr Narayan said the extradition process had already started and was being handled by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Dhansukhlal Bhika, a former Suva mayor along with fellow Suncourt Hardware director, Gulab Das Bhika have denied conspiring to defraud the government of more than $3million through felony, namely larceny. The men, who have denied the charge were released on $10,000 bail each.

Interim Agriculture Minister Jainendra Kumar says they have increased vetting of documents within the ministry, particularly for handouts in efforts to minimise the risk of another scam. However, Kumar said "in the sense of creating a brick-wall, we can't do anything about it". He said it was more to do with "the people who want to use the system to their advantage".

"Obviously we have to tighten up our system in terms of the use of our resources," he said.

In November last year, former permanent secretary for agriculture, Peniasi Kunatuba was jailed for four years by the High Court on charges related to the agriculture scam. Former civil servant Sakiusa Bole, was the first to be jailed over the same scam.

Scoop publishes an article written by Jone Dakuvula, raising this issue of NLTB's collusion to undermine Fiji's multi-racial fabric:

Press Release: Fiji Peoples Coalition Government
Dakuvula slates NLTB Issue

No: 280 12 December 2000

SVT member and pro-democracy campaigner, Jone Dakuvula has slated the NLTB for trying to install another Girmit in Fiji.

In a column he wrote in today's Fiji Sun, Dakuvula stated that the NLTB, in league with Apisai Tora, was carrying on with a political agenda to depose the elected government. It had no believable arrangement with Fijian landowners for the continuation of cane farming.

Dakuvula writes: "Tens of thousands of cane farms are very likely to revert to bush in the next three years". He says that the NLTB believes that the evicted farmers should be prepared to start again on undeveloped land yet to be identified. "But hardly any of these old farmers are in a position physically or financially to embark on another NLTB inspired GIRMIT". Dakuvula advises the NLTB to "go and see Lauan leaseholders in Lomaivuna who are preparing to return to their villages when the Naitasiri landowners reclaim their land. They do not want to start all over again".

Dakuvula says that the NLTB is led by people who have no business skills; instead they are led by blind nationalism. He says that the "nation will not survive on the basis of indigenous nationalism".

Meanwhile, today's Daily Post has also condemned the NLTB for not heeding the calls for reconciliation by continuing to evict farmers despite the willingness of the landowners to lease their land to the farmers.

END 12 December 2000

Club Em Designs

Icons of Disrepute.

Radio Fiji article covers the press conference by APRIL Development's repesentatives, who are struggling to remove the stigma of misappropriation, levied by the new board of Fiji National Provident Fund. APRIL's website is also interesting, simply because Natadola Marine Resort, is the first ever project undertaken by APRIL, which was addressed by an earlier posting by S.i.F.M, highlighting the relative infancy of APRIL in resort construction. Furthermore, APRIL Development's listed services is as follows:

APRIL Development offers a complete range of development and management services including:

General Management

* Development Brief
* Development Program
* Development Cost
* Revenue Budget
* Finance / Commercial Assessment
* Concept Design
* Conditions of Contract
* Project Co-ordination
* Reporting
* Human Resources

Marketing and Sales Management

* Promotion and Public Relations
* Marketing Strategy and Programs
* Sales Management


Financial Management

* Budgeting
* Cost Evaluation
* Cost Control
* Cash Flow Monitoring

Note: Engineering Project Management is NOT included. Also missing, is the portfolio of other projects which APRIL was previously engaged in, as a verifiable track record of their capacity to handle a project of this magnitude and cost.

This video (below)from Youtube shows the pristine Natadola coastline prior to the ill-fated construction project.


The Natadola Marine Resort Project also demonstrates the underhand negotiations used by Native Lands Trust Board(NLTB) to secure approval from landowners; as well as the lack of adequate compensation given to native landowners, in terms of top soil removal, or address outstanding issues of royalties and consent.



