X-Post: # Secrets And Skeletons: The Inside Story. .

Astonishing details are emerging of the secret role played by the Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, in the removal of the Solicitor General, Sharvada Sharma, which has triggered a constitutional crisis in Fiji months out from the 2022 election.


The circumspection and fear of retribution that usually keeps the mouths of insiders firmly shut in Suva has given way to a torrent of information as outrage mounts over the circumstances of the SG’s dismissal. It also encompasses wider concerns about the conduct of the Prime Minister and his Attorney General that go to the heart of their fitness to hold public office.




A job for the cat in the hat






Pieced together, it is an amazing tale of how the Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, used the Prime Minister and the weight of his office to try to strongarm Sharvada Sharma into resigning for his alleged “misbehaviour” in presiding over the failure of the state case to remove the SODELPA MP, Niko Nawaikula, from the Parliament.

According to multiple sources, Sharma was summoned to the office of the Prime Minister, where he was told by Frank Bainimarama that he had lost the trust of the AG and he wanted his resignation. When Sharma refused, it set in train a series of events that have not only compromised the PM and the AG and triggered a crisis of confidence in their leadership and judgment.
CJ Kamal Kumar with the AG

When the PM’s attempt to get the SG to resign failed, the Chief Justice – as chair of the Judicial Services Commission – advised the President to suspended Sharvada Sharma and then seven weeks later, advised Konrote as the outgoing president to dismiss him.

Yet that dismissal was demonstrably unlawful. The 2013 Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice – as JSC chair – must set up a formal tribunal of three judges to hear any allegations of misbehaviour against a judicial officer, report its findings to the president and make those findings public. Virtually the entire legal establishment in Fiji is aghast that instead of doing this, Justice Kumar evidently advised the President that he was entitled to dismiss the SG without any formal hearing whatsoever.

Why he did so hasn’t yet been explained, with the government issuing a bald late night announcement of the dismissal two days after it occurred without giving a reason for the termination, let alone addressing the unlawful nature of the decision.

Yet it was unquestionably an illegal act that contravened Fiji’s supreme law and within three months of Kamal Kumar being sworn in as permanent Chief Justice. It is already having far-reaching consequences for confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law in Fiji as Sharvada Sharma and his legal team – led by lawyers Richard Naidu and Jon Apted at Munro Leys – prepare to lodge an application for a judicial review of the decision.
The outgoing president, Jioji Konrote




The episode has also engulfed and compromised the Chief Justice, Kamal Kumar, and the outgoing president, Jioji Konrote, because their sacking of the SG without a hearing was in direct contravention of the 2013 Constitution.


The Chief Justice is now between a rock and a hard place. Wearing his hat as Chair of the Judicial Services Commission, Kamal Kumar has – according to senior lawyers – already pre-judged the SG’s guilt on the accusation of misbehaviour by unconstitutionally advising that his commission be terminated without a hearing.

So there is no question – they say – of Kumar presiding in judgment over a review of his own decision wearing his hat as Chief Justice. He will have to recuse himself and the application will have to be heard by another judge.

If that judge finds that the SG’s sacking is unlawful because it is in breach of the constitution, where would that leave the Chief Justice, the former President, the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the man who filed the original complaint against Sharvada Sharma, Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem? We are deep into unknown territory yet as things stand, it isn’t hard to imagine them wallowing in an ocean of pain of their own making in a putt-putt with a broken motor just months from the 2022 election.
Firebrand MP Niko Nawaikula


No-one who knows the inside story is in any doubt that the entire saga has its origins in the AG’s hatred for Niko Nawaikula – the firebrand indigenous nationalist who regularly taunts him in the parliament – and his obsession to have Nawaikula expelled as an MP.

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum evidently saw his chance with Niko Nawaikula’s open admission that he had contested elections using an alias instead of his birth name. And as he has done before, the AG used the Supervisor of Elections as the vehicle for achieving his objective, instructing his house elf, Mohammed Saneem, to mount a court action to remove Nawaikula from the Parliament.

It was meant to have been straightforward – Nawaikula charged with a breach of the electoral laws, tried and removed, all without the AG’s fingerprints on it. But the law wasn’t on the side of Saneem and Khaiyum but Niko Nawaikula.

When the case was heard, it emerged that Saneem had already issued multiple exemptions for others to have their aliases accepted or their details corrected. So why was Nawaikula being singled out for special treatment? Simple. Because whenever the Master tells Dobby to go for it, he does. But whether it is Nawaikula or Sitiveni Rabuka before him, Dobby doesn’t have a great record of accumulating scalps for his Master in the courts.

The hapless Saneem is said to have confided to friends that he simply couldn’t say no to the AG, all of which makes the Dobby the House Elf caricature uncomfortably close to reality.
“Dobby the House Elf”: Mohammed Saneem

According to senior lawyers, Saneem had a weak case and certainly did not have the legal firepower necessary to bring Nawaikula down. If it did, then why is it that it took Nawaikula’s acquittal and reinstatement to the parliament for the government to introduce tougher laws requiring electors and prospective MPs to use their birth names?

That alone was a tacit admission of flaws in its own legislation. All this should surely have been obvious to the AG and Saneem before and after the trial. But it didn’t stop them from venting their rage in their humiliation at Nawaikula’s victory and triumphant return to the Parliament on the man they sent into battle without the proper legal ammunition.

When the acquittal was announced, the AG took the extraordinary step of complaining publicly about the failure of lawyers on both sides – an unprecedented attack in the media on his own legal team that should have served as a warning to Sharvada Sharma of what was to come.

Yet having given 24 years of dedicated service to the AG’s Department – ten of those years as Solicitor General – and having had a blemish-free career, his friends say Sharma assumed that the AG’s attitude would be the normal one in the face of such a defeat. You win some, you lose some and if you do lose because of deficiencies in the law, then you use your numbers in the parliament to tighten that law rather than drag out your guy in the horse hair wig and shoot him.
A subservient relationship. The SOE and AG

How wrong the SG was. Behind the scenes, an enraged AG sooled his house elf Saneem onto Sharvada Sharma, encouraging him to lodge a formal complaint of “misbehaviour” against the SG with the Judicial Services Commission over Sharma’s handling of the Nawaikula case.

Dobby’s forelock-tugging subservience instinctively kicked in. And for Sharma, more than two decades in the civil service amounted to nought as the AG and Saneem made him the scapegoat for laws that they had failed to make watertight.

Flashback to Thursday September 16 – 10 weeks ago today (Thursday Nov 18). As far as Grubsheet has been able to ascertain from third party sources, the following is the sequence of events, beginning with an extraordinary personal summons from the Prime Minister to the Solicitor General to come to a meeting in his office. According to Sharma’s friends, he had no inkling what was in store, though he may have been naïve not to have his suspicions after the AG publicly criticised him – albeit indirectly – for failing to get Nawaikula expelled.

According to his friends, when he was ushered in, the PM came straight to the point in characteristic fashion: “I’ll make this short. I want your resignation”, he reportedly said. Sharma is said to have asked the PM for time to respond to him in writing, which he did the next day and denied the allegations made against him.



“In happier days”: the SG (left) and PM (second from right)

Then on Monday September 20, he was called again by the Prime Minister to his office, where the PM handed him a pen, pointed to a pre-prepared resignation letter on the desk in front of him and demanded that the SG sign it, telling Sharma he had lost the trust of the AG. When the SG refused, the PM curtly ordered him from his office, telling his military detail to seize Sharvada Sharma’s phone on the way out. For Bainimarama’s chief legal advisor for 10 of his 15 years in power, it was the most humiliating of exits.

In a state of shock – say his friends – Sharma returned to his office on Level 7 of Suvavou House, where the ordeal continued. One of the AG’s bodyguards was waiting for him and demanded his laptop. And that was where the curtain came down on Sharvada Sharma’s decade of loyal service as SG. Even taking into account the sometimes imprecise recollections of third parties, this was clearly an execution of the most brutal and ruthless kind normally reserved for those guilty of grave wrongdoing.

