FIJIANS ‘NEED TO UNITE NOW’

www.fijidailypost.com - 24-Apr-2007

FIJIANS need to sit down, be united and constructively talk about what they want after the elections and the type of democracy they want Fiji to have.

Fijian academic Doctor Steve Ratuva said this was important if the country was to move away from the coup culture.

Dr Ratuva made the comments while speaking on a Fijian radio talkback show yesterday.
He said that Fiji was in turmoil, especially after the events of December 5, 2006, and the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs meeting by the Interim Government.

The fact that the military has been involved in all the three coups has compounded matters.

“What happened in 1987 and 2000 is totally different from what happened in 2006,” Dr Ratuva said.

“They involved the military but in different ways. In 1987 the military was used to take over the Bavadra Government. In 2000 the military was used to reclaim the government. But in 2006 the military led the takeover of government.”

Dr Ratuva said Fijians now seemed divided between allegiance and support for the military-led government and the GCC.

“There is a definite split and it is time that Fijians sit down and talk together,” he said.

“We need to be united because there is no use trying to rush into another election without dealing with the probem first.”

He said efforts to try and get Fiji back to an election were commendable but there needed to be some serious thinking on the part of the indigenous people.

“We really need to think hard about what we want. The democracy we have here in Fiji is different from the type of democracy practised in the United States of America or Australia for that matter,” he said on the Viti FM Vakaribamalamala show.

“It is time that Fijians talk about what type of democracy they want. Otherwise everything will just break down again after the elections if we rush into it without trying to first solve the problem we have.”

Dr Ratuva said he told the United Nations Special Mission to Fiji in Suva yesterday that there was a real need for dialogue between the major players in the current political crisis.

He said the big gap that exists in the relationship between the interim administration and the GCC also needs to be rectified.

“It is time that they sit down and talk also. Now there is a big, deep pit between the two, the Interim Government and the GCC. Now it is time for a bridge to be built across it and talks to begin for the future of this country,” Dr Ratuva said.

Meanwhile, Dr Ratuva said he did not see any reason why there should not be a fourth confederacy formed by the people of Ba.

“I don’t see why they should be stopped. There might be some traditional Fijian understanding and relationship but otherwise I don’t see any reason why they can’t form their own confederacy,” he added.

By ILIESA TORA

The GCC and the winds of change

www.fijidailypost.com -12-Apr-2007

THE Great Council of Chiefs (Bose Levu Vakaturaga) meeting yesterday appears to be part of the process of the now familiar talk about a return to normalcy. It also can be interpreted as an attempt by this high house of Fijian chieftains to regain its status as an important player in national politics and governance.

On December 5, 2006 and days after the military takeover of the SDL-led multiparty government, this august body came under intense pressure and scrutiny for all sections of society.

In those days of political turmoil and uncertainty, many in the citizenry looked towards the GCC as the last bastion of hope for the rule of law.

It’s ironic that the Council, a non-democratic body composed of hereditary chiefs or individuals from the upper echelons of ethnic Fijian society, was relied upon for some measure of constitutional control.

The GCC has evolved to become a potent force in Fiji’s national political environment, while maintaining much influence and control within Fijian society.

The GCC was established in 1876 under the governorship of Sir Arthur Gordon as an advisory body for the newly established British colony.

Apart from being part of overall British colonial policy of indirect rule, it was a necessary buffer to cushion any wave of discontent or indigenous opposition to what was effectively foreign rule.

Interestingly the Council came into being after the rebellious tribes of Western/Central Viti Levu had been subdued either by sheer musket power or measles. On October 28, 1876 Sir Arthur Gordon issued a proclamation pardoning all hill tribes and ending all wars (or rebellions!) in Viti Levu.
The Great Council of Chiefs came into being after the promulgation of the Native Ordinance 1876 which also set in motion a series of measures to set up and consolidate a Fijian administrative system.

The Council today has been transformed from having purely advisory role for the colonial administrators and a proxy for indigenous Fijian representation, to a legal entity.

The Constitution has formalised and codified this body of indigenous tribal leaders bringing it to the level of national government as evident in its function to select the post of President and Vice-President.

While we move towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it is important to re-examine the role of this august body a modern society addicted to democracy, free speech, social mobility and the information communication technology (ICT) revolution.