Even NLTB's Deputy General Manager acknowledged in a Fiji TV interview, that disagreements between factions of native landowners, is a fairly common occurence. The NLTB representative did not elaborate or confirm whether the Native Lands Trust Board was actively preying on this division in inter-tribal conflicts, to facilitate or manufacture the consent of landowners, for large projects such as Natadola.

This is an excerpt from a Fiji Sun article:

Tribes fight over FNPF project

By Cheerieann Wilson

Natadola landowners have claimed that Ratu Osea Gavidi does not represent their interests in the Fiji National Provident Fund resort project.Turaga Ni Yavusa Leweitahalulu, Ratu Ilami Nabiau told the Fiji Sun yesterday, the landowners had terminated Ratu Osea’s service as their spokesman in 2000.“He is from the chiefly family in Cuvu. He does not own any strip or piece of land in Natadola,” he said.“As the project progressed we discovered problems because FNPF had released $60 million.

APRIL used $15m of that and landowners have not been paid the full amount of $1m, we are still owed money since the project started two years ago.”However, Ratu Osea maintained last night that he is their representative, as he was traditionally approached with a tabua (whales tooth).“No one has presented me with another tabua to say that I was out.

I have the support of the seven mataqalis and Ratu Ilami is one that does not think of the big picture.“He is one of those that are trying to split up the vanua and he has not attended the meeting here in Suva,” Ratu Osea said.Ratu Ilami said Ratu Osea should have met with the landowners in the village. They should have called for the meeting here in the village.

They should have at least come here and meet with the owners and explain what they want to do, if they wanted us to sign papers or make changes, at least come here to us and explain the allegations that have been made against them.”Ratu Ilami indicated that only three yavusas were represented at the meeting with the Interim Minister for Fijian Affairs Ratu Epeli Ganilau yesterday; yavusa Ketenamasi - Ratu Timoci Kulikata; yavusa Tacini - Napolioni Naloga; yavusa Esiga - Inoke Nainunu.

He claimed that the of the four yavusas of Lewaitahalulu, Nalotawa, Burenitu and Koronani did not attend.Ratu Osea claimed that he has the support of the seven yavusas along with the TuiNahoqo, Ratu Timoci Kolikata.These people take their advise from Apisai Tora and Peniasi Kunatuba who is in jail now.” When contacted Mr Tora said he will make a comment today.Yavusa Esiga member Bati Qainiuri said Ratu Osea came into the picture of the Natadola project site because of his involvement with APRIL.

“He will bribe and will take advantage of other landowners that are not educated enough. He is not the owner of the mataqali land. He says that he called a meeting with all landowners last night (Monday night) then how come we were not involved,” he asked.Ratu Osea said if others wanted to say something, they should first seek the mandate of the vanua first.“We are asking for a few more days to allow the mataqali landowners to meet with APRIL and then decide on its future in the project and the Minister has said he will go back and speak with the board.“I blame Felix Anthony for everything that has happened.

I wrote to him on March 9 and 15 to seek his assurance that any decision on Natadola or APRIL should be put on hold until after APRIL met with the landowners.“On March 5, I went to the village with Mosese Nakabea and Jo Sadole who told villagers that another engineer would handle the project. The village community chairman Jonetani Saukuru wrote to Mr Anthony to plead with FNPF not to make any decisions on Natadola or APRIL.“He did not respect the plea from the vanua. He has disrespected the vanua.

I spoke with Mr Anthony on March 15 and he assured me on the phone that no decision would be made yet on Natadola and yet later that day we saw the announcement on TV. He made the announcement that Thursday and flew out of the country for 10 days“We are waiting for him to return.

He has failed to respect the vanua Nahogo.”Meanwhile, APRIL Natadola project director, Keni Dakuidreketi maintained that APRIL is still the manager and developer of the resort.“There has been no legal termination of our contract. There are agreed dispute provisions that are being ignored.

This is very bad for the investment climate,” he said. Mr Dakuidreketi said allegations about construction problems at Natadola were misrepresented. He said the Holmes Consulting Group is a leading NZ firm of structural engineers and had conducted a detailed review of the design of the resort’s InterContinental hotel, now under construction.

