Thursday, February 28, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
MEMBERS of one of the province of Naitsiri have been vocal about the land dereservation plan floated by Dr Krishnamurti.
A member who preferred to remain anonymous said there were questions raised by members who came in numbers to meet at the Tamavua Village community hall yesterday.
"There were questions raised and what the dereservation meant for those owning land," the source said.
The source said the landowners were concerned about their land with the latest announcement. When The Fiji Times visited the village yesterday, they were not allowed to sit in the meeting.
Present at the meeting was Naitasiri chief Ratu Inoke Takiveikata.
Last week, the province of Cakaudrove warned interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry to back off and not touch land issues.
Speaking on behalf of the Tui Cakau Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and the people of Cakaudrove, Epeli Matata said Mr Chaudhry and the interim regime should not dereserve native land.
End of story
* Email to a friend
Fijian Culture & Custom. - A Weblog on the culture and customs of FIJIANS as the indigenous people of the FIJI ISLANDS
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Making the Right Choices
SITIVENI RABUKA
Sunday, February 24, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
The Roko Tui Dreketi Ro Teimumu Kepa, front, makes her way to the Great Council of Chiefs meeting held last year. WIll she be one of the chiefs disqualified from sitting on the new GCC + Enlarge this image
The Roko Tui Dreketi Ro Teimumu Kepa, front, makes her way to the Great Council of Chiefs meeting held last year. WIll she be one of the chiefs disqualified from sitting on the new GCC
NI sa bula. What a week! Still, it was a great week!
It was a great week because we now know one of the things that Frank believes will continue to build a better Fiji a good council of chiefs.
Before Cession, Ratu Cakobau at his chiefly home knew exactly who he needed to agree with him in his move to cede Fiji to Queen Victoria.
He asked them to support him on his understanding that these chiefs' word was law in their vanua, kingdoms, confederacies or alliances.
Ratu Cakobau had known of their prowess in battles, their powerful leadership of their subjects in social development and cohesiveness.
The result of his careful choice of the chiefs he wanted to sign the Deed of Cession with him is that the pacification of the rest of the chiefs was not as drawn out or as bloody as could have been, had he not scouted properly for whom to come to the signing table.
Such is the importance of having wisdom in the council of chiefs.
Frank has timed the changes well, by design or by accident to bring in the "qualifying" clause of who a chief is deemed to be.
We are lucky indeed, for if the "installed" clause had been brought in 50 years ago, many of the great national mission and vision deciders would not have qualified.
And if Frank had brought in the "legitimacy" question, we may have to repeal many of our statutes because many authors in the past would not have been qualified to rise to national leadership for being illegitimate. My favourite uncle once told me there are no illegitimate children only illegitimate parents who refuse to accept their responsibilities.
I quite agree with that, for why should we look at the absence of a participating father if the issue of his union with a willing mother becomes a successful man or woman.
Why should we disqualify someone just because he or she is illegitimate?
Well, we are all glad that this issue is not a "disqualifying" factor.
But what of their other "disqualifying" factors like previous service to the nation in Parliament, not being an "installed" chief, being an ex-con etc.
It would be interesting to hear the views of the champions of our constitution like Akuila Yabaki, Dakuvula, Barr and Mataca on whether these provisions in the new Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2008, contravene certain parts of Section 38 of our 1997 Constitution.
While the new Commissioner of Prisons is doing his best to destroy the past image of prisons and prisoners and make inmates ready to be totally absorbed back into society on their release, it is rather incongruous that the new regulations will perpetuate the stigma but only at a certain level of the indigenous society.
While my cousin Peniela will be ready to come and live his full village life in Drekeniwai, my paramount chief (and properly installed one at that!) will not qualify to represent his subjects in the council that his erstwhile forefathers had taken almost for granted was God's calling on them to be members in.
Ioane took some high profile prisoners to their former work places where they shared morning tea with former and possibly future colleagues, to drive the point home that the law brought in by the SVT government on "spent conviction" is the way to go for this young and close-knit nation.
With these in mind, it is such a pity that the Fijians will be deprived of the services of some very highly qualified chiefs, two in particular one of whom has spent all her life teaching, counselling and serving others in her chosen career and in Parliament, and the other who had gracefully accepted the court's verdicts and served his time for his past.
Prior to that he had served the Fijian people in the Native Land Trust Board, accepted being made redundant by one of his own subjects from his province and served the nation in Parliament.
And, not many Fijians can boast a Harvard education!
With all these things happening, it is going to be interesting to see if the economy will grow, so it is very important to have someone who knows the tricks to be the catcher of tax dodgers and be the national official receiver, because it takes one to catch one!
Have a great Sunday and another great week
Sunday, February 24, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
The Roko Tui Dreketi Ro Teimumu Kepa, front, makes her way to the Great Council of Chiefs meeting held last year. WIll she be one of the chiefs disqualified from sitting on the new GCC + Enlarge this image
The Roko Tui Dreketi Ro Teimumu Kepa, front, makes her way to the Great Council of Chiefs meeting held last year. WIll she be one of the chiefs disqualified from sitting on the new GCC
NI sa bula. What a week! Still, it was a great week!
It was a great week because we now know one of the things that Frank believes will continue to build a better Fiji a good council of chiefs.
Before Cession, Ratu Cakobau at his chiefly home knew exactly who he needed to agree with him in his move to cede Fiji to Queen Victoria.
He asked them to support him on his understanding that these chiefs' word was law in their vanua, kingdoms, confederacies or alliances.
Ratu Cakobau had known of their prowess in battles, their powerful leadership of their subjects in social development and cohesiveness.
The result of his careful choice of the chiefs he wanted to sign the Deed of Cession with him is that the pacification of the rest of the chiefs was not as drawn out or as bloody as could have been, had he not scouted properly for whom to come to the signing table.
Such is the importance of having wisdom in the council of chiefs.
Frank has timed the changes well, by design or by accident to bring in the "qualifying" clause of who a chief is deemed to be.
We are lucky indeed, for if the "installed" clause had been brought in 50 years ago, many of the great national mission and vision deciders would not have qualified.
And if Frank had brought in the "legitimacy" question, we may have to repeal many of our statutes because many authors in the past would not have been qualified to rise to national leadership for being illegitimate. My favourite uncle once told me there are no illegitimate children only illegitimate parents who refuse to accept their responsibilities.
I quite agree with that, for why should we look at the absence of a participating father if the issue of his union with a willing mother becomes a successful man or woman.
Why should we disqualify someone just because he or she is illegitimate?
Well, we are all glad that this issue is not a "disqualifying" factor.
But what of their other "disqualifying" factors like previous service to the nation in Parliament, not being an "installed" chief, being an ex-con etc.
It would be interesting to hear the views of the champions of our constitution like Akuila Yabaki, Dakuvula, Barr and Mataca on whether these provisions in the new Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2008, contravene certain parts of Section 38 of our 1997 Constitution.
While the new Commissioner of Prisons is doing his best to destroy the past image of prisons and prisoners and make inmates ready to be totally absorbed back into society on their release, it is rather incongruous that the new regulations will perpetuate the stigma but only at a certain level of the indigenous society.
While my cousin Peniela will be ready to come and live his full village life in Drekeniwai, my paramount chief (and properly installed one at that!) will not qualify to represent his subjects in the council that his erstwhile forefathers had taken almost for granted was God's calling on them to be members in.
Ioane took some high profile prisoners to their former work places where they shared morning tea with former and possibly future colleagues, to drive the point home that the law brought in by the SVT government on "spent conviction" is the way to go for this young and close-knit nation.
With these in mind, it is such a pity that the Fijians will be deprived of the services of some very highly qualified chiefs, two in particular one of whom has spent all her life teaching, counselling and serving others in her chosen career and in Parliament, and the other who had gracefully accepted the court's verdicts and served his time for his past.
Prior to that he had served the Fijian people in the Native Land Trust Board, accepted being made redundant by one of his own subjects from his province and served the nation in Parliament.
And, not many Fijians can boast a Harvard education!
With all these things happening, it is going to be interesting to see if the economy will grow, so it is very important to have someone who knows the tricks to be the catcher of tax dodgers and be the national official receiver, because it takes one to catch one!
Have a great Sunday and another great week
Macuata Catch Centre will Help People
Serafina Silaitoga
Monday, February 25, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
+ Enlarge this image
Times: Macuata has been identified as the province with the highest number of people who have moved elsewhere in search of a better life. As the paramount chief of the province what is your view of this?
Ratu Aisea: That is a fact and is a concern as people continue to move out of Macuata or the Northern Division because of the expiry of land leases.
This has happened since the political upheaval of 2000.
It is because of the lack of employment and study opportunities.
I believe that is why the interim Government has brought in the Northern Development Program, with an investment of $5million.
Most of the population in Macuata were descendants of the Girmitiyas, having cane farms in the province and with the expiry of land leases, they moved out of Macuata.
Times: So you believe the NDP will prevent or halt the vast majority of people moving out of Macuata.
Ratu Aisea: It will help by using the capital provided by the NDP to raise participation of the community in businesses at every level from micro to mega businesses.
This will help and increase development in not only Macuata but the Northern Division.
It will enhance and upgrade the livelihoods of the people as there will be capital available here.
Times: Apart from the NDP assistance, as the paramount chief, what else do you propose to do to change this?
Ratu Aisea: Yes, the chiefs are looking at other things we can do to help the people, one of which one is the qoliqoli where plans are under way to establish a market for fishermen where locals can sell their catch instead of struggling to find markets themselves. We will set up a centre where they can bring their catch to and we will sell it to markets in Viti Levu.
We are looking at a small business scale, like PAFCO, in Levuka, to stand at Naduri, and part of the funding we will apply for to the NDP.
Times: How much will this cost?
Ratu Aisea: We are looking at a quarter million dollars to start off the project for the people of Macuata.
This will be the initiative of the vanua to prevent the rural urban drift as it will create employment opportunities.
Times: When do you expect to open this centre?
Ratu Aisea: It's in phases and right now we are involved with the issuing of fishing licenses, which will close this Friday and the set up of the centre is the next phase of our plans.
Times: Do you feel that the lack of utilisation of resources by landowners and the people of Macuata over the past years has contributed to the slow pace of development in Labasa?
Ratu Aisea: I believe the improvement of the economy in the North lies with the people and even though resources can be a source of finance when marketed, the problem was with the technical side of it where mills are needed to produce furniture or there were limited markets for the products.
Like with honey, farmers have struggled to find markets, so I believe the problem was with the market and technical assistance because if these were available a decade ago, then Macuata would have been fully developed by now.
Times: Cane leases have expired, tenants have been displaced and yet it's an irony there is so much idle land around. What is your opinion on the members of your province who demanded land back but have done little or nothing to improve it?
Ratu Aisea: We are mobilising that right now by working with the Native Lands Trust Board to create and change the mindset of landowners to capitalise on their cane farms.
We are looking at the total involvement of landowners in the cane industry from leasing to farming to marketing instead of just receiving lease money.
We are working on landowner involvement in the production of ethanol and we believe landowners should be shareholders in whatever companies we will work with or set up to produce ethanol.
Times: What do you think of the suggestion by an Indian consultant to dereserve reserved land?
Ratu Aisea: I believe that not all reserved land are to be derserved but the reserved land that is not being cultivated or made use of.
However, a very good consultation and negotiation is to be done with the landowners where the sugar industry can be allowed to use only small areas of reserved land where landowners will benefit greatly.
But not all reserved land is to be used because it is part of us passed down from our forefathers and should be kept aside for our future generation for their own use.
Times: Are there any plans by chiefs to discuss with their people renewal of land leases because basically this town is suffering economically because of the land problems?
Ratu Aisea: We are working with the NLTB and our people talking to them about getting involved with cane farming themselves.
So it will be a different approach altogether as the landowners will have another option to cultivate their own land and not necessarily renew their leases, which they will decide themselves
Monday, February 25, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
+ Enlarge this image
Times: Macuata has been identified as the province with the highest number of people who have moved elsewhere in search of a better life. As the paramount chief of the province what is your view of this?
Ratu Aisea: That is a fact and is a concern as people continue to move out of Macuata or the Northern Division because of the expiry of land leases.
This has happened since the political upheaval of 2000.
It is because of the lack of employment and study opportunities.
I believe that is why the interim Government has brought in the Northern Development Program, with an investment of $5million.
Most of the population in Macuata were descendants of the Girmitiyas, having cane farms in the province and with the expiry of land leases, they moved out of Macuata.
Times: So you believe the NDP will prevent or halt the vast majority of people moving out of Macuata.
Ratu Aisea: It will help by using the capital provided by the NDP to raise participation of the community in businesses at every level from micro to mega businesses.
This will help and increase development in not only Macuata but the Northern Division.
It will enhance and upgrade the livelihoods of the people as there will be capital available here.
Times: Apart from the NDP assistance, as the paramount chief, what else do you propose to do to change this?
Ratu Aisea: Yes, the chiefs are looking at other things we can do to help the people, one of which one is the qoliqoli where plans are under way to establish a market for fishermen where locals can sell their catch instead of struggling to find markets themselves. We will set up a centre where they can bring their catch to and we will sell it to markets in Viti Levu.
We are looking at a small business scale, like PAFCO, in Levuka, to stand at Naduri, and part of the funding we will apply for to the NDP.
Times: How much will this cost?
Ratu Aisea: We are looking at a quarter million dollars to start off the project for the people of Macuata.
This will be the initiative of the vanua to prevent the rural urban drift as it will create employment opportunities.
Times: When do you expect to open this centre?
Ratu Aisea: It's in phases and right now we are involved with the issuing of fishing licenses, which will close this Friday and the set up of the centre is the next phase of our plans.
Times: Do you feel that the lack of utilisation of resources by landowners and the people of Macuata over the past years has contributed to the slow pace of development in Labasa?
Ratu Aisea: I believe the improvement of the economy in the North lies with the people and even though resources can be a source of finance when marketed, the problem was with the technical side of it where mills are needed to produce furniture or there were limited markets for the products.
Like with honey, farmers have struggled to find markets, so I believe the problem was with the market and technical assistance because if these were available a decade ago, then Macuata would have been fully developed by now.
Times: Cane leases have expired, tenants have been displaced and yet it's an irony there is so much idle land around. What is your opinion on the members of your province who demanded land back but have done little or nothing to improve it?
Ratu Aisea: We are mobilising that right now by working with the Native Lands Trust Board to create and change the mindset of landowners to capitalise on their cane farms.
We are looking at the total involvement of landowners in the cane industry from leasing to farming to marketing instead of just receiving lease money.
We are working on landowner involvement in the production of ethanol and we believe landowners should be shareholders in whatever companies we will work with or set up to produce ethanol.
Times: What do you think of the suggestion by an Indian consultant to dereserve reserved land?
Ratu Aisea: I believe that not all reserved land are to be derserved but the reserved land that is not being cultivated or made use of.
However, a very good consultation and negotiation is to be done with the landowners where the sugar industry can be allowed to use only small areas of reserved land where landowners will benefit greatly.
But not all reserved land is to be used because it is part of us passed down from our forefathers and should be kept aside for our future generation for their own use.
Times: Are there any plans by chiefs to discuss with their people renewal of land leases because basically this town is suffering economically because of the land problems?
Ratu Aisea: We are working with the NLTB and our people talking to them about getting involved with cane farming themselves.
So it will be a different approach altogether as the landowners will have another option to cultivate their own land and not necessarily renew their leases, which they will decide themselves
Only meaningful dialogue will resolve our land problems
Monday, February 25, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
The issue of land has reared its contentious head again on the local political scene.
And again (in contemporary times) it is Mahendra Chaudhry who has brought it up.
And again, as would have been expected, there is a cacophony of reactions from all around the overwhelming majority being negative.
This article attempts to discuss, in one piece, some of the main issues surrounding the land question in Fiji. Release land
The rationale in support of releasing (de-reserving) land for productive use is largely economic based.
Over 90 per cent of land in Fiji is native owned.
There is little arguing that the bulk of land taken back through non-renewal of sugar leases went to fodder; this trend continues.
Another 50,080 hectares moved from Crown Schedule A&B in 2002 have not made any visible difference to the economic plight of the i taukei.
The socio-economic ramifications of this are only too visible for the caring urban overflow, over-crowded dwellings, burgeoning squatter settlements, juvenile delinquency, lack of respect for order and authority, rampant crime, prisons bursting at the seams, etc.
It, therefore, becomes imperative on any government to address these largely (though not exclusively) Fijian problems.
And the main strength lies in getting the Fijians to make better economic use of their main asset land.
This can be done either directly by engaging in commercial agriculture or indirectly by leasing out land to the willing, ethnicity notwithstanding.
One sure way of implementing this is to de-reserve idle land and make it available on lease to both Fijians and other communities.
This would not only give the new Fijian lessees an economic asset for hassle-free loan collateral, but it would give the non-Fijian lessee security of tenure.
A win-win for all provided the infrastructure is in place and there is no shortage of land for traditional taukei usage. The mover
The above rationale calls for careful consideration, but in the Fijian psyche it does not reach the stage of being granted even a hearing because the mover is Mr Chaudhry a person reviled and distrusted by the bulk of the Fijians.
The demonisation process that galvanised part of the support for the 2000 coup left an after-effect that was never totally erased.
Then Mr Chaudhry's public skirmishes with Professor Baba, Poseci Bune, etc. followed by his speedy support of the 2006 coup and characteristic subsequent disregard for the niceties of public relations have not helped his public image among the wider population.
His commissioning of the publicly controversial Krishnamurthi report (regardless of the explanatory play with words that have accompanied it) have further stoked the flames of suspicion.
Mr Chaudhry, therefore, should have been the last man to spearhead the latest land move.
Unfortunately, he took it unto himself to attempt to help the country regardless of how unsound his self-counsel may have been.
This calls for a closer look at the support structure that has propelled Chaudhry to the fore on this highly significant issue.The support structure
The 2006 coup brought Mr Chaudhry back into government and into a portfolio that many (including yours truly) thought should have been his in Laisenia Qarase's multi-party Cabinet.
Mr Chaudhry was said to have joined the interim Cabinet after carefully considering the invitation from Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama.
There was a large group of people who disliked the coup, but expected some good to come out of it because of arrogant, wasteful and exclusionist trends seen under Mr Qarase's reign.
What the interim regime forgot was that it had to keep an eye on the public relations aspects of its run in power.
Sure they were doing hard work under extremely trying circumstances with obstructionist reactions from traditional economic partners.
The fact remained that they could not afford to alienate the very people that they were supposed to be working for.
Therein lies the weakness of the support structure behind Mr Chaudhry's latest land move.
The very people who own the land have had the pinnacle of their tradition being besieged by the interim PM while Mr Chaudhry has commissioned a covert land report.
The faith, trust and goodwill, that was the cornerstone of the relationship between the Crown and the Fijian people in 1940, is marked by its clamourous absence at this juncture.Keep the land
That lack of positive inclination aside, the Fijian sees his land as an extension of his being he is of the land and the land is part of his identity, something that provides meaning to his existence.
He does not see it as a commodity or property in the Western sense.
This is where the first point of conflict arises in discourse on land in Fiji.
The term i taukei is linked to the qele; this usually takes the form i taukei ni qele meaning the custodians of the land.
This is different from "owners of the land" as understood in the Western sense.
It has wider generational, ownership and responsibility implications.
Thus if the i taukei feels that he is being overlooked or ignored on matters pertaining to the qele he will instinctively become negative and disinclined.
I do not wish to labour this point here as there are those who are better qualified for that.
Suffice to say that land is not an issue to be treated as a matter of fast convenience in Fiji.
There are established lines of communication and protocol to be followed.
This might appear time consuming and obstructive, but it is essential for the consensus necessary for any lasting policy to emerge. The fallout
One would wish that land would not hold such a premium both from the economic as well as socio-political perspectives seen above.
Unfortunately that is the reality of life in Fiji (as in many other economies).
Fijian land was made available to colonial Britain as well as the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company.
It continued to be made available to SPSM and then the Fiji Sugar Corporation and other stakeholders.
This is where sugar politics a continuing struggle against a hostile company and government has its roots.
When ALTA leases started expiring in the late 1990s, there was a call from the landowners for a renegotiation of rents so that renewals could be granted.
This became a major political issue that all concerned tried to capitalise on.
There were issues and contingencies that never saw the light of day.
Much was made of the material progress of the cane farmers with little appreciation of the virtually Calvinistic principles of hard work and thrift that led to that progress.
This issue was thumpingly raised at a panel discussion by a Fijian professor who said "we are not fools".
Later I wrote to him in private pointing out the differences in attitude towards investment and consumption.
He never replied even though we remain friends.
The continuing land saga in Fiji is a result of that inability to engage in meaningful, concerned and constructive dialogue.
And at the centre of that was none other than the controversial Chaudhry. n The opinions contained here are those of the author and not necessarily shared by his employer, the University of the South Pacific, or any other organisation local and foreign that he may be associated with
The issue of land has reared its contentious head again on the local political scene.
And again (in contemporary times) it is Mahendra Chaudhry who has brought it up.
And again, as would have been expected, there is a cacophony of reactions from all around the overwhelming majority being negative.
This article attempts to discuss, in one piece, some of the main issues surrounding the land question in Fiji. Release land
The rationale in support of releasing (de-reserving) land for productive use is largely economic based.
Over 90 per cent of land in Fiji is native owned.
There is little arguing that the bulk of land taken back through non-renewal of sugar leases went to fodder; this trend continues.
Another 50,080 hectares moved from Crown Schedule A&B in 2002 have not made any visible difference to the economic plight of the i taukei.
The socio-economic ramifications of this are only too visible for the caring urban overflow, over-crowded dwellings, burgeoning squatter settlements, juvenile delinquency, lack of respect for order and authority, rampant crime, prisons bursting at the seams, etc.
It, therefore, becomes imperative on any government to address these largely (though not exclusively) Fijian problems.
And the main strength lies in getting the Fijians to make better economic use of their main asset land.
