Cakaudrove Provincial Scholarship Fund

Making the most of the fine weather

By Sitiveni Rabuka
Fiji Times - Sunday, February 25, 2007

Ni sa Bula! It is Saturday and a great day here in Savusavu and the whole of Vanua Levu.

People are out making the best of the fine day out here.

Men looking over their plantations to see if the standing crop will survive the effects of the heavy rains and strong winds of the past fortnight, or whether they will have to be uprooted for the usable to be used and the damaged, cleared for new ones to be planted.

The Soqosoqo Vakamarama of Cakaudrove had a soli day at the Cakaudrove Provincial Compound at Yaroi yesterday to collect money as the women's contribution towards the Province's Scholarship fund.

A few tikina sent in their request to be excused as they tried to clear the debris of the flash floods (I don't know why we call them flash floods we knew they were going to come when we blocked the natural waterways by cutting trees, building roads and houses where water used to run etc.!) that damaged houses and villages in parts of Vaturova, Tawake and Saqani.

Undeterred by the decision of those in the villages, those women from Vaturova and Tawake on the good roads side of the damaged road came along, and the Turaga ni Vanua of Saqani also left behind those that needed to work and brought the rest of the women to the soli because his daughter in law is of the Ai Sokula household and he did not want to embarrass her when the ladies of the Ai Sokula called for the soli, that his daughter-in-law would be seen to be disrespectful to her Naus by not coming to the soli.

It was a beautiful day and the women came in their different coloured muumuus and jabas and the few Turaga ni Vanua that came sat and drank yaqona in support of their ladies at the Vakatunuloa.

The singing was beautiful and weather great perhaps made greater by the company and the fact that we had just come out of a bad rainy and windy spell here in Vanua Levu.

The passersby might have wondered why so many ladies and some men spent so much time most of the day, sitting, singing and some drinking yaqona.

I told those few men I was with that the Cakaudrove Provincial Scholarship fund is for the good of Fiji not just the recipients, their families or Cakaudrove.

When I was in Secondary School at Queen Victoria School, all boys from Cakaudrove received $27 which was the fees for one term at that school at that time. The fee for the whole year was $81 probably the highest of all the schools of that era.

Cakaudrove students at Queen Victoria School, Ratu Kadavulevu School, Adi Cakobau School and Navuso Agricultural School were the original beneficiaries of the provincial scholarship, and those that went to Ballantine Memorial School, and Lelean Memorial School later also qualified for the scholarship.

I said Fiji benefited because the sons and daughters of Cakaudrove that were helped through their secondary school education by the scholarship later became great servants of Fiji, some distinguishing themselves alongside the distinguished sons and daughters of the other provinces and Rotuma and the other races capable of holding their own among the elite of our nation.

Those a few years ahead of me and those of my age group whom I can remember include my generation of the Lalabalavu, Ganilau, Kubuabola, Lesuma children, Ratu Inoke Vakataraisulu Tabualevu a great rugby and cricketing son of Cakaudrove, the late Ratu Jone Filipe Radrodro, a long time permanent secretary in the civil service of our country, Sekonaia Tui Mailekai, a long time head of the former Inland Revenue Department and founding head of the new Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority and his wife Ulamila, Doctor Laisa Naivalulevu, a former national table tennis gold medalist, the late Deputy Commissioner of Police Aseri Tagicakiverata, the ever-so-humble late Savenaca Siwatibau, the Gonelevu brothers Vili and Tomasi of Vanuavou, Vaturova, former senator Ratu Seru Buliruarua, the recently dismissed CEO's Sakiusa Rabuka and Anasa Vocea of Drekeniwai, Navatu, our own Roko Tui Cakaudrove, Waisele Wainiqolo of Korocau, Cakaudrove, who also served as Roko Tui in Namosi and Ba before coming to serve in his own Province, and I will also mention my two sisters one recently retired as a long time Head Teacher at Namaka, Nadi and the other still at the Institute of Applied Sciences in the Laucala Campus of USP.

We all owe so much to those leaders of our vanua who introduced the scholarship.

So to those who might have wondered why we spent so much time at Yaroi on Friday, I can say we were sacrificing one day to raise money for our provincial scholarship that will fund the further education of our sons and daughters to better prepare them to be servants of our country.

My sincere thanks to the two ladies of the Ai Sokula household who came to our villages at the behest of our Paramount Chief, Na Turaga Bale na Tui Cakau, to inspire our women to take up this great challenge and help our province support our children to help Fiji.

Vinaka Di Mitimiti, vinaka Di Kavu.

And it was great to see my wife among so many ladies from all the other thirteen provinces and Rotuma the "marama vakawati mai" supporting their adopting province.

Perhaps the Cakaudrove Scholarship is just as much a national investment as a provincial one.

Vinaka Vakalevu.

The GCC and its Place

The GCCs lost aura

ROBERT MATAU
www.fijitimes.com - Friday, February 23, 2007

+ Enlarge this image

August but silent...members of the GCC at a meeting

The ever assuring voice of the Great Council of Chiefs has helped shape Fiji into what it is today. Without this august body we would not have modernisation in its present form, nor would we have adopted the Western concepts of governance and democracy.