As the permanent home of the GCC takes shape to dominate a leafy Nasese waterfront, it is necessary to ask questions on the role of the council in the new millennium.

We need to ask whether our young liberalised, highly literate and socially mobile ethnic Fijian generation is in tune with what the GCC is all about?

Will the power and political clout of the GGC and other colonially-constructed quasi Fijian administrative institutions weather the test of social, economic and political evolution?

To gain the hearts, minds and attention of the younger generation of not only indigenous Fijians but other ethnic groups too, the GCC needs to realign itself to the demands of modernity.

This is a challenge for the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to seriously consider instead of being grossly engaged in the furtherance of its own institutional survival.

The relevance, moral clout and political influence of this Great Council depends not on the Council itself and who strolls the corridors of its power, but on the grassroots who matter.

In a world defined by the realities of globalisation, consumerism and the upsetting of tradition, it is time for change for the better.

The GCC must work harder to find its place among the masses and realities they face each day, whether in the village or in our ever-grown slums of squatter settlements.
That is the challenge for this august house.

GCC - The last vestige of Fijian identity

www.fijidailypost.com- 14-Apr-2007

Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s bold move to suspend the Great Council of Chiefs is a serious matter that needs careful consideration, especially by indigenous Fijians.
The GCC is a constitutional body with its functions clearly outlined - that is to appoint a President and Vice President.
This announcement by Commodore Bainimarama is now another Constitutional issue and it would be up to the courts of law to determine whether the GCC as a constitutional body has been forcefully undermined.
The declared suspension of the council by Commodore Bainimarama is another step in the ‘clean-up’ campaign being conducted in the Fijian administrative system.
The GCC is not simply a constitutional body.
It also plays a symbolic unifying role for Fiji’s once-fragmented tribal groups and vanua.
It is the head of the Fijian people.
It is what makes, defines and distinguishes them from other ethnic groups, not only in Fiji but overseas.
Whilst many ethnic Fijians do have pertinent questions to raise about the relevance of the GCC, its functions and its role in modern society, it nevertheless is a very important unifying body.
Fiji’s first British governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, saw the Bose Levu Vaka Turaga as a necessary institution not only for colonial administrative purposes but also in the best interest of the indigenous tribes.
Some commentators have agreed that the GCC was a necessary evil when taking into account that colonial rule and Europeans were bringing new forms of governance and foreign customs.
The 18th and 19th centuries were times of change as small-scale indigenous societies became swallowed up by European colonial expansion, international trade and commerce.
The option for Fiji’s indigenous tribes was either to unite or wither away.
We fear that the GCC’s demise may not be good for the indigenous people.
In fact it may be the beginning of the end of Fijian unity and cohesiveness.
And we cannot blame Commodore Bainimarama and Interim Government for this.
The GCC and all other Fijian institutions are themselves to blame for not being tactful enough to change, adapt and step into the 21st century where daily realities are not about tradition or customs but development and better livelihoods.
The GCC is not only a symbol of Fijian solidity, but a living institution of leaders of people.
Amongst former colonies in the developing world Fiji has been spared of the violence and gross human rights violations evident in coup-afflicted African countries.
Conflict in those countries have a tribalistic or inter-ethnic character and we are quite lucky that so far we have not gone down this dreadful path.
The reason perhaps lies in the fact that Fiji’s fragmented indigenous tribes have been successfully integrated into an ethnic construct.
And it’s such quasi-traditional institutions like the Great Council of Chiefs which have been duly codified under our laws and Constitution to neutralise, albeit in an undemocratic way, any likelihood of inter-tribal conflicts.
We hope that the events of the past two days will open the eyes of traditional Fijian leaders in the council to realise a time for change.
We hope that the GCC is not totally disbanded but maintained and reformed so that its roles and functions are in tandem with modern Fijian society.

Chiefs have people at heart

www.fijitimes.com -Monday, April 16, 2007

+ Enlarge this image

Ro Teimumu Kepa

MAJOR developments have taken place over the past week.

The first being the meeting of the Great Council of Chiefs.

The second was the Council rejecting President Ratu Josefa Iloilo's nomination of interim Foreign Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Nailatikau for Vice President.

The final bombshell was the order given by interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama to suspend all GCC meetings until such time he deemed it was appropriate to resume.

The Fiji Times spoke to the paramount chief of Rewa and the Burebasaga Confederacy, Ro Teimumu Kepa on her thoughts on the matter.