This can be done either directly by engaging in commercial agriculture or indirectly by leasing out land to the willing, ethnicity notwithstanding.
One sure way of implementing this is to de-reserve idle land and make it available on lease to both Fijians and other communities.
This would not only give the new Fijian lessees an economic asset for hassle-free loan collateral, but it would give the non-Fijian lessee security of tenure.
A win-win for all provided the infrastructure is in place and there is no shortage of land for traditional taukei usage. The mover
The above rationale calls for careful consideration, but in the Fijian psyche it does not reach the stage of being granted even a hearing because the mover is Mr Chaudhry a person reviled and distrusted by the bulk of the Fijians.
The demonisation process that galvanised part of the support for the 2000 coup left an after-effect that was never totally erased.
Then Mr Chaudhry's public skirmishes with Professor Baba, Poseci Bune, etc. followed by his speedy support of the 2006 coup and characteristic subsequent disregard for the niceties of public relations have not helped his public image among the wider population.
His commissioning of the publicly controversial Krishnamurthi report (regardless of the explanatory play with words that have accompanied it) have further stoked the flames of suspicion.
Mr Chaudhry, therefore, should have been the last man to spearhead the latest land move.
Unfortunately, he took it unto himself to attempt to help the country regardless of how unsound his self-counsel may have been.
This calls for a closer look at the support structure that has propelled Chaudhry to the fore on this highly significant issue.The support structure
The 2006 coup brought Mr Chaudhry back into government and into a portfolio that many (including yours truly) thought should have been his in Laisenia Qarase's multi-party Cabinet.
Mr Chaudhry was said to have joined the interim Cabinet after carefully considering the invitation from Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama.
There was a large group of people who disliked the coup, but expected some good to come out of it because of arrogant, wasteful and exclusionist trends seen under Mr Qarase's reign.
What the interim regime forgot was that it had to keep an eye on the public relations aspects of its run in power.
Sure they were doing hard work under extremely trying circumstances with obstructionist reactions from traditional economic partners.
The fact remained that they could not afford to alienate the very people that they were supposed to be working for.
Therein lies the weakness of the support structure behind Mr Chaudhry's latest land move.
The very people who own the land have had the pinnacle of their tradition being besieged by the interim PM while Mr Chaudhry has commissioned a covert land report.
The faith, trust and goodwill, that was the cornerstone of the relationship between the Crown and the Fijian people in 1940, is marked by its clamourous absence at this juncture.Keep the land
That lack of positive inclination aside, the Fijian sees his land as an extension of his being he is of the land and the land is part of his identity, something that provides meaning to his existence.
He does not see it as a commodity or property in the Western sense.
This is where the first point of conflict arises in discourse on land in Fiji.
The term i taukei is linked to the qele; this usually takes the form i taukei ni qele meaning the custodians of the land.
This is different from "owners of the land" as understood in the Western sense.
It has wider generational, ownership and responsibility implications.
Thus if the i taukei feels that he is being overlooked or ignored on matters pertaining to the qele he will instinctively become negative and disinclined.
I do not wish to labour this point here as there are those who are better qualified for that.
Suffice to say that land is not an issue to be treated as a matter of fast convenience in Fiji.
There are established lines of communication and protocol to be followed.
This might appear time consuming and obstructive, but it is essential for the consensus necessary for any lasting policy to emerge. The fallout
One would wish that land would not hold such a premium both from the economic as well as socio-political perspectives seen above.
Unfortunately that is the reality of life in Fiji (as in many other economies).
Fijian land was made available to colonial Britain as well as the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company.
It continued to be made available to SPSM and then the Fiji Sugar Corporation and other stakeholders.
This is where sugar politics a continuing struggle against a hostile company and government has its roots.
When ALTA leases started expiring in the late 1990s, there was a call from the landowners for a renegotiation of rents so that renewals could be granted.
This became a major political issue that all concerned tried to capitalise on.
There were issues and contingencies that never saw the light of day.
Much was made of the material progress of the cane farmers with little appreciation of the virtually Calvinistic principles of hard work and thrift that led to that progress.
This issue was thumpingly raised at a panel discussion by a Fijian professor who said "we are not fools".
Later I wrote to him in private pointing out the differences in attitude towards investment and consumption.
He never replied even though we remain friends.
The continuing land saga in Fiji is a result of that inability to engage in meaningful, concerned and constructive dialogue.
And at the centre of that was none other than the controversial Chaudhry. n The opinions contained here are those of the author and not necessarily shared by his employer, the University of the South Pacific, or any other organisation local and foreign that he may be associated with
Saturday, February 23, 2008
GCC Membership Change Makes No Sense
OPINION -www.fijidailypost.com
To Be or Not To Be - 23-Feb-2008
THE past week has been a political revelation and an awakening call for the general public, particularly the indigenous Fijian community.
Likewise, a major portion of the Indian community as well as the minority groupings are wary of the revelations because they are aware that their future prosperity in this country is pegged along with that of the indigenous Fijian basket. You may ask what the hell is this idiot talking about? Or who is this novice or neophyte to come and express an opinion on political issues affecting Fiji at the moment?
Yes, of course, you are quite right to question my qualification or my integrity to express a political opinion. I don’t mind being called names, being sworn at, vilified, or even castigated, but I reserve my rights under the Constitution to express an opinion freely without fear of being arrested or intimidated.
Anyway you don’t have to be Einstein to notice that all is not rosy in Fiji at the moment. All that glitters, no matter how shiny some of us polish it, is not gold. You would have to be blind Freddie not to see that what is on display in some quarters is, in fact, a shiny papyrus commonly known to some as ‘fools gold’.
Anyway, as pointed out earlier on, political manifestations this week have indeed been a revelation.
First, there was the infamous proposal by an Indian national expert on Sugar, Dr Krishnamurthi, recommending that all reserved native lands should be de-reserved, to rehabilitate the ailing sugar industry.
The idea is for these de-reserved parcels of 40 to 400 hectares of land to be leased to individual farmers or companies for commercial farming.
The Dr Krishnamurthi report was commissioned by the Minister of Finance Mahendra Chaudhry. The report is now with the Native Land Trust Board, as custodian of native lands, for consideration.
The outcry against the proposal, understandably, from landowners, has been overwhelming. The cry is: why should native landowners sacrifice their resources to enhance the economic sustainability of tenant farmers and the political convenience of their political masters?
In fact, judging by the wholesale condemnation of Dr Krishnamurthi and his report, I believe the good doctor should be thankful that we are now living in the new millennium and that indigenous landowners have embraced Christianity. Otherwise he could be lovo meat by now.
A few days after the Murti mayhem, another revelation came to light.
This time, interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama issued via government gazette dated February 13, the Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2008.
First and foremost, through these newly published Regulations, Bainimarama revoked the Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 1993.
This move is unprecedented. Bainimarama’s action has been viewed with awe and trepidation. Why? Because there is a case challenging the legality of the original dissolution of the GCC which was undertaken in 2007 by the former interim Fijian Affairs Minister, Ratu Epeli Ganilau. That case is still pending in court.
I refer more specifically here to the challenge by sacked chairman of the GCC, Ratu Ovini Bokini, and former GCC members, the Ka Levu of Nadroga, Ratu Sakiusa Makutu, and Kubuna Chief, Ratu Epenisa Cakobau.
The case has been called several times in the High Court. It is now set for hearing in March.
One would have thought that it would be prudent on the part of the Interim Government to shelve their proposed restructure of the GCC until the High Court had made a ruling on the legality of the dissolution challenge.
It would certainly make sense, indicating mature and responsible leadership.
But lo and behold, the Interim Government has thought otherwise and gone ahead with the restructure process.
What can be deduced from such bold and deliberate action?
Well, what can we say except that the action seems to be but a true reflection of the mediocre legal, political and traditional advice emanating from his chief legal officers. Or perhaps from one officer in particular, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum? There appears to be no regard whatsoever with due process of the law.
From the point of view of a layman like me, it appears that Sayed-Kaiyum is advising Bainimarama according to what Bainimarama wants to hear and not what he should be told. Circumventing the law appears to be a daily exercise as long as it adheres to the whims of the coup makers. Is this action a case of contempt of court, I wonder?
Such is the desperation by the Interim Government to stamp its authority, that it is forced to deliberately turn a blind eye to the law in the mistaken belief that the unsuspecting Joe Blow down the road will not notice what it is up to. There is a Fijian expression which described this eloquently; me dina ga a dai- literally translated “let the lies be truths”.
What has happened to the universally accepted and recognised norm that aggrieved persons have a right to be heard in a court of law? I suppose if we are in a dictatorship there is no such accepted norm. Yet we are presumably still living in a constitutional and legally based democracy.
Anyway, the Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2008 is a document whose provisions are shot through with confusion and muddled thinking of the kind that could lead to mayhem and chaos if adopted. Certain provisions overlap with each other while some even seem to contradict each other.
The GCC 2008 Regulations spell out in detail what class of chiefs are eligible for membership, how members can be disqualified, its functions and duties, how often the GCC should meet and its Secretariat.
Reading through its provisions, I cannot help but believe that the Interim Government is “obsessed” with dismantling the age-old Fijian system of government, which, for over a century, has been the pillar of the indigenous Fijian society. The whole interim Cabinet appears to be infatuated and preoccupied with this obsession.
They are passionate and in many ways fanatical about “clipping the wings” of Fijian leadership. If they are allowed to carry on unchecked, the Fijian bird of paradise will soon fall to the ground in a splatter, unable to soar high into the sky as all its feathers will have been systematically and unceremoniously plucked off by these fixated political explorers.
The new-look GCC will have 45 members comprising 3 chiefs from each of the 14 provinces and 3 chiefs from Rotuma. And there shall be 6 co-opted members. The 45 chiefs and the 6 co-opted members will all be appointed by the Minister for Indigenous and Multi-Ethnic Affairs. In this case, the interim Prime Minister, Bainimarama.
The interesting question here is, who among the chiefs is chiefly enough to be regarded as a chief and qualifies to be a member of the GCC representing their province? In other words, who is a chief and who is not? We can take it a step further to determine who the real chief is and who is the ‘thief’ (those claiming the title for traditional and political expediency and convenience)?
If that is not enough, the Regulations stipulate qualifications that would automatically deprive real chiefs from representing their people in the GCC.
A good example is the case of the Turaga Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu. It is public knowledge that Ratu Naiqama is the paramount chief (Turaga-I-Taukei) of the Vanua of Cakaudrove. He has a number of traditional sub-chiefs (if I am allowed to describe them as such for the sake of clarity), who owe allegiance to Ratu Naiqama as Tui Cakau.
Ratu Naiqama has already been installed as the Turaga Tui Cakau by the people of Cakaudrove as their paramount chief.
But under the new regulations, Ratu Naiqama would not qualify as a member of the GCC because the high chief was a minister in the deposed Qarase government - thus has not fulfilled the seven-year stand down period subscribed under the 2008 GCC Regulations.
And not only that, Ratu Naiqama would be disqualified on the grounds that he served time as a prisoner after he was convicted for the role he played in the takeover of the military camp at Labasa during the 2000 coup.
A closer look at Ratu Naiqama’s case reveals a clear case of outright discrimination. I mean Ratu Naiqama had served his time and paid the price for using his chiefly status (rightly or wrongly) in his pursuit to maintain calm and peace during the mutiny in Labasa then.
His stint in parliament as a politician and as a government minister, like his installation as Tui Cakau was through the will of his people. To deprive him of representing his people in the GCC is to rob his people of their right to determine who is to be their chief and who is to represent them in the GCC. Why should he be discriminated against because his subjects want him to represent them?
The interim regime should not let itself be put in a position where it could be accused of taking out a personal vendetta against people like Ratu Naiqama – and others who seem to be viewed as enemies because such people do not subscribe to the government’s line.
Under the new 2008 GCC Regulations, three chiefs would be appointed by interim PM Bainimarama, after, I suppose, consulting the Cakaudrove Provincial Council.
Indigenous Fijian protocol demands that one of the three chiefs representing Cakaudrove would automatically be Ratu Naiqama in his capacity as Tui Cakau. The other two will have to be by choice provided (according to the new regulations) they have been traditionally installed and recorded as such in the Registrar of Native Lands.
What a disaster. I can now visualise the tension, struggle, emotion, division and even hatred erupting as those endowed with “blue blood” try to out-manoeuvre each other so they could win favour to be installed. Chiefly brothers will quarrel among themselves with the expectant rush among chiefs (even minor ones) to be installed hoping they would be appointed as members of the GCC.
This is what I meant when I said we will now witness who is the real chief and who is the ‘thief’ among our own blood lines. Chaos within the chiefly system and the vanua will be the order of the day. And what better recipe to divide the Fijian society than to encourage a battle royal among the ‘blue bloods’ of Fijian society under the membership clause of the GCC 2008 regulations.
I am reminded here of my late friend Taniela Veitata (God rest his soul), insisting that we refer to him as Ratu Taniela Ratu Veitata - epitomising that he is among the highest chiefs in Fiji. How and why? Well, simply because, he claims to be the only man in Fiji with a double Ratu.
He theorised that by self-imposing a double “ratu” in his name, he has qualified him to be among the ‘blue bloods’ of Fiji. We had a good laugh about it at that time. In fact, it became a household joke among our group. But wait a minute, it now appears that Ratu Taniela Ratu Veitata has had the last laugh after all – thanks to the drafting skills of the Regulations 2008 legal team.
So I ask, in all sincerity, is this what the Interim Government wants - the total weakening of the traditional Fijian system of life in order to impose another brand of authority?
Anyway, the GCC 2008 Regulations is a flawed document because it is totally inconsistent with the undertaking the Interim Government made in 2007 with the European Union (EU) on the roadmap to democracy that was to start with the March 2009 General Election.
But, among other things, how can the total independence of the GCC be maintained? With Bainimarama as new chairman of the GCC, the appointing authority and the decisions reached by the GCC are to be scrutinised by Cabinet which will be chaired by Bainimarama as interim PM, the independence of the GCC will be but a myth. It will be highly politicised.
Then there is the provision where members of the GCC are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the President after their appointment. This is again flawed and muddled thinking. The President, under the Constitution, is appointed by the GCC. How then can GCC members swear an oath of allegiance to the President if they are also empowered to remove him from office?
Well, as for me, I’d rather remain a ‘thief’ than have ‘blue blood’ and be called a chief. However, I can always be a self-imposed chief with three “ratus”- one better than my friend Ratu Taniela Ratu Veitata.
Until next week, happy reading.
Misipolo
To Be or Not To Be - 23-Feb-2008
THE past week has been a political revelation and an awakening call for the general public, particularly the indigenous Fijian community.
Likewise, a major portion of the Indian community as well as the minority groupings are wary of the revelations because they are aware that their future prosperity in this country is pegged along with that of the indigenous Fijian basket. You may ask what the hell is this idiot talking about? Or who is this novice or neophyte to come and express an opinion on political issues affecting Fiji at the moment?
Yes, of course, you are quite right to question my qualification or my integrity to express a political opinion. I don’t mind being called names, being sworn at, vilified, or even castigated, but I reserve my rights under the Constitution to express an opinion freely without fear of being arrested or intimidated.
Anyway you don’t have to be Einstein to notice that all is not rosy in Fiji at the moment. All that glitters, no matter how shiny some of us polish it, is not gold. You would have to be blind Freddie not to see that what is on display in some quarters is, in fact, a shiny papyrus commonly known to some as ‘fools gold’.
Anyway, as pointed out earlier on, political manifestations this week have indeed been a revelation.
First, there was the infamous proposal by an Indian national expert on Sugar, Dr Krishnamurthi, recommending that all reserved native lands should be de-reserved, to rehabilitate the ailing sugar industry.
The idea is for these de-reserved parcels of 40 to 400 hectares of land to be leased to individual farmers or companies for commercial farming.
The Dr Krishnamurthi report was commissioned by the Minister of Finance Mahendra Chaudhry. The report is now with the Native Land Trust Board, as custodian of native lands, for consideration.
The outcry against the proposal, understandably, from landowners, has been overwhelming. The cry is: why should native landowners sacrifice their resources to enhance the economic sustainability of tenant farmers and the political convenience of their political masters?
In fact, judging by the wholesale condemnation of Dr Krishnamurthi and his report, I believe the good doctor should be thankful that we are now living in the new millennium and that indigenous landowners have embraced Christianity. Otherwise he could be lovo meat by now.
A few days after the Murti mayhem, another revelation came to light.
This time, interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama issued via government gazette dated February 13, the Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2008.
First and foremost, through these newly published Regulations, Bainimarama revoked the Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 1993.
This move is unprecedented. Bainimarama’s action has been viewed with awe and trepidation. Why? Because there is a case challenging the legality of the original dissolution of the GCC which was undertaken in 2007 by the former interim Fijian Affairs Minister, Ratu Epeli Ganilau. That case is still pending in court.
I refer more specifically here to the challenge by sacked chairman of the GCC, Ratu Ovini Bokini, and former GCC members, the Ka Levu of Nadroga, Ratu Sakiusa Makutu, and Kubuna Chief, Ratu Epenisa Cakobau.
The case has been called several times in the High Court. It is now set for hearing in March.
One would have thought that it would be prudent on the part of the Interim Government to shelve their proposed restructure of the GCC until the High Court had made a ruling on the legality of the dissolution challenge.
It would certainly make sense, indicating mature and responsible leadership.
But lo and behold, the Interim Government has thought otherwise and gone ahead with the restructure process.
What can be deduced from such bold and deliberate action?
Well, what can we say except that the action seems to be but a true reflection of the mediocre legal, political and traditional advice emanating from his chief legal officers. Or perhaps from one officer in particular, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum? There appears to be no regard whatsoever with due process of the law.
From the point of view of a layman like me, it appears that Sayed-Kaiyum is advising Bainimarama according to what Bainimarama wants to hear and not what he should be told. Circumventing the law appears to be a daily exercise as long as it adheres to the whims of the coup makers. Is this action a case of contempt of court, I wonder?
Such is the desperation by the Interim Government to stamp its authority, that it is forced to deliberately turn a blind eye to the law in the mistaken belief that the unsuspecting Joe Blow down the road will not notice what it is up to. There is a Fijian expression which described this eloquently; me dina ga a dai- literally translated “let the lies be truths”.
What has happened to the universally accepted and recognised norm that aggrieved persons have a right to be heard in a court of law? I suppose if we are in a dictatorship there is no such accepted norm. Yet we are presumably still living in a constitutional and legally based democracy.
Anyway, the Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2008 is a document whose provisions are shot through with confusion and muddled thinking of the kind that could lead to mayhem and chaos if adopted. Certain provisions overlap with each other while some even seem to contradict each other.
The GCC 2008 Regulations spell out in detail what class of chiefs are eligible for membership, how members can be disqualified, its functions and duties, how often the GCC should meet and its Secretariat.
Reading through its provisions, I cannot help but believe that the Interim Government is “obsessed” with dismantling the age-old Fijian system of government, which, for over a century, has been the pillar of the indigenous Fijian society. The whole interim Cabinet appears to be infatuated and preoccupied with this obsession.
They are passionate and in many ways fanatical about “clipping the wings” of Fijian leadership. If they are allowed to carry on unchecked, the Fijian bird of paradise will soon fall to the ground in a splatter, unable to soar high into the sky as all its feathers will have been systematically and unceremoniously plucked off by these fixated political explorers.
The new-look GCC will have 45 members comprising 3 chiefs from each of the 14 provinces and 3 chiefs from Rotuma. And there shall be 6 co-opted members. The 45 chiefs and the 6 co-opted members will all be appointed by the Minister for Indigenous and Multi-Ethnic Affairs. In this case, the interim Prime Minister, Bainimarama.
The interesting question here is, who among the chiefs is chiefly enough to be regarded as a chief and qualifies to be a member of the GCC representing their province? In other words, who is a chief and who is not? We can take it a step further to determine who the real chief is and who is the ‘thief’ (those claiming the title for traditional and political expediency and convenience)?
If that is not enough, the Regulations stipulate qualifications that would automatically deprive real chiefs from representing their people in the GCC.
A good example is the case of the Turaga Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu. It is public knowledge that Ratu Naiqama is the paramount chief (Turaga-I-Taukei) of the Vanua of Cakaudrove. He has a number of traditional sub-chiefs (if I am allowed to describe them as such for the sake of clarity), who owe allegiance to Ratu Naiqama as Tui Cakau.
Ratu Naiqama has already been installed as the Turaga Tui Cakau by the people of Cakaudrove as their paramount chief.
But under the new regulations, Ratu Naiqama would not qualify as a member of the GCC because the high chief was a minister in the deposed Qarase government - thus has not fulfilled the seven-year stand down period subscribed under the 2008 GCC Regulations.
And not only that, Ratu Naiqama would be disqualified on the grounds that he served time as a prisoner after he was convicted for the role he played in the takeover of the military camp at Labasa during the 2000 coup.
A closer look at Ratu Naiqama’s case reveals a clear case of outright discrimination. I mean Ratu Naiqama had served his time and paid the price for using his chiefly status (rightly or wrongly) in his pursuit to maintain calm and peace during the mutiny in Labasa then.
His stint in parliament as a politician and as a government minister, like his installation as Tui Cakau was through the will of his people. To deprive him of representing his people in the GCC is to rob his people of their right to determine who is to be their chief and who is to represent them in the GCC. Why should he be discriminated against because his subjects want him to represent them?
The interim regime should not let itself be put in a position where it could be accused of taking out a personal vendetta against people like Ratu Naiqama – and others who seem to be viewed as enemies because such people do not subscribe to the government’s line.
Under the new 2008 GCC Regulations, three chiefs would be appointed by interim PM Bainimarama, after, I suppose, consulting the Cakaudrove Provincial Council.
Indigenous Fijian protocol demands that one of the three chiefs representing Cakaudrove would automatically be Ratu Naiqama in his capacity as Tui Cakau. The other two will have to be by choice provided (according to the new regulations) they have been traditionally installed and recorded as such in the Registrar of Native Lands.