In the absence of their voice through their current stand-off with the military, we take a look at the GCCs history and the consequences that shaped this institution up until recent times, in this three-part series.

SINCE that first shot was fired on May 14, 1987 in Fijis unknowing parliament, the fluidity of Fijian politics has never recovered from the so called coup culture.

It has become the main catalyst to legitimise the overthrow of any tyranny of democracy in Fijian politics.

Caught in this vice-like grip is the Great Council of Chiefs, the last bastion of the Fijian race. For many years Fiji has looked up to the Great Council of Chiefs for answers to a wide range of its problems in its darkest hours.

And many times they have bailed out a nation on the brink of collapse with their wisdom and aura.

That is why it has been revered and tagged with the label, august institution. However, the 2006 coup and the leadership problems that continue to plague Fiji, have given fuel to the growing number of critics who are losing confidence in this institution.

The continuous silence on the part of the chiefs has also fuelled rumours that the GCC may have been too politicised, and, that what the public now hears is only the voice of the institution called the GCC making decisions but without the full mandate of all chiefs.

This school of thought is also bold enough to claim that the GCCs aura and manna have been lost.

Interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimaramas public swipe at the GCC, though considered harsh by many, has also given fuel to that same school of thought.

The erosion of chiefly rule, stemming from the 1987 coup, was sensed and opposed strongly by the late Josevata Kamikamica.

He said the chiefly body should be apoliticial, with reference to the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei Party the first political party to receive the backing of the chiefly body.

Mr Bainimaramas slating the GCC was blasphemy in the eyes of any Fijian. But could it be that he knew certain truths within the roots of all things chiefly that gave him the ammunition to conduct the so called clean up campaign, starting with the GCC?

In the absence of the chiefly voice maybe it is an opportune time to review the roles of this institution, its origins and what its initial functions were.

To do this we have to go back into history to fully understand the initial establishment and purpose of the GCC. The Great Council of Chiefs was a brainchild of William Pritchard, the British Consulate who initiated the first ever general meeting of chiefs in Levuka on December 14, 1859 to pave the way for the cessation process of Fiji to the British Crown. Like the 1997 Constitution, the old Matanitu could understand what its true purpose and benefits were.

Their ignorance of understanding the issues was interpreted by the Colonialists as a major threat to their chosen leading chiefs led by Ratu Seru Cakobau the then Vunivalu of what was to be regarded by many, as the leading military and naval power in Fiji, supported by white historians.

He was under threat from the Americans to pay up the debts for the burning of the US Counsels residence in Nukulau on July 4, 1846, which plagued Cakobau for the next 20 years. Pressed from all corners to avoid the same fate that Veidovi of Rewa in 1840 faced for his crimes against visiting American ships when he was shipped out of Fiji in chains by Commodore Wilkes to America to answer for his crimes, Cakobau needed a way out.

At the same time, Cakobau, who became fascinated by the Hawaiian monarchial system through his secretary Samuel A St.John, assumed the title Tui Viti. He was sending out the message that he held absolute power throughout the divided yet pocket and strongly entrenched matanitu that made up Fiji.

Each matanitu operated under a sophisticated and civilised system of its own chiefdoms your chief did not recognise the other, hence the adage manu dui tagi (you only rule in your own land) common to the chiefs of Kadavu. Even more true to this debate were the Colo states that now come under Naitasiri.

Each small state had their own chief and there was no recognised paramount chief in their eyes.

The opportunity to consolidate his position through the first of many coups (with the overthrow of the principle chief of Bau the Roko Tui Bau) during his own lifetime and his continued skirmishes, armoured with muskets and fierce warriors was a war itself against the ancient Fijian chiefly hierarchy. A hierarchy that had stood the test of time over 15 generations before his time.

In the eyes of the old matanitu or old guard if you may, the uprising Bau matanitu was a junior state yet it had the gall to challenge the old ways.

To achieve his goals, Cakobau subjected the seniority of many other matanitu and gave prominence to the lesser matanitu that gave him their support forming the provinces to be their leader. Many of these old matanitu were at war with the emerging power for a long time including that of Rewa, Verata and Lau under the Tongan prince Enele Maafu.

(Next we look at the assessment of the British advance party to check Ratu Serus claims as Tui Viti)

Vanua is Not Alienable

Interim government is on the right path to the future
www.fijidailypost.com -14-Feb-2007

THE return of 86 acres of ancestral lands to the Raviravi people of Vugalei, Tailevu, is a welcome sign of greater things to come from the Interim government, we would hope. There is much restitution to be done for Fijian landowning units who have suffered the alienation of traditional vanua as a result of past chiefly deals, dubious conquests, bureaucratic confusion, contested claims, and past government inaction.