“These followed issues that were raised by COTEBA, as the Natadola project manager. “These issues were not raised by HLK Jacob as it claimed. The Holmes review confirmed that the InterContinental design complied with the relevant NZ codes of practice and by reference, to the National Building Code of Fiji.”Mr Dakuidreketi said a specific technical approach had been used to minimise earthquake damage.

(Above image: Artist impression of Natadola project)


(Above image: First phase of earth movement at Natadola)




(Above image: Building structure emerges at Natadola)

This is the excerpt of the Radio Fiji article:

There are claims that the $140 million dollars Natadola Hotel Project is now in jeopardy with most of the work having ground to a halt.

Today Asia Pacific Resort International Limited, APRIL publicly defended itself against pressure from the Fiji National Provident Fund to cancel its contract as project managers.

Early this month Natadola Bay Resort Limited chairman Felix Anthony said they were not satisfied with APRIL’s performance, saying the project was 24-weeks behind schedule and that the project lacked accountability.

But APRIL project manager Keni Dakuidreketi says the Fund’s decisions have been disastrous for the project.

“They have effectively halted most of the work and thrown the project into chaos. The delays caused are adding to costs. Legal arrangements with consultants and contractors have been breached and payments to them are in default. They are not being remunerated in accordance with their contracts.” said Dakuidreketi.

Dakuidreketi says a number of forces and issues are at play in the campaign against them.

“Some of these may be political, others connected to commercial rivalry, ambition and resentment. We repeat APRIL rejects allegations against it. It is a reputable company, committed to properly meeting its responsibilities at Natadola. It abides by its contractual obligations and takes seriously the professional and proper performance of those obligations. We stress we practice accountability in the expenditure of funds.”

It also appears that another director of APRIL Development, Berenado Vunibobo(pictured above[R]) has skeletons in his closet. Vunibobo, a former former Fiji Government Minister was named by former Fiji Public Prosecutor, Peter Ridgeway, in a Radio N.Z article, as being present during a meeting at Fiji Parliament, subsequent to the 2000 coup.

This is the excerpt of Radio NZ article:

Treason trial prosecutor again names prominent Fiji people allegedly involved in 2000 coup

Posted at 23:55 on 09 March, 2003 UTC

The names of prominent Fiji people have again featured in the treason trial of coup accomplices, Josefa Nata and Timoci Silatolu.

The state prosecutor, Perter Ridgeway, named them in his summing up of the trial

He said the lands minister, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, the deputy speaker of parliament Ratu Rakuita Vakalalabure, the high commissioner to Papua New Guinea Ratu Inoke Kubuabloa, the former finance minister Berenado Vunibobo, the former general manager of the Native Lands Trust Board Maika Qarikau as well as George Speight and his father were among those present at a meeting in parliament soon after the coup.

Mr Ridgeway said the meeting assigned Nata to draft decrees and abolish the constitution, assisted by Ratu Inoke Kubuabola who was then the opposition leader.

Mr Ridgeway said Nata had lied and deceived the court when he claimed that he was in parliament to secure the release of the hostages. The prosecutor said video evidence showed Nata looking relaxed and chewing gum as George Speight threatened the lives of the hostages.

Club Em Designs

Going Native.

Survivor Fiji was launched by CBS last night and already there is a first victim of the tribal council, described by WCBSTV article. The reviews of the first episode was made available by BuddyTV article.

There is also a similar thread between the Tribe Wanted project on Vorovoro and the reality show-Survivor Fiji on a nearby island.

It would be interesting to the see Survivor group meet and greet their Tribe Wanted members. Perhaps a real detour from the script, a detour that will inevitably discover and form some ethnological theory of tribes and their interaction.



(Above image: Islands off Macuata coast.)



(Above image: Macuata coast with a North-South view of Fiji Islands.)


Both venues are in the Macuata province and the parallels between the two genres is a simple premise: bringing together different people with different backgrounds and attempting to create a tribal identity. An identity that binds each member's strengths and weaknesses, with the objective of creating a society, forming their own ethos.