What a disaster. I can now visualise the tension, struggle, emotion, division and even hatred erupting as those endowed with “blue blood” try to out-manoeuvre each other so they could win favour to be installed. Chiefly brothers will quarrel among themselves with the expectant rush among chiefs (even minor ones) to be installed hoping they would be appointed as members of the GCC.
This is what I meant when I said we will now witness who is the real chief and who is the ‘thief’ among our own blood lines. Chaos within the chiefly system and the vanua will be the order of the day. And what better recipe to divide the Fijian society than to encourage a battle royal among the ‘blue bloods’ of Fijian society under the membership clause of the GCC 2008 regulations.
I am reminded here of my late friend Taniela Veitata (God rest his soul), insisting that we refer to him as Ratu Taniela Ratu Veitata - epitomising that he is among the highest chiefs in Fiji. How and why? Well, simply because, he claims to be the only man in Fiji with a double Ratu.
He theorised that by self-imposing a double “ratu” in his name, he has qualified him to be among the ‘blue bloods’ of Fiji. We had a good laugh about it at that time. In fact, it became a household joke among our group. But wait a minute, it now appears that Ratu Taniela Ratu Veitata has had the last laugh after all – thanks to the drafting skills of the Regulations 2008 legal team.
So I ask, in all sincerity, is this what the Interim Government wants - the total weakening of the traditional Fijian system of life in order to impose another brand of authority?
Anyway, the GCC 2008 Regulations is a flawed document because it is totally inconsistent with the undertaking the Interim Government made in 2007 with the European Union (EU) on the roadmap to democracy that was to start with the March 2009 General Election.
But, among other things, how can the total independence of the GCC be maintained? With Bainimarama as new chairman of the GCC, the appointing authority and the decisions reached by the GCC are to be scrutinised by Cabinet which will be chaired by Bainimarama as interim PM, the independence of the GCC will be but a myth. It will be highly politicised.
Then there is the provision where members of the GCC are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the President after their appointment. This is again flawed and muddled thinking. The President, under the Constitution, is appointed by the GCC. How then can GCC members swear an oath of allegiance to the President if they are also empowered to remove him from office?
Well, as for me, I’d rather remain a ‘thief’ than have ‘blue blood’ and be called a chief. However, I can always be a self-imposed chief with three “ratus”- one better than my friend Ratu Taniela Ratu Veitata.
Until next week, happy reading.
Misipolo
Friday, February 22, 2008
Lawyer questions Bainimarama’s authority
22 FEB 2008 -www.fijilive.com
Suva lawyer Savenaca Komaisavai says Indigenous Affairs Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is a commoner and has no authority to appoint himself to chair the Great Council of Chiefs.
He maintained Bainimarama’s appointment was “wrong and illegal”.
“For the position of GCC chairman, nomination comes through the office of the President. I don’t see any authority for Frank nominating himself,” Komaisavai said.
He questioned Bainimarama’s motive behind these moves.
“What has the Fijian nation and its people done to be treated this way in such a vicious manner when all their institutions they hold here have been attacked like this.”
Komaisavai and Lautoka lawyer Kitione Vuataki are representing a group of chiefs that were suspended from the GCC following the December, 2006 coup.
They will also be filing for a judicial review next week against Bainimarama’s “illegal” appointment.
“Who is he trying to hoodwink here? We have laws in this country to follow. You don’t just go and nominate yourself, especially a commoner like him,” Komaisavai told reporters at the Suva court.
“What standing does he have to go and elevate himself? He is asking for trouble.
“As a Fijian, that’s wrong and it is a very stupid decision. A politician of high standing, a Prime Minister would not stoop that low to treat Fijians that way. I would have hoped he would have done something wiser than that, stay out of it.
“Since he’s gone down that road, I’m coming too for him and we will meet somewhere at the junction down that road. And let me tell Frank, there’s only one guy standing after that, that’ll be me.”
Komaisavai said the independence and the integrity of Fiji’s judiciary was intact, “which is why we have come for help, for relief on behalf of the Fijian people to the High Court”.
He said the people of Fiji deserved better because the President’s office was not only for Fijians but “for our Indian brothers and sisters as well”.
“You can’t take that away. You must not. It must never happen,” he said.
Bainimarama returned from India today. He will hold a press conference on Sunday where he is expected to react strongly to criticisms leveled against him following the gazetting of a new regulation for a yet to be appointed new-look GCC.
According to the new law, the paramount chiefs of Fiji’s three traditional Fijian political divisions will not qualify to join the GCC.
Only traditionally installed chiefs can be part of the GCC and those who have not delved in politics in the last seven years.
In 2006, Bainimarama seriously challenged the highly revered institution when he suggested that its members then, “go drink brew under a mango tree”.
Suva lawyer Savenaca Komaisavai says Indigenous Affairs Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is a commoner and has no authority to appoint himself to chair the Great Council of Chiefs.
He maintained Bainimarama’s appointment was “wrong and illegal”.
“For the position of GCC chairman, nomination comes through the office of the President. I don’t see any authority for Frank nominating himself,” Komaisavai said.
He questioned Bainimarama’s motive behind these moves.
“What has the Fijian nation and its people done to be treated this way in such a vicious manner when all their institutions they hold here have been attacked like this.”
Komaisavai and Lautoka lawyer Kitione Vuataki are representing a group of chiefs that were suspended from the GCC following the December, 2006 coup.
They will also be filing for a judicial review next week against Bainimarama’s “illegal” appointment.
“Who is he trying to hoodwink here? We have laws in this country to follow. You don’t just go and nominate yourself, especially a commoner like him,” Komaisavai told reporters at the Suva court.
“What standing does he have to go and elevate himself? He is asking for trouble.
“As a Fijian, that’s wrong and it is a very stupid decision. A politician of high standing, a Prime Minister would not stoop that low to treat Fijians that way. I would have hoped he would have done something wiser than that, stay out of it.
“Since he’s gone down that road, I’m coming too for him and we will meet somewhere at the junction down that road. And let me tell Frank, there’s only one guy standing after that, that’ll be me.”
Komaisavai said the independence and the integrity of Fiji’s judiciary was intact, “which is why we have come for help, for relief on behalf of the Fijian people to the High Court”.
He said the people of Fiji deserved better because the President’s office was not only for Fijians but “for our Indian brothers and sisters as well”.
“You can’t take that away. You must not. It must never happen,” he said.
Bainimarama returned from India today. He will hold a press conference on Sunday where he is expected to react strongly to criticisms leveled against him following the gazetting of a new regulation for a yet to be appointed new-look GCC.
According to the new law, the paramount chiefs of Fiji’s three traditional Fijian political divisions will not qualify to join the GCC.
Only traditionally installed chiefs can be part of the GCC and those who have not delved in politics in the last seven years.
In 2006, Bainimarama seriously challenged the highly revered institution when he suggested that its members then, “go drink brew under a mango tree”.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
GCC Prestige Further Eroded by Illegal Regime
Bainimarama 'is confused'
Saturday, February 23, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama is confused in appointing himself as Great Council of Chiefs chairman, says Vuda chief Ratu Tevita Momoedonu.
Ratu Tevita said everyone remembered him saying chiefs should go and drink homebrew under a mango tree, "and yet he has turned around to head it". "That's the biggest irony of the century."
Ratu Tevita said Commodore Bainimarama's actions would not do justice to the people of Fiji, especially the indigenous people.
Who is he, chief asks
ROBERT MATAU
Friday, February 22, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
Tui Namosi Ratu Suliano Matanitobua during an interview with The Fiji Times at SDL headquarters yesterday+ Enlarge this image
Tui Namosi Ratu Suliano Matanitobua during an interview with The Fiji Times at SDL headquarters yesterday
THE Turaga Na Tui Namosi, Ratu Suliano Matanitobua, said yesterday if he was stopped from being a member of the Great Council of Chiefs then no other chief in his province would be a member of the august body.
He said his forefathers, from his namesake Ratu Suliano Matanitobua, who was one of the chiefs who ceded Fiji to Great Britain in 1874, had been members of the Great Council of Chiefs down the line through the ages.
"Why should I not be when my forebearers have always been members of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga," Ratu Suliano said.
"Chiefs cannot be separated from politics.
"Chiefs make decisions for the good and welfare of their people and the vanua."
Ratu Suliano said in his province there was only one Turaga-i-Taukei and that was the Tui Namosi and no one else.
"If I do not go in, where will they get the three members from?
"I also wonder if the advisers and legal drafters understand what a turaga i taukei is?
"There could be other provinces facing the same situation as Namosi and they cannot make up the three members under the so-called criteria of membership.
"It is even worse where the turaga i taukei have not been installed because of a delay or title dispute."
Ratu Suliano said the interim Government's amateurish and ill-informed interference in the matanitu-i-taukei or Fijian administration was an abuse of the indigenous Fijian customs and traditions.
"Why has he appointed himself as chairman of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga," he asked.
"Did he not say after he unlawfully removed the elected government that no military officer would benefit from the takeover?"
Ratu Suliano said the plot was clear and that "this coup is all about dismantling the Fijian chiefly system, customs, traditions and their institutions".
"Who is the leader of the army to dictate the direction and the decisions of the GCC with the army's political agenda?
"Commodore Bainimarama is not a turaga i taukei but a public officer."
Ratu Suliano asked why the commander should appoint members of the GCC.
"Let the representatives of the people, that is, the provincial council appoint their reps in the GCC because they know best."
Fiji ruled by law of the jungle says Nasautoka chief
Friday, February 22, 2008
Update: 5.20pm Former Great Council of Chief member and Nasautoka chief Ratu Semi Seruvakula has labelled interim Prime Minsiter and coup leader Voreqe Bainimarama a dictator.
Ratu Semi who is the father of former military senior officer Colonel Viliame Seruvakula said Fiji was being ruled through the law of the jungle.
Ratu Semi was reacting to the news that Bainimarama appointed himself again as the GCC chairman on top of being the prime minister as well as military commander of Fiji.
Oath limits council: Chief
February 21, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
THE new-look Great Council of Chiefs will not be able to carry out its constitutional role fully if members take an oath of allegiance to the President, says Cakaudrove paramount chief Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
Ratu Naiqama said the oath was prescribed in a gazette issued by interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama last week. He said the oath would put the GCC's powers to remove the President in doubt.
"Wouldn't that be affecting the full effect of the GCC if members were to take an oath of allegiance to the President?" Ratu Naiqama said.
Section 93 of the Constitution gives chiefs the power to remove the President from office under certain conditions.
He said absolute sovereignty in Fiji did not exist but Fiji was exceptional compared to countries like New Zealand and Australia.
"In New Zealand, the Maori's own a small majority of land. In Fiji, 90 per cent of the land is owned by Fijians."
Ratu Naiqama said council members would face a conflict of interest if faced with the question of removing the President from office because they had sworn allegiance to the man they appointed as head of the country. "GCC appoints the President. Now the council has to swear before the every man they appoint. That's the conflict of interest here." "What must be realised is that paramount chiefs and chiefs are independent of each other.
GCC order is flawed: Chief
FREDERICA ELBOURNE
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
Ratu Tuuakitau Cokanauto ponders a question during a press conference in Suva, yesterday.+ Enlarge this image
Ratu Tuuakitau Cokanauto ponders a question during a press conference in Suva, yesterday.
THE taskforce commissioned by the interim Government to review the Great Council of Chiefs has admitted that the gazette which prescribes the role of the new-look council is flawed.
Taskforce head Ratu Tu'uakitau Cokanauto yesterday said what was stated in the gazette was a "deviation" from the recommendation they made following widespread consultation with chiefs and provinces around the country.
The gazette, dated earlier this month under interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's name, stipulates that as interim Minister for Indigenous Affairs, not only does he appoint himself as chairman of the council but is also the appointing authority of the future members of the council.
This, Ratu Tu'uakitau, said failed to reflect the apolitical stance of the new-look council which the team had recommended.
"It's not vakaturaga of us to go back and present something contrary to discussions we had," he said.
Ratu Tu'uakitau said he would seek an audience with Commodore Bainimarama, who returns from Indian this week, to iron out issues raised in the gazette with the view to improving it.
He said he only dealt with his line minister Commodore Bainimarama over the matter and would not hold an audience with the Attorney-General's chambers to discuss misfits in the gazette.
He said the aim of the review was to remove political influence from the institution and admitted he did not know why or how the inclusion of the minister was introduced in the gazette.
Ratu Tu'uakitau said he had cited the draft gazette before it was published and was dumbfounded when news broke earlier this week that the gazette failed to fully reflect the team's recommendation to Commodore Bainimarama.
He said the prime minister, president and vice president were to be removed as council members in a bid to maintain the sanctity of the institution leaving the president as the appointing authority of the council.
Changes to Two Important Recommendations
Publish date/time: 20/02/2008 - www.fijivillage.com
Great Council of Chiefs Taskforce Chairman, Ratu Tuakitau Cokanauto said although the interim government has made changes to two important recommendations the taskforce submitted, it does not mean that their work is a waste of time and taxpayers money.
Cokanauto defends the work they have carried out and said the people supported the changes proposed by the taskforce. The Bau high chief said it would be not Vakaturaga if the interim government reject their recommendation and add something else.
Ratu Tuakitau Cokanauto said he will seek a meeting with the Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama on the cabinet decision which has led to the Indigenous Affairs Minister being appointed Chairman of the GCC.
He revealed that they were not consulted on changes to the GCC regulations.
The Taskforce was appointed to gather submissions from people around the country and forwarded its recommendations to the cabinet late last year.
Bainimarama selfish, says Ro Teimumu
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
REWA paramount chief, Ro Teimumu Kepa says interim Prime Minister and military commander, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's taking on the position of chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs is a self-centered decision.
Ro Teimumu was reacting to Commodore Bainimarama's name being gazetted as chairman of the GCC.
"At the beginning of the (December 2006) coup he assured the nation that no military officer would benefit from the coup," the former Education Minister said.
"Then he took up position of President, then he became Prime Minister, then co-chair of the National Council to Build a Better Fiji and now he is the chairman of the GCC."
Ro Teimumu also wondered what advice the military council dominated by Fijian colonels had given the interim Prime Minister on Fijian institutions.
"I would be interested to know what they have told him particularly in the latest issue," she said.
"How can they sit back and watch the destruction of the institutions that protect the rights and interests of the Fijian people?"
Ro Teimumu said Commodore Bainimarama's actions showed he was acting in his own interest.
"While they have been portraying the nation's larger interest what we are seeing is the emergence of the interest of one person."
Chief questions military council’s silence
20 FEB 2008
Rewa high chief and head of the Burebasaga confederacy Ro Teimumu Kepa has questioned the Fiji military council’s silence on matters of paramount interest to indigenous Fijians.
Responding to the latest development that interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has appointed himself chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs, Ro Teimumu said this should be of utmost concern to Fijians in the military council.
She said these are the very people who should be protecting the Fijian structure for this generation and the generations to come.
“After all what is the military there for? Why aren’t they talking? Are they afraid of him (Bainimarama)?” she questioned.
“Bainimarama doesn’t move from point A to B without the approval of the military council.
“Aren’t they supposed to be protecting our land, our heritage? Why are they dismantling the Fijian structure?” questioned the former Education minister in the ousted Laisenia Qarase-government.
She asked how they can just sit back when Fijian institutions and the very heart of the Fijian structure is being targeted.
Comments are being sought from the military.
The new-look GCC will have a total of 52 members, 10 less than the previous GCC.
This includes three representatives each from the 14 Fijian provinces and Rotuma, while Bainimarama will appoint six co-opt members who are chiefs that have been traditional installed and recorded in the register of Native Landowners administered by the Native Lands Commission.
Govt wanted political link to chiefs' council
20 FEB 2008 - www.fijilive.com
Fiji’s Cabinet decided there should be a direct link to the Great Council of Chiefs to reflect their views in matters of national affairs, says acting interim Prime Minister Ratu Epeli Nailatikau.
Responding to criticism against the appointment of interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama as GCC chair, Ratu Epeli said Cabinet decided that the council be chaired by none other than a full Cabinet minister and the minister responsible for Indigenous Affairs.
“Cabinet deviated from the recommendation of the Great Council of Chiefs task force because it felt the Minister for Fijian Affairs should not only continue to be a member but that he should also be Chairman of the GCC,” he told journalists at a press conference.
“Therefore, Commodore Bainimarama as Prime Minister and as Minister for Indigenous Affairs in this case is the Chairperson of the GCC under the regulations.
“It must be clarified in this case that PM Commodore Bainimarama did not directly appoint himself as GCC chairperson,” Ratu Epeli said.
GCC taskforce secretary Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo earlier said the announcement took them by surprise.
“We had deliberately left the President, vice president, Prime Minister and the Fijian affairs minister from the GCC set-up to avoid any political influence,” Ratu Josateki said.
New-look GCC illegal: Youth group
20 FEB 2008
The Young Peoples Concerned Network is unhappy with moves by Fiji’s interim regime to hand pick chiefs who sit on the Great Council of Chiefs.
Spokesperson Peter Waqavonovono said this move goes against the very principle of involving Fiji's chiefly leaders in politics and the decision making process in the country.
And moves by the interim Prime Minister to sit as GCC chairman are disappointing and is illegal, he said.
“We are under the impression that this GCC Regulation Decree is a decree establishing a Minister of Fijian Affairs Council and not a sovereign and independent council of chiefs.”
“The new look GCC and its selection criteria is a 'Slap in Face' to indigenous youths who look up to chiefs for direction and wisdom.
”We do agree however with the increased role the GCC has been given according to section 8 of the GCC Regulation Decree 2008, which describes and expands the role of the GCC to articulate legislations and mediate over national issues. This however is undermined by restrictions placed on membership and a dictatorial role exercised by the Minister of Fijian Affairs,” Waqavonovono said.
He added that provinces and chiefly leaders should have the right to pick their representatives to the GCC regardless of past convictions, economic failures, allegations, political affiliations and ideology.
GCC team taken for a ride: Nawalowalo - www.fijilive.com
20 FEB 2008
Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs taskforce team believes that interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama is not getting proper advice from the interim Government.
The team was commissioned by the interim Government to review the operations and membership of the council.
Taskforce secretary, Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo said Bainimarama was ‘misinformed’ to take up the chairmanship of the council.
“We believe that the people who are behind him are not giving him proper advice and that’s the reason he has taken that position.”
“This has somewhat come as a shock for us and we believe that we were somehow used to bring the GCC report into context.”
“It was clear in the report that whoever shall join the council should be apolitical, but this agreement has been broken and he (Bainimarama) is setting a bad example for other chiefs.”
“The report by the taskforce we believe is the only road to reconciliation and the road to democracy but this was not honored by the Prime Minister.”
Nawalowalo said the taskforce was never given a chance to discuss this matter and were surprised that the position was filled without consulting them.
He said this could be the biggest downfall of the interim Government.
“I can tell you that these people are playing with fire because the GCC council should not be taken as a ride by anyone except for chiefs who have been approved to be in there.”
He said whatever is contained in the GCC review report is what the chiefs of Fiji have decided upon and this has been endorsed by the President himself.
“The President had given his approval but when it came back to Cabinet they did not agree so they made a few changes before recommending the Prime Minister as chairman.”
“It’s pointless to say that we have done a good job to get the report in place just because somebody did not adhere to the rules and regulations.”
GCC team seeks answers from Fiji PM
19 FEB 2008-www.fijilive.com
The chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs review team, Ratu Tu’uakitau Cokanauto, wants interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama to explain why he appointed himself chairman of the GCC.
Cokanauto said his taskforce had recommended a new look-GCC that will be apolitical. However, Bainimarama, the interim Indigenous Affairs Minister, has indicated in a gazette dated February 13 that he will have significant influence in its operations.
“Our recommendation was that the council would appoint a chairman from amongst its members and the appointing authority of the GCC would be the President. But in this instant it is the Minister of Indigenous Affairs,” Cokanauto told fijilive.
Cokanauta said he is concerned that recommendations made to the interim Cabinet last Tuesday “was a result of our consultation with the ‘vanua’”.
“I want a meeting with the PM on his return from India before this matter gets out of hand,” he said.
“At the end of the day we have to take the recommendations back to the ‘vanua’. But it’s now different to what the ‘vanua’ agreed to.
“It’s going to be a battle.”
Cokanauto said Cabinet has agreed that the taskforce revisits the provincial councils at the end of August to tell them of the approved recommendation.
“We must go back there with a clear conscience,” insisted Cokanauto.
"It's not 'vakaturaga' (chiefly) to go back to them with something totally different.
Bainimarama is expected back in the country on Friday.
GCC gazette was flawed: Ratu Tu'uakitau
Tuesday, February 19, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
THE chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs Taskforce Ratu Tu'uakitau Cokanauto said the gazette regarding the new chairman was flawed.
In a press conference that just ended recently, Ratu Tu'uakitau said the taskforce team had recommended the depoliticisation of the GCC.
However he said they were surprised when the gazette came out with the interim Prime Minister Commodore Bainimarama being the new chairman and also appointing authority of the council itself.
Ratu Tu'uakitau said they would await Commodore Bainimarama's return to discuss the matter.
However a number of chiefs have come out strongly against the announcement.
Bainimarama using self agenda: Ro Teimumu
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
Update: 3:28PM THE paramount chief of Rewa Ro Teimumu Kepa said Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's taking on the position of Chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs was a self centered decision.
Reacting to Mr Bainimarama's name being gazetted as Chairman of the GCC showed that while the interim regime was portraying a macro picture the actions showed that a micro or self centered position was forming.
"At the beginning of the coup he assured the nation that no military officer would benefit fromm the coup," the former Education Minister said.
"Then he took up position of President, then he became Prime Minister, then co-chair of National Council to Build a Better Fiji and now he is the chairman of the GCC.
Ro Teimumu also asked what had the military council, dominated by Fijian colonels, advised the Prime Minister on Fijian institutions.
"I would be interested to know what they have told him particularly in the latest issue," she said.