The indigenous people of our islands deserve to have all of the books of dispossession thrown open for reassessment. The issue of how some of Fiji became ‘freehold property’ needs to be reconsidered in the light of global trends to revalue the worth of indigenous peoples and to re-assign their heritage to them. ‘Freehold’ is a Western and European conception of the relationship between humans and their physical environs; it has no root or principle in the indigenous Pacific. It has no history or legitimacy here beyond that of an introduced ideology that came with gunboat diplomacy and Christian mission cooperation.

The idea of the vanua as a permanently tradeable resource is simply and unalterably opposed to historic ancestral notions of what the Fijian is as a person, and what their heritage is, as a God-given resource. The Western and European idea of ‘land-use it or lose it’ is anathema to the indigenous mindset – not just in Fiji, but all over the world.

No Fijian saw their vanua as something to be traded – it may be won by conquest for a generation or so, but it could never be traded simply because it was never conceived of as something alienable. That idea had to be planted in the mind of a chief – as it was. And once planted, we know what happened: tracts were traded and thereby alienated in the interest of cementing alliances, paying debts, seeking advantages, or punishing enemies.

To make the trade in land stick, another idea had to be planted and take root too. That was the idea of ‘the state’. The state became the judge and jury of what was to be traded and what wasn’t. Deals between parties were no longer private affairs, but had to go through the examination and adjudication processes of ‘the state’. In colonial times, the state was the colonising power, the government or more specifically, the governor of the day. So a promised deal – a land trade - that no Fijian had any interest in honouring beyond meeting the satisfaction of their own purposes or their own lifetime, took on a permanence through the instrument of the state.

The state became the trans-generational source of creating, defining and sustaining ‘freehold’. by recourse to ‘law’ and specifically ‘property law’. By this invention, the Fijian relationship to their vanua was codified and rendered transcendent – the law no longer emanated from a shared oral tradition reinforced by the club, but now stood over and above them. The law took on a mystical power because it was unreadable and therefore not understandable by the predominantly illiterate Fijian people. It was no longer a collective consensus, but the domain of an elite of experts who held their authority at the behest of the state.

The meaning of ‘freehold’ became a new orthodoxy with its own sacred power, and ‘the law’, ‘the state’ and ‘freehold’ became a sacred ideological triangle that ensured Fiji would never be the same again. Ultimately this set of alien ideas and their corresponding institutions were reinforced by ‘it goes without saying’. In other words: don’t question what has been done to Fiji and its ancient culture for to do so is to upset too many apple-carts (as it were).

The fact is history is only as sacred as we suppose it to be. But whose history? The history of indigenous values or the history of introduced ones? There is no sure answer to this, but in relation to the vanua, the response of the interim government in honouring the claim of the Raviravi is a worthy signal that it values the history of the older (and prior) over the younger – especially where that priority can be honoured without cost to those who have gained through the subversion of that order. We applaud this move.

Suva City Claim by Fijian Landowners

Suva worth more than $1billion
www.fijilive.com - Tuesday January 30, 2007

A High Court has heard that the value of the total land area in the Suva Peninsula, which is home to Fiji’s capital, is worth $1,402,450,000.

Former chief valuer in the Lands Ministry Josefa Dulakiverata, said this was the average cost of the 4007-acre land at $296,000 per acre last year.

Dulakiverata was testifying in the trial of Suvavou landowners, who are claiming that the land taken on October 10, 1874, was done unlawfully.

The court heard that in 1999, the peninsula was worth $1,186,072,000. The value increased in 2000, as the same piece of land was worth $1,402,450,000 at $322,000 per acre.

Dulakiverata said the figures were based on the average market value and they were instructed to value the land as if it was not developed.

"The whole area is subdivided into residential, commercial and industrial class but we just looked at the whole area.

"We looked at the potential of the land," he said.

Landowners also claim that land belonging to the three yavusa - Nayavumata, Nauluvatu and Vatuwaqa - was converted to private freehold land from 1882 to date.

The landowners are claiming compensation for about 675, 653 acres of their ancestral land which they say are now mostly in private hands.

Court hears $1.2bn claim

www.sun.com.fj - Monday 29 January - By Harold KOI

More than a billion dollars is owed to landowners of the Suva peninsula area, an economist told the High Court yesterday. Economist and lecturer Jese Verebalavu took the witness box before High Court judge, Justice Devendra Pathik and read out information regarding the real landowners of the land that the capital city occupies.

Ms Verebalavu said Suvavou landowners were deprived of their rights to the land of their ancestors and did not receive the benefits enjoyed by other landowners. Ms Verebalavu based her arguments on research saying for the last 114 years the Suvavou people had been alienated from what was rightfully theirs.

Referring to the Suvavou people as ‘kai suva’, she said land was sold by the colonial administration at $750 pounds, which was the fixed exchange rent established between 1886 and August, 2000. She said 4007 hectares belonged to the kai suva and estimated the money owing to them at $1.2 billion.