Regarding the audit of Native Lands Trust Board, investigators may have to re-visit the complaints raised by the Macuata landowners who claim that, the NLTB acted unilaterally to approve the filming, with little market priced compensation given to the landowners.

The sentiments of these landowners in the Survivor case, add to the litany of other complaints, legal actions made against N.L.T.B, despite the efforts to use their website to add a special page to downplay such accusations by landowners.



One such case, was the land mark ruling by Suva High Court which gave the landowners clearance to apply for logging licenses on their own land. NLTB have annouced in an article by Fiji Times that, they will pursue an appeals proceedings against the ruling.

This is the excerpt of the Fiji Times article:

Right of redress in timber case: NLTB Mahogany

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

FIJI Hardwood Corporation Limited and government still have the right to pursue redress on the ownership of mahogany, says the Native Land Trust Board.

NLTB deputy general manager Semi Tabakanalagi said this was not even considering that if a licence was issued under thelaw, theForestry Department or the Government would be the regulator tomonitor or manage the harvesting measurement of logs before they were taken to the mills.

Mr Tabakanalagi was commenting on a High Court ruling allowing a landowning unit of Serua to be issued a license to harvest mahogany planted on their land by the FHCL.

"NLTB through the approval of its Board in 2005 had put in place a mahogany way forward roadmap to regularise or correct theirregularity that was made in the issuance of 99-year lease in the 1960s rather than 50- year leases,'' Mr Tabakanalagi said.

"We had tried to implement this for Atunaisa Tiva's Mataqali Naua, who decided to log the mahogany themselves. WhenNLTB refused issuing the licence, it resulted in the court caseand hence the recent decision by the High Court. NLTB has always been of the position that through leasing it will create a sustainable economic and environmentalprovider to landowners rather than just one off harvesting with no guarantee of replanting in the future," Mr Tabakanalagi said.

"With the recent High Court ruling we will relook at our position again and inform the NLTB Board in its next meeting for its direction on the next step from here.

"It will either be complying with the recent ruling to issue a licence to landowners or appeal the decision to the Fiji Court of Appeal," he said.

With regards to the Nukurua mahogany plantation in Tailevu, Mr Tabakanalagi said mahogany reafforestation was a government policy initiative in the 1960s.

He said it was undertaken with noble intentions as an investment that would generate business not only for the landowners but to the national economy as well during harvesting.

"The said mahogany (in Nukurua and Serua) are now ready for harvest and the past administrations have tried their utmost best in addressing the competing issues in particular from landowners leading to the setting up of FHCL and Fiji Mahogany Trust and provision for 10 per cent shareholding in FHCL by landowners," he said.

"All the mahogany leases have not been surveyed and leads to certain irregularities in the lease boundaries, whether some leased land are in reserve and in the case of Mataqali Rara in Naimasimasi their claims for the return of their old village site or Yavutu," he said.

Mr Tabakanalagi said the recent ruling now again gave another new dimension to all the issues relating to the mahogany leases in the country.

Meanwhile, Native Land Trust Board is trying its best within thelaw to collect arrears or lease rentals from tenants.

Mr Tabakanalagi was reacting to threats made by Tamavua villagers who were going to evict tenants with lease arrears.

Deputy General Manager Operations Semi Tabakanalagi said NLTB had established a new Department late last year to deal with arrears.

"The Department has put in place strategies in how best to curb this recurring probleminclusive of visitation and discussion with tenants, liaison with employers and Fiji National Provident Fund for deductions, part payments, incentives such as writing off interests, joining the Credit Bureauand other ways to tackle the problem in this short term," he said.

"We are looking at putting extra effort both manpower and resources this year 2007 to boost our drive for collection of arrears.

"Other ways include strengthening our powers within the Native Land Trust Act (NLTA) to empower NLTB on rental collection as similar to Municipalities (rates) and FIRCA (tax payments).