"How can they sit back and watch the destruction of the institutions that protect the rights and interests of the Fijian people."
Bainimarama is GCC head
FREDERICA ELBOURNE - www.fijiitimes.com
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
INTERIM Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has appointed himself chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs following a gazette issued under his name last week.
Dated February 13, 2008, the gazette on the Fijian Affairs Act states that each of the 14 provinces and Rotuma will have three representatives who have demonstrated exemplary leadership at vanua level and in the community at large.
As chairman, Commodore Bainimarama will appoint members that make up 52 members of the council who have been traditional installed and recorded as such in the register of Native Landowners administered by the Native Lands Commission.
The previous council had 62 members. Former life member Sitiveni Rabuka said a noticeable difference was the appointment of council members by the minister.
However, interim Attorney- General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said the minister appoints on the recommendation of the provincial councils. Commodore Bainimarama will appoint six co-opt members who are chiefs by right, the gazette said.
Each member will take an oath of allegiance before the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo and can seek re-appointment at the end of their three year term.
Allowances will be prescribed by the chairman a matter which has not been deliberated in full as yet, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said. For members who want to resign, the date of their resignation will be effective from the date of the minister's endorsement, the gazette said. The minister as chairman may suspend, discipline or dismiss any member who brings disrepute to the council. Members are disqualified if they:
are an un-discharged bankrupt;
are serving a prison term;
have a previous conviction in the 10 years leading up to their appointment in the council, particularly if they have been released from prison after serving a term of imprisonment of more than six months, whether as an in-mate or extra-murual prisoner, or, completed community service order;
were held public office, including Senate and the House of Representatives over the past seven years preceeding their appointment to the council;
contested the general elections;
were office bearers of a political party;
have unsound mind in respect of the Mental Treatment Act;
have allegiance, obedience or adherence to a power or State outside Fiji including being a citizen or resident of another country.
SDL slams interim PM on GCC appointment
19 FEB 2008 - www.fijilive.com
Fiji’s former ruling political party, the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua, is worried that the Great Council of Chiefs is being used as a mockery by the country’s interim Government.
The SDL, which comprises a majority of indigenous Fijians, says the appointment of interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama as the GCC chairman is an insult to all the chiefs of this country.
The GCC is the highest Fijian institution in the land and comprises chiefs from all the 14 provinces in the country.
SDL party spokesman, Peceli Kinivuwai said Bainimarama disregarded the chiefly system altogether by appointing himself chair of the council.
“This is a disgrace to the Fijian protocol and also a mockery of the chiefly system.”
“No one has come in forcefully without being legally appointed and made himself chairman of the GCC and to make it worse he is not a chief to be in that position.”
Kinivuwai said Bainimarama is not taking any advice from anyone and is always doing things on his own.
“We really feel sorry for the chiefs as a lot of them are really embarrassed with the way the interim Government is running things.”
“They are being insulted and embarrassed with this act of shame by a commoner who has proclaimed the chair by force,” Kinivuwai said.
“What will become of this proud nation if our chiefs are being treated this way because it is now clear that we don’t have any respect at all for them?”
GCC review team meets - www.fijilive.com
19 FEB 2008
Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) taskforce team is meeting in Suva to discuss interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s self-appointment as chair of the council.
Taskforce member Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo confirmed this to Fijilive today.
A statement is expected from the taskforce later this afternoon.
On whether or not the appointment was legal, Nawalowalo said Bainimarama could appoint himself in his capacity as (interim) Minister for Indigenous Affairs, as provided for under the Fijian Affairs regulation.
Asked whether the team supported his appointment, Nawalowalo said “it is not a matter of whether we support him or not”.
“It is none of our business because we were mandated to carry out a task and we have done our job. What they have done was at their discretion,” Nawalowalo said.
“Maybe he has his own reasons on why he appointed himself to be the chairman of the GCC but it is better that the question be posed to him,” he said.
“This (appointment) has come as a total surprise to us because this is not one of our recommendations at all – for the Prime Minister to be chair of the GCC. It really wasn’t expected,” Nawalowalo said.
He indicated it was not appropriate for Bainimarama to be the GCC chair because he currently held a public office being interim PM and interim Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
GCC chairmanship not easy: Tui Namosi
19 FEB 2008
Namosi high chief Ratu Suliano Matanitobua is skeptical about the appointment of Fiji’s interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama as the chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs.
Speaking from the highlands of Namosi today, Ratu Suliano said the appointment will be an extra burden for Bainimarama as he already has a number of portfolios under his belt.
“The heavy workload will be immense. It’s too much for him.”
Ratu Suli said being the chairman of the GCC will not be easy as it requires good decision making and someone who knows Fijian protocol well.
“No one is appointed anyhow to the chair. To sit up there you need to have the blessing of other chiefs.”
The Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini was reluctant to comment on the issue saying that some issues regarding the GCC are still before the courts.
“Those of us who have taken the interim Government to court will not comment at this stage until we are instructed by our lawyers to do so.
Task Force Surprised after appointment
19/02/2008 -www.fijivillage.com
The Great Council of Chiefs Taskforce did not recommend to cabinet that the Interim Prime Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs should be appointed as the new Chairperson of the Great Council of Chiefs.
A taskforce member said the appointment of Bainimarama contradicts what they have recommended. He said their recommendation was that the President, Vice President and Prime Minister should not be part of the GCC since they want the institution to be apolitical.
He said they discussed the issue with the GCC Taskforce Chair Ratu Tuakitau Cokanauto yesterday and are expected to comment later today.
‘PM wants President, VP of own choice’
19 FEB 2008-www.fijilive.com
Fiji’s interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama’s self-appointment as Great Council of Chiefs chair will ultimately suit his agenda of choosing the President and vice-President of the country, says a paramount chief.
Head of the Burebasaga confederacy and Rewa high chief Ro Teimumu Kepa said Bainimarama was taking extreme measures “to ensure that potential candidates for these positions are endorsed by the members he handpicks”.
“We’ve seen him appoint himself as President, as Prime Minister and as co-chair of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji and now he’s seen it fit to head the GCC.
“His self-appointment will see him manipulating and controlling the country. It will bring about dictatorship,” she said.
“He will put there people of his own choosing so he will be able to manipulate them.”
Ro Teimumu, a former Education minister, was a member of the ousted GCC.
Bainimarama will chair a new-look Great Council of Chiefs, following a gazette issued under his name last week.
He is expected to appoint a 52-member council. Those who have contested the general elections or have held public offices including the Senate and House of Representatives are not eligible.
The GCC, the highest Fijian institution in the land, is expected to convene later this year after recommendations by the taskforce is regularised by the interim Cabinet.
Chief questions mandate
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CAKAUDROVE paramount chief Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu has questioned his subject Ratu Filimoni Ralogaivau over his mandate to speak on behalf of the province as a member of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji. Ratu Naiqama yesterday questioned Ratu Filimoni's mandate to join the council.
He said the province of Cakaudrove had indicated earlier it would join the council on the proviso that elected members of the ousted Laisenia Qarase-led Government were included. "Who are you? Who gave you the mandate? Speak for yourself and not the province," Ratu Naiqama said yesterday, in comments directed at Ratu Filimoni. He said if the Bua Provincial Council gave Ratu Filipe the mandate to join the council then the latter's allowance from council meetings should go as proceeds towards the provincial council. Ratu Filimoni is chairman of the Bua Provincial Council.
He could not be reached for comment last night.
We must be heard: Naiqama
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CHIEFS and politics go hand in hand in Fiji's economic development, says Cakaudrove paramount chief Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
Ratu Naiqama said the suggestion that future members of the Great Council of Chiefs must have no political affiliation was impractical.
"My great great grandfather, my great grandfather were part of the Legislative Council, including my father," he said.
"The late Governor-General/President Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and Ratu Mara were no exception.
"I am only one of them. There is the Roko Tui Dreketi, the Nakalevu of Nadroga. We were born into it. They can't take it away.
"That's part of our role to be included in politics. We were born to lead, as chiefs of this country."
Ratu Naiqama is a member of the GCC by virtue of his birth.
He was a Cabinet minister in the ousted SDL Government.
He also served time in jail for his involvement in the mutiny at the Sukanaivalu Barracks in Vaturekuka, Labasa in 2000.
Ratu Naiqama said the military itself was political. He said this was demonstrated through the recruitment of former military officer Manasa Vaniqi as permanent secretary for Provincial Development.
"The military is political," he said.
"(Mr) Vaniqi lost the last election and went back to the army before he recently became permanent secretary.
"So how can they say that chiefs cannot play a political role. This call for an apolitical stand holds no water."
Mr Vaniqi said he was a reservist of the RFMF but served in the civil service for the past 30 years.
"I am a commissioned officer, a major," he pointed out.
"My being part of the army and contesting the elections is like Ratu Penaia, Ratu George.
"Like any civil servant, I had to quit when I contested the last election as an independent for Cakaudrove West. I also contested the 2001 elections for SDL," he said.
Interim Defence Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau said there was nothing to stop any government from implementing changes to reflect modern times.
He said issues raised by Ratu Naiqama were about the past and it did not mean that changes could not be effected.
During Ratu Epeli's term as interim Fijian Affairs Minister, the GCC was suspended and a review of the institution ordered.
"We change as we go along to suit the situation," Ratu Epeli said.
"We can't compare what we're going through to what they went through so many years ago."
Lands chairman unaware of probe
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
THE Native Lands and Fisheries Commission is unaware of reports that an independent team auditing Fijian institutions would be moving to the commission soon to review customary fishing grounds boundaries.
NLC chairman Ratu Viliame Tagivetaua said he was yet to be briefed by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, his permanent secretary or the interim Government. He said he was not aware of reports customary fishing grounds or qoliqoli boundaries for all three confederacies Kubuna, Tovata and Burebasaga were about to be changed.
Ratu Viliame said the qoliqoli boundaries could not be changed.
Saturday, February 23, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama is confused in appointing himself as Great Council of Chiefs chairman, says Vuda chief Ratu Tevita Momoedonu.
Ratu Tevita said everyone remembered him saying chiefs should go and drink homebrew under a mango tree, "and yet he has turned around to head it". "That's the biggest irony of the century."
Ratu Tevita said Commodore Bainimarama's actions would not do justice to the people of Fiji, especially the indigenous people.
Who is he, chief asks
ROBERT MATAU
Friday, February 22, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
Tui Namosi Ratu Suliano Matanitobua during an interview with The Fiji Times at SDL headquarters yesterday+ Enlarge this image
Tui Namosi Ratu Suliano Matanitobua during an interview with The Fiji Times at SDL headquarters yesterday
THE Turaga Na Tui Namosi, Ratu Suliano Matanitobua, said yesterday if he was stopped from being a member of the Great Council of Chiefs then no other chief in his province would be a member of the august body.
He said his forefathers, from his namesake Ratu Suliano Matanitobua, who was one of the chiefs who ceded Fiji to Great Britain in 1874, had been members of the Great Council of Chiefs down the line through the ages.
"Why should I not be when my forebearers have always been members of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga," Ratu Suliano said.
"Chiefs cannot be separated from politics.
"Chiefs make decisions for the good and welfare of their people and the vanua."
Ratu Suliano said in his province there was only one Turaga-i-Taukei and that was the Tui Namosi and no one else.
"If I do not go in, where will they get the three members from?
"I also wonder if the advisers and legal drafters understand what a turaga i taukei is?
"There could be other provinces facing the same situation as Namosi and they cannot make up the three members under the so-called criteria of membership.
"It is even worse where the turaga i taukei have not been installed because of a delay or title dispute."
Ratu Suliano said the interim Government's amateurish and ill-informed interference in the matanitu-i-taukei or Fijian administration was an abuse of the indigenous Fijian customs and traditions.
"Why has he appointed himself as chairman of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga," he asked.
"Did he not say after he unlawfully removed the elected government that no military officer would benefit from the takeover?"
Ratu Suliano said the plot was clear and that "this coup is all about dismantling the Fijian chiefly system, customs, traditions and their institutions".
"Who is the leader of the army to dictate the direction and the decisions of the GCC with the army's political agenda?
"Commodore Bainimarama is not a turaga i taukei but a public officer."
Ratu Suliano asked why the commander should appoint members of the GCC.
"Let the representatives of the people, that is, the provincial council appoint their reps in the GCC because they know best."
Fiji ruled by law of the jungle says Nasautoka chief
Friday, February 22, 2008
Update: 5.20pm Former Great Council of Chief member and Nasautoka chief Ratu Semi Seruvakula has labelled interim Prime Minsiter and coup leader Voreqe Bainimarama a dictator.
Ratu Semi who is the father of former military senior officer Colonel Viliame Seruvakula said Fiji was being ruled through the law of the jungle.
Ratu Semi was reacting to the news that Bainimarama appointed himself again as the GCC chairman on top of being the prime minister as well as military commander of Fiji.
Oath limits council: Chief
February 21, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
THE new-look Great Council of Chiefs will not be able to carry out its constitutional role fully if members take an oath of allegiance to the President, says Cakaudrove paramount chief Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
Ratu Naiqama said the oath was prescribed in a gazette issued by interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama last week. He said the oath would put the GCC's powers to remove the President in doubt.
"Wouldn't that be affecting the full effect of the GCC if members were to take an oath of allegiance to the President?" Ratu Naiqama said.
Section 93 of the Constitution gives chiefs the power to remove the President from office under certain conditions.
He said absolute sovereignty in Fiji did not exist but Fiji was exceptional compared to countries like New Zealand and Australia.
"In New Zealand, the Maori's own a small majority of land. In Fiji, 90 per cent of the land is owned by Fijians."
Ratu Naiqama said council members would face a conflict of interest if faced with the question of removing the President from office because they had sworn allegiance to the man they appointed as head of the country. "GCC appoints the President. Now the council has to swear before the every man they appoint. That's the conflict of interest here." "What must be realised is that paramount chiefs and chiefs are independent of each other.
GCC order is flawed: Chief
FREDERICA ELBOURNE
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
Ratu Tuuakitau Cokanauto ponders a question during a press conference in Suva, yesterday.+ Enlarge this image
Ratu Tuuakitau Cokanauto ponders a question during a press conference in Suva, yesterday.
THE taskforce commissioned by the interim Government to review the Great Council of Chiefs has admitted that the gazette which prescribes the role of the new-look council is flawed.
Taskforce head Ratu Tu'uakitau Cokanauto yesterday said what was stated in the gazette was a "deviation" from the recommendation they made following widespread consultation with chiefs and provinces around the country.
The gazette, dated earlier this month under interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's name, stipulates that as interim Minister for Indigenous Affairs, not only does he appoint himself as chairman of the council but is also the appointing authority of the future members of the council.
This, Ratu Tu'uakitau, said failed to reflect the apolitical stance of the new-look council which the team had recommended.
"It's not vakaturaga of us to go back and present something contrary to discussions we had," he said.
Ratu Tu'uakitau said he would seek an audience with Commodore Bainimarama, who returns from Indian this week, to iron out issues raised in the gazette with the view to improving it.
He said he only dealt with his line minister Commodore Bainimarama over the matter and would not hold an audience with the Attorney-General's chambers to discuss misfits in the gazette.
He said the aim of the review was to remove political influence from the institution and admitted he did not know why or how the inclusion of the minister was introduced in the gazette.
Ratu Tu'uakitau said he had cited the draft gazette before it was published and was dumbfounded when news broke earlier this week that the gazette failed to fully reflect the team's recommendation to Commodore Bainimarama.
He said the prime minister, president and vice president were to be removed as council members in a bid to maintain the sanctity of the institution leaving the president as the appointing authority of the council.
Changes to Two Important Recommendations
Publish date/time: 20/02/2008 - www.fijivillage.com
Great Council of Chiefs Taskforce Chairman, Ratu Tuakitau Cokanauto said although the interim government has made changes to two important recommendations the taskforce submitted, it does not mean that their work is a waste of time and taxpayers money.
Cokanauto defends the work they have carried out and said the people supported the changes proposed by the taskforce. The Bau high chief said it would be not Vakaturaga if the interim government reject their recommendation and add something else.
Ratu Tuakitau Cokanauto said he will seek a meeting with the Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama on the cabinet decision which has led to the Indigenous Affairs Minister being appointed Chairman of the GCC.
He revealed that they were not consulted on changes to the GCC regulations.
The Taskforce was appointed to gather submissions from people around the country and forwarded its recommendations to the cabinet late last year.
Bainimarama selfish, says Ro Teimumu
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
REWA paramount chief, Ro Teimumu Kepa says interim Prime Minister and military commander, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's taking on the position of chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs is a self-centered decision.
Ro Teimumu was reacting to Commodore Bainimarama's name being gazetted as chairman of the GCC.
"At the beginning of the (December 2006) coup he assured the nation that no military officer would benefit from the coup," the former Education Minister said.
"Then he took up position of President, then he became Prime Minister, then co-chair of the National Council to Build a Better Fiji and now he is the chairman of the GCC."
Ro Teimumu also wondered what advice the military council dominated by Fijian colonels had given the interim Prime Minister on Fijian institutions.
"I would be interested to know what they have told him particularly in the latest issue," she said.
"How can they sit back and watch the destruction of the institutions that protect the rights and interests of the Fijian people?"
Ro Teimumu said Commodore Bainimarama's actions showed he was acting in his own interest.
"While they have been portraying the nation's larger interest what we are seeing is the emergence of the interest of one person."
Chief questions military council’s silence
20 FEB 2008
Rewa high chief and head of the Burebasaga confederacy Ro Teimumu Kepa has questioned the Fiji military council’s silence on matters of paramount interest to indigenous Fijians.
Responding to the latest development that interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has appointed himself chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs, Ro Teimumu said this should be of utmost concern to Fijians in the military council.
She said these are the very people who should be protecting the Fijian structure for this generation and the generations to come.
“After all what is the military there for? Why aren’t they talking? Are they afraid of him (Bainimarama)?” she questioned.
“Bainimarama doesn’t move from point A to B without the approval of the military council.
“Aren’t they supposed to be protecting our land, our heritage? Why are they dismantling the Fijian structure?” questioned the former Education minister in the ousted Laisenia Qarase-government.
She asked how they can just sit back when Fijian institutions and the very heart of the Fijian structure is being targeted.
Comments are being sought from the military.
The new-look GCC will have a total of 52 members, 10 less than the previous GCC.
This includes three representatives each from the 14 Fijian provinces and Rotuma, while Bainimarama will appoint six co-opt members who are chiefs that have been traditional installed and recorded in the register of Native Landowners administered by the Native Lands Commission.
Govt wanted political link to chiefs' council
20 FEB 2008 - www.fijilive.com
Fiji’s Cabinet decided there should be a direct link to the Great Council of Chiefs to reflect their views in matters of national affairs, says acting interim Prime Minister Ratu Epeli Nailatikau.
Responding to criticism against the appointment of interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama as GCC chair, Ratu Epeli said Cabinet decided that the council be chaired by none other than a full Cabinet minister and the minister responsible for Indigenous Affairs.
“Cabinet deviated from the recommendation of the Great Council of Chiefs task force because it felt the Minister for Fijian Affairs should not only continue to be a member but that he should also be Chairman of the GCC,” he told journalists at a press conference.
“Therefore, Commodore Bainimarama as Prime Minister and as Minister for Indigenous Affairs in this case is the Chairperson of the GCC under the regulations.
“It must be clarified in this case that PM Commodore Bainimarama did not directly appoint himself as GCC chairperson,” Ratu Epeli said.
GCC taskforce secretary Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo earlier said the announcement took them by surprise.
“We had deliberately left the President, vice president, Prime Minister and the Fijian affairs minister from the GCC set-up to avoid any political influence,” Ratu Josateki said.
New-look GCC illegal: Youth group
20 FEB 2008
The Young Peoples Concerned Network is unhappy with moves by Fiji’s interim regime to hand pick chiefs who sit on the Great Council of Chiefs.
Spokesperson Peter Waqavonovono said this move goes against the very principle of involving Fiji's chiefly leaders in politics and the decision making process in the country.
And moves by the interim Prime Minister to sit as GCC chairman are disappointing and is illegal, he said.
“We are under the impression that this GCC Regulation Decree is a decree establishing a Minister of Fijian Affairs Council and not a sovereign and independent council of chiefs.”
“The new look GCC and its selection criteria is a 'Slap in Face' to indigenous youths who look up to chiefs for direction and wisdom.
”We do agree however with the increased role the GCC has been given according to section 8 of the GCC Regulation Decree 2008, which describes and expands the role of the GCC to articulate legislations and mediate over national issues. This however is undermined by restrictions placed on membership and a dictatorial role exercised by the Minister of Fijian Affairs,” Waqavonovono said.
He added that provinces and chiefly leaders should have the right to pick their representatives to the GCC regardless of past convictions, economic failures, allegations, political affiliations and ideology.
GCC team taken for a ride: Nawalowalo - www.fijilive.com
20 FEB 2008
Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs taskforce team believes that interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama is not getting proper advice from the interim Government.
The team was commissioned by the interim Government to review the operations and membership of the council.
Taskforce secretary, Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo said Bainimarama was ‘misinformed’ to take up the chairmanship of the council.
“We believe that the people who are behind him are not giving him proper advice and that’s the reason he has taken that position.”
“This has somewhat come as a shock for us and we believe that we were somehow used to bring the GCC report into context.”
“It was clear in the report that whoever shall join the council should be apolitical, but this agreement has been broken and he (Bainimarama) is setting a bad example for other chiefs.”
“The report by the taskforce we believe is the only road to reconciliation and the road to democracy but this was not honored by the Prime Minister.”
Nawalowalo said the taskforce was never given a chance to discuss this matter and were surprised that the position was filled without consulting them.
He said this could be the biggest downfall of the interim Government.
“I can tell you that these people are playing with fire because the GCC council should not be taken as a ride by anyone except for chiefs who have been approved to be in there.”
He said whatever is contained in the GCC review report is what the chiefs of Fiji have decided upon and this has been endorsed by the President himself.