Suva peninsula includes the junction of the Tamavua River and creek ascending to the course on the hill Na Ului Roko Leka, thence to the hilltop Namadai descending to the junction Waisomo and Waiqarati thence downstream to the junction of the creek Nabuni and Wai Ko Nasamabula - down to the sea around the sea coast past the old European town of Suva to the mouth of the Tamavua River. Ms Verebalavu said that compared to landowners of the Fijian Resort and Warwrick Hotel, the kai suva has lost their ancestral home ground, lost traditional roles, rights to protect their own social destiny and property rights.

“The rightful owners of the Suva land do not have any more space for expansion of their village in Lami,” she said Suvavou people were asked to move by Ratu Seru Cakobau when the capital of Fiji was being decided. The village people were requested to move to Kiuva in Tailevu but this request was later refused because they opted to stay in Samabula. However the crown had plans to develop the area and Suvavou people were finally moved to Lami where they stay today.

Ms Verebalavu said Ratu Seru Cakabau was not the King of Fiji when he sold most to the land to Polynesians and the colonial administration, after abolishing the deal by Ratu Cakobau did not give land back to the proper owners. Questioned by Justice Pathik on how she knew that the land belonged to the Suvavou people, Ms Verebalavu said she based her findings on facts of research.

Dear Commander

www.fijidailypost.com 29-Dec-2006 - Dionisia Lewanavanua, Bau, Fiji.

Sir,

I WOULD like to take this opportunity to utter a few words of gratitude to our self proclaimed President and current Commander of our military forces, Mr Frank Bainimarama. I would like to speak my mind about the current situation and show our brave and noble dictator how I’m feeling right now. Because of you Mr Bainimarama:

My mother has lost her job that she has been doing for the last 5 years;

My father’s pay has been reduced by half of what he was getting before all this happened;

My parents will not be able to send me to school next year because of financial problems;

I didn’t get to visit my grandparents in the village like I use to every single year during Christmas and New Year;

I will not get the opportunity to meet my cousins from overseas who were supposed to visit my family for Christmas and New Year; and

I didn’t get what I would have normally wanted for Christmas (gifts and presents);

Finally I would like to say that you Mr Bainimarama probably had a wonderful Christmas Day spending it with your family, friends and most of all your grandchildren.

I’m sure that they (your grandchildren) must have really enjoyed their Christmas receiving all those wonderful gifts and presents while me and thousands of other innocent children in Fiji had to go through Christmas without those special pampering. I’m sure that the good Lord will look down upon us all and comfort us in these times of need and most of all, in these times of misery.

Same Old Swan Songs

www.fijidailypost.com.fj 29-Dec-2006. T Lesu Woodridge, QLD, Australia

Sir,

I CONTINUE to be amused by the repeated comments from the National Alliance Party headed by Ratu Epeli Ganilau and the Kadavu Provincial Council Chairman, Ratu Jo Nawalowalo.As we know, Ratu Epeli was dropped from the GCC by Laisenia Qarase and he did not even attract a significant number of votes in the May 2006 General Election to make him or his party pretend that they speak for a lot of people.And Ratu Nawalowalo got overlooked by the SDL party to be their candidate for Kadavu, even though he applied for an SDL ticket.Their bitterness with Mr Qarase and the SDL party and their support of the military clean up is therefore understandable.I am just wondering why they continue to beat aloud their drums of support in the same tune, with the same words in the media almost everyday.If you support the military, which is your right, say it once maybe twice then enough. No need to keep shouting it aloud for everyone to hear it again and again, especially when you are speaking for yourselves only, or for a minority of people that voted for you in the last election.I am sure the military has noticed your support already and will give you two men senior positions in the new interim government.Just put to rest saying the same thing over and over again. We want to read and hear something new and more constructive in the media and not the same song and tune from Ratu Epeli’s party and my tauvu, Ratu Nawalowalo in Kadavu.If you want to comment again, sure do so. That’s your right. But say something different and better too please.

Chairman of Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs - Ratu Ovini Bokini