Times: In The Sunday Times, former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said the suspension of the GCC meant Fiji was now a chiefless Fijian society. What is your response to this?

Ro Teimumu: Our provinces have their own chiefs, so that does not mean that because this government is suspending the GCC there are no more chiefs. It just means that forum is not available to us. But there are other areas that we meet. We meet at provincial council level. There are other committees that we meet in and we meet at the Burebasaga Confederacy, which is made up of Rewa, Kadavu, Namosi, Serua, Nadroga/Navosa and parts of Ba. So I would just state, not strongly deny or refute that claim, that we have other areas and other forums that we meet in besides the GCC. So the suspension of the GCC just means that we're suspended, the chiefs remain chiefs and we go about our own duties and responsibilities.

Times: Mr Rabuka also questioned how far do we go into not recognising the GCC and the chiefs and whether the people will also be allowed to not recognise their chiefs. What are your comments on this matter?

Ro Teimumu: I think it will be good to ask people what their comments would be on this. I wouldn't go so far into saying that.

Times: With the suspension, do you know whether the chiefs are still united?

Ro Teimumu: Very much so. I would say Burebasaga, very much so. We've never at any time not been in a position where we are not on the same page basically. We have our own different ways of thinking, different ways of working but when it comes to the greater good, the bigger picture, we are all on the same page. That's Burebasaga. I wouldn't want to talk on Kubuna because the Kubuna people have their own representative, so I am not in a position to speak on Kubuna. Neither am I in a position to speak for Tovata but I would speak for Burebasaga.

Times: Do you think the people are still united despite this?

Ro Teimumu: I think the people are not stupid. People are enlightened, the grassroots people know what is happening. Many of our ordinary people are educated, some not in the formal sense, but they have been educated in the informal sector; they can make decisions on their own. They know very well what is happening in the country. So for him to suspend the GCC, I'm sure people know what is behind it.

Times: Interim Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau says the suspension of the GCC is not the first of its kind. He says this first happened in 1904 when the then Governor Sir Everett Imthurn suspended the GCC. Is this not a concern that the suspension would set a precedent for those in power to resort to this move whenever a decision does not favour them?

Ro Teimumu: What he has to understand is at that time there was no Constitution as such, no form of constitution. That was during colonial days and now we are independent and the 1997 Constitution is in place, so what he is talking about has very little relevance to where we are now. What he is quoting or commenting on here is redundant, it has no relevance on where we are now. First of all, it's an illegal government. You know a legal government, they have a higher sense of responsibility, they are rational people, they have been put in place by people who have voted them in, they are responsible for the greater good of many more people. So, we are talking about two different groups. We are talking about a legal government and an illegal one.

Times: Where do you see the status of "revered chiefly leadership" heading to now?

Ro Teimumu: In Fijian society everyone has a place in the hierarchy of things. You have chiefs and you have the structure where there's a place for everyone. The people look up to their chiefs and the chiefs generally on the whole look after the people. Now having said that, people have a responsibility to their chiefs and chiefs have a responsibility to their people. So it works both ways. You can see this more clearly when you're in a Fijian set-up. In the Fijian village, people know what their responsibility is and the chiefs know what their responsibility is towards their people and it works very well. We're in harmony with one another, we look after one another and that's the way it has been designed and I think that's the way we would be going generally. This is a very unusual and abnormal situation that we're talking about here.

Times: Do you think the political situation, higher education and globalisation play a part in such decisions (suspending an august body) in the country?

Ro Teimumu: I really like that question because while we're living in a very small dot in the Pacific Ocean, we are still part of the globalised world and whatever we do has an impact on our position

in that globalised world. Some of the agreements we have signed with other countries, you know charters and regulations we gave signed for example, human rights, we are part of the Human Rights community and as such we have to work with what we have agreed to under the Human Rights Charter. Also we're signatories and have to work with the European Union, the World Trade Organisation. They are part of the globalised community. So in Fiji, the decisions that we made for example, in the Great Council of Chiefs on Wednesday and Thursday, we had to confirm that we will work with the 1997 Constitution and all its laws and regulations and when the chiefs feel in light of what is happening in the globalised world, I think people can understand where we are coming from. There's just a few people who are saying that we had our own agenda.