“The President had given his approval but when it came back to Cabinet they did not agree so they made a few changes before recommending the Prime Minister as chairman.”
“It’s pointless to say that we have done a good job to get the report in place just because somebody did not adhere to the rules and regulations.”
GCC team seeks answers from Fiji PM
19 FEB 2008-www.fijilive.com
The chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs review team, Ratu Tu’uakitau Cokanauto, wants interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama to explain why he appointed himself chairman of the GCC.
Cokanauto said his taskforce had recommended a new look-GCC that will be apolitical. However, Bainimarama, the interim Indigenous Affairs Minister, has indicated in a gazette dated February 13 that he will have significant influence in its operations.
“Our recommendation was that the council would appoint a chairman from amongst its members and the appointing authority of the GCC would be the President. But in this instant it is the Minister of Indigenous Affairs,” Cokanauto told fijilive.
Cokanauta said he is concerned that recommendations made to the interim Cabinet last Tuesday “was a result of our consultation with the ‘vanua’”.
“I want a meeting with the PM on his return from India before this matter gets out of hand,” he said.
“At the end of the day we have to take the recommendations back to the ‘vanua’. But it’s now different to what the ‘vanua’ agreed to.
“It’s going to be a battle.”
Cokanauto said Cabinet has agreed that the taskforce revisits the provincial councils at the end of August to tell them of the approved recommendation.
“We must go back there with a clear conscience,” insisted Cokanauto.
"It's not 'vakaturaga' (chiefly) to go back to them with something totally different.
Bainimarama is expected back in the country on Friday.
GCC gazette was flawed: Ratu Tu'uakitau
Tuesday, February 19, 2008-www.fijitimes.com
THE chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs Taskforce Ratu Tu'uakitau Cokanauto said the gazette regarding the new chairman was flawed.
In a press conference that just ended recently, Ratu Tu'uakitau said the taskforce team had recommended the depoliticisation of the GCC.
However he said they were surprised when the gazette came out with the interim Prime Minister Commodore Bainimarama being the new chairman and also appointing authority of the council itself.
Ratu Tu'uakitau said they would await Commodore Bainimarama's return to discuss the matter.
However a number of chiefs have come out strongly against the announcement.
Bainimarama using self agenda: Ro Teimumu
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
Update: 3:28PM THE paramount chief of Rewa Ro Teimumu Kepa said Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's taking on the position of Chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs was a self centered decision.
Reacting to Mr Bainimarama's name being gazetted as Chairman of the GCC showed that while the interim regime was portraying a macro picture the actions showed that a micro or self centered position was forming.
"At the beginning of the coup he assured the nation that no military officer would benefit fromm the coup," the former Education Minister said.
"Then he took up position of President, then he became Prime Minister, then co-chair of National Council to Build a Better Fiji and now he is the chairman of the GCC.
Ro Teimumu also asked what had the military council, dominated by Fijian colonels, advised the Prime Minister on Fijian institutions.
"I would be interested to know what they have told him particularly in the latest issue," she said.
"How can they sit back and watch the destruction of the institutions that protect the rights and interests of the Fijian people."
Bainimarama is GCC head
FREDERICA ELBOURNE - www.fijiitimes.com
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
INTERIM Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has appointed himself chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs following a gazette issued under his name last week.
Dated February 13, 2008, the gazette on the Fijian Affairs Act states that each of the 14 provinces and Rotuma will have three representatives who have demonstrated exemplary leadership at vanua level and in the community at large.
As chairman, Commodore Bainimarama will appoint members that make up 52 members of the council who have been traditional installed and recorded as such in the register of Native Landowners administered by the Native Lands Commission.
The previous council had 62 members. Former life member Sitiveni Rabuka said a noticeable difference was the appointment of council members by the minister.
However, interim Attorney- General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said the minister appoints on the recommendation of the provincial councils. Commodore Bainimarama will appoint six co-opt members who are chiefs by right, the gazette said.
Each member will take an oath of allegiance before the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo and can seek re-appointment at the end of their three year term.
Allowances will be prescribed by the chairman a matter which has not been deliberated in full as yet, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said. For members who want to resign, the date of their resignation will be effective from the date of the minister's endorsement, the gazette said. The minister as chairman may suspend, discipline or dismiss any member who brings disrepute to the council. Members are disqualified if they:
are an un-discharged bankrupt;
are serving a prison term;
have a previous conviction in the 10 years leading up to their appointment in the council, particularly if they have been released from prison after serving a term of imprisonment of more than six months, whether as an in-mate or extra-murual prisoner, or, completed community service order;
were held public office, including Senate and the House of Representatives over the past seven years preceeding their appointment to the council;
contested the general elections;
were office bearers of a political party;
have unsound mind in respect of the Mental Treatment Act;
have allegiance, obedience or adherence to a power or State outside Fiji including being a citizen or resident of another country.
SDL slams interim PM on GCC appointment
19 FEB 2008 - www.fijilive.com
Fiji’s former ruling political party, the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua, is worried that the Great Council of Chiefs is being used as a mockery by the country’s interim Government.
The SDL, which comprises a majority of indigenous Fijians, says the appointment of interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama as the GCC chairman is an insult to all the chiefs of this country.
The GCC is the highest Fijian institution in the land and comprises chiefs from all the 14 provinces in the country.
SDL party spokesman, Peceli Kinivuwai said Bainimarama disregarded the chiefly system altogether by appointing himself chair of the council.
“This is a disgrace to the Fijian protocol and also a mockery of the chiefly system.”
“No one has come in forcefully without being legally appointed and made himself chairman of the GCC and to make it worse he is not a chief to be in that position.”
Kinivuwai said Bainimarama is not taking any advice from anyone and is always doing things on his own.
“We really feel sorry for the chiefs as a lot of them are really embarrassed with the way the interim Government is running things.”
“They are being insulted and embarrassed with this act of shame by a commoner who has proclaimed the chair by force,” Kinivuwai said.
“What will become of this proud nation if our chiefs are being treated this way because it is now clear that we don’t have any respect at all for them?”
GCC review team meets - www.fijilive.com
19 FEB 2008
Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) taskforce team is meeting in Suva to discuss interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s self-appointment as chair of the council.
Taskforce member Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo confirmed this to Fijilive today.
A statement is expected from the taskforce later this afternoon.
On whether or not the appointment was legal, Nawalowalo said Bainimarama could appoint himself in his capacity as (interim) Minister for Indigenous Affairs, as provided for under the Fijian Affairs regulation.
Asked whether the team supported his appointment, Nawalowalo said “it is not a matter of whether we support him or not”.
“It is none of our business because we were mandated to carry out a task and we have done our job. What they have done was at their discretion,” Nawalowalo said.
“Maybe he has his own reasons on why he appointed himself to be the chairman of the GCC but it is better that the question be posed to him,” he said.
“This (appointment) has come as a total surprise to us because this is not one of our recommendations at all – for the Prime Minister to be chair of the GCC. It really wasn’t expected,” Nawalowalo said.
He indicated it was not appropriate for Bainimarama to be the GCC chair because he currently held a public office being interim PM and interim Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
GCC chairmanship not easy: Tui Namosi
19 FEB 2008
Namosi high chief Ratu Suliano Matanitobua is skeptical about the appointment of Fiji’s interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama as the chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs.
Speaking from the highlands of Namosi today, Ratu Suliano said the appointment will be an extra burden for Bainimarama as he already has a number of portfolios under his belt.
“The heavy workload will be immense. It’s too much for him.”
Ratu Suli said being the chairman of the GCC will not be easy as it requires good decision making and someone who knows Fijian protocol well.
“No one is appointed anyhow to the chair. To sit up there you need to have the blessing of other chiefs.”
The Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini was reluctant to comment on the issue saying that some issues regarding the GCC are still before the courts.
“Those of us who have taken the interim Government to court will not comment at this stage until we are instructed by our lawyers to do so.
Task Force Surprised after appointment
19/02/2008 -www.fijivillage.com
The Great Council of Chiefs Taskforce did not recommend to cabinet that the Interim Prime Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs should be appointed as the new Chairperson of the Great Council of Chiefs.
A taskforce member said the appointment of Bainimarama contradicts what they have recommended. He said their recommendation was that the President, Vice President and Prime Minister should not be part of the GCC since they want the institution to be apolitical.
He said they discussed the issue with the GCC Taskforce Chair Ratu Tuakitau Cokanauto yesterday and are expected to comment later today.
‘PM wants President, VP of own choice’
19 FEB 2008-www.fijilive.com
Fiji’s interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama’s self-appointment as Great Council of Chiefs chair will ultimately suit his agenda of choosing the President and vice-President of the country, says a paramount chief.
Head of the Burebasaga confederacy and Rewa high chief Ro Teimumu Kepa said Bainimarama was taking extreme measures “to ensure that potential candidates for these positions are endorsed by the members he handpicks”.
“We’ve seen him appoint himself as President, as Prime Minister and as co-chair of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji and now he’s seen it fit to head the GCC.
“His self-appointment will see him manipulating and controlling the country. It will bring about dictatorship,” she said.
“He will put there people of his own choosing so he will be able to manipulate them.”
Ro Teimumu, a former Education minister, was a member of the ousted GCC.
Bainimarama will chair a new-look Great Council of Chiefs, following a gazette issued under his name last week.
He is expected to appoint a 52-member council. Those who have contested the general elections or have held public offices including the Senate and House of Representatives are not eligible.
The GCC, the highest Fijian institution in the land, is expected to convene later this year after recommendations by the taskforce is regularised by the interim Cabinet.
Chief questions mandate
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CAKAUDROVE paramount chief Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu has questioned his subject Ratu Filimoni Ralogaivau over his mandate to speak on behalf of the province as a member of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji. Ratu Naiqama yesterday questioned Ratu Filimoni's mandate to join the council.
He said the province of Cakaudrove had indicated earlier it would join the council on the proviso that elected members of the ousted Laisenia Qarase-led Government were included. "Who are you? Who gave you the mandate? Speak for yourself and not the province," Ratu Naiqama said yesterday, in comments directed at Ratu Filimoni. He said if the Bua Provincial Council gave Ratu Filipe the mandate to join the council then the latter's allowance from council meetings should go as proceeds towards the provincial council. Ratu Filimoni is chairman of the Bua Provincial Council.
He could not be reached for comment last night.
We must be heard: Naiqama
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CHIEFS and politics go hand in hand in Fiji's economic development, says Cakaudrove paramount chief Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
Ratu Naiqama said the suggestion that future members of the Great Council of Chiefs must have no political affiliation was impractical.
"My great great grandfather, my great grandfather were part of the Legislative Council, including my father," he said.
"The late Governor-General/President Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and Ratu Mara were no exception.
"I am only one of them. There is the Roko Tui Dreketi, the Nakalevu of Nadroga. We were born into it. They can't take it away.
"That's part of our role to be included in politics. We were born to lead, as chiefs of this country."
Ratu Naiqama is a member of the GCC by virtue of his birth.
He was a Cabinet minister in the ousted SDL Government.
He also served time in jail for his involvement in the mutiny at the Sukanaivalu Barracks in Vaturekuka, Labasa in 2000.
Ratu Naiqama said the military itself was political. He said this was demonstrated through the recruitment of former military officer Manasa Vaniqi as permanent secretary for Provincial Development.
"The military is political," he said.
"(Mr) Vaniqi lost the last election and went back to the army before he recently became permanent secretary.
"So how can they say that chiefs cannot play a political role. This call for an apolitical stand holds no water."
Mr Vaniqi said he was a reservist of the RFMF but served in the civil service for the past 30 years.
"I am a commissioned officer, a major," he pointed out.
"My being part of the army and contesting the elections is like Ratu Penaia, Ratu George.
"Like any civil servant, I had to quit when I contested the last election as an independent for Cakaudrove West. I also contested the 2001 elections for SDL," he said.
Interim Defence Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau said there was nothing to stop any government from implementing changes to reflect modern times.
He said issues raised by Ratu Naiqama were about the past and it did not mean that changes could not be effected.
During Ratu Epeli's term as interim Fijian Affairs Minister, the GCC was suspended and a review of the institution ordered.
"We change as we go along to suit the situation," Ratu Epeli said.
"We can't compare what we're going through to what they went through so many years ago."
Lands chairman unaware of probe
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
THE Native Lands and Fisheries Commission is unaware of reports that an independent team auditing Fijian institutions would be moving to the commission soon to review customary fishing grounds boundaries.
NLC chairman Ratu Viliame Tagivetaua said he was yet to be briefed by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, his permanent secretary or the interim Government. He said he was not aware of reports customary fishing grounds or qoliqoli boundaries for all three confederacies Kubuna, Tovata and Burebasaga were about to be changed.
Ratu Viliame said the qoliqoli boundaries could not be changed.
Let land go back to the future
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
Tenure is only one factor in productivity, the writer says+ Enlarge this image
Tenure is only one factor in productivity, the writer says
There has been much debate about proposed land reforms by Krishnamurti and championed by interim Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry. While some landowners support the idea of dereservation of native land, others are against the idea. Paula Raqeukai, president of the Pacific Islands Landowners and Consultancy Group talks on the issue
IN the book written by a Professor Ron Crocombe titled Prospects for Prosperity of Land Reform in the Pacific Is-lands", the term "land reform" is used to describe policies or agendas designed to change land tenure and related aspects of the economy or polity.
This is in order to achieve higher productivity, more equitable distribution of or control over land, greater administrative efficiency, less litigation, or the establishment of relationships considered more just, stable or appropriate.
Any reform can be evaluated only in the context of the values and goals of people involved.
Thus, the recent land proposal designed to dereserve native land in Fiji in the name of guaranteeing financial returns to this most treasured tangible asset owned by natives, mentioned by Mahendra Chaudhry (S/T Feb 17) is no exception, especially during this time of absent parliament democracy.
This is when the military-backed interim regime can go ahead and make changes as it wishes. This has been proved in the latest changes to the Great Council of Chiefs.
I do not want to engage in a political debate.
However, as a professional land management consultant, I wish to remind stakeholders the consequences and advantages of having such a land reform during this political and economical uncertainty in Fiji.
Effects of land reform
The Native Land Trust Board, the legal trustee of all native land in Fiji, and the interim regime must be reminded that land reforms throughout the world have often failed to achieve their objectives.
The same has been true in the Pacific region, where it has been assumed that if land rights were defined, registered and made available to individuals, land disputes would be minimised, problems of multiplicity of ownership and fragmentation of parcels and use would be overcome and a pattern of independent peasant farming by individual families would emerge.
Most important, it has been assumed that this will result in increased per capita productivity.
In fact, these results have eventuated in countries such as Hawaii and partly in Fiji while in other like Tahiti, the Cook Islands, Kiribati and Tonga this has not eventuated.
The Hawaiian experience
This was particularly true in the case of land reforms in Hawaii during the 19th Century.
A comparison of results in Hawaii, Tahiti, the Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga, and the Gilbert Islands (today's Kiribati) shows that only in Hawaii per capita rural productivity increased and there land was acquired in vast area, not by families, but by powerful corporations who farmed it as scientific commercial enterprises.
The same could take place in the native reserved land of cane-belt areas in Fiji if this proposed land reform is allowed whereby vast tracts of land would be leased to powerful corporations.
We must be reminded that the destruction of the native Hawaiian traditional system in the name of productivity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in a period of disruption and decline during which the native Hawaiian population nearly disappeared, and some natural resources were permanently despoiled.
The native customary way of life was replaced by a plantation system maintained by an economic and political oligarchy.
Thus, ownership of vast areas of the land in the Hawaiian group of islands was converted into freehold land, plus leaseholds in the public domain became the hallmark of the new regime during the late 19th Century.
Of Hawaii's land area (4,111,500 acres), the State, together with USA Government, owns approximately 42 per cent, 53 per cent is privately (freehold) owned while the natives of Hawaiian merely own 5 per cent of land area.
This was a direct result of land reforms introduced in the name of productivity.
I believe the majority of native Fijian landowners, including my Fiji-Indian brothers, would not like to see the Hawaiian experience happen here.
Fiji land situation
Native Fijians own approximately 83 per cent of all land in Fiji, while the Government owns 9 per cent, with the remaining 8 per cent under private ownership or freehold tenure. Mr Chaudhry thinks these tangible assets owned by the natives are worth tens of millions of dollars but in reality these are worth more. This is merely because of its associated intangible value, or simply in the Fijian context land is part of their soul, heart, culture and tradition', which cannot be justly measured in monetary value.
Therefore, any land reforms in the name of productivity must be carefully studied and analysed, with all stakeholders taking part and reaching a consensus.
We deserve a better approach concerning this proposed land reform and will not like to see this as another unresolved ALTA legislation.
The unresolved ALTA legislation basically involved the unwillingness of the tenant's parliamentary representatives to take part with the landowner's parliament reps mainly because of political differences, self-centred agendas and power-hungry politicians who have their priorities wrongly placed to undermine the necessary ALTA reforms.
Any hidden agenda behind the proposed land reform by Krishnamurti and his team must be discussed openly.
Those who study history, know that history repeats itself the late Sir Winston Churchill once observed,
"The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see" (What's behind the new world order, 1991, p1.).
Along the same lines, the Prophet Jeremiah observed: " stand at the crossroads and look. Ask for the ancient paths, and where the best road is, walk on it and you will live in peace."
Mr Chaudhry must be reminded that land tenure is only one factor in land productivity or sugar-cane productivity for that matter and, even if all tenure problems were solved, output may not be greatly increased without improvements in farming technology, well-trained and skilled farmers, credit facilities and marketing services.
Beyond these are very important cultural factors that tend to change fairly slowly, especially among Fijians.
Furthermore, Mr Chaudhry and his proposed land reform advisers, for the sake of accountability, should first obtain actual data of the best arable landownership in Fiji before even thinking to suggest such a proposed land policy.
Our research shows 70 per cent of all freehold land formerly held by Europeans in Fiji is now owned by our Fiji-Indian brothers, which is equivalent to approximately 1024 square kilometres or 5.60 per cent of land area in Fiji (land area is 18,284 square-kms.
Although 83 per cent of land by area in Fiji is Fijian-owned, most of this is of very poor quality, isolated and with minimal potential. Interestingly, almost 90 per cent of leased government land is held by our Fiji-Indian brothers.
Combining the two land categories above simply means that our Fiji-Indian brothers possess 14 per cent of overall land tracts in Fiji, almost 80 per cent the best arable land.
Thus the imbalance of the Fijian wealth or, in Mr Chaudhry's context, " the Fijian people live a life of indignity and poverty" cannot be attributed alone to the non-good use of their 83 per cent land, when the reality is that only 20 per cent of Fiji's best agricultural land is retained and realised to maximise optimum financial returns to them.
To all those behind the proposed land reform, please do not take advantage of the political situation to push this under the pretext of productivity to save the ailing sugar industry.
Tenure is only one factor in productivity. What about other important factors that will enhance productivity, especially among tenants and the native Fijian landowners like farming technology, credit facilities, highly trained and skilled farmers and labourers, better infrastructure, utilities and marketing services?
The Pacific Islands Landowners and Consultancy Group was set-up in 2005 by some of the region's land management graduates for the purpose of offering advice and awareness programs to the Pacific Islands land and resource owners on how best to use their tangible assets to realise maximum returns and sustainability
Tenure is only one factor in productivity, the writer says+ Enlarge this image
Tenure is only one factor in productivity, the writer says
There has been much debate about proposed land reforms by Krishnamurti and championed by interim Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry. While some landowners support the idea of dereservation of native land, others are against the idea. Paula Raqeukai, president of the Pacific Islands Landowners and Consultancy Group talks on the issue
IN the book written by a Professor Ron Crocombe titled Prospects for Prosperity of Land Reform in the Pacific Is-lands", the term "land reform" is used to describe policies or agendas designed to change land tenure and related aspects of the economy or polity.
This is in order to achieve higher productivity, more equitable distribution of or control over land, greater administrative efficiency, less litigation, or the establishment of relationships considered more just, stable or appropriate.
Any reform can be evaluated only in the context of the values and goals of people involved.
Thus, the recent land proposal designed to dereserve native land in Fiji in the name of guaranteeing financial returns to this most treasured tangible asset owned by natives, mentioned by Mahendra Chaudhry (S/T Feb 17) is no exception, especially during this time of absent parliament democracy.
This is when the military-backed interim regime can go ahead and make changes as it wishes. This has been proved in the latest changes to the Great Council of Chiefs.
I do not want to engage in a political debate.
However, as a professional land management consultant, I wish to remind stakeholders the consequences and advantages of having such a land reform during this political and economical uncertainty in Fiji.
Effects of land reform
The Native Land Trust Board, the legal trustee of all native land in Fiji, and the interim regime must be reminded that land reforms throughout the world have often failed to achieve their objectives.
The same has been true in the Pacific region, where it has been assumed that if land rights were defined, registered and made available to individuals, land disputes would be minimised, problems of multiplicity of ownership and fragmentation of parcels and use would be overcome and a pattern of independent peasant farming by individual families would emerge.
Most important, it has been assumed that this will result in increased per capita productivity.
In fact, these results have eventuated in countries such as Hawaii and partly in Fiji while in other like Tahiti, the Cook Islands, Kiribati and Tonga this has not eventuated.
The Hawaiian experience
This was particularly true in the case of land reforms in Hawaii during the 19th Century.
A comparison of results in Hawaii, Tahiti, the Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga, and the Gilbert Islands (today's Kiribati) shows that only in Hawaii per capita rural productivity increased and there land was acquired in vast area, not by families, but by powerful corporations who farmed it as scientific commercial enterprises.
The same could take place in the native reserved land of cane-belt areas in Fiji if this proposed land reform is allowed whereby vast tracts of land would be leased to powerful corporations.
We must be reminded that the destruction of the native Hawaiian traditional system in the name of productivity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in a period of disruption and decline during which the native Hawaiian population nearly disappeared, and some natural resources were permanently despoiled.