AMELIA VUNILEBA Sunday, December 24, 2006
www.fijitimes.com

THE Bose Levu Vakaturaga or Great Council of Chiefs is an important part of Fiji's society and has been so for quite some time now.
This is a body that is made up of chiefs from different districts and provinces and is often looked upon for wise counsel.
The position of GCC chairman could be considered as one that comes with a lot of power and demands a person who can rise to the challenge of whatever situation or issue is thrown his way.
The GCC was brought to the fore of the country's political spectrum recently during the impasse between the military and the Government.
And in the midst of all the furore, there stood the GCC chairman, Ratu Ovini Bokini in all his calmness.
Ratu Ovini holds the title of Tui Tavua of the district of Tavua which comes under the province of Ba in the Western Division.
Since his appointment to the GCC chairmanship and with all the issues the council has to deal with, Ratu Ovini always seems to maintain his composure no matter what the mood of the council or the country for that matter at that particular time.
You can't help but wonder if ever he raises his voice in anger because he is a very soft spoken person.
Such is his stature and such is his personality.
He is 62-years-old, having turned a year older just last month and he is the son of Ratu Etuate Bokini and Sereima Lalavanua.
He was born in Tavualevu and educated at Tavua District School, Marist Convent School, Ratu Kadavulevu School and Queen Victoria School.
Apart from that, he attended some management courses at the University of the South Pacific and worked firstly at the Colonial Sugar Refinery before it changed to the Fiji Sugar Corporation Limited.
He is married to Tavo Bokini and they have four children and it was his eldest son Ratu Inoke Bokini who shed a little light about Ratu Ovini.
"I may be a bit biased but he is a good father no, he is the best father," Ratu Inoke laughed.
"He was always firm and caring and always believed in sharing whatever we had with others," he said.
"We grew up with a lot of cousins because he wanted us all to have an education and for us his children, we had to go without some things so that there was enough for all of us."
"And that was not only for family members but for anyone who would come to him for help."
Ratu Inoke said although Ratu Ovini was well employed at FSC, the family didn't have much in terms of material things or that which many young people yearned for.
This, he said, was because his father centred his attention on education and would try and spread his earnings to cover for the educational costs of family members who came to stay with them.
"Now the FSC homes were big but our home was always full," he laughed.
Ratu Inoke said although there were four children, and they were a family of six (including Ratu Ovini and Tavo), this was extended by two members when Ratu Ovini took in two nephews who are now counted as part of the family.
He said one was named after Ratu Ovini and he works at the Tavua Water Supply while Nacanieli was considered the youngest and was presently a student at the Fiji Institute of Technology in Suva.
He said although these two cousins were registered in the Vola ni Kawa Bula under their father's name, Ratu Ovini took them in as his own sons and that was how things remained to date.
Apart from Ratu Inoke who is the Human Resources Manager at the Housing Authority, the other son is Ratu Totivi who works at Douglas Pharmaceuticals, Kelera Naborisi, a teacher at DAV Girls College in Samabula and Sereima Korosaya who works at the Bank of Baroda in Suva.
Altogether, Ratu Ovini has 13 grandchildren 10 from his four children and three from his namesake.
Ratu Inoke said because his father was very busy with his work and his traditional commitments when they were growing up, he didn't really have much time for them.
But, he says, that is a totally different story with his grandchildren.
"One woman who looked after us while we were younger and who passed away recently, used to tell us that when we were babies, he (Ratu Ovini) would hardly change our nappies or carry us when we cried," he said.
"But it is totally different with his grandchildren when one cries, he is there ready to carry them and he changes their nappies whenever he can," he laughed.
"Oh they are getting a lot of love and attention from him and when he's home, they get to choose what movies they watch at home and he sits and watches with them."
Ratu Inoke says his father is one person who doesn't really show much emotion but takes in whatever's happening and "keeps his cool".
He said Ratu Ovini was the kind of person who accepted other people's views but didn't make decisions straight away, rather, choosing to listen to everyone's views before he makes up his mind.
And in the recent weeks with what has transpired in the country, Ratu Inoke says Ratu Ovini's grandchildren provided a welcome distraction for him when he would get home as he would sit and talk with them and would end up laughing with them.
"He hardly loses his temper but I suppose he has a good 2IC in our mother," he laughed.
Ratu Inoke says his brothers and sisters talk with Ratu Ovini frequently and this has become a daily thing since the impasse started.
Daily Routine
Ratu Ovini has maintained a similar routine for a number of years now where he wakes up at 3am everyday and has his morning devotion.
"So when we get a call at around 4am, we know that its him because that is a time when he makes some calls," said Ratu Inoke.
At around 5am, the family is woken up and a family devotion follows suit.
Following that, Ratu Inoke says the village elders or qase ni vanua would come for a meeting at his home and they would then plan what sort of work is to be done in the village on that particular day.
"They would discuss developments that are useful like plans for planting crops that could earn cash for the villagers or things that would ultimately eradicate poverty," said Ratu Inoke.
He said these developments would also include discussions like getting computers for the village or getting youths and villagers to learn courses that would enhance their knowledge.
Also, this included discussions that could get women involved in cooking courses that were on offer.
Ratu Ovini was one who believed in mixing with other cultures and sent his children to Drasa Indian School.
"He wanted us to mix with other races and encouraged us to learn Hindi and we speak it fluently now," he said.
Beliefs
Ratu Inoke says his father is a spirited and firm person and a disciplinarian but was very patient.
He said his father would never forget being asked to serve in the government that was formed following the 1987 coup by then prime minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara.
"All his life he has worked for the FSC and when he was called by Ratu Mara to serve in the interim government, he had some second thoughts at first but these were quashed when Ratu Mara told him it was an opportunity to expose himself and his talents which would help in nation building.
"He was still working at FSC then and was receiving more money but decided to resign and join the interim council.
"He thought the call of duty was more important than the money he would have received and that's why he accepted.
"It was a call of duty and when he finished off from there, he was the general manager of the Rarawai Mill.
And just like that time, Ratu Ovini Bokini is now served with the task of heeding the call to duty. Ratu Inoke says the family has rallied behind their father/ grandfather during this time.
And he would like to thank all those who've prayed in ernest for Ratu Ovini and asked them to keep praying and remain calm even.
And just like his nature, Ratu Inoke says his father has remained calm throughout this ordeal between the military and the Government.
"Basically I know he's a person who speaks from the heart and I suppose that is why he's penniless," Ratu Inoke joked.
Career Brief
Apart from being a member and chairman of the GCC, Ratu Ovini held previous positions in various boards and committees like the Fiji Development Board, the Liqour Tribunal in the Western Division.
He has held senior managerial positions at both the Fiji Sugar Corporation Limited and the Penang Mill in Rakiraki.
While his hobbies were gardening and fishing before, his eldest son Ratu Inoke says that has changed to spending time with his grandchildren.
Ratu Ovini became the chairman of the GCC in 2004 and was re-elected to the position in 2005 for a term of three years.
Ratu Ovini became chairman after his predecessor Ratu Epeli Ganilau was not re-elected by the GCC.
This was in July of 2004, after the GCC decided that the position of chairman should go to a chief from either the Kubuna or Burebasaga confederacies since Ratu Epeli was from the Tovata confederacy.
Last year when the Promotion of Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill was introduced by the Laisenia Qarase led government, Ratu Ovini said the council was not consulted and their attempts to get a copy of the controversial Bill was futile.
And during Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna Day celebrations, he stated in his speech that reconciliation was not something that could be forced or was one sided.
Ratu Ovini also holds the position of chairman in the Ba provincial Council in his capacity as the Tui Tavua.
He was a member of Parliament in the 1990s during the Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei government's term in power and also held Cabinet positions.
He contested the Tavua open seat in the 2001 general elections but failed to win the seat and he stayed in his village, involving himself in various activities in his village of Tavualevu.