And then later in the evening of Monday September 20, Sharma received a letter from the President’s Office formally telling him that he had been suspended on the recommendation of the Judicial Services Commission and without pay. This was an added humiliation in a government that routinely suspends civil servants on full pay while allegations against them are investigated. And yet another example of the chronic vindictiveness of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Unambiguous: The 2013 Constitution.


What should have happened next to an SG suspended for alleged misbehaviour is laid out in precise detail in the 2013 constitution. It is worth repeating to enable readers to fully appreciate the gravity of what has occurred and the grave injustice inflicted on Sharvada Sharma.

“112- (3) If the President, acting on the advice of the Judicial Services Commission, considers that the question of removing a Judge, Magistrate, Master of the High Court, the Chief Registrar or any other judicial officer appointed by the Judicial Services Commission from office ought to be investigated, then—

(a) the President, acting on the advice of the Judicial Services Commission, shall appoint—

(i) in the case of alleged misbehaviour—a tribunal, consisting of a chairperson and not less than 2 other members, selected from amongst persons who hold or have held high judicial office in Fiji or in another country;

(b) the tribunal …enquires into the matter and furnishes a written report of the facts to the President and advises the President of its recommendation whether or not the Judge, Magistrate, Master of the High Court, the Chief Registrar or any other judicial officer appointed by the Judicial Services Commission should be removed from office; and

(c) in deciding whether or not to remove a Judge, the President must act on the advice of the tribunal …

(6) The report of the tribunal… made under subsection (3) shall be made public”.

While the course of action that the Chief Justice and the President should have taken is unambiguous, no time frame is set for the process. Yet there’s an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. And it was clearly a denial of natural justice to keep the SG suspended without pay without a timely announcement of a date for the tribunal hearing stipulated by the Constitution.
Chief Justice Kamal Kumar.A full seven weeks passed and nothing happened. But then came Diwali on Thursday November 4 and Sharvada Sharma – a devout Hindu – was preparing for his religious devotions.

According to his lawyers, suddenly there was a knock at the door and a police officer handed the suspended SG a letter from the Judicial Services Commission. The letter required him to answer 31 detailed questions and gave him a deadline precisely 48 hours later to submit those answers – by 4.00pm on Saturday November 6.

His lawyers advised Sharma that the standard response time given to any officer of state subjected to formal complaint is 14 days yet he had been given just one business day – Friday the 6th – to prepare his defence. On the Friday, Sharma’s lawyers wrote to the Commission describing the time frame as “absurd and unfair” and offered to provide a response within eight working days. But this was immediately rejected by the Commission, which wrote back saying the Saturday deadline was immovable. In response to that, Sharma’s lawyers wrote back on the Saturday telling the Commission that the suspended SG denied all of the allegations in the complaint against him and would provide a detailed response. But he could not and would not do so by the end of the day and rush his response just so the Commission could “tick a box”.

And that’s where things rested until a bolt from the blue on the following Wednesday, November 10, when Sharvada Sharma received a letter signed by HE the outgoing President, Major General Jioji Konrote, terminating his appointment for “misbehaviour” and saying his failure to reply to the Judicial Services Commission’s 48-hour “please explain” deadline was “tantamount to cumulative misbehaviour”.



Injustice

48 hours to answer 31 questions posed seven weeks after his suspension. In the words of another old saying, the wheels of justice turn slowly. But, after a seven week hibernation and deafening silence, they were suddenly turbocharged to lightning speed when it came to dealing with the suspended Solicitor General.

The unconstitutional circumstances of his summary dismissal have sent shock waves through the ranks of those officers of state covered by the Judicial Services Commission, including judges, the Chief Registrar and the DPP.

Because if the right to a Tribunal hearing of an allegation of misbehaviour can be denied to Sharvada Sharma, it can be denied to anyone. Without constitutional protection, they are all a formal complaint away not from a mechanism to defend any allegation against them but from being kicked onto the street.

So why was there such a reluctance in this instance to uphold the constitutional requirement for a tribunal hearing that would have allowed the deposed SG to defend himself?

Was it because there are no grounds to question his conduct beyond losing a case under a law that the government itself acknowledged was deficient by altering it after Niko Nawaikula’s trial? Was it a case of the AG and Mohammed Saneem using the SG as a scapegoat for their loss of face in bringing the case against Niko Nawaikula in the first place?

Did they gamble on Sharvada Sharma not having the stomach for a lengthy legal battle and think he would fall on his sword under the weight of the Prime Minister’s, er, assertive persuasiveness? All this is rich fodder for any judicial review if that review is granted.

IF being the operative word. Because the next phase of this crisis will come if that review is denied.

The rule of law is paramount in any democracy, as is the separation of powers between the executive in the form of the elected government and the constitutional offices, including the judiciary. What has happened in Fiji is a blurring of those lines as the FijiFirst government makes a determined assault on the institutions of state – first by abolishing assessors in criminal trials and setting up a separate FICAC court to try its opponents and now a full- blown assault on the Constitution that it imposed on the nation in 2013 but whose provisions it ignores when it becomes inconvenient.

Make no mistake. Rather than strengthening our institutions to make them more resilient and allow for smooth transfers of power when the people decide a political party has run its course, Fiji under Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is more dictatorship than democracy – a parliament that is manipulated by the ruling party, opposition figures detained and released at will, institutions stacked with FijiFirst supporters and now blatant defiance of the Constitution, the supreme law.

It is the Zimbabwe road – a journey into darkness and regression as a nation – and Bainimarama and Khaiyum are leading us all down that path.
Serious questions of conduct.

And history shows that when the supreme law is disregarded comes the slippery slope of there being one law for the leadership and another for everyone else.

The Prime Minister and the Attorney General have already both left themselves vulnerable to this charge – the PM for allegedly putting a stop to a police drug investigation into a close family member and the AG for allegedly asking his female staff for late night massages while travelling overseas. They are stories that you will never read or hear in the Fijian media. But they go to the heart of their credibility and fitness for high office.

In the case of the PM, the arrest of his close family member for drug possession allegedly triggered a phone call to investigating police threatening not only their own jobs but the disbanding of the entire section unless the investigation was halted. Soon afterwards, the Acting Police Commissioner, Rusiate Tudravu, resigned. Whether the two are linked Tudravu hasn’t said. But at the very least, the episode raises serious questions about the Prime Minister’s conduct and the even-handed application of the law.

In the case of the AG, there were allegedly complaints by female members of his staff that he was in the habit of summoning them to his hotel room while travelling overseas and asking them for massages.

While these were said to be of a non-sexual nature, it evidently caused enough discomfort for the women to raise the issue at a higher level. As with other celebrated cases in the “Me-Too” era, it is the disparity of power and the ability of an employee to say “no” that is the issue, as well as whether the alleged approaches were appropriate.
Hands on government. Allegedly someone else’s hands.

It is believed that complaints made by the women in question to the former deputy solicitor- general, Tracey Wong, were a significant factor in Wong’s subsequent resignation.

She was reportedly sidelined and cold-shouldered when she took it upon herself to raise the issue with the AG – an episode that doesn’t sit well with Khaiyum’s carefully crafted image as someone who empowers young and ambitious women in his office. He prides himself on hands-on government. Occasionally someone else’s hands, it seems.

Morale in the AG’s Chambers – where I worked myself for the best part of six years – has been severely dented by the Solicitor General’s dismissal. His designated successor, Acting Solicitor General, Preetika Prasad, has – according to colleagues – put on a brave face but is said to have been a highly reluctant recruit.

And the resignations of other lawyers in the AG’s Office are a clear indication of general dismay at the SG’s treatment. Sharvada Sharma’s “second” in the Niko Nawaikula matter – the competent and popular Seema Chand – has resigned and so has another valued state lawyer, David Solvalu, who has accepted a position with the private law firm, Howards.