The native customary way of life was replaced by a plantation system maintained by an economic and political oligarchy.
Thus, ownership of vast areas of the land in the Hawaiian group of islands was converted into freehold land, plus leaseholds in the public domain became the hallmark of the new regime during the late 19th Century.
Of Hawaii's land area (4,111,500 acres), the State, together with USA Government, owns approximately 42 per cent, 53 per cent is privately (freehold) owned while the natives of Hawaiian merely own 5 per cent of land area.
This was a direct result of land reforms introduced in the name of productivity.
I believe the majority of native Fijian landowners, including my Fiji-Indian brothers, would not like to see the Hawaiian experience happen here.
Fiji land situation
Native Fijians own approximately 83 per cent of all land in Fiji, while the Government owns 9 per cent, with the remaining 8 per cent under private ownership or freehold tenure. Mr Chaudhry thinks these tangible assets owned by the natives are worth tens of millions of dollars but in reality these are worth more. This is merely because of its associated intangible value, or simply in the Fijian context land is part of their soul, heart, culture and tradition', which cannot be justly measured in monetary value.
Therefore, any land reforms in the name of productivity must be carefully studied and analysed, with all stakeholders taking part and reaching a consensus.
We deserve a better approach concerning this proposed land reform and will not like to see this as another unresolved ALTA legislation.
The unresolved ALTA legislation basically involved the unwillingness of the tenant's parliamentary representatives to take part with the landowner's parliament reps mainly because of political differences, self-centred agendas and power-hungry politicians who have their priorities wrongly placed to undermine the necessary ALTA reforms.
Any hidden agenda behind the proposed land reform by Krishnamurti and his team must be discussed openly.
Those who study history, know that history repeats itself the late Sir Winston Churchill once observed,
"The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see" (What's behind the new world order, 1991, p1.).
Along the same lines, the Prophet Jeremiah observed: " stand at the crossroads and look. Ask for the ancient paths, and where the best road is, walk on it and you will live in peace."
Mr Chaudhry must be reminded that land tenure is only one factor in land productivity or sugar-cane productivity for that matter and, even if all tenure problems were solved, output may not be greatly increased without improvements in farming technology, well-trained and skilled farmers, credit facilities and marketing services.
Beyond these are very important cultural factors that tend to change fairly slowly, especially among Fijians.
Furthermore, Mr Chaudhry and his proposed land reform advisers, for the sake of accountability, should first obtain actual data of the best arable landownership in Fiji before even thinking to suggest such a proposed land policy.
Our research shows 70 per cent of all freehold land formerly held by Europeans in Fiji is now owned by our Fiji-Indian brothers, which is equivalent to approximately 1024 square kilometres or 5.60 per cent of land area in Fiji (land area is 18,284 square-kms.
Although 83 per cent of land by area in Fiji is Fijian-owned, most of this is of very poor quality, isolated and with minimal potential. Interestingly, almost 90 per cent of leased government land is held by our Fiji-Indian brothers.
Combining the two land categories above simply means that our Fiji-Indian brothers possess 14 per cent of overall land tracts in Fiji, almost 80 per cent the best arable land.
Thus the imbalance of the Fijian wealth or, in Mr Chaudhry's context, " the Fijian people live a life of indignity and poverty" cannot be attributed alone to the non-good use of their 83 per cent land, when the reality is that only 20 per cent of Fiji's best agricultural land is retained and realised to maximise optimum financial returns to them.
To all those behind the proposed land reform, please do not take advantage of the political situation to push this under the pretext of productivity to save the ailing sugar industry.
Tenure is only one factor in productivity. What about other important factors that will enhance productivity, especially among tenants and the native Fijian landowners like farming technology, credit facilities, highly trained and skilled farmers and labourers, better infrastructure, utilities and marketing services?
The Pacific Islands Landowners and Consultancy Group was set-up in 2005 by some of the region's land management graduates for the purpose of offering advice and awareness programs to the Pacific Islands land and resource owners on how best to use their tangible assets to realise maximum returns and sustainability
Alternative GCC an Option
Tribal leaders to consider alternative GCC
19 FEB 2008-www.fijilive.com
Fiji’s 222 tribal leaders have been called to a meeting to consider setting up an alternative body to the Great Council of Chiefs.
The meeting is being organized by the Viti Land and Resource owners Association, which also called a similar ‘Bose ni Turaga ni Vanua’ in Suva on February 28, 2006.
VLRA spokesman Ratu Osea Gavidi said the Bose ni Turaga could better address the concerns of indigenous Fijians because the GCC is influenced by the Government.
His comments follows the revelation in a Government gazette dated February 13, 2008 that interim Prime Minister and military commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has appointed himself chairman of the soon-to-be convened GCC.
Bainimarama, as interim Indigenous Affairs Minister, has also set out rules that will disqualify some of Fiji’s chiefs from joining the GCC.
Ratu Osea said the GCC will always play to the tune of Government because it is sustained by Government funds.
Traditional heralds have been sent to the leaders of the 222 tribes to inform them of the planned meeting in two months.
Ratu Osea said the key issues to be discussed are land use and fishing rights.
Naitasiri high chief, former Senator Ratu Inoke Takiveikata is the president of the VLRA.
19 FEB 2008-www.fijilive.com
Fiji’s 222 tribal leaders have been called to a meeting to consider setting up an alternative body to the Great Council of Chiefs.
The meeting is being organized by the Viti Land and Resource owners Association, which also called a similar ‘Bose ni Turaga ni Vanua’ in Suva on February 28, 2006.
VLRA spokesman Ratu Osea Gavidi said the Bose ni Turaga could better address the concerns of indigenous Fijians because the GCC is influenced by the Government.
His comments follows the revelation in a Government gazette dated February 13, 2008 that interim Prime Minister and military commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has appointed himself chairman of the soon-to-be convened GCC.
Bainimarama, as interim Indigenous Affairs Minister, has also set out rules that will disqualify some of Fiji’s chiefs from joining the GCC.
Ratu Osea said the GCC will always play to the tune of Government because it is sustained by Government funds.
Traditional heralds have been sent to the leaders of the 222 tribes to inform them of the planned meeting in two months.
Ratu Osea said the key issues to be discussed are land use and fishing rights.
Naitasiri high chief, former Senator Ratu Inoke Takiveikata is the president of the VLRA.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Native Lands No Trust Board
Letter by Tui Savu on Current State of NLTB
The statement of Acting General Manager of NLTB Meli Beniuci that all native lands are safe and protected pursuant to section 4(1) of the Native Lands Trust Act, because all native lands are vested in the Board is feeble and unconvincing.
It is feeble and unconvincing because the interim Government has time and again showed its utter disregard for the rule of law in Fiji, so what exempts Board from being steamrolled into submission like all the others?
The current Board’s composition is illegal and unlawful since they were appointed after the coup by the interim Minister for Fijian Affairs.
Furthermore, the Board employs Meli Beniuci together with all NLTB staff and any disagreement with the Board would mean immediate termination.
We now hear of a recommendation by an Advisor from India to de-reserve all native reserve lands, which the Board is going to deliberate upon.
These are dangerous times for Mataqali members registered in the VKB.
They need to wake up and seriously ponder the potential legal, social, cultural and disastrous consequences this recommendation could have on their mataqalis and the taukei people’s as a whole.
There must be full and proper consultation with the concerned Mataqali’s and where consent has been obtained, equitable market returns on investments with respect to land rentals and long-term training for Mataqali members to enable them to manage their own lands in the future.
The NLTB unfortunately can no longer be relied upon to protect Mataqali interests because it has failed in its fiduciary duties in the past.
Furthermore, given the current political climate, the Board has not been able to convince the Mataqali’s or alleviate their genuine concerns, it has the moral fortitude to stand up to the interim government and uphold its fiduciary duties to protecting their interests.
Another major concern is the composition of the High Court and Court of Appeal by the interim Government with coup sympathizers, so any potential relief to be sought by a Mataqali would be an exercise in futility.
The only option for the Mataqali’s would be to unite & lobby, NGO’s and International bodies to their cause.
Ironically, it seems the late Ratu Mo Tuisawau had the last laugh, when he interpreted NLTB as the acronym for ‘Native Lands No Trust Board.’
Tui Savu.
Townsville. QLD.
HANDS OFF
14-Feb-2008 - www.fijidailypost.com
Indigenous body rebukes idea of de-reserving native land
A PLAN to de-reserve native land has been viewed by an indigenous rights group as something akin to sacrilege.
The Fiji Indigenous Ownership and Rights Association (FIORA) has rebuked any suggestions of de-reserving native land.
“The landowning units (mataqali) should be properly informed and consulted, as in accordance with the law, before their land under reserve are touched,” said FIORA spokesman Francis Waqa Sokonibogi.
“The first thing to be done in this case is to get the consent of more than 50 percent of the landowning unit before there are moves to carry this out.”
He added that it seems that interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, and ‘his mouthpiece’ interim Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, are doing what any typical ‘landless’ person will do and meddle with land.
He made these comments after following revelations that a report prepared by an Indian consultancy agency suggests that native land be de-reserved to assist in the recovery of the ailing sugar industry.
Sokonibogi said native land was never meant to be used for national interest.
He added that even if there were plans to de-reserve native land then protocol dictates it should not be made public.
“Once it is de-reserved this opens the land up for commercial use and members of the mataqali and their families may be left with nothing,” said Sokonibogi.
“They have spat on the Fijian people’s protocol. They should let Fijians do things their own way.”
But Native Land Trust Board maintains that native land is safe and protected under the law.
NLTB acting general manager Meli Benuci said that the law is quite clear on control and protection of all native land.
“Under Section 4(1) of the Native Lands Trust Act NLTA, the control of all native land shall be vested in the board and all such land shall be administered by the board for the benefit of the Fijian owners, he said.
He added that under Section 15(1) of the NLTA, it is lawful for the board to set aside any portion of native land as a native reserve.
But he stressed that no matter what, the nod will have to come solely from the landowners.
“In other words, de-reservation of native land cannot be done without the express approval of a majority of landowners concerned.
“This guideline is enshrined in the Native Lands Trust Act itself, and therefore if the Interim Government is now wishing to de-reserve all native land we would need the express approval of a majority of all native landowners in question,” said Benuci.
“Notwithstanding the above, such an exercise is not one which the NLTB should even consider given our fiduciary duty to landowners to ensure that they always have sufficient land for their maintenance, subsistence and survival.
“Any action to de-reserve all native land is in itself contrary to this duty, as landowners will no longer have any native reserve to use as they please.”
Benuci added that it was more than mere economics, as land represents life and sustenance, identity and culture.
“Mindful of its role in providing maximum benefits for the landowner, the NLTB also has other important roles to play in providing for lands for national development and giving access to land for others.
“The system is provided for flexibility in that it can de-reserve customary lands for the need of others.
“This however, must recognise the special connection the Fijian has to the land.
It is the one tangible asset possessed by Fijians in an insecure, changing world in which material progress seemed to pass them by,” he concluded.
The statement of Acting General Manager of NLTB Meli Beniuci that all native lands are safe and protected pursuant to section 4(1) of the Native Lands Trust Act, because all native lands are vested in the Board is feeble and unconvincing.
It is feeble and unconvincing because the interim Government has time and again showed its utter disregard for the rule of law in Fiji, so what exempts Board from being steamrolled into submission like all the others?
The current Board’s composition is illegal and unlawful since they were appointed after the coup by the interim Minister for Fijian Affairs.
Furthermore, the Board employs Meli Beniuci together with all NLTB staff and any disagreement with the Board would mean immediate termination.
We now hear of a recommendation by an Advisor from India to de-reserve all native reserve lands, which the Board is going to deliberate upon.
These are dangerous times for Mataqali members registered in the VKB.
They need to wake up and seriously ponder the potential legal, social, cultural and disastrous consequences this recommendation could have on their mataqalis and the taukei people’s as a whole.
There must be full and proper consultation with the concerned Mataqali’s and where consent has been obtained, equitable market returns on investments with respect to land rentals and long-term training for Mataqali members to enable them to manage their own lands in the future.
The NLTB unfortunately can no longer be relied upon to protect Mataqali interests because it has failed in its fiduciary duties in the past.
Furthermore, given the current political climate, the Board has not been able to convince the Mataqali’s or alleviate their genuine concerns, it has the moral fortitude to stand up to the interim government and uphold its fiduciary duties to protecting their interests.
Another major concern is the composition of the High Court and Court of Appeal by the interim Government with coup sympathizers, so any potential relief to be sought by a Mataqali would be an exercise in futility.
The only option for the Mataqali’s would be to unite & lobby, NGO’s and International bodies to their cause.
Ironically, it seems the late Ratu Mo Tuisawau had the last laugh, when he interpreted NLTB as the acronym for ‘Native Lands No Trust Board.’
Tui Savu.
Townsville. QLD.
HANDS OFF
14-Feb-2008 - www.fijidailypost.com
Indigenous body rebukes idea of de-reserving native land
A PLAN to de-reserve native land has been viewed by an indigenous rights group as something akin to sacrilege.
The Fiji Indigenous Ownership and Rights Association (FIORA) has rebuked any suggestions of de-reserving native land.
“The landowning units (mataqali) should be properly informed and consulted, as in accordance with the law, before their land under reserve are touched,” said FIORA spokesman Francis Waqa Sokonibogi.
“The first thing to be done in this case is to get the consent of more than 50 percent of the landowning unit before there are moves to carry this out.”
He added that it seems that interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, and ‘his mouthpiece’ interim Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, are doing what any typical ‘landless’ person will do and meddle with land.
He made these comments after following revelations that a report prepared by an Indian consultancy agency suggests that native land be de-reserved to assist in the recovery of the ailing sugar industry.
Sokonibogi said native land was never meant to be used for national interest.
He added that even if there were plans to de-reserve native land then protocol dictates it should not be made public.
“Once it is de-reserved this opens the land up for commercial use and members of the mataqali and their families may be left with nothing,” said Sokonibogi.
“They have spat on the Fijian people’s protocol. They should let Fijians do things their own way.”
But Native Land Trust Board maintains that native land is safe and protected under the law.
NLTB acting general manager Meli Benuci said that the law is quite clear on control and protection of all native land.
“Under Section 4(1) of the Native Lands Trust Act NLTA, the control of all native land shall be vested in the board and all such land shall be administered by the board for the benefit of the Fijian owners, he said.
He added that under Section 15(1) of the NLTA, it is lawful for the board to set aside any portion of native land as a native reserve.
But he stressed that no matter what, the nod will have to come solely from the landowners.
“In other words, de-reservation of native land cannot be done without the express approval of a majority of landowners concerned.
“This guideline is enshrined in the Native Lands Trust Act itself, and therefore if the Interim Government is now wishing to de-reserve all native land we would need the express approval of a majority of all native landowners in question,” said Benuci.
“Notwithstanding the above, such an exercise is not one which the NLTB should even consider given our fiduciary duty to landowners to ensure that they always have sufficient land for their maintenance, subsistence and survival.
“Any action to de-reserve all native land is in itself contrary to this duty, as landowners will no longer have any native reserve to use as they please.”
Benuci added that it was more than mere economics, as land represents life and sustenance, identity and culture.
“Mindful of its role in providing maximum benefits for the landowner, the NLTB also has other important roles to play in providing for lands for national development and giving access to land for others.
“The system is provided for flexibility in that it can de-reserve customary lands for the need of others.
“This however, must recognise the special connection the Fijian has to the land.
It is the one tangible asset possessed by Fijians in an insecure, changing world in which material progress seemed to pass them by,” he concluded.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Chaudhry's Fijian Land Grab
Back off, province tells Chaudhry
Sai's Comment:
- Here goes the same guy with his antifijian agenda! What does Chaudhry want to achieve by trifling again with Fijian land? Somehow he just can't help himself. He of all people in Fiji should know of the sensitivity Fijians attach to their land, yet he persists in seeking to meddle in it. Fijians are truly sick and tired of it and will vehemently resist any attempt to make changes to it, let alone by a military
backed and illegal regime. He would do well to desist forthwith and seek a quick return to democratic rule to test his mandate with the people of Fiji. He alone remains the most hated individual by Fijians for his ongoing attempt, now aided by an illegal regime, to meddle in Fijian matters.
Landowners should be co-investors
19 FEB 2008 - www.fijilive.com
A University of the South Pacific academic says he would rather see a partnership arrangement where landowners themselves directly and actively participate in the commercial farming process with tenants as co-investors.
Dr Steven Ratuva says he would prefer this than having an ethnically divisive division of labour as suggested in the (controversial M Krishnamurthi) report.
Being co-investors would ensure that landowners learn the farming skills which they have been deprived of, says Dr Ratuva, the head of the Division of Sociology and Social Work, School of Social Science, Faculty of Arts and Law.
The Krishnamurthi report suggests the de-reserving of all native lands; that instead of 4 hectare farms which are uneconomical, lots of 40 to 400 hectares be created and leased to one individual or company without affecting land ownership; that the ownership will continue to be vested in the title holder, and that all investments will be by the lessee and that the lease period to be a minimum of 75 years or more.
It further recommended that the profits may be shared in a format acceptable to the landowner and cultivator, that is, the lessee may pay rentals, the landowner may undertake share farming, (the lessee will create infrastructure and cultivate cane); the owners will be employed by the lessee on fortnightly basis; and that the proceeds will be shared 30 : 60 after costs – 30 per cent to the owner.
But Dr Ratuva believes the landowners and tenants can become shareholders within a corporate type structure and the company needs to run professionally.
He suggested that the ethanol plants which are expected to be built also need to be run along the same corporate partnership between landowners, tenants, government and other investors.
In this way, the benefits of the sugar industry are shared equitably and also it could help create good ethnic relations, he pointed out.
On the proposal to de-reserve all native land which in the past few days has caused much alarm amongst landowners, Dr Ratuva pointed out that in the given political climate, just the mere mention of the term "de-reservation" of native land is not a politically tactical thing to do.
“It was bound to provoke reaction.”
He says there is enough native land available to be leased now without really touching the reserved land.
The suggestions for lease arrangements are not new at all in the sense that they merely reinforce the existing arrangements, he pointed out.
“For instance, Fijians provide the land and the tenants provide the capital and expertise.
“This is the same old colonial arrangement which has done very little to enhance Fijian commercial progress and improve ethnic relations,” he added.
Don't touch our land: villagers - www.fijitimes.com - 19 Feb 2008
ROBERT MATAU
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
LANDOWNERS in Naitasiri do not want their land dereserved.
Ratu Esala Kuruvadua of Nadovu Village and member of the chiefly Tui Vanuaca clan said they did not know much about politics but they knew native reserves were sacred
"We believe our native reserve was inherited from generations by our ancestors and there for our future generations for their use and protection," he said.
"One of the names of our vanua is Nailagobokola which means how we captured our enemy, laid them down on our doorway and stepped over them after a war," Ratu Esala said.
"We are closely linked to the clans of the Komai Nausori and the name of the vanua is testimony to this.
"You can touch anything but native reserve and we ask you understand the deep traditions, customs and historic values associated with how we came to inherit these lands before you want to look at dereserving it."
Ratu Esala said all of their yavu tabu (sacred land) were part of native reserve and he believes this is the same for all other landowning units.
"We are the vanua and it is a universal thing so we ask for better understanding."
Sakeasi Lautari, of Udu Village said land was a sacred thing in Fijian custom and was not something to meddle with.
"We are the taukei ni vanua or landowners and we are not the same as any other race here in Fiji," Mr Lautari said.
"When you take away our land then you take away the "taukei" element as you have taken away the "vanua" something we do not take too kindly to.
"We do not like other people telling us what to do with our land and we want our Minister to stand up and protect Fijian interests not the interests of the man who made this proposal."
Senitiki Naqa of Savusavu Village said no one can tell a property owner in Suva how to use their property because it was theirs.
"What is the difference with our land do we not have the right to decide for ourselves our own land," he said.
"All native reserves are owned and they are our reserves so we do not want anything to happen to the reserves."
Chairman of the Naitasiri Provincial Council Solomone Naivalu has also been vocal recently about the views of the council in opposition to the dereservation of native land.
Letter to Fiji Times Editor - 15 Feb 2008
Whose authority?
WHO gave Doctor M Krishnamurthi the authority to come and consult and make recommendations about the use of native land?
Does he have land of his own that is used in the manner he is recommending?
Since it seems his report was commissioned by Mahendra Chaudhry, we wish to remind Voreqe Bainimarama to keep a close watch on members of the interim regime.
He promised to clean out corruption but he's lost the plot be bringing in people such as Chaudhry to run our affairs.
Leave the issues about land and get on with the business of getting us to the polls.
At the same time, show us evidence of corruption you vehemently profess to have and stop wasting taxpayers' money on overseas trips.
Vani Veikoso
Turkey
Naomi Roberts
Australia
Interim govt questioned on native land
www.fijivillage.com - 15/02/2008
Ousted Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase has today questioned why the interim government is trying to get more native land when there is already sufficient land available for cane farming.
Qarase said Interim Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry should clear the air why they are even considering the proposal from the Indian consultant, Doctor M Krishnamurti to de-reserve all native land.
He said the proposal if endorsed will lock down even more native land for cane farms.
Qarase said the real issue is productivity in the sugar industry, not insufficient native land.
In an exclusive interview with Village News yesterday, Chaudhry said he will not politicize the issue as the landowners will be the ones who will decide on the future arrangements for native land.
Although NLTB is considering the proposal, Chaudhry said there are real benefits for the indigenous Fijian landowners.
Chaudhry also said critics should stop saying that he is behind the proposal to de-reserve the native land.
The report by the consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. The native reserve is the land set aside for each mataqali for its planting and to support the landowning unit's needs.
The reserved land is not to be leased out as it is arable land for the mataqali's needs.
Doctor Krishnamurti's report has recommended that the 4 hectare lots for cane farming are uneconomical and 40 to 400 hectare farms are more viable. He also recommends that all investments on the proposed farms be carried out by the lessee and the lease terms be a minimum of 75 years.