What is Commodore Bainimarama Running Away From?

TIME South Pacific magazine - Dec 18 2006 Issue

For months before he appointed himself President and put Fiji's elected leaders under house arrest, military commander Frank Bainimarama had been threatening to stage a coup unless Laisenia Qarase's government abandoned plans to pardon those behind the abortive coup and mutiny of 2000. But some in Fiji say Bainimarama, who during the mutiny narrowly escaped assassination by rebel troops, has another motive: ending a police probe into the killings of four soldiers from the mutinous special- forces unit.

"It's cold-blooded murder," says Ana Kalounivale, "and that's what Bainimarama is running away from." The 37-year-old widow says Bainimarama must bear some responsibility for the bashing deaths of her husband and three other special-forces soldiers. If he did not order or know about the killings at the time, she believes, then he failed to properly investigate them afterward. "Now we don't know if we will ever have justice," says the mother of four.

The commander has repeatedly denied any responsibility for the deaths of Selesitano Kalounivale, Jone Davui, Epineri Bainimoli and Lagani Rokowaqa." I never gave any orders to kill," he said in 2003. However, in the weeks before the coup Bainimarama was under increasing pressure over the murders. Police probes and court actions by victims' families and surviving soldiers could have seen him suspended, forced to give evidence about the killings, and potentially facing charges and a six-figure compensation claim against the Fiji Military Force. During the mutiny by members of the elite Counter-Revolutionary Warfare unit, three loyalist soldiers were shot and-in an experience which some officers say has haunted him ever since-Bainimarama was hunted by armed rebels through a jungle-choked valley behind Suva's Queen Elizabeth Barracks. After the barracks were retaken, loyalists rounded up CRW soldiers regardless of whether they had taken part in the mutiny. Selesitino and the other soldiers allegedly fell victim to a violent paroxysm of revenge.

Among Bainimarama's increasingly peremptory demands to the Qarase government were the shutting down of the police investigation into the murders and the removal of Fiji's Police Commissioner, Andrew Hughes. The day after the coup, Dec. 7, Bainimarama sacked Hughes, who had already left the country after death threats to his family, and appointed Army intelligence chief Jim Koroi as acting Police Commissioner. Next day his soldiers took in for questioning six former CRW soldiers, alleging that they could foment civil unrest.