So the AG returns to the office from COP26 at the head of an unhappy ship that is destined to get a lot less happy as the election approaches and he comes under increasing strain. Because even at the best of times, Khaiyum has a reputation for being capricious and erratic. And for his staff, giving him a massage is no assurance of longevity when he has so ruthlessly dispensed with someone of the calibre of the SG, who had loyally served him for ten years and helped him write the constitution to which he now gives the finger.
Dobby’s “regret”

While Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s self-belief is as immovable as his devotion to Islam and sense of destiny, his house elf, Mohammed Saneem, is said to be somewhat less confident these days. In fact, in the wake of Sharvada Sharma’s dismissal, Saneem – in private at least – is evidently expressing a degree of regret.

The SOE’s cockiness, nervous laugh and oversensitivity to criticism – say those who know him – masks an ambitious, capable yet deeply insecure individual who is acutely aware of the AG’s power to make or break him.

While ever he does his master’s bidding, Saneem is in “make” mode – propelled through the ranks as permanent secretary for justice and then Supervisor of Elections on his seemingly unstoppable path to fulfilling his cherished ambition to be a High Court judge.

Yet Saneem – it seems – has enough self-awareness to realise that he is locked in a Faustian Pact with the AG. And behind the bravado that was again on display on FBC’s For the Record on Sunday night, he is said to be painfully aware that he is now a pariah, especially with his fellow lawyers, and would not survive a change of government. All of which has the effect of binding him to the AG, his Master, even more.

That bond isn’t as strong, of course, as the one between Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Frank Bainimarama, who the AG prevailed on to try to persuade the SG to go willingly, presumably on the basis that the PM was more likely to intimidate Sharvada Sharma into resigning.

The AG clearly had no idea of Sharma’s strength of character and resolve even after ten years by his side – a lack of judgment about people that will eventually be his downfall.



Mere Vuniwaqa

The tactic backfired with spectacular consequences. And now dismissed in unconstitutional circumstances, Sharvada Sharma is determined to fight to clear his name.

He joins someone else in exile who Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum also forced from office in recent months – the former government minister, Mere Vuniwaqa. Former close colleagues (Sharma as SG and Vuniwaqa as permanent secretary for justice), both are loose cannons cast from the ship of state who have the ability to cause considerable damage in an election year. Because if anyone knows where the bodies of the Bainimarama era are buried, they do.

Many people like me wonder how on earth the AG could have been so reckless, with the election countdown in full swing, not to have tied these loose cannons firmly to the deck.

But, of course, it’s always crash through or crash for Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. It’s just that crash now seems the more likely outcome if and when the people finally get their say.

Most Fijians have developed a distaste for the AG’s controlling and punitive manner and the PM’s faux bonhomie and barely concealed irritation with everything.

And after 15 years, people are generally sick of the sight of both of them, with their supercilious grins and factory-generated messaging, including such gems as “Covid-19 has made us stronger”, blah, blah, blah. Even with their handling of the Covid calamity, there are 694 reasons not to re-elect this tired old duo – the disproportionately high number of Fijian dead and counting.
Game’s up.

We’re through with the swaggering cowboy act and we didn’t vote for outlaws. In the final analysis, like all governments, the time has come for FijiFirst to reinvigorate itself with a period in opposition.

So they can at least do us the honour of obeying the constitution they imposed, give us a free and fair election and leave quietly when the Fijian voters decide “it’s time”. Oh and tell your people with the guns that the will of the Fijian people’s is paramount and the people have the right to choose even a “snake” to lead them if that’s what they want. Because that’s democracy.

Alas, I personally have little confidence that Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum will do the right thing. Because like all tyrants (the definition in ancient Greece was a ruler who seized power unconstitutionally), they think what’s right for them is right for everyone else. Democracy, Bai-Khai style. And bugger anyone else.














Club Em Designs

X-Post-Grubsheet: #99 SMALL COUNTRY, BIG VOICE

 By Graham Davis

– June 22, 2012Posted in: All

Fiji chairs the UN General Assembly (Photo: UN)

The sight of Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Peter Thomson, chairing the General Assembly is yet another reminder that although Fiji is a relatively small country, it punches way above its weight. This week, Peter has been Acting President of the General Assembly, conducting the everyday business of the UN from the famous podium that has produced some of  history’s most memorable images – from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat waving his pistol to Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev banging his shoe. Along with hundreds of speeches from everyone from Che Guevara to Nelson Mandela, from the Queen to Frank Bainimarama.

Thirsty work: Peter Thomson (l) with his Fiji Water within reach (Photo:UN)

It was especially apt that with Ambassador Thomson in the chair, the General Assembly considered reports about the financing of UN peacekeeping operations. This is what really makes Fiji an indispensable member of the club of nations – its ability and willingness to provide troops to wear the UN blue beret in some of the world’s toughest places. All Fijians owe a great debt to the men and women of the military who’ve given their unstinting service – and sometimes their lives – to improving the lives of ordinary people in the Middle East and elsewhere by protecting them from conflict. And for sending the money they earn home to help support their communities in Fiji.

Fijian UN peacekeepers ( photo: UN)

It’s made heroes in the most unlikely places of tough but softly spoken people from island villages on the far side of the world. And it’s given a country of which many would otherwise never have heard gratitude and respect.  Yes, Fiji gets an important source of revenue from its peacekeeping operations. But it remains one of the few nations able and willing to put its troops in the firing line to defend the UN ideal of collective responsibility for all the world’s people.

Ambassador Semesa Sikivou (r) with UN Secretary General U Thant in 1970 ( Photo: UN)

Graham Davis

" Peter has worked tirelessly for the country’s interests, shifting the axis of its global relationships from its traditional western allies to a policy of being “a friend to all”. He has spearheaded the Bainimarama government’s Look North Policy, launched formal diplomatic relations with more than three dozen countries and organised its membership of the Non Aligned Movement[...]

Fiji gain the benefit of lining up with some of the biggest players of the Asia Pacific region, the global powerhouse of the 21st century. And it has moved these countries out from under the skirts of their “big brothers” Australia and New Zealand, which belong to an entirely separate UN bloc – the Western European and Others Group. "

Peter Thomson is the latest in a long line of Fijians who’ve represented the country in New York, starting with the late Semesa Sikivou at the time of independence in 1970. He has had a remarkable personal and professional history. The son of Sir Ian Thomson– one of the most respected administrators of the colonial era who stayed on to head the sugar industry and Air Pacific – Peter began his career as a district officer in Fiji and was then a diplomat in Tokyo and Sydney. He was Permanent Secretary for Information when – with a pistol on the table – Sitiveni Rabuka forced him to write the formal announcement of the first coup of 1987. Then, after he became permanent secretary to the then governor-general, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, Peter became a target of ethno-nationalist extremists in the second coup of the same year. He was tracked down and thrown into a prison cell for several days before being forced to leave the country altogether.

Peter effectively spent more than 20 years in exile, first in New Zealand and then Australia, where he became a successful writer and authored Kava in the Blood, a compelling account of his life in Fiji. Then out of the blue three years ago came a call from Frank Bainimarama’s office. Would he agree to represent Fiji at the UN?

Ambassador Peter Thomson with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon ( Photo:UN)

Would he ever. Grubsheet – an old friend – recalls the immense satisfaction for Peter in being recalled to represent his country of birth. It was as if his life had come full circle, the lifting of a two-decade long punctuation mark in his career of service to Fiji.