Sikivou: I was only doing my job
Friday, February 15, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
THE permanent secretary for Finance, Peni Sikivou, says he was only doing his job when he was given the project proposal on the de-reservation of native land from his minister last month.
"I was given the proposal and a note by Mr Chaudhry to send it to the Native Land Trust Board for further action," said Mr Sikivou.
"That is why my name was in the letter attached to the project proposal by Krishnamurthi, the Indian consultant."
Mr Sikivou said he was concerned about some recommendations in the proposal especially the de- reservation of native reserves.
"I am concerned that this proposal aims to de- reserve native land," he said.
He said the interim minister was the best person to answer to the project proposal by the consultant from India.
Meanwhile, interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry said he would not politicise the issue because the landowners were the ones who would decide the future arrangements for native land, according to a local radio report yesterday.
NLTB spokesman Ro Alipate Mataitini said the NLTB would see that if certain development proposals on native land were detrimental to the interest of the landowners, then the board would not agree to them.
"But if the proposal benefits the landowners, then we will approve the development," Ro Alipate said
Mixed reaction to land issue
UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Friday, February 15, 2008
THERE were mixed reactions yesterday from provinces at the interim Government's move to de-reserve native land.
Last month, the Finance Ministry wrote to the Native Land Trust Board to consider a proposal to de-reserve land by a consultant from India.
Most provincial councils The Fiji Times spoke to felt it was not a good idea to touch reserve land.
Rewa provincial council chairman Pita Tagicakiverata said Rewa had only one per cent of the total land mass in Fiji.
"Rewa has only 272 square kilometres and if we give our reserve land, we would end up with no land. I'm totally against the proposal." Bua provincial council chairman Ratu Filimoni Ralogaivau said even though the proposal had not been approved, it would be hard for Fijians to give their native reserves.
"That land is where they have their plantations and burial sites, so it will be hard for them to give it up.
"There are only 38 percent of reserve land left for Fijians," Ratu Filimoni said. Kadavu Provincial Council chairman Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo said land leased outside native reserves has not been utilised to its full potential for economic returns.
"Why touch native reserves? If we can't use land outside the reserves, it does not make sense," Ratu Jo said.
Tui Macuata Ratu Aisea Katonivere said he had faith in the NLTB to protect native land and interests of landowners as bestowed to it by law.
"I know the NLTB will make the best decisions for the betterment of all landowners," Ratu Aisea said.
Lomaiviti provincial council chairman Ratu Jolame Lewanavanua said his province would not be affected by the proposal.
"The proposal will only affect provinces where they have sugarcane like in the West and North," Ratu Jolame said.
Assistant Roko Naitasiri Ratu Josefa Navakaroko said he had not seen anything in black and white.
"This is news to me. I will comment when I see it on paper."
HANDS OFF
14-Feb-2008 -www.fijidailypost.com
Indigenous body rebukes idea of de-reserving native land
A PLAN to de-reserve native land has been viewed by an indigenous rights group as something akin to sacrilege.
The Fiji Indigenous Ownership and Rights Association (FIORA) has rebuked any suggestions of de-reserving native land.
“The landowning units (mataqali) should be properly informed and consulted, as in accordance with the law, before their land under reserve are touched,” said FIORA spokesman Francis Waqa Sokonibogi.
“The first thing to be done in this case is to get the consent of more than 50 percent of the landowning unit before there are moves to carry this out.”
He added that it seems that interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, and ‘his mouthpiece’ interim Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, are doing what any typical ‘landless’ person will do and meddle with land.
He made these comments after following revelations that a report prepared by an Indian consultancy agency suggests that native land be de-reserved to assist in the recovery of the ailing sugar industry.
Sokonibogi said native land was never meant to be used for national interest.
He added that even if there were plans to de-reserve native land then protocol dictates it should not be made public.
“Once it is de-reserved this opens the land up for commercial use and members of the mataqali and their families may be left with nothing,” said Sokonibogi.
“They have spat on the Fijian people’s protocol. They should let Fijians do things their own way.”
But Native Land Trust Board maintains that native land is safe and protected under the law.
NLTB acting general manager Meli Benuci said that the law is quite clear on control and protection of all native land.
“Under Section 4(1) of the Native Lands Trust Act NLTA, the control of all native land shall be vested in the board and all such land shall be administered by the board for the benefit of the Fijian owners, he said.
He added that under Section 15(1) of the NLTA, it is lawful for the board to set aside any portion of native land as a native reserve.
But he stressed that no matter what, the nod will have to come solely from the landowners.
“In other words, de-reservation of native land cannot be done without the express approval of a majority of landowners concerned.
“This guideline is enshrined in the Native Lands Trust Act itself, and therefore if the Interim Government is now wishing to de-reserve all native land we would need the express approval of a majority of all native landowners in question,” said Benuci.
“Notwithstanding the above, such an exercise is not one which the NLTB should even consider given our fiduciary duty to landowners to ensure that they always have sufficient land for their maintenance, subsistence and survival.
“Any action to de-reserve all native land is in itself contrary to this duty, as landowners will no longer have any native reserve to use as they please.”
Benuci added that it was more than mere economics, as land represents life and sustenance, identity and culture.
“Mindful of its role in providing maximum benefits for the landowner, the NLTB also has other important roles to play in providing for lands for national development and giving access to land for others.
“The system is provided for flexibility in that it can de-reserve customary lands for the need of others.
“This however, must recognise the special connection the Fijian has to the land.
It is the one tangible asset possessed by Fijians in an insecure, changing world in which material progress seemed to pass them by,” he concluded.
Deregister plan
UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Thursday, February 14, 2008
There are moves by the interim Government to de-reserve native reserve land.
This follows instructions from Finance Ministry permanent secretary for Sugar Peni Sikivou to the Native Land Trust Board last month to consider a proposal to de-reserve land by a consultant from India.
The cover letter of the report states the NLTB needed to consider a proposal by sugar expert Dr Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the sugar industry and to have a reply by January 18.
The paper provides recommendations to use de-reserved land for lots of 40 to 400 hectares to be created and leased to individuals or companies that undertake commercial farming.
The report was compiled in November last year and submitted to interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.
Mr Sikivou refused to comment on the report, saying he was busy in a meeting yesterday.
Mr Chaudhry was unavailable for comment.
Dr Krishnamurthi said in the report it was well known that Fijians did not have enough incentives for farming.
"They had their own serious social problems that were ignored and that the laws governing their inheritance was of sharing and not lineage inheritance," he said.
Dr Krishnamurthi said the share of the proceeds from Fijian land was negligible and of no value.
He said Fijians had a lack of security and could not finance their land.
"In effect, neither the successive governments nor the NLTB or chiefs ever contributed to the welfare of the indigenous Fijians, leaving the landowners poor in standards of living," he said.
"The Fijianisation program did not yield the desired results because of the lack of leadership."
But these statements have angered chiefs who will not allow an outsider to suggest the de-reservation of their land.
Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini said the interim administration needed to consult landowners honestly about its intentions.
He said there was no way he was willing to deregister land for sugar cane as the returns were low.
Native reserve land is established under the Native Lands Trust Act.
This land is set aside in certain areas for the use of landowners known as ikovukovu.
It is to ensure there is always sufficient land for the landowners to use.
Burebasaga confederacy paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa said the regime had no right to make a unilateral decision on land that was collectively owned by Fijian landowning units.
"The regime cannot bulldoze their agenda on the people. The landowners must be consulted as the asset belongs to them," she said.
Komai Nausori Ratu Meli Balenaivalu said he would not give any land for such purposes because it was owned by the past, present and future generations.
"I am shocked to hear the regime is pursuing to de-register land without consulting landowners when native land is a sensitive issue Fijians value close to their hearts," he said.
Bau chief Adi Samanunu Cakobau said she was concerned about the move in her capacity as a Fijian chief.
"This is news to me and as a chief I am concerned," she said.
SERAFINA QALO
www.fijitimes.com - Thursday, February 14, 2008
THE province of Cakaudrove has warned interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry to back off and not touch land issues.
Speaking on behalf of the Tui Cakau Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and the people of Cakaudrove, Epeli Matata yesterday said Mr Chaudhry and the interim regime had better not dereserve the land Fijian forefathers left behind for their generation. The warning comes after the Ministry of Finance, National Planning and Sugar Industry asked the Native Lands Trust Board to dereserve reserved land and utilise it for sugarcane farming and leasing.
"We are warning him now not to touch the land and he had better abide by it because we will not sit and watch our reserve land taken from us.
"Although Mr Chaudhry is talking about the reserve land in cane belt areas, it will automatically count in the other reserve land around the country as they would want to use the land for economic purposes," Mr Matata said. No comment could be obtained from Mr Chaudhry when contacted.
The Bua Landowners Association said it could not understand why Mr Chaudhry, since becoming the first Indian prime minister, always wanted to touch Fijian land.
"It's a sensitive issue and it seems Mr Chaudhry is the only one who wants to touch land of the indigenous community when there are other bodies such as the European Union that has greatly helped the sugar industry," said Tevita Raiova, the association's spokesman.
"Even companies that plant mahogany and pine on our land have not dared ask us to dereserve our reserved land because they know how much it means to us so we hope this government will respect landowners' wishes and that is to leave our land alone," Mr Raiova said.
Another major landowning unit in Naweni Village, Mataqali Valelevu has called on Mr Chaudhry to concentrate on reviving the economy.
Chief warns of catastrophe for Fiji
www.fijilive.com - 14 FEB 2008
A high chief has warned that the latest development by Fiji's interim regime to de-reserve native land will be a ‘catastrophic mistake’
The proposed de-reservation of native land, which comprises almost 90 per cent of the Fiji land mass, is one of the major recommendations in the report by a India-based consultant to the Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry last November.
The interim Government is considering the proposal in order to revamp the ailing sugar industry.
Nadroga chief Na Ka Levu, Ratu Sakiusa Makutu said Fiji has found itself thrust in the middle of a very traumatic period that is not only bringing the country to its knees, but tearing it apart.
“Among the long list of interim blunders, this development regarding de-reservation of native land will be a catastrophic mistake.
“I would suggest a great degree of caution,” he told Fijilive.
He said when the GCC was dismissed, most of the chiefs chose to remain silent and this should be an indicator of the sensitivity of this issue and the strength of their resolve.
Ratu Sakiusa cited a quote from the book ‘20th Century Fiji’ where Stewart Firth wrote, “Men Charles Salvage, David Whippy and Charles Pickering had no desire to convert Fijian, or to change them, or to take charge. They wish to live here, and this meant that they must fit in with the way Fijians did things, speaking the language, obeying Fijian chiefs and accepting the political dominance of the people whose country it is”.
He added that like those early Europeans we ask the same of everyone now, “that they adapt to Fiji rather than asking that Fiji adapt to them”.
SDL warns interim regime over land
14 FEB 2008
Fiji’s former ruling party the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua is warning Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and the interim regime to stay away from land issues.
His warning comes in light of a report submitted by an India-based consultant to Chaudhry, recommending that all native land be de-reserved.
SDL national director Peceli Kinivuwai told Fijilive land is close to the hearts of indigenous Fijians and must not be touched.
“We will not sit back and see people tamper with our hearts.
“The land is very sacred to us,” he said.
“We don’t care if it brings returns or whatever, we are just telling him to stay away from our land,” he added.
Sugar Industry No Longer Backbone of Fiji-Nadroga Chief
www.fijivillage.com - Publish date/time: 14/02/2008
Nadroga high chief, the Ka Levu, Ratu Sakiusa Makutu has today stressed that the sugar industry is no longer the backbone of Fiji's economy.
Ratu Sakiusa Makutu has raised concern after revelations that the interim government is considering the proposal from an Indian consultant to de-reserve all the native land to revive the sugar industry.
Ratu Sakiusa is questioning Chaudhry which land the interim government is looking for to plant sugar because majority of farmers in the western division do not want to continue with cane farming any more.
The Ka Levu said Chaudhry should look at the land bought by the Colonial Sugar Refinery to plant sugar from Lautoka to Nadroga which has now been sold to business people. He believes that the industry is failing and they have sold the land for housing purposes and other businesses.
The Nadroga high chief has reminded Chaudhry about the words of the late politician, SM Koya that Indians will live peacefully in Fiji if they do not touch any issues of land and political leadership.
Law 'protects' native land
Thursday, February 14, 2008
NLTB acting general manager, Meli Benuci+ Enlarge this image
NLTB acting general manager, Meli Benuci
THE Native Land Trust Board said they would have to get the consent of the majority of landowners before it could de-reserve all native land reserves as proposed by the interim Government.
Acting general manager Meli Benuci said the law was quite clear in the control and protection of native land.
Mr Benuci said under Section 15(1) of the Native Land Trust Act NLTA, it is lawful for the Board to set aside any portion of native land as a native reserve.
"In other words, de-reservation of native land cannot be done without the express approval of a majority of landowners concerned," he said.
Mr Benuci said if 51 per cent of landowners have agreed to the idea, then it will be approved by NLTB.
He added the NLTB will meet at the end of this month to decide the issue.
The Ministry of Finance has written a letter last month to NLTB proposing the de-reservation of native reserve land for the rehabilitation of sugar cane farming in Fiji. Mr Benuci said they had not responded to the letter and would just await the board's decision at the end of the month.
Meanwhile, Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party national director, Peceli Kinivuwai said if the interim regime went ahead with this proposal, then it would spell disaster for the country.
"If the interim administration is going to go ahead with this de- reserving of native land, then they are looking for trouble," Mr Kinivuwai said.
"The prerogative of any native land belongs to the native landowners once they are consulted by the NLTB.
"You can't have a third party when it comes to native land," he added.
Mr Kinivuwai said the interim Finance and Sugar minister is looking for problems like he did in 2000 when he tried to set up the Native Land Use Commission.
"Now, at the back of a gun, he wants to touch the native land again
Fijian Admin team member says they are in the dark
www.fijivillage.com - 14/02/2008
One of the members of the Fijian Administration review team led by Colonel Apakuki Kurusiga said they are in the dark over the proposal from a consultant from India, that all native land reserve should be de-reserved.
Kalaveti Batibasaga said the interim government should analyze the proposals submitted in the Colonel Kurusiga report on the current Fijian administration system as de-reserving native land for the sugar industry will not fix any problems.
Batibasaga also said the proposal should not even be considered by the interim government.
The Native Land Trust Board stressed to Village News yesterday that no native land reserves can be de-reserved without the approval of the mataqali.
This follows revelations that the report by a consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. NLTB spokesperson, Ro Alipate Mataitini said while the report is just a proposal which will be discussed by the newly formed Committee for Better Utilization of Land soon, the NLTB makes it very clear that no native land can be de-reserved without the consent of majority of the landowners.
Yabaki tells chiefs to be sensible
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Update: 1.52pm The Citizens' Constitutional Forum is concerned that the report on the Rehabilitation of the Sugar industry is being manipulated again into a racial issue, over-shadowing the problems.
"The report is revealing the reality that the sugar industry, on which about 200,000 people in Fiji depend, is doomed to collapse unless mechanised and large-scale farming is introduced," CCF Chief Executive Officer, Rev Akuila Yabaki said.
He urged landowners and chiefs to be responsible and to ponder on questions related to what crop could replace sugar and what incentives they could offer to revive the economy in the country if the sugar indusrty collapsed.
Chaudhry Stresses Non-Involvement in Proposal
www.fijivillage.com - 14/02/2008
As a number of criticisms have been leveled against the interim government for considering the proposal from an Indian consultant to de-reserve all the native land to revive the sugar industry, Interim Finance and Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has today stressed that the Native Land Trust Board and the landowners will have the final say on the proposal.
In an exclusive interview with Village News, Chaudhry said he will not politicise the issue as the landowners will be the ones who will decide on the future arrangements for native land.
Although NLTB is considering the proposal Chaudhry said there are real benefits for the indigenous Fijian landowners.
Chaudhry also said critics should stop saying that he is behind the proposal to de-reserve the native land.
The report by the consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. The native reserve is the land set aside for each mataqali for its planting and to support the landowning unit's needs.
The reserved land is not to be leased out as it is arable land for the mataqali's needs.
Doctor Krishnamurti's report has recommended that the 4 hectare lots for cane farming are uneconomical and 40 to 400 hectare farms are more viable. He also recommends that all investments on the proposed farms be carried out by the lessee and the lease terms be a minimum of 75 years.
NLTB spokesperson, Ro Alipate Mataitini said while the report is just a proposal which will be discussed by the newly formed Committee for Better Utilisation of Land, the NLTB makes it very clear that no native land can be de-reserved without the consent of majority of the landowners.
Acting Interim Prime Minister, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau said the issue will be discussed in the next cabinet meeting
Chiefs urged to ponder economic survival
14 FEB 2008
Fiji’s chiefs and landowners have been urged to consider the future survival of towns in the Western Division if the sugar industry collapsed.
The Citizens’ Constitutional Forum (CCF) says it is concerned that the report on the Rehabilitation of the Sugar industry is being manipulated again into a racial issue, which are once again over-shadowing serious issues that the report seeks to highlight.
“The report is revealing the reality that the sugar industry, on which about 200,000 people in Fiji depend, is doomed to collapse unless mechanised and large-scale farming is introduced,” CCF chief executive officer, Rev Akuila Yabaki said.
It was revealed this week that the interim government had earlier asked the Native Land Trust Board to consider a proposal to de-reserve native land by a consultant from India. The proposal is that the de-reserved land be leased to individuals or companies that undertake commercial farming.
The report was compiled in November last year and submitted to interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.
However, chiefs and landowners have rejected the proposal saying they will not allow an outsider to suggest the de-reservation of native land.
For his part, Rev Yabaki says the chiefs and landowners now need to think about what will happen if the sugar industry collapses.
“Will the towns in the West survive? Nadi will survive because it is a tourist town. However, the real danger of a collapse of the sugar industry is that the towns of Lautoka (known as the sugar city), Ba and Rakiraki may collapse.
“We have been seeing the slow decline of the Labasa economy after the closure of many sugar cane farms due to eviction of tenant farmers there.
“Labasa was referred to as a ghost town by many commentators. Tavua town was also badly affected when the Vatukoula gold mine shut down for a few months,” Rev Yabaki said.
“Landowners and chiefs now need to become responsible and make the decision about what they will do if the sugar industry collapses.
“Do they have any alternative crops in mind? If yes, who will farm these crops? What other incentives do they have to encourage people to come and develop their land so that the economy of these towns remain healthy and productive?” Rev Yabaki asked.
He says the recent census has revealed that Fijians have been leaving the rural areas and settling more in urban centres.
If the sugar towns in the West collapse, Fijians will face an even bigger problem due to a higher possibility of rural-urban migration, because of a lack of development in their provinces,” Rev Yabaki said.
Sai's Comment:
- Here goes the same guy with his antifijian agenda! What does Chaudhry want to achieve by trifling again with Fijian land? Somehow he just can't help himself. He of all people in Fiji should know of the sensitivity Fijians attach to their land, yet he persists in seeking to meddle in it. Fijians are truly sick and tired of it and will vehemently resist any attempt to make changes to it, let alone by a military
backed and illegal regime. He would do well to desist forthwith and seek a quick return to democratic rule to test his mandate with the people of Fiji. He alone remains the most hated individual by Fijians for his ongoing attempt, now aided by an illegal regime, to meddle in Fijian matters.
Landowners should be co-investors
19 FEB 2008 - www.fijilive.com
A University of the South Pacific academic says he would rather see a partnership arrangement where landowners themselves directly and actively participate in the commercial farming process with tenants as co-investors.
Dr Steven Ratuva says he would prefer this than having an ethnically divisive division of labour as suggested in the (controversial M Krishnamurthi) report.
Being co-investors would ensure that landowners learn the farming skills which they have been deprived of, says Dr Ratuva, the head of the Division of Sociology and Social Work, School of Social Science, Faculty of Arts and Law.
The Krishnamurthi report suggests the de-reserving of all native lands; that instead of 4 hectare farms which are uneconomical, lots of 40 to 400 hectares be created and leased to one individual or company without affecting land ownership; that the ownership will continue to be vested in the title holder, and that all investments will be by the lessee and that the lease period to be a minimum of 75 years or more.
It further recommended that the profits may be shared in a format acceptable to the landowner and cultivator, that is, the lessee may pay rentals, the landowner may undertake share farming, (the lessee will create infrastructure and cultivate cane); the owners will be employed by the lessee on fortnightly basis; and that the proceeds will be shared 30 : 60 after costs – 30 per cent to the owner.
But Dr Ratuva believes the landowners and tenants can become shareholders within a corporate type structure and the company needs to run professionally.
He suggested that the ethanol plants which are expected to be built also need to be run along the same corporate partnership between landowners, tenants, government and other investors.
In this way, the benefits of the sugar industry are shared equitably and also it could help create good ethnic relations, he pointed out.
On the proposal to de-reserve all native land which in the past few days has caused much alarm amongst landowners, Dr Ratuva pointed out that in the given political climate, just the mere mention of the term "de-reservation" of native land is not a politically tactical thing to do.
“It was bound to provoke reaction.”
He says there is enough native land available to be leased now without really touching the reserved land.
The suggestions for lease arrangements are not new at all in the sense that they merely reinforce the existing arrangements, he pointed out.
“For instance, Fijians provide the land and the tenants provide the capital and expertise.
“This is the same old colonial arrangement which has done very little to enhance Fijian commercial progress and improve ethnic relations,” he added.
Don't touch our land: villagers - www.fijitimes.com - 19 Feb 2008
ROBERT MATAU
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
LANDOWNERS in Naitasiri do not want their land dereserved.
Ratu Esala Kuruvadua of Nadovu Village and member of the chiefly Tui Vanuaca clan said they did not know much about politics but they knew native reserves were sacred
"We believe our native reserve was inherited from generations by our ancestors and there for our future generations for their use and protection," he said.
"One of the names of our vanua is Nailagobokola which means how we captured our enemy, laid them down on our doorway and stepped over them after a war," Ratu Esala said.