"In the long term we are looking at getting the best clients on board which means proper screening of applicants for future lease contracts," Mr Tabakanalagi said.

This view was based on the Fiji Sun article that was published on this website for fans of Survivor Fiji. The excerpt of the Fiji Sun article is as follows:

$10 million demand on TV series

Note that filming has begun on Oct. 30, 2006 for Survivor 14 in Fiji.

The Fiji Sun By SAMANTHA RINA

Landowners want $10 million to allow filming of the renowned television series, Survivor. And if they don’t receive the money, they say they will halt production.

Members of the Mataqali Walana in Macuata have demanded that the Native Land Trust Board make a $10 million payment if it wants the series to continue filming on their land.”We are seeking legal advice on the matter and we are also checking ownership of other areas involved as the filmmaking of this series involves seven islands,” said mataqali member and spokesman Asaeli Tuicakau.

“The NLTB just claimed the areas without requesting any consent from the landowners,” he said.

“How can we just sit by and watch them lease our land without following the proper procedure?” Mr Tuicakau said the landowners were not told how much money had changed hands between the filmmakers and the NLTB.

“They have offered us $30,000 for a period of three months but we want $10 million for the three months that they want to use our land. If our demand is not met, we will close the site tomorrow,” he said. Mr Tuicakau said the landowners had chacked with officials from the NLTB once and no documents had been issued to them for approval of lease to the series production company.

A total of 170 tents have been set up in the area to accommodate the cast and crew in the series and filming began yesterday.

However, the climate of corruption within such Fiji native institutions, have attracted alot of scrutiny into the transactions made by N.L.T.B as this Fiji Time article reporting the audit of a particular contract to use SAP software purchased at an astronomical price of $F16 million paid over 11 years.

Froogle has a list of SAP software and listed prices, the most expensive platform is actually a fraction of the million dollar mark paid by NLTB.

Another attention spotlight on Fiji, was a unique take from a contributor to Rhode Island's Brown University, publication and his satirical opinion article, advocated the U.S Government to invade Fiji, as a political jibe at President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.


Club Em Designs

Seeing Trees or a Forest?

Fiji Village reports a landmark ruling by the Suva High Court, which has given the landowners of a Serua Mahogany plantation the ability to apply for a forestry harvest license.

This is the excerpt of the Fiji Village article:

Serua Mahogany Landowners Entitled Harvesting License
By fijivillage
Jan 19, 2007, 17:19

In a bench mark ruling, the Suva High court yesterday ordered that Serua mahogany landowners are entitled to a license to harvest their own mahogany.

High court judge Jiten Singh ruled that they are now entitled to a license from the Native Land Trust Board to harvest mahogany planted on their land after the mataqali Naua applied to the NLTB for a license to log the mahogany which was denied.

In his judgment Justice Singh highlighted that the evidence before him indicates that the financial benefits to the landowners are far superior if they log their own mahogany since they have ready buyers for their products

Lawyer representing the landowners Isireli Fa said they have already negotiated a price for the mahogany which is estimated to earn the landowners $1.8 million after costs of extraction.

Prior applications filed by the landowning unit, was understood to have been denied by the agency responsible for indigenous land in Fiji, the Native Lands Trust Board (N.L.T.B).

This court ruling has also inextricably set up a new paradigm, allowing other native landowning units to contest the multitude of resources available on their ancestral land. This new found ability, further underscores the inability of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) to achieve such empowering actions, for the people that they supposedly spoke for.

Another contention is that, why these avenues of livelihood were denied in the first place by the N.L.T.B? The agency charted with responsibility of acting and managing these prime acreages of real estate, with the best interest of the landowners in mind; only had dubious intentions, well embedded in greed and subterfuge.

This court ruling has also confirmed firmly held suspicions that, these native institutions were created for the sole purpose of benefit ting this minority indigenous elite in Fiji. The unintended consequences of the agenda driven influences from a clumsy aristocratic hierarchy was, the political dramatization of class warfare in Fiji, resulting in a track record of coups.

Club Em Designs