In New York, Peter has worked tirelessly for the country’s interests, shifting the axis of its global relationships from its traditional western allies to a policy of being “a friend to all”. He has spearheaded the Bainimarama government’s Look North Policy, launched formal diplomatic relations with more than three dozen countries and organised its membership of the Non Aligned Movement. He has vigorously pursued Fiji’s interests in such areas as tackling global warming and rising sea levels, preserving the maritime environment and, of course, the peacekeeping operations that are so important to the country’s economy and prestige. And he has played a vital role in batting off attempts by Australia and New Zealand to have Fiji excluded from those operations as punishment for the 2006 coup.

Frank Bainimarama addresses the UN (Photo:UN)

Even more importantly, perhaps, Peter has taken steps to fundamentally lift Fiji’s status in the global community. He was a prime mover in the formation of the UN voting bloc known as the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS), which gives Pacific nations a far bigger voice in global affairs by acting in concert. PSIDS has succeeded in joining the Asian Group at the UN, which is now officially known as the Asian and Pacific Small Island Developing States Group. This means countries like Fiji gain the benefit of lining up with some of the biggest players of the Asia Pacific region, the global powerhouse of the 21^st century. And it has moved these countries out from under the skirts of their  “big brothers” Australia and New Zealand, which belong to an entirely separate UN bloc – the Western European and Others Group.

The strategic importance of such a re-alignment cannot be overstated. It certainly underlines a fundamental truth about life in the global village for small nations like Fiji. They may not have the ability to project the same power and influence as their bigger neighbours. But in the UN system, it’s numbers, not brawn, that really counts, except for the five permanent members of the Security Council, who enjoy powers of veto. Every other nation gets just one vote. And that is certainly exercising the minds of the Australians right now as they mount a global campaign to get a temporary Security Council seat. Given Canberra’s present hostility towards Fiji, it certainly cannot expect to get Fiji’s support.

An effective foreign minister: Ratu Inoke Kubuabola ( Photo:UN)

Peter Thomson, of course, is a cog in the wheel of Fiji’s international relationships, albeit a big one. His ultimate boss, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola  has been a successful foreign minister and the two enjoy a close relationship as they work with other ambassadors and diplomatic staff to further Fiji’s international ties. And they, in turn, have the confidence of the Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, who’s become an effective advocate himself both for Fiji and the region in global forums – most recently at the environment summit in Brazil. However much the regime’s critics might decry Commodore Bainimarama’s penchant for globe-trotting, a small country’s loudest voice will always come from its leader and lower-level representation rarely has the same impact. It’s simply a fact of life that for Fiji to be heard, the Prime Minister needs to travel widely to properly put its case.

His Excellency in his previous incarnation as an author (Photo: Peter Thomson)

It was Bainimarama who hand picked Peter Thomson for the UN job. Their fathers had known each other in the 1960s when Thomson Senior was Commissioner Western and Bainimarama Senior was the region’s Supervisor of Prisons. Almost half a century on, Grubsheet is pleased to have played a minor part in re-establishing the connection when – after an interview with the Prime Minister- we talked about the old days in the West and I mentioned that Peter and I got together regularly in Sydney to talanoa about Fiji. Bainimarama’s eyes lit up and while he didn’t say so at the time, he evidently began mulling over the possibility of using Peter in some senior role.

Soon afterwards, Peter began a private mission – financed by veteran Fiji businessmen Mark Johnson and Dick Smith – to try to bridge the gap between Fiji and its Australian and NZ critics. He went to Port Moresby to enlist the support of the PNG leader, Sir Michael Somare, and the initiative produced the first meeting of the respective parties for some time.

That was in 2009. Three years on and Ambassador Thomson is chairing the United Nations General Assembly. It’s a triumphant personal story, the Kai Valagi (European) civil servant removed at gunpoint and forced to leave Fiji now sitting as moderator and adjudicator at the pinnacle of global affairs. But it’s also one of the triumphs of Bainimarama’s determination to use the best people- irrespective of race – to present Fiji’s face to the world. To see my old mate sitting there on the UN podium – Fiji Water bottle by his side – fills me with pride, as it surely must others who hope that Fiji’s best days as a united, prosperous, multiracial nation lie ahead.


Club Em Designs

Covering Fiji's Political Climate- Views Far & Wide.

Cafe Pacific blogger and Associate Professor David Robie of AUT's Pacific Media Centre tells Nzone Tonight's Allan Lee about the background to the current unrest and explains its huge significance to the region. (Video posted below)



David Robie also appears in TVNZ Media 7 segment on Media Censorship, that had a panel discussion with Barbara Weaver, Thakur Ranjit Singh.
Another view from across the Tasman, comes from ABC podcast.






Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Dealing With Fiji And Its Politics.

LIKE many military leaders before him, Frank Bainimarama can be autocratic[...]If that seems a ludicrous proposition when constitutions are being abrogated and the media proscribed, it's time to consider some basic truths that seem to have been overlooked in the "good guy, bad guy" narrative that invariably passes for analysis in much of the Australian media.

read more digg story

The excerpt of Australian article:

Dealing with the dictator

Graham Davis April 16, 2009
Article from: The Australian

LIKE many military leaders before him, Frank Bainimarama can be autocratic, stubborn, wilful, obstinate and disdainful of the traditional nuances of civilian politics. He may also be the best hope, albeit in five years' time, of a democratic Fiji for all its citizens and not just the amply endowed indigenous majority.

If that seems a ludicrous proposition when constitutions are being abrogated and the media proscribed, it's time to consider some basic truths that seem to have been overlooked in the "good guy, bad guy" narrative that invariably passes for analysis in much of the Australian media.

The bad guys, of course, are held to be Bainimarama and his patron, Fiji's octogenarian President, Josefa Iloilo, who have defied the courts by ruling out any popular vote until they can change the electoral system.

The good guys are those calling for an immediate election: a coalition of lawyers, human-rights activists and elements of the local media, plus the man Bainimarama deposed at gunpoint in 2006, former prime minister Laisenia Qarase.

It's time to dispense with this simplistic premise because a compelling argument can be made that, in fact, the reverse is true; that Bainimarama and Iloilo, for all their flaws, are embarked on the more worthy crusade. Or certainly more worthy than they're being given credit for by their burgeoning number of foreign opponents.

The Fiji saga, by its very nature, defies simplicity, yet stripped to its bare essentials presents the international community with a stark choice between upholding the principle of democracy now and sacrificing racial equality in the process. Wait five years - maybe less if some international agreement could be brokered - and we might get both.

Bainimarama and Iloilo have decided that the brand of democracy Qarase champions makes second-class citizens of the 40 per cent of Fiji's population who aren't indigenous, and is not conducive to the development of a thriving, modern state. Qarase and his ilk, they've determined, can only be kept at bay if the electoral system is changed from one that favours indigenous Fijians to one that gives every vote equal weight.

So that is what they intend to do before the country goes to the polls again in 2014, and no amount of hectoring or sanctions is likely to deter them.

In the meantime, the regime needs to embark on that electoral reform, behave less erratically, cease harassing the media, expelling publishers, hounding its opponents and put its case far more cogently than it has.

Australia, in turn, needs to listen, assist in the electoral reform process and do all it can to prevent the collapse of the Fiji economy, which will hurt everyone but the elite and bolster our immigration queues when we can least afford it.

Why is Australia and the rest of the international community insisting on an immediate expression of the public will when Fiji's electoral playing field is yet to be levelled? That's the question that not only frustrates and angers Bainimarama, and fuels his increasing petulance, but perplexes many Fiji-born Australians such as myself.

For all the voluble calls by Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith for "a return to democracy in Fiji", they seem oblivious to the fact that there's never been real democracy in Fiji. That's right, never.

Certainly not the brand of democracy taken for granted in Australia, New Zealand, the US and in the European Union, those now casting themselves as righteous crusaders against Bainimarama's supposedly despotic rule.

There's no one-man, one-vote in Fiji but a contorted, distorted electoral system along racial lines that was always designed, in practice, to ensure indigenous supremacy.