The chiefs in the GCC belong to different political parties, some of them are SVT, some of them belong to the Fiji Labour Party, some of them are SDL and some of them are from the Vanua Tako Lavo Party, so we all come under different parties.

So when they say we have a political agenda I would say that our political agenda is to look at what is acceptable to the globalised community and that's what we have to work with and that's what we had agreed in December and we have to be consistent. We can't be doing something in December, changing our tune suddenly in April, and then next month something else comes in front of the GCC on the table and then we're changing our tune again.

We have to be consistent and when you work within the law, it assists you in seeing what is the right way to go.

Because anything that we do, if it is illegal, it will come before the courts and we do not want that to happen. It's a body that's there to look after the interests of the Fijian people.

A Chiefless Fijian Society

by SITIVENI RABUKA

Sunday, April 15, 2007

+ Enlarge this image

A Fijian society without chiefs . . . Ratu Epeli Ganilau at the Great Council of Chiefs meeting this week

NI sa bula. In 1988, I became very unpopular with the two great chiefs I was working with in the interim government of Fiji for advocating the slow demise of the traditional Fijian aristocracy and the steady ascendancy of the new indigenous elite heralding the new indigenous meritocracy.

Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau was more diplomatic about his rejection of my views while Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara called me "just an angry young man".

Last year during the public discussions about the Qoliqoli Bill, I mentioned during casual conversations after a presentation I made to a group of concerned environmental experts, the Kenyan experiment when they got their independence and what their first President did about the dismantling of their customary social set up and their tribal landholding.

I was asked then about nationalising the traditionally indigenous land, and I said it was possible but perhaps too late because our chiefly institutions and land were all part and parcel of the indigenous society.

The only way possible was, perhaps, to abolish the chiefly system, and that would free up Fijian ownership for the nationalisation of land, qoliqoli etc.

The first to criticise that view was Ratu Epeli Ganilau, our current Minister for Fijian Affairs in the interim Government, who so vehemently condemned the Council of Chiefs this week for its decision not to endorse the President's nominee, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, for Vice President.

Am I now wrong and likely to be accused by our Prime Minister for countermanding his decision to "suspend" the Great Council of Chiefs and "not recognise" chiefs by still calling these men Ratu?

How far do we go in "not recognising" the Great Council of Chiefs and the chiefs?

Will the people be allowed to "not recognise" their chiefs?

Can I "not recognise" and no longer respect my paramount chief that I am so accustomed and have been time and custom bound to call Na Gone Turaga na Ai Sokula, Na Turaga Bale na Tui Cakau?

Am I now redundant as chairman of the Cakaudrove Provincial Council?

Are the provincial councils now purely a part of the Regional Development Department of government and no longer part of "Fijian" Affairs? What aspects of Fijian Affairs retain their status and roles?

It will be interesting to watch how quickly we can dismantle the old Fijian system and begin to replace it with a system that draws its strength and powers from Central Administration, rather than the inherent "mana" in our indigenous society.

About 1000 people belong to my village of Drekeniwai.

The village is home to the people of Yavusa Navatu and Yavusa Loa in the Vanua of Navatu.

Our chiefs (probably until Thursday this week), Tui Navatu and Tui Loa, have always understood their role of vakarorogo vakavanua vua na Turaga na Tui Cakau, as passed down from generation to generation and codified in the Tukutuku Raraba during the Veitarogi Vanua of 1926-1928.

Will my village be now authorised by an interim Government decree to elect a village commander or have one appointed (equivalent to a battalion commander) who will be commissioned to organise, administer and provide for the people of Drekeniwai using all the resources available to the village by decree?

It would not be too difficult because we already have the infrastructure the mataqali can have a platoon commander equivalent, the groupings of the mataqali can have a company commander equivalent, the I liuliu ni Tokatoka can have a section commander equivalent etc.

Village, district, provinces and divisions can have commanders who are politically appointed by and owe allegiance to the national political leaders not too different from the "political commissars" that came out of the great cultural revolutions of Russia and China.

And like those revolutions, we would have to totally remove and cease to recognise or acknowledge the former tsars and the dynasties so that we can proceed with the new order.

The interim Government has taken the next step, after no longer recognising the Council of Chiefs, by removing the secretariat of that council from their premises in Draiba.