"We are closely linked to the clans of the Komai Nausori and the name of the vanua is testimony to this.
"You can touch anything but native reserve and we ask you understand the deep traditions, customs and historic values associated with how we came to inherit these lands before you want to look at dereserving it."
Ratu Esala said all of their yavu tabu (sacred land) were part of native reserve and he believes this is the same for all other landowning units.
"We are the vanua and it is a universal thing so we ask for better understanding."
Sakeasi Lautari, of Udu Village said land was a sacred thing in Fijian custom and was not something to meddle with.
"We are the taukei ni vanua or landowners and we are not the same as any other race here in Fiji," Mr Lautari said.
"When you take away our land then you take away the "taukei" element as you have taken away the "vanua" something we do not take too kindly to.
"We do not like other people telling us what to do with our land and we want our Minister to stand up and protect Fijian interests not the interests of the man who made this proposal."
Senitiki Naqa of Savusavu Village said no one can tell a property owner in Suva how to use their property because it was theirs.
"What is the difference with our land do we not have the right to decide for ourselves our own land," he said.
"All native reserves are owned and they are our reserves so we do not want anything to happen to the reserves."
Chairman of the Naitasiri Provincial Council Solomone Naivalu has also been vocal recently about the views of the council in opposition to the dereservation of native land.
Letter to Fiji Times Editor - 15 Feb 2008
Whose authority?
WHO gave Doctor M Krishnamurthi the authority to come and consult and make recommendations about the use of native land?
Does he have land of his own that is used in the manner he is recommending?
Since it seems his report was commissioned by Mahendra Chaudhry, we wish to remind Voreqe Bainimarama to keep a close watch on members of the interim regime.
He promised to clean out corruption but he's lost the plot be bringing in people such as Chaudhry to run our affairs.
Leave the issues about land and get on with the business of getting us to the polls.
At the same time, show us evidence of corruption you vehemently profess to have and stop wasting taxpayers' money on overseas trips.
Vani Veikoso
Turkey
Naomi Roberts
Australia
Interim govt questioned on native land
www.fijivillage.com - 15/02/2008
Ousted Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase has today questioned why the interim government is trying to get more native land when there is already sufficient land available for cane farming.
Qarase said Interim Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry should clear the air why they are even considering the proposal from the Indian consultant, Doctor M Krishnamurti to de-reserve all native land.
He said the proposal if endorsed will lock down even more native land for cane farms.
Qarase said the real issue is productivity in the sugar industry, not insufficient native land.
In an exclusive interview with Village News yesterday, Chaudhry said he will not politicize the issue as the landowners will be the ones who will decide on the future arrangements for native land.
Although NLTB is considering the proposal, Chaudhry said there are real benefits for the indigenous Fijian landowners.
Chaudhry also said critics should stop saying that he is behind the proposal to de-reserve the native land.
The report by the consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. The native reserve is the land set aside for each mataqali for its planting and to support the landowning unit's needs.
The reserved land is not to be leased out as it is arable land for the mataqali's needs.
Doctor Krishnamurti's report has recommended that the 4 hectare lots for cane farming are uneconomical and 40 to 400 hectare farms are more viable. He also recommends that all investments on the proposed farms be carried out by the lessee and the lease terms be a minimum of 75 years.
Sikivou: I was only doing my job
Friday, February 15, 2008 - www.fijitimes.com
THE permanent secretary for Finance, Peni Sikivou, says he was only doing his job when he was given the project proposal on the de-reservation of native land from his minister last month.
"I was given the proposal and a note by Mr Chaudhry to send it to the Native Land Trust Board for further action," said Mr Sikivou.
"That is why my name was in the letter attached to the project proposal by Krishnamurthi, the Indian consultant."
Mr Sikivou said he was concerned about some recommendations in the proposal especially the de- reservation of native reserves.
"I am concerned that this proposal aims to de- reserve native land," he said.
He said the interim minister was the best person to answer to the project proposal by the consultant from India.
Meanwhile, interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry said he would not politicise the issue because the landowners were the ones who would decide the future arrangements for native land, according to a local radio report yesterday.
NLTB spokesman Ro Alipate Mataitini said the NLTB would see that if certain development proposals on native land were detrimental to the interest of the landowners, then the board would not agree to them.
"But if the proposal benefits the landowners, then we will approve the development," Ro Alipate said
Mixed reaction to land issue
UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Friday, February 15, 2008
THERE were mixed reactions yesterday from provinces at the interim Government's move to de-reserve native land.
Last month, the Finance Ministry wrote to the Native Land Trust Board to consider a proposal to de-reserve land by a consultant from India.
Most provincial councils The Fiji Times spoke to felt it was not a good idea to touch reserve land.
Rewa provincial council chairman Pita Tagicakiverata said Rewa had only one per cent of the total land mass in Fiji.
"Rewa has only 272 square kilometres and if we give our reserve land, we would end up with no land. I'm totally against the proposal." Bua provincial council chairman Ratu Filimoni Ralogaivau said even though the proposal had not been approved, it would be hard for Fijians to give their native reserves.
"That land is where they have their plantations and burial sites, so it will be hard for them to give it up.
"There are only 38 percent of reserve land left for Fijians," Ratu Filimoni said. Kadavu Provincial Council chairman Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo said land leased outside native reserves has not been utilised to its full potential for economic returns.
"Why touch native reserves? If we can't use land outside the reserves, it does not make sense," Ratu Jo said.
Tui Macuata Ratu Aisea Katonivere said he had faith in the NLTB to protect native land and interests of landowners as bestowed to it by law.
"I know the NLTB will make the best decisions for the betterment of all landowners," Ratu Aisea said.
Lomaiviti provincial council chairman Ratu Jolame Lewanavanua said his province would not be affected by the proposal.
"The proposal will only affect provinces where they have sugarcane like in the West and North," Ratu Jolame said.
Assistant Roko Naitasiri Ratu Josefa Navakaroko said he had not seen anything in black and white.
"This is news to me. I will comment when I see it on paper."
HANDS OFF
14-Feb-2008 -www.fijidailypost.com
Indigenous body rebukes idea of de-reserving native land
A PLAN to de-reserve native land has been viewed by an indigenous rights group as something akin to sacrilege.
The Fiji Indigenous Ownership and Rights Association (FIORA) has rebuked any suggestions of de-reserving native land.
“The landowning units (mataqali) should be properly informed and consulted, as in accordance with the law, before their land under reserve are touched,” said FIORA spokesman Francis Waqa Sokonibogi.
“The first thing to be done in this case is to get the consent of more than 50 percent of the landowning unit before there are moves to carry this out.”
He added that it seems that interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, and ‘his mouthpiece’ interim Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, are doing what any typical ‘landless’ person will do and meddle with land.
He made these comments after following revelations that a report prepared by an Indian consultancy agency suggests that native land be de-reserved to assist in the recovery of the ailing sugar industry.
Sokonibogi said native land was never meant to be used for national interest.
He added that even if there were plans to de-reserve native land then protocol dictates it should not be made public.
“Once it is de-reserved this opens the land up for commercial use and members of the mataqali and their families may be left with nothing,” said Sokonibogi.
“They have spat on the Fijian people’s protocol. They should let Fijians do things their own way.”
But Native Land Trust Board maintains that native land is safe and protected under the law.
NLTB acting general manager Meli Benuci said that the law is quite clear on control and protection of all native land.
“Under Section 4(1) of the Native Lands Trust Act NLTA, the control of all native land shall be vested in the board and all such land shall be administered by the board for the benefit of the Fijian owners, he said.
He added that under Section 15(1) of the NLTA, it is lawful for the board to set aside any portion of native land as a native reserve.
But he stressed that no matter what, the nod will have to come solely from the landowners.
“In other words, de-reservation of native land cannot be done without the express approval of a majority of landowners concerned.
“This guideline is enshrined in the Native Lands Trust Act itself, and therefore if the Interim Government is now wishing to de-reserve all native land we would need the express approval of a majority of all native landowners in question,” said Benuci.
“Notwithstanding the above, such an exercise is not one which the NLTB should even consider given our fiduciary duty to landowners to ensure that they always have sufficient land for their maintenance, subsistence and survival.
“Any action to de-reserve all native land is in itself contrary to this duty, as landowners will no longer have any native reserve to use as they please.”
Benuci added that it was more than mere economics, as land represents life and sustenance, identity and culture.
“Mindful of its role in providing maximum benefits for the landowner, the NLTB also has other important roles to play in providing for lands for national development and giving access to land for others.
“The system is provided for flexibility in that it can de-reserve customary lands for the need of others.
“This however, must recognise the special connection the Fijian has to the land.
It is the one tangible asset possessed by Fijians in an insecure, changing world in which material progress seemed to pass them by,” he concluded.
Deregister plan
UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Thursday, February 14, 2008
There are moves by the interim Government to de-reserve native reserve land.
This follows instructions from Finance Ministry permanent secretary for Sugar Peni Sikivou to the Native Land Trust Board last month to consider a proposal to de-reserve land by a consultant from India.
The cover letter of the report states the NLTB needed to consider a proposal by sugar expert Dr Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the sugar industry and to have a reply by January 18.
The paper provides recommendations to use de-reserved land for lots of 40 to 400 hectares to be created and leased to individuals or companies that undertake commercial farming.
The report was compiled in November last year and submitted to interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.
Mr Sikivou refused to comment on the report, saying he was busy in a meeting yesterday.
Mr Chaudhry was unavailable for comment.
Dr Krishnamurthi said in the report it was well known that Fijians did not have enough incentives for farming.
"They had their own serious social problems that were ignored and that the laws governing their inheritance was of sharing and not lineage inheritance," he said.
Dr Krishnamurthi said the share of the proceeds from Fijian land was negligible and of no value.
He said Fijians had a lack of security and could not finance their land.
"In effect, neither the successive governments nor the NLTB or chiefs ever contributed to the welfare of the indigenous Fijians, leaving the landowners poor in standards of living," he said.
"The Fijianisation program did not yield the desired results because of the lack of leadership."
But these statements have angered chiefs who will not allow an outsider to suggest the de-reservation of their land.
Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini said the interim administration needed to consult landowners honestly about its intentions.
He said there was no way he was willing to deregister land for sugar cane as the returns were low.
Native reserve land is established under the Native Lands Trust Act.
This land is set aside in certain areas for the use of landowners known as ikovukovu.
It is to ensure there is always sufficient land for the landowners to use.
Burebasaga confederacy paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa said the regime had no right to make a unilateral decision on land that was collectively owned by Fijian landowning units.
"The regime cannot bulldoze their agenda on the people. The landowners must be consulted as the asset belongs to them," she said.
Komai Nausori Ratu Meli Balenaivalu said he would not give any land for such purposes because it was owned by the past, present and future generations.
"I am shocked to hear the regime is pursuing to de-register land without consulting landowners when native land is a sensitive issue Fijians value close to their hearts," he said.
Bau chief Adi Samanunu Cakobau said she was concerned about the move in her capacity as a Fijian chief.
"This is news to me and as a chief I am concerned," she said.
SERAFINA QALO
www.fijitimes.com - Thursday, February 14, 2008
THE province of Cakaudrove has warned interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry to back off and not touch land issues.
Speaking on behalf of the Tui Cakau Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and the people of Cakaudrove, Epeli Matata yesterday said Mr Chaudhry and the interim regime had better not dereserve the land Fijian forefathers left behind for their generation. The warning comes after the Ministry of Finance, National Planning and Sugar Industry asked the Native Lands Trust Board to dereserve reserved land and utilise it for sugarcane farming and leasing.
"We are warning him now not to touch the land and he had better abide by it because we will not sit and watch our reserve land taken from us.
"Although Mr Chaudhry is talking about the reserve land in cane belt areas, it will automatically count in the other reserve land around the country as they would want to use the land for economic purposes," Mr Matata said. No comment could be obtained from Mr Chaudhry when contacted.
The Bua Landowners Association said it could not understand why Mr Chaudhry, since becoming the first Indian prime minister, always wanted to touch Fijian land.
"It's a sensitive issue and it seems Mr Chaudhry is the only one who wants to touch land of the indigenous community when there are other bodies such as the European Union that has greatly helped the sugar industry," said Tevita Raiova, the association's spokesman.
"Even companies that plant mahogany and pine on our land have not dared ask us to dereserve our reserved land because they know how much it means to us so we hope this government will respect landowners' wishes and that is to leave our land alone," Mr Raiova said.
Another major landowning unit in Naweni Village, Mataqali Valelevu has called on Mr Chaudhry to concentrate on reviving the economy.
Chief warns of catastrophe for Fiji
www.fijilive.com - 14 FEB 2008
A high chief has warned that the latest development by Fiji's interim regime to de-reserve native land will be a ‘catastrophic mistake’
The proposed de-reservation of native land, which comprises almost 90 per cent of the Fiji land mass, is one of the major recommendations in the report by a India-based consultant to the Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry last November.
The interim Government is considering the proposal in order to revamp the ailing sugar industry.
Nadroga chief Na Ka Levu, Ratu Sakiusa Makutu said Fiji has found itself thrust in the middle of a very traumatic period that is not only bringing the country to its knees, but tearing it apart.
“Among the long list of interim blunders, this development regarding de-reservation of native land will be a catastrophic mistake.
“I would suggest a great degree of caution,” he told Fijilive.
He said when the GCC was dismissed, most of the chiefs chose to remain silent and this should be an indicator of the sensitivity of this issue and the strength of their resolve.
Ratu Sakiusa cited a quote from the book ‘20th Century Fiji’ where Stewart Firth wrote, “Men Charles Salvage, David Whippy and Charles Pickering had no desire to convert Fijian, or to change them, or to take charge. They wish to live here, and this meant that they must fit in with the way Fijians did things, speaking the language, obeying Fijian chiefs and accepting the political dominance of the people whose country it is”.
He added that like those early Europeans we ask the same of everyone now, “that they adapt to Fiji rather than asking that Fiji adapt to them”.
SDL warns interim regime over land
14 FEB 2008
Fiji’s former ruling party the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua is warning Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and the interim regime to stay away from land issues.
His warning comes in light of a report submitted by an India-based consultant to Chaudhry, recommending that all native land be de-reserved.
SDL national director Peceli Kinivuwai told Fijilive land is close to the hearts of indigenous Fijians and must not be touched.
“We will not sit back and see people tamper with our hearts.
“The land is very sacred to us,” he said.
“We don’t care if it brings returns or whatever, we are just telling him to stay away from our land,” he added.
Sugar Industry No Longer Backbone of Fiji-Nadroga Chief
www.fijivillage.com - Publish date/time: 14/02/2008
Nadroga high chief, the Ka Levu, Ratu Sakiusa Makutu has today stressed that the sugar industry is no longer the backbone of Fiji's economy.
Ratu Sakiusa Makutu has raised concern after revelations that the interim government is considering the proposal from an Indian consultant to de-reserve all the native land to revive the sugar industry.
Ratu Sakiusa is questioning Chaudhry which land the interim government is looking for to plant sugar because majority of farmers in the western division do not want to continue with cane farming any more.
The Ka Levu said Chaudhry should look at the land bought by the Colonial Sugar Refinery to plant sugar from Lautoka to Nadroga which has now been sold to business people. He believes that the industry is failing and they have sold the land for housing purposes and other businesses.
The Nadroga high chief has reminded Chaudhry about the words of the late politician, SM Koya that Indians will live peacefully in Fiji if they do not touch any issues of land and political leadership.
Law 'protects' native land
Thursday, February 14, 2008
NLTB acting general manager, Meli Benuci+ Enlarge this image
NLTB acting general manager, Meli Benuci
THE Native Land Trust Board said they would have to get the consent of the majority of landowners before it could de-reserve all native land reserves as proposed by the interim Government.
Acting general manager Meli Benuci said the law was quite clear in the control and protection of native land.
Mr Benuci said under Section 15(1) of the Native Land Trust Act NLTA, it is lawful for the Board to set aside any portion of native land as a native reserve.
"In other words, de-reservation of native land cannot be done without the express approval of a majority of landowners concerned," he said.
Mr Benuci said if 51 per cent of landowners have agreed to the idea, then it will be approved by NLTB.
He added the NLTB will meet at the end of this month to decide the issue.
The Ministry of Finance has written a letter last month to NLTB proposing the de-reservation of native reserve land for the rehabilitation of sugar cane farming in Fiji. Mr Benuci said they had not responded to the letter and would just await the board's decision at the end of the month.
Meanwhile, Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party national director, Peceli Kinivuwai said if the interim regime went ahead with this proposal, then it would spell disaster for the country.
"If the interim administration is going to go ahead with this de- reserving of native land, then they are looking for trouble," Mr Kinivuwai said.
"The prerogative of any native land belongs to the native landowners once they are consulted by the NLTB.
"You can't have a third party when it comes to native land," he added.
Mr Kinivuwai said the interim Finance and Sugar minister is looking for problems like he did in 2000 when he tried to set up the Native Land Use Commission.
"Now, at the back of a gun, he wants to touch the native land again
Fijian Admin team member says they are in the dark
www.fijivillage.com - 14/02/2008
One of the members of the Fijian Administration review team led by Colonel Apakuki Kurusiga said they are in the dark over the proposal from a consultant from India, that all native land reserve should be de-reserved.
Kalaveti Batibasaga said the interim government should analyze the proposals submitted in the Colonel Kurusiga report on the current Fijian administration system as de-reserving native land for the sugar industry will not fix any problems.
Batibasaga also said the proposal should not even be considered by the interim government.
The Native Land Trust Board stressed to Village News yesterday that no native land reserves can be de-reserved without the approval of the mataqali.
This follows revelations that the report by a consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. NLTB spokesperson, Ro Alipate Mataitini said while the report is just a proposal which will be discussed by the newly formed Committee for Better Utilization of Land soon, the NLTB makes it very clear that no native land can be de-reserved without the consent of majority of the landowners.
Yabaki tells chiefs to be sensible
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Update: 1.52pm The Citizens' Constitutional Forum is concerned that the report on the Rehabilitation of the Sugar industry is being manipulated again into a racial issue, over-shadowing the problems.
"The report is revealing the reality that the sugar industry, on which about 200,000 people in Fiji depend, is doomed to collapse unless mechanised and large-scale farming is introduced," CCF Chief Executive Officer, Rev Akuila Yabaki said.
He urged landowners and chiefs to be responsible and to ponder on questions related to what crop could replace sugar and what incentives they could offer to revive the economy in the country if the sugar indusrty collapsed.
Chaudhry Stresses Non-Involvement in Proposal
www.fijivillage.com - 14/02/2008
As a number of criticisms have been leveled against the interim government for considering the proposal from an Indian consultant to de-reserve all the native land to revive the sugar industry, Interim Finance and Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has today stressed that the Native Land Trust Board and the landowners will have the final say on the proposal.
In an exclusive interview with Village News, Chaudhry said he will not politicise the issue as the landowners will be the ones who will decide on the future arrangements for native land.
Although NLTB is considering the proposal Chaudhry said there are real benefits for the indigenous Fijian landowners.
Chaudhry also said critics should stop saying that he is behind the proposal to de-reserve the native land.
The report by the consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. The native reserve is the land set aside for each mataqali for its planting and to support the landowning unit's needs.
The reserved land is not to be leased out as it is arable land for the mataqali's needs.
Doctor Krishnamurti's report has recommended that the 4 hectare lots for cane farming are uneconomical and 40 to 400 hectare farms are more viable. He also recommends that all investments on the proposed farms be carried out by the lessee and the lease terms be a minimum of 75 years.
NLTB spokesperson, Ro Alipate Mataitini said while the report is just a proposal which will be discussed by the newly formed Committee for Better Utilisation of Land, the NLTB makes it very clear that no native land can be de-reserved without the consent of majority of the landowners.
Acting Interim Prime Minister, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau said the issue will be discussed in the next cabinet meeting
Chiefs urged to ponder economic survival
14 FEB 2008
Fiji’s chiefs and landowners have been urged to consider the future survival of towns in the Western Division if the sugar industry collapsed.
The Citizens’ Constitutional Forum (CCF) says it is concerned that the report on the Rehabilitation of the Sugar industry is being manipulated again into a racial issue, which are once again over-shadowing serious issues that the report seeks to highlight.
“The report is revealing the reality that the sugar industry, on which about 200,000 people in Fiji depend, is doomed to collapse unless mechanised and large-scale farming is introduced,” CCF chief executive officer, Rev Akuila Yabaki said.
It was revealed this week that the interim government had earlier asked the Native Land Trust Board to consider a proposal to de-reserve native land by a consultant from India. The proposal is that the de-reserved land be leased to individuals or companies that undertake commercial farming.
The report was compiled in November last year and submitted to interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.
However, chiefs and landowners have rejected the proposal saying they will not allow an outsider to suggest the de-reservation of native land.
For his part, Rev Yabaki says the chiefs and landowners now need to think about what will happen if the sugar industry collapses.
“Will the towns in the West survive? Nadi will survive because it is a tourist town. However, the real danger of a collapse of the sugar industry is that the towns of Lautoka (known as the sugar city), Ba and Rakiraki may collapse.
“We have been seeing the slow decline of the Labasa economy after the closure of many sugar cane farms due to eviction of tenant farmers there.
“Labasa was referred to as a ghost town by many commentators. Tavua town was also badly affected when the Vatukoula gold mine shut down for a few months,” Rev Yabaki said.
“Landowners and chiefs now need to become responsible and make the decision about what they will do if the sugar industry collapses.
“Do they have any alternative crops in mind? If yes, who will farm these crops? What other incentives do they have to encourage people to come and develop their land so that the economy of these towns remain healthy and productive?” Rev Yabaki asked.
He says the recent census has revealed that Fijians have been leaving the rural areas and settling more in urban centres.
If the sugar towns in the West collapse, Fijians will face an even bigger problem due to a higher possibility of rural-urban migration, because of a lack of development in their provinces,” Rev Yabaki said.