This was a parting gesture of the British at independence in 1970 to their loyal Fijian subjects, along with guaranteed indigenous ownership of more than 80 per cent of Fiji's land area. It's certainly in stark contrast with the colonial dispossession of the native populations of Australia and NZ, and may account for the fact that many homes in republican Fiji still sport photos of the Queen.

No non-indigenous Fiji citizen can become the country's president, and just one,

Mahendra Chaudhry, made it to the prime minister's office before he was removed at gunpoint in 2000.

Nor is the president elected. He is chosen by an unelected hereditary body called the Great Council of Chiefs, the apex of a social order that insists indigenous rights are paramount.

Fiji citizens of Indian, European, mixed race or other island heritage are disadvantaged comparatively in everything from land rights to "positive discrimination" programs in employment and education that solely benefit the indigenous majority. They even have to suffer the apartheid-style humiliation of listing their race on immigration arrival documents.

Would Australians and New Zealanders accept this? Not on your nelly. So why the chorus of regional disapproval when an indigenous Fijian, Bainimarama, finally decides enough is enough?

Forty per cent of the population not only lives daily with this disparity of rights but, in the main, accepts it. Why? Partly in the spirit of acknowledging the importance to indigenous Fijians of their vanua (land and traditional ties) but mainly as the price of ensuring racial harmony. It's this largely unspoken consensus that's underpinned whatever success Fiji has had as a functioning multiracial nation to date.

Yet it also depends on indigenous Fijians displaying their own generosity of spirit or, more pertinently, not being too greedy in sequestering all the spoils for themselves.

What Qarase, Bainimarama's chief political opponent, did before he was overthrown in the 2006 coup was to cross an important line.

By insisting that indigenous Fijians gain coastal rights as well as land rights, and be paid cash by other citizens to swim in, fish in and even cross their seas, he demanded more from the other races than many regarded as equitable and fair.

By doing so, he recklessly jeopardised the delicate consensus on which Fiji's future as a viable independent entity depends.

Just as bad, in Bainimarama's eyes, Qarase's coastal bill raised the spectre of envy and conflict between Fijians themselves, for those living in remote areas would never be able to glean the riches available, for instance, to those holding the tourist industry to ransom.

For all their comparative advantages, many ordinary indigenous Fijians still maintain a barely disguised sense of grievance against other races, perpetuating the myth of a threat to their way of life.

This was the big lie of Fiji's first coup in 1987, the preposterous spectre of then military strongman Sitiveni Rabuka claiming indigenous interests were threatened because an indigenous Fijian, Timoci Bavadra, was surrounded by a brace of Indian cabinet members.

Ordinary Fijians should be asking their own leaders why they're still disadvantaged, because if they are being fleeced, it must be by their own elite who have been in control since independence. The political instability of recent years is all part of a crude tug of war between competing Fijian chiefs, career politicians and (mostly) wannabe business types for the spoils that come with government: patronage, leverage, the dispensing of contracts and the accumulation of wealth.

The apotheosis of this was the 2000 coup led by the strutting George Speight, who was merely a puppet for a gaggle of opportunistic chiefs and commoners who used the Indians as scapegoats in a sordid lunge for power.

In an obscene echo of their atavistic past, the Speight clique trashed the supposed citadel of local democracy, the parliament, took hostage then prime minister Chaudhry, and proceeded to engage in an eight-week orgy of drunkenness and sex.

Enter the hero of that hour, but the man Rudd and much of the international community now casts as a villain nine years on.

Bainimarama, as military chief, tricked Speight into surrendering, and turned him over to the courts to be dealt with for treason. He also had to contend with a bloody mutiny in his own ranks in which he barely escaped with his life. Yet no one seems to ask a simple question. If he really wanted to be Fiji's dictator, why didn't Bainimarama impose his will then, when a grateful nation would have strewn garlands at his feet?

Instead, history tells us, he handed over power to Qarase, a one-time merchant banker whom he trusted to stabilise the country, lay to rest the racial bogey once and for all and return Fiji to a semblance of democracy.

What did Qarase do? Not just extend indigenous supremacy but bring some of the key players in the 2000 coup, who Bainimarama wanted punished, into the heart of government. Qarase got plenty of warnings to back off but didn't. It was only a matter of time before Bainimarama's fiery temper snapped.

Qarase never believed one of his own would oppose him, but it was a grave miscalculation based on his own ignorance of Bainimarama's background and attitudes.

Most of the Fijian elite come from exclusively Fijian schools but Bainimarama grew up with other races at Suva's Marist Brothers College, where the emphasis was on multiracial tolerance and nation building. His friends say the relationships he forged there are real and enduring.

He's said to be gripped with a sense of destiny yet has some glaring blind spots, such as a tendency to shoot his mouth off when theoccasion calls for at least a modicum of diplo-speak.

More serious for even Bainimarama's staunchest supporters are some appalling lapses of judgment, including the latest, muzzling the local media and expelling foreign journalists such as the ABC's Sean Dorney.

The most glaring was when he reinstated his brother-in-law, Francis Kean, as head of the navy after Kean spent nearly two months in jail for killing an uncle of the groom at the wedding of Bainimarama's daughter.

"What's wrong with that?", Bainimarama has testily asked interlocutors. Plenty.

Yet for many Fijian citizens, the military chief remains their best hope for a meaningful stake in the future, and if he can deliver on his promise of equal rights, all will be forgiven.

It's certainly a striking paradox that having forged vibrant, multicultural nations from their own monocultural origins, Australia and NZ should be condemning Bainimarama for trying to do the same in Fiji.

Graham Davis is a Fiji-born journalist who reported successive coups for the Nine Network's Sunday program and is now a principal of Grubstreet Media.

Earth Sharing.org's Radical Reaction has a posting on Fiji's political arena, including two podcasts, recording an interview that, includes Fiji's role in the Pacific geo-strategic sphere and geo-political environment.

Radical reactions: we talk to Mosese Waqa (Pacific Islands Network) on the Fiji coup. We provide the full extended interview detailing the 4 coups, australian vis chinese diplomatic styles and future war games. Close to 55 minutes in 2 parts. Compelling listening for anyone interested in the Pacific.

Podcast Part 1.
Podcast Part 2.

A Beta-Democracy-Fiji's Great Awakening?

In a follow up to an earlier post, titled Old politics of Ethnicity In Fiji & & The Gauge of Democracy, it appears that a sense of change has now become a reality to most Taukei of the common stock; after a segment of chiefs publicly announced their boycott of the Interim Government's proposed meeting, as reported in a Fiji Times (FT) article.

The excerpt of the FT article:

Chiefs back boycott
By Sakiasi Nawaikama on Kadavu
Friday, November 28, 2008

THE Bose Vanua (provincial chiefs council) of Kadavu has agreed to support the call by the paramount chief of Burebasaga to boycott the Bose ni Turaga (traditional leaders meeting) convened for next month by the interim Government.

The stand by the Roko Tui Dreketi, Ro Teimumu Kepa, was conveyed to the Kadavu Provincial Council on Wednesday night.

Ro Teimumu said earlier the Bose ni Turaga was unlawful and only a Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) could be called. The Burebasaga Confederacy recognises the BLV as the lawful and legislated body.

Yesterday, Ro Teimumu declined to comment on Kadavu's support and her call for a boycott.

The Kadavu Bose Vanua was told People's Charter teams that visited were accepted in the traditional manner but were told they stood by the resolve of the province and wouldn't accept the charter.

The meeting was told by a chief 80 per cent accepted the charter and he had no choice but to follow the will of his people. Another chief suggested the province review its stance and support the charter in the hope for a better future.

Tui Tavuki Ratu Narokete Waqanivavalgi, told the meeting that contrary to popular belief promoted by the NCBBF, he did not accept the charter. He said they accommodated NCBBF and government reps and stressed the province did not support the charter. He told the Bose Vanua this was misconstrued when the team returned to Suva.