The oldest and perhaps last bastion of Fijian dominance in the affairs of state in Fiji and the government should now retire the name to Ovalau and call that new ownerless complex by its original name of Naiqasiqasi.

The rest are easy:

n Cancel the appointments of the members of the Fijian Affairs Board and Native Land Trust Board because they are joint committees of government and the Council of Chiefs, and

n Abolish the provinces and their councils, tikinas and their councils, villages and their councils as they all are but instruments and subordinate organisations of the Fijian affairs.

So, we may now be well on our way in our march towards a classless Fiji with its own chiefless indigenous race where we will have a level playing field for all and there may be hope for meritocracy in Fiji if the army will allow it.

And the military, as they believe they are doing by their campaign to free the people from old bonds and customary shackles, may want to change their title to the "Peoples' Liberation Army".

Have a very peaceful Sunday.

Ba Province Wants Early Election

Province wants early election

By AMELINA NAIVALUWAQA - www.sun.com.fj - 29 March 2007.

Marjority of the Ba provincial Council members want a quick return to democracy and the interim government to have an early election before 2010. Eighteen members out of the 22 tikina within the province supported the motion to have an early election and a quick return to democratic rule. This was after a delegation from the Ministry of Information informed members of the council the 11 criteria that had to be followed by the interim government before it could return to democratic rule. Tikina of Waya representative Peni Veidreyaki said members of the council should just follow what the interim government was doing so that “we can reach 2010, where a new election will be held and a new government comes in”.
“I think we should go with what the interim government has to say and remove corruption, as well as have proper investigations on allegations and give them time to take us to 2010 before the general election,” he said. However, this was not supported by some members who said it is only proper the country goes back to democratic rule. Some of the delegates raised concerns on how a delegation from the Ministry of Information would go out to the various tikina and explain to the people what the interim government plans to do. “Many things have been said and I hope when a team from the ministry goes out to villages on the tikina level, they will be able to explain cautiously what their plans are and point fingers at things or allegations at others,” said a member. Mr Veidreyaki said it was not right to talk about the interim government because there were police and military personnel at the meeting. Ba Provincial Council chairman Ratu Ovini Bokini asked members of the council if the motion to have an early election was supported or opposed. Three members of the tikina were against an early election while the rest of the 18 members supported an early election by the interim government.
The meeting continues today.

Fijians & Mining Ownership

Fiji Indigenous People and Mining IV
www.fijidailypost.com - 28-Mar-2007

By FRANCIS WAQA SOKONIBOGI
Secretary – Fiji Indigenous Ownership Rights Association
Email: indigenousfiji@gmail.com

This week we continue on our way to discovery. In 2005 at a public discussion at Suva’s Epworth House on the then draft Qoliqoli and Lands Claims Tribunal legislations many indigenous Fijians present asked some very pertinent questions. One provocative query was - “When did or who gave our qoliqoli seabed ownership to the state?” Another question that surfaced - “Was the qoliqoli owners consulted?”
The Vatukoula issue compels us to raise a similar question, this time a more specific one - How come “the state has propriety control of all minerals or materials in the subsoil” as penned under Fiji’s Mining Act Cap.146. After the current dust of uncertainty is settled those questions still need to be answered.
These and other similar unanswered trans-generational questions, fuel the justification of support for future coups. Let us not delude ourselves about that fact. It is true we have the Ministry of Fijian Affairs and its arms out there to cater for the protection of the Fijian people.
However, it has legally paralysed the indigenous people and as a result they are successfully keeping the Fijian grassroots at the bottom of the social, economical and education ladder. We have dwelt at length on the reason why the “clean up” exercise should be more than a cosmetic surface excuse but must reach out beyond the curtain of time.
The past holds the key to the solution of our current dilemma. Coup villains Rabuka and Speight provided justification for their acts with the proclamation of ‘Fiji for the Fijians’. The Qarase Government’s Reservation to Native Land under Clause 8 Crown Lands Act (Cap. 132) emerged nearer to the actual source as landownership. The Cabinet reasoned as follows:
“Native Fijian people had been agitating for a long time for the return of their God-given land. The delays and de-service on those regards by previous governments had caused Native Fijians’ situation culminating in roadblocks, school closures, taking the law into their own hands and part of the many reasons for the coup-de’tat…”
We now know that the exercise is just a transfer of ownership of Crown Lands from one government institution to another quasi-Fijian real estate agency. We refer to the Native Land Trust Board. The Fiji Indigenous Ownership Rights Association’s submission to the Sector Standing Committee on Economic Services on the Real Estate Agents Bill 2006 on the 14 July 2006 suggested that the NLTB’s role has evolved from a trust institution into a powerful real estate agent. For the purpose of elaboration on this particular issue, we submitted as follows:

Section 2, Interpretation

An “officer’’, in relation to a licensee company, means every director, manager, or secretary of the company who, on behalf of and in the name of the company, carries on the company’s business as a real estate agent, and includes:
(a) any person, however designated, who is responsible for the management of the company or institution such as the Native Land Trust Board, that deals in “land’’ as defined hereunder as including estates and interests, whether freehold or chattel, in real property.

Meaning of “real estate agent”

3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, every person shall be deemed to be a real estate agent who acts, or who holds himself or herself out to the public as ready to act, for reward as an agent in respect of the sale or other disposition of land or the purchase or other acquisition of land, or in respect of the leasing or letting of land, whether or not that person carries on any other business.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), no person shall be deemed to be a real estate agent for the purposes of this Act by reason only of the fact that:
(a) being a legal practitioner, the person acts, in the course of business as the legal practitioner, as agent in respect of the sale, purchase or other disposition of land, the acquisition of land or the leasing or letting of land, unless the person is remunerated for so acting by commission in addition to, or instead of, professional charges as a legal practitioner;
(b) the person sells or offers to sell any land by auction;
(c) the person enters into a transaction or series of transactions pursuant to a permit granted to the person by the Board under section 30.

Administration of trust account in certain cases

65. (1) this section applies in any case where the Board is satisfied that a real estate agent:
(a)is, owing to physical or mental disability, unable properly to administer a trust account; or
(b) has died; or
(c) has been adjudicated a bankrupt; or
(d) has had his or her licence revoked; or
(e) has been suspended from carrying on the business of a real estate agent; or
(f) has ceased to carry on the business of a real estate agent and has neglected to wind up his or her trust account after reasonable notice has been given by the Board requiring such winding up.
The attitude of the NLTB as to the situation of the Fijian landowners is aptly described in subsection (a) above. This institution has made landowners incapable of developing their lands to the point that they have become dependent on government handouts. The NLTB now justifies itself to hold in trust the Fijian peoples’ lands into perpetuity as a real estate agent under the pretext of “for the benefit of the Fijian people”. The current NLTB system and its management ethos have psychologically paralysed indigenous landowners.
It is time the NLTB re-examine its actual role and redirect its energies to being a trusteeship rather than a speculative real estate institution. Deputy General Manager (Operations) of NLTB aptly said “taken in its strictest interpretation, NLTB’s role is limited to the administration of land for the benefit of the Fijian landowners….” (Presentation to the Fiji Hotel Association Hospitality Forum by October,)

State Acquisition a terra nullius application

The dispossessed state of Fijian grassroots landowners continues to remain unchanged even after the so-called pro-indigenous coups (1987 & 2000) and successive Fijian-led governments.
The indigenes are still zipped up in the same colonially constructed straitjacket with their mineral, qoliqoli seabed and other natural resources locked up to boost the national coffers while they crowd the nation’s prison, squatter settlements and urban streets. Unless the Interim Government takes the initiative and reconciles the Fijian peoples’ dilemma as set out above there is no hope of hoping that future coups are avoidable.
At a 2005 Lautoka consultation sitting on the draft Qoliqoli and Indigenous Land Claims Tribunal legislations the author asked the panel of state lawyers as to how the qoliqoli seabed ownership rights came to belong to the state?
One of the panellists replied that the law was adopted from England. The author reminded the panellist that the 1874 Deed of Cession recognised that Fijians communally possessed the real property ownership rights of the whole of the Fiji island group. This right under the old common law extended to rights over all materials beneath the surface and all the air space above it.
This can be evidenced in the 1908 Mining Ordinance, which provides ‘Fiji landowners with the right to compensation for exploration of mineral wealth beneath their land.
This real property rights was altered in 1934 to cater for the discovery of gold in the Tavua basin and later Vatukoula.

Continued next week — The need to ‘clean up’ the past so as to have a peaceful present and lay a prosperous basis for our future.

FRANCIS WAQA SOKONIBOGI