Former Bose Vanua chairman Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo said on Wednesday the province should unite and support the Government through the charter process.

Bose Vanua chairman Ratu Varani Rayawa said he feared the charter would do more harm than good because it divided the province.

After this series of civil disobedience by the Chiefs, it would appear that a great democratic awakening has occurred among the indigenous populace, considering a recent letter to the editor by Koli Korovulavula, which was published by The Fiji Times.

The excerpt of FT Letter to the Editor:

Chiefs and democracy

There are provinces that will not support the interim Government. Some have gone so far as to forbid individuals from attending the Bose ni Turaga.

What will happen to the people who go anyway? Will these people be ostracised? Can the chiefs throw them out of their own land?

Legally, land is owned by mataqali, not by chiefs. But there is one even more intriguing question: Why is there a need for chiefs to meet about a return to democracy when their very existence goes against the ideals of democracy?

Do we want democracy and peace? Do we want economic progress?

Do we want chiefs, protocols, heritage, traditions, religion or eternity? Do we want multi-racialism, better land use, qoliqoli rights and total land rights?

Past governments tried to achieve co-existence for some or even all the above wants. But we have to start with needs first if we are to move anywhere.

I hope that one day any child of this nation, without fear of being ridiculed for a lack of blue blood, can lay a legitimate claim to our highest office through achievement, loyalty, dignity and merit.

Until then, the Fijian commoner remains a discriminated soul in his or her own land.

KOLI KOROVULAVULA
Nabua

In a Fiji Live article, which covered the Naitasiri Chief's demand for an apology; also contained comments from readers, who were profoundly against the chief's righteous indignation; while a few posters demanded their own apologies from the layer of chiefs who supported the 1987, 2000 coups and for the ripples of problems emanating from those events.

Excerpts of comments from the Fiji Live article:

Posted Comments
Posted By: david1005143 Posted On: Dec 02 2008
22:11:41
Comment: I think the chiefs should apologise to the people of Fiji for losing focus, sense of direction, corruption, and being counter productive. The monarchy has changed in England, how about you guys?

Posted By: brij Posted On: Dec 03 2008 00:18:40
Comment: People who want to invest in Fiji think twice when chiefs get involved in politics and government. Please let the commander do his job.

Posted By: Ula Nejad Posted On: Dec 03 2008 11:29:41
Comment: I agree that chiefs should apologise to the citizens of Fiji for their lack of integrity. Frank should let the chiefs know that he will explain himself at the meeting. That is as a military man he will stand by his regime as a native son of Fiji he will look to his excellency the President and chief to apologise to the people and chiefs alike when the time is appropriate. Nothing the chiefs can say now will have any effect. It seems they have lost their mana. They have to modernise the chiefly system if they have to stay alive. End of story.

Posted By: rommel Posted On: Dec 03 2008 01:12:00
Comment: This chief has the lunacy to lead their people, who continue to follow the trail of tears; which have left them disenfranchised and perpetually enslaved in poverty. It is without a doubt that most high chiefs (who attempt to keep their relevance in the socio-political arena without the mandate of the multi-racial society) are outdated in this era of high speed internet and 3G cell phones.
If they continue to demand respect without reciprocity, this will be the opening circle of their death spiral. The modern Taukei will move on with the times and will embrace change in technology, social progress and governance; with or without these chiefs. Lead, follow or just get out of the way.

Posted By: Temo Posted On: Dec 03 2008 01:49:54
Comment: Apologise for what? How about the chiefs apologising for the 1987 and 2000 coups ... hypocrisy!

Posted By: Ratu Kulati Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:21:49
Comment: The days of our chiefly system are over. Would someone please wake up some of our stone aged chiefs from their deep slumber? Ratu Inoke, please join in the discussion or be left behind. It makes no difference to Bainimarama. He will achieve his objective with or without you.

Posted By: Jone Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:25:06
Comment: Can we move the country forward without some of our disgruntled chiefs? I'm generally thinking what have they contributed to our country? Some have really been good role models to our nation/community. To the honourable chiefs, we as a country needs to move forward. We must make a choice in this 21st century we are living in, and I propose that the traditional chiefly system needs to be reviewed and probably reformed by the IG if they are to be part of the future arm of government. What would be the acceptable role of tradition in modern society?

Posted By: kradoak Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:32:18
Comment: Fijian chiefs need to choose between democracy and the traditional Fijian autocracy. They cannot have both. Bainimarama does not owe an apology to the chiefs. It is the chiefs who owe apologies to the citizens of Fiji for letting them down.

Another interesting take on Fiji's politics was published in a blog from East-West center forum.

The excerpt:

The politics of constitutionalism in Fiji
Author: Scott MacWilliam

While much attention focuses on the legal principles involved in the 2008 High Court decision in Fiji, less public notice is directed at the 1997 Constitution and some of the laws which have flowed from this document. Lawyers in particular have a long history of regarding upholding the rule of law as an almost sacred principle, regardless of whether a law or Constitution is meritorious by other principles, such as whether the law is just or the Constitution democratic.

Nor are those who defend the rule of law always aware that for others, legalism can form the basis for a political strategy in support of unjust and/or undemocratic laws. This strategy is currently being pressed by the former government and its supporters, in Fiji and overseas. People who are anxious to resolve the current impasse in Fiji need to be wary of lending support to a Constitution and associated laws which do not form the basis for a just or democratic settlement.

In the case of the 1997 Fiji Constitution, there is sound reason for arguing that it is undemocratic and that the laws which follow from the Constitution should be subject to more scrutiny and less respect than it and they are sometimes given. The outcome of the Constitution-making process, whatever the intentions of the people who formulated the initial document, is a decidedly undemocratic framework for a modern society such as Fiji.

The basis of this conclusion rests on the following points:

a) Contrary to claims that the Constitution received widespread popular support in Fiji before being adopted, it did not. Little more than ruling elite opinion was ever sought by the Constitution drafters and the final document was a compromise among the parliamentary representatives of this elite.

b) Under the Constitution, the President is not an elected office-bearer but appointed.

c) The Great Council of Chiefs, which at best only claims to represent one part of the national population (ethnic Fijians), is not elected yet wields inordinate power, including in the appointment of the President. The widely-held view, including among many of those whom the GCC purports to represent, is that much of the membership of this body is less than august: one popular description of the GCC is `Great Council of Thieves’.

d) The Senate, or upper house of the Parliament, is not directly elected, but again appointed, consisting mainly of party loyalists chosen with little or no attempt made to gauge if they have any substantial popular support.

e) The lower House of Parliament, where the Government is formed, is elected on an electoral system which is grossly malapportioned toward the rural areas. A vote in some seats is worth many times what a vote is worth in others. That is, whether formed by an ethnic-Fijian led party or an Indo-Fijian led party, the government does not necessarily represent the views of the majority of the people as a result of holding the majority of seats from electorates which conform to anything near the one-vote one-value democratic principle. Fiji general elections are even worse in this respect than Australian Federal elections were until the 1974 reform in this country.

In short, defenders of the 1997 Constitution and laws which flow from it are arguing that a democracy which would not be acceptable to constitutionalists in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere should be upheld in Fiji. There is more than a slight degree of hypocrisy involved when it is suggested by implication that such `thin’ democracy is good enough for Fijians.

Instead of resorting to legalism as the basis for assessing the High Court decision, a political evaluation is required. The 1997 Constitution must be democratised, to move Fiji beyond being the thinnest of thin democracies Yet neither the ousted Laisenia Qarase-led government nor one led by any other party or party coalition elected on the existing electoral boundaries can be trusted to make the necessary reforms. While the capacity for reform may not lie with the military either, for the moment they hold the most important power and must be negotiated with, not treated as pariahs. It is to be hoped that political change in Australia and New Zealand will stimulate negotiations devoid of the moralistic and patronising preaching which has characterised much of both governments’ positions so far.

How soon political advance along these lines will occur depends to a certain extent, however, on whether the lawyers and some politicians have their way and the High Court decision is appealed. If this is done, it is highly likely that the military government in Fiji will become more and more intractable. It is to be hoped that instead of listening to the devotees of the rule of law principle, that the Australian, New Zealand and other governments recognise what is the central political as well as legal dilemma. How to reform a constitution by unconstitutional, deeply political means is the task which lies in front of all the parties.

Zemanta Pixie" src="http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d867764b-3bfc-4b12-b90b-e266122c8bae">

Social Bookmarking

Old Politics of Ethnicity In Fiji & The Gauge of Democracy.

Fiji Sun's Political Columnist, Maika Bolatiki has resumed the act of stoking the flames of ethnicity, coupled with the re-gifting of old fear politics; by sensationalizing native Fijian issues, in his recent piece.

The excerpt of the Bolatiki's article:

The fear of the Fijian people

11/19/2008


The power of the Indigenous Affairs Minister to overturn appointments made by the provincial councils is totally against the voice of the Fijian people.
We know that with the current interpretation of the Fijian Affairs Act by the interim government, the provincial council is an arm of the government.

We also know that the provincial council is where the voice of the Fijian people representing their districts is heard.

Now the government is in total control of all the provincial councils in Fiji.

With the reforms in the Fijian institutions, Fijians feel that their rights are under siege.

Former Vice President Turaga na Roko Tui Bau Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi in delivering the keynote address at the Fijian Teachers Association annual general meeting this year said: “There is a feeling among many Fijians that their rights as indigenous peoples are under siege.

Whether by the marginalisation of their elected representatives and preferred political party, the reversal of affirmative action programmes, arbitrary changes to Fijian institutions such as the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and the perceived targeting of the Fijian elite: ‘something is rotten in the state of Denmark,’ to quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. “

We know of the power conferred on the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the new Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2008.

And this new regulation will create more crises for the high Fijian institution.

This will be in regard to the appointment of its membership.

According to section 3 (5) of the new Regulations: “The Minister shall be the chairperson of the council.”

Section 3 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) deal with membership.

This particular section confers overall power of appointment on the Minister for Fijian Affairs.

S3 (1) (b) states: “the 42 persons who are prescribed by regulations 2 (b) of the Composition Regulations to be members representing the chiefs of the 14 provinces shall comprise of three chiefs from each of the 14 provinces, each of whom shall have demonstrated exemplary leadership in vanua and in the community at large, and shall be appointed by the minister.”

Section 6 deals with the disqualification of members.

It states: “A person shall not be eligible to be appointed as a member of the council under regulation (3) (1)

(b), (c) or (d) if the person: -

(a) is an undischarged bankrupt;

(b) is under a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called);

(c) has, within the 10 years immediately proceeding his appointment -

(i) been released from prison after serving a term of imprisonment of
more than six months, whether as an inmate or extra mural prisoner; or

(ii) completed serving/performing a community service order;

(d) has at any time during the immediately preceding 7 years, been,

(i) a member of the House of Representative (s); or

(ii) a Senator other than a Senator nominated from the Great Council of Chiefs;

(e) is the holder of a public office;

(f) has at any time during the immediately preceding 7 years been -

(i) a candidate for election to the House of
Representative; or

(ii)
an office bearer of a political party;

(g) is a person of unsound mind within the meaning of the Mental
Treatment Act (Cap 113); or

(h) is by virtue of his own act under any
acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a power or State outside Fiji, including being a citizen or resident of another country.

The new regulations have given the power to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to discipline any member.

This power is also applicable to the provincial council memberships.

On 25th May the Permanent Secretary for Indigenous Affairs, Meli Bainimarama wrote a letter to the Roko Tui Rewa in regard to the membership of the Rewa Provincial Council.

The content of the letter is as follows: “I wish to advise you that the Prime Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs has appointed the following to the Rewa Provincial Council under the provisions of Regulations 3 of the Fijian Affairs (Provincial Councils) Regulations:-

i) Urban Mata - Reg 3 (i) - Ro Etuate Mataitini, Taniela Vueta, Pita
Tagicakiverata

ii) Women Mata - Reg 3(i) (d) - Ro Elenoa C Gonelevu

iii) Youth Mata - Reg 3 (i) (e) - Etika Senico

iv) Other Members
- Reg 3 (i) (f) - Ro Epeli Mataitini, Ro Viliame Logavatu, Ro Dona Takalaiyale,
Temesia Nacolarara, Vilimoni Rasigatale, Naibuka Navunisaravi.

These appointments are for three (3) years effective from 17 April 2008.


The appointment of Ro Filipe Tuisawau one of the four (4) recommended Urban Mata has been withdrawn by the Minister and you will need to submit another name, should you wish to do so.”

Ro Filipe was appointed not only because of his chiefly status in the province but also because of his good educational background.

The people of Rewa had nominated him to be one of the representatives of the urban area. Now their voices are not heard. The young Rewa chief had been informed of this development and was very disappointed.

He has written to the Fiji Human Rights Commission.

In his letter to FHRC and attention to Maciu Ratumaimuri, Ro Filipe aired his disappointment on the withdrawal of his appointment to the Rewa Provincial Council.

In the letter he said:

"You will notice that no reason is given but it is a well known fact that he had publicly announced that he would sack me due to my role in Rewa’s opposition to the People’s Charter.

“His actions are a breach of the 1997 Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression and freedom to express one’s political beliefs. These values are also enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have been victimised for expressing my beliefs.

“I hereby formally lodge this complaint to you to address the breach of my fundamental human rights and that I be reinstated as a full member of the Rewa Provincial Council.

I have the fullest confidence that you will address this serious breach.”

We hope the FHRC will look into this matter.

The Rewa Provincial Council is in the dark on the reason for the revocation of the appointment.

Deputy chairman Pita Tagicakiverata told Fijilive the council was formally told of Ro Filipe’s removal at its two-day meeting in Lomanikoro last week.

“Before the meeting, Ro Filipe had actually told me what happened but we really don’t know the reasons behind this move as nothing was stated,” said Mr Tagicakiverata.

“He has accepted the letter (from the Fijian Affairs Board), but we really don’t know why this was done.”

Ro Filipe has been a very strong critic of the People’s Charter. Is the withdrawal of his appointment a pay back for this?

He had been using his right to freedom of expression when criticising the charter.

Below is Dr Brij Lal’s comments on the issue.

“There is a great deal of anxiety among the Fijian people. As they see it,
everything has gone wrong for them. Their cherished institutions have been hobbled and marginalised, such as the Great Council of Chiefs. Institutions to which they looked up for leadership and guidance have now been disabled.

And what is particularly perplexing for them is that all this is being done
by an institution, the military, which was supposed to be the guardian of their interests. So the Fijian peoples’ sense of fear and anxiety and powerlessness is real - and understandable.

“There will be little argument that some, and not only Fijian, institutions need reform to bring them into line with modern thinking. But this should be done through sensitive handling and in cooperation with the people whose lives will be affected by the reforms. Commodore Bainimarama may mean well, but he is going about things the wrong way.

He seems to prefer monologue to dialogue. Instead of winning the hearts and minds of his people for his reforms, he has alienated them, pushed them into a corner, and hardened their resolve not to cooperate, leading them to adopt stances which, in the normal course of events, they might not. The prospect for genuine dialogue is thereby dimmed. Sullen silence is not consent.”

To be fair to Ro Filipe and those who appointed him, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs should give the reason why his appointment has been withdrawn.

The indigenous people have this fear with them - “their rights have been under siege”.

While another Opinon article written by Swami. K. Maharaj, that was published in The Fiji Times, noted how several Fiji politicians (past and present) were overly eager to praise the election of Barack Obama, yet fail to understand the dichotomy in their entrenched positions.


The excerpt of the article:

Obama, democracy and Fiji

SWANI K MAHARAJ

Fiji Times Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Barack Obama's victory in the US presidential elections has been hailed all over the world.

In Fiji, political leaders of all leanings have used the victory to make pointed remarks at the interim Government, for example, Fiji should learn a lesson from it and return to democratic rule, Fiji is languishing in the clutches of the military and should return to democratic rule.

Some say the US army did not go about trying to sway the people as the RFMF did
before the 2006 election and others have remarked that the US army has not
interfered with the result of a fair and free election.

Quite rightly, people see Obama's victory as the power of the ballot box, a realisation of a change desired by the collective will of the American people, a democratic and
civilised acceptance of the verdict of the people.

A seeming impossibility has been made possible -- America has an Afro-American president, after 140 years of painful co-existence.
The inhumanity perpetrated on slaves is well documented in literature and history, as is their struggle for human rights and dignity and for identity in the face of the ideology white supremacy.

There are many similarities between the history of the US and that of Fiji, as well as
many notable differences.The ancestors of Afro-Americans were brought to
America as slaves, creating a multi-ethnic society unacceptable to the white
population. Similarly, indentured labourers (a fancy name for semi slaves)
were brought to Fiji to make it a viable economic asset for the British
Crown. Although the indentured labourers suffered terrible injustice and
physical torture, it was not as bad or as prolonged as that of slaves in
America.

But the notable difference is that while Afro-Americans today are
equal citizens of America, Indo-Fijians are still unequal in terms of
fundamental and political enfranchisement.

A victory over prejudice Obama's presidential victory is not the victory of an Afro-American in politics but it is in reality a victory of white Americans over their white
supremacist ideology.

Essentially, it is a victory over their own prejudice based on the colour of skin and ethnicity. It is a victory over vested self-interest that had rationalised and utilised racial prejudice to achieve privileges and retain power.

The many leaders in Fiji, who with great agility have jumped on the bandwagon of the democratic US election, need to look at Obama's victory in that light.

They need to look very incisively at their own concepts of democracy.
They will find that rather than being advocates of true democracy and human rights in Fiji, they are in reality advocating quite the reverse of what America has achieved.

They are advocating ethnic hegemony, inherent inequality based on birth and ethnicity and the denial of equal political rights to all Fiji citizens.
The 2008 US election results has a number of implications for Fiji as well as for the conclusions we draw from it.

The United States is a truly democratic nation. Each citizen who
qualifies to vote has equal value for his or her vote, regardless of the voter's
country of origin, ethnicity or religion. Every American's (yes, they are all
called Americans) vote, whether the person is of Hispanic, African, Chinese or
Indian origin, has equal value.

Every American who is eligible, has the right to vote for the president, albeit it is an indirect vote through the electoral college. No group is denied this fundamental and democratic right on the basis of ethnicity or any other criteria.

The democracy of the supporters of democracy Leaders in Fiji need to look at this aspect honestly and sincerely. While it is easy to criticise the interim Government, it is particularly difficult to do a self analysis and ask why they demand a quick
return to democracy.

Also, it is important to analyse the word democracy. Can the leaders honestly say Fiji is a democracy as the USA is?

Consider that some powerful groups who openly and adamantly support certain political parties are demanding that Fiji be made a Christian country.
Is this an example of democratic ideology?How democratic is it to give affirmative economic assistance based solely on ethnicity and not on an assessment of poverty and merit?

Other so-called leaders are similarly blinkered. They represent a segment of the population which, on the basis of ethnicity, has no right to contest for the presidency or vice-presidency of Fiji. Over and above this injustice they do not have the right to vote for these two important posts.

Yet, their leaders are calling for the restoration of democracy. Amazing.
Obama, even if he had lost, was entitled to contest the US election. But do all the citizens of Fiji have this right?
Some of us cannot contest certain positions because of ethnicity while others are barred on the grounds of birth. Both these conditions are absolutely
undemocratic.

Certainly, those singing the praises of the democratic process in the US are blissfully innocent of the fact that the Fiji Constitution denies 95 per cent of the population the right to contest the post of president or VP.

Those who have been beating their chests and screaming for the Constitution and constitutionality of every minor political incident over the past two years need to take an honest look at these constitutional provisions. It is amazing how so many political players and our democratic international friends are completely blind to the inherently undemocratic constitutional provisions in the 1997 Constitution.

When the Americans went to vote this year they had a black man against a white man. But was this the theme of Senator MCain's election campaign, his speeches or publicity material?

No, but in Fiji, the election rhetoric focuses solely on my party, my race/ethnic group.
America's political parties are called Democrats and Republicans. But study the names of the majority of political parties in Fiji.

How democratic are the names?Why do these parties have such names? And if
the parties are so named and their target group so delineated, what is the implication for democracy in Fiji?

When Mahendra Chaudhry became Fiji's prime minister, the media carried comments of many people who did not want an "idol worshipper" as PM.
A prominent leader called for all segments of Fiji's population to be converted (the call is echoed frequently, even today).

I rebutted the two undemocratic and bigoted views through The Fiji Times.
Do such people understand democracy?Take the opposition to the Prople's Charter. How many argue that it is undemocratic because the government promoting it is 'illegal'.

But what about the contents of the Charter, such as:

• The abolition of the politics of race?
• Giving affirmative action based on need, not ethnicity which is used to create and sustain vote banks?
• Removing from the national psyche the ethnicity based injustices.
  

These people need to look into their hearts and see what is obvious - they are
blocking the Charter simply out of fear - the fear that if the 'ordinary' citizens will admire the ideals in the Charter.

Consequently, the leaders will not be able to exploit the common people and win votes on the basis of racism. And this they call democracy?

This is farcical!It is also ironic that those calling most vehemently for democracy are actively dictating that villages should bar the Charter teams. For this purpose, they are using the power of heredity position or religious status.

Is this democracy?Is this not rather schizophrenic and contradictory?

True Support of Democracy

True democratic representation is by every party, and for all the citizens.
It cannot be based on the colonial hangover of ethnic group voting
which is the antithesis of democracy. It is absurd to say that candidates
representing certain groups - and winning elections on in-group identification and solidarity - will work for all the citizens of the country.

They will not. They will protect their vote bank - and in order to do so they will
create inter-ethnic distrust. Those who profess to be ardent advocates of
democracy should work towards the Interim Government's proposed electoral
changes.

Fijians are now 57 per cent of the population - a very clear majority, favourable to SDL. One assumes that SDL would therefore agree to the proposal of one person one vote. Therefore SDL's insistence on retaining communal based voting is indeed a matter of grave concern.

FLP supports these electoral changes but NFP doesn't. What possible reason can NFP have for opposing common roll which is a fundamental ideal of the party, and which would guarantee true democratic rights to their supporters?

General Electors should not have any objection in accepting the above proposal.
The International community should also support this initiative of adult human suffrage.
Or they should emulate Fiji's race based system and implement it in their own
countries to show that this is truly democratic system and acceptable to
them. Some urgent and useful measures for the future are:

• Race based political parties should be banned.
• A Race Relations Bill should be
  enacted.
• Legislation must be enacted to forbid the use of ethnicity,
  religion or racism to manipulate voters.
  

Apartheid has long been abolished in South Africa, why are we prolonging it in Fiji?
Those who truly support democracy should in all honesty contribute to the Political Forum to achieve resolutions beneficial to all Fiji citizens - and not only for their own ethnic group or for political survival.

These narrow concepts should be surmounted because in the ultimate analysis they are detrimental to the common good. I would like to point out that Obama did not become president on the basis of any special political privileges such as being a member of a minority or a disadvantaged group.

True democracy is not achieved simply by voting - it is achieved by contesting as equals for human equality, dignity and justice.

Swani K Maharaj is the acting president of the Fiji Chamber of
Commerce.

The views are the writer's own.

Social Bookmarking