In the past year, Bainimarama and the military had been fighting four separate legal actions. Three were lodged by former CRW soldiers who survived beatings in 2000. The fourth was a compensation claim by Ana Kalounivale, who successfully sued the Commander and the government for worker's compensation over her husband's death but has yet to receive any money. In a hearing last April, the court was told that after he was first picked up, Selesitino had a 30-minute meeting with Bainimarama and was then taken to the local police station on the Commander's orders. He was later taken from the station by four or five soldiers. Acquaintances of his told the court they were working in a building next door to the police station when soldiers arrived with Selesitino. They said they heard him crying out for help as he was driven away in a military vehicle. According to the judgment of Magistrate Ajmal Gulab Khan, "He was on the floor of the van and bystanders could hear swearing, hitting with rifle butts and kicking at the back of the tray." Around midnight, his hideously injured body was delivered to the morgue. Magistrate Khan found that "the assaulting soldiers may have exceeded in the scope of their duty by assaulting the deceased, but they acted as soldiers of FMF and were responsible for their actions in the general scope of their duties." He awarded Ana Kalounivale $24,000, but she says the military is appealing the judgment. But it has never explained where the soldiers took Selesitino or why he was singled out. But documents lodged in support of civil lawsuits by the three CRW soldiers who survived beatings give a chilling insight into what might have happened. The soldiers "seized me at gunpoint and handcuffed my hands behind my back," said Sergeant Viliame Lotawa of the night he was taken from the police station. "I was punched, kicked and beaten with blunt objects such as rifle butts and iron rods. I was beaten all the way to [Queen Elizabeth Barracks]." Lotawa says his attackers included a former Fijian rugby international, Sergeant Jack Komaitai. Komaitai told Time last week there was no truth to the allegation. Another survivor, Metuisela Railumu, told the court he was taken by soldiers to a shooting range and "beaten with wood and iron rods all over my body." The case of the third survivor, Barbados Mills, is due to go to trial early in 2007.

All three suits include Bainimarama as a defendant, charging that as military commander he was responsible for the actions of his troops. Police have interviewed 12 soldiers about the bashings, but the military has reportedly insisted that a senior officer attend all interviews; in at least one case, the officer prematurely terminated the interview. When Time put Lotawa's allegations to Bainimarama's spokesman, Major Neumi Leweni, he said, "Who told you that?" He has since refused to speak to the magazine.

Police have told Time the military conducted its own investigation, under the supervision of then officer Jack Koroi, Bainimarama's hand- picked new acting Police Commissioner. None of the alleged perpetrators named by Lotawa and his fellow survivors has faced any military trial or disciplinary hearing. Police are unhappy about Koroi's appointment. Says one officer, who asked to remain anonymous: "Koroi knows what to look for in the files. He's a former Criminal Investigations Department officer and he was the point of contact up at the barracks for people wanting to interview soldiers in the past." Contacted by Time last week, Koroi said of the police investigation,"[The suspects in the bashings] have all been questioned but they have decided to stay mute. There is a lot of difficulties with this. I have to see the file before I comment."

Since leaving Fiji, sacked Police Commissioner Hughes, an Australian, has said one reason for the coup was self-preservation on Bainimarama's part. "He's been resistant to the investigation into the murder of the Counter-Revolutionary Warfare soldiers in 2000," Hughes told ABC News. "We believe he has some questions to answer in that regard himself." Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer shares Hughes' view. "I think, in particular, Commodore Bainimarama is deeply concerned about investigations by the police into the Fiji military itself," he told ABC Radio. A senior Fiji police officer tells Time he and his colleagues have new evidence suggesting some of the "top [military] brass ordered the actions." Now, he says, they are bracing for the day when soldiers march in and remove their files. But "We've got copies," he says. "We won't give up." Ana Kalounivale may get justice yet.

Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) a colonial invention

By VICTOR LAL, www.sun.com.fj - 19 November 2006

‘Wherever I go now,’ the first British colonial governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon wrote, ‘the natives shout Woh! and crouch down, as before their own great chiefs, and they admit and understand that I am their master’. His house was declared tabu: all persons passing it on the road or sailing before it in canoes, gave the tama, or shout of respect to a high chief. The people had no choice, for it was Gordon who had created the Bose Levu Vakaturaga or the Great Council of Chiefs, and had come to see himself as chief of the Fijian chiefs.
The GCC is, therefore, merely a colonial invention, which Gordon had created in order to rule Fiji through the chiefs. In fact, there was nothing new about Gordon’s invention, for the British had devised similar institutions, to rule Africa through the African chiefs on that continent.
The British also introduced the African native system of government into Fiji. In other words, the British were not treating the Fijian chiefs as special although they couched their policies in that term.
However, Gordon mixed and matched titles to create Fijian customs, traditions, and institutions. He borrowed the title ‘Buli’ from Bua, where it applied to a minor chief, and that of ‘Roko Tui’ from the head of the priestly clan in Tailevu and Rewa.
It was not long before the Fijian chiefs began to accept the institution and the paraphernalia and the inventions that went with it as uniquely Fijian. They also swore to obey everything that Governor commanded them to perform during the long years of British colonialism.
As historians of Fiji have argued, there is no evidence that the councils set up by Gordon were ‘purely native and of spontaneous growth’.
The chiefs rarely met in Council until the imported institutions of government required them to do so.
In 1875 the Government interpreter David Wilkinson refused to accept that the GCC was a body based on Fijian tradition: ‘The Fijian custom being that high Chiefs seldom, if ever, meet each other in Council.’
The GCC was directly subject to Gordon’s authority, the regulation that provided for its establishment stating: ‘The Governor is the originator of the Council and he alone can open its proceedings’.
The power Gordon held over the GCC was manifestly demonstrated when he threatened to abolish it on finding out that some of its chiefly members were drunk.
He recorded his dealings with the chiefs in his personal diaries that he published in four volumes between 1897 and 1912.
The disputes over chiefly successions, which are still prevalent today, were rampant.
Ratu Bonaveidogo of Macuata, giving evidence on the position of Tui Macuata when asked to explain the customs of his tribe in the matter of chiefly succession replied that the custom was to fight about it.
Another contentious issue was the ownership of land, which has again reared its ugly head following the introduction of the Indigenous Lands Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bills.
The Bua Government was the earliest in the country to have taken the effective measure to control the sale of land in Fiji, passing, in 1866, an ‘Act to regulate the sale and leasing of lands within the kingdom and state of Bua’.
The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners. However, any rebellious tribe who did not conform to Tui Bua or conspired against him, faced expulsion, as the Korovatu people found to their cost in 1866.
The Yasawa islands, conquered by Ma’afu on behalf of Tui Bua, was not spared - the rebellious chiefs of Nacula and Tavewa found their islands sold to planter Hennings as a punishment for supporting Bau.
Other chiefs, especially Ratu Seru Cakobau and the Tui Cakau were equally ruthless. A year before the Deed of Cession was signed, as historian Peter France and others have demonstrated, the survivors from the vanua of Magodro, Qaliyalatina, and Naloto, following the outbreak of war in Ba, were deported from their lands and offered for sale to white settlers, their lands being confiscated and included in the offer of cession to British Crown.
The Lovoni people, who had revolted against Cakobau, had their lands mortgaged and sold by auction, and they themselves were sold as plantation labour at three ponds a head.
Cakobau also gave away 200,000 acres of land to the Polynesian Company, including the Suva Harbour, in exchange for the payment of debts to the Americans.
King Cakobau’s son Ratu Epeli, on being appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Ba and Yasawa sold most of the northern islands to European settlers.
Commenting on the deeds of sale in Nasarawaqa, Bua, the Lands Commission noted that ‘they bear the signature of an extravagant of chiefs, most of whom had very little to do with the lands sold, culminating with the name of Ratu Epeli of Bau, who had about as much authority at that time, and in that part of Fiji as the Emperor of China’. Chief Ritova had alienated over 100,000 acres of land along the coast of Vanuabalavu.
The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands. The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless.
The missionaries were not behind - they appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation.
It was against that background that Governor Gordon finally summoned the chiefs in 1876 to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could framed.
The chiefs were not sure of the immemorial traditions to land rights. The Land Commissioners equally struggled, with Basil Thomson concluding as follows: ‘The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago.’
In the end the present system of land ownership was devised, with the Native Lands Trust Board as the guardian of land rights in Fiji. Those championing for the introduction of the Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Claims Bill have, as I have written elsewhere, law on their side. However, the whole land debate and legislation of the old was framed in the aftermath of native and settler disputes over land rights in Fiji.
Sir Arthur Gordon had never factored into his policy the likelihood of Fijians refusing to share with other fellow Fijians the proceeds of their tribal lands, seas, and foreshores in the 21st Century. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and other interior Fijians have nothing to benefit from the Qoliqoli Bill, and it is this that I suspect that is driving him and others to oppose it to the bitter end. He even went to the extent of claiming that the Lauans pushing for the Bill will not be affected from its fall out. After all, the Lauan chief Ma’afu was not even a signatory to the Deed of Cession, which had unconditionally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria in 1874.
The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation?
It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers.
It was the present chiefs ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries.
The Governor Sir Arthur Gordon had come up with a land policy in the 19th Century to ensure that Fiji survived under his governorship.
According to one of his successors, Im Thurn, ‘It is too true that all Sir Arthur Gordon’s successors as Governors of Fiji have unquestionably followed him into the pit which he first dug. We-for I am a culprit too-followed his lead in thinking that the Fijians had good claims to the surplus land’.
It should not come as any surprise that in 1907 Gordon, by now Lord Stanmore, supported his land policy in the British House of Lords, for the chiefs had also given away two islands to him as a gift from the Fijian people. Which Fijian people? And who owned those two lands to which Gordon had become the turaga taukei - a land owning chief in the country?
Sadly the Fiji of 1876 is very different from the Fiji of 2006. The current stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Commodore on the Qoliqoli Bill is a testimony to that fact.

The commander and his advisers

By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Political editor, www.sun.com.fj - 18 November 2006

At a joint conference on professional ethics attended by special advisers to military commanders at Springfield, Virgnia, in January 1999 Dr Michael O Wheeler (Strategic Group) said: “The decisions reached by commanders and the positions they adopt may or may not be influenced by what they hear. Special advisers should have a healthy perspective on this matter. Presumably, however, commanders retain the types of special advisers because they value their opinions and the information they provide which, even when not accepted, may help them sharpen the commanders’ own thinking, focus comprehensively as well as in great detail on the important considerations, and inform judgments on critical issues. The advisers, while not responsible for the final decisions, have a special responsibility to offer advice as carefully and soundly as possible.”

The conflict between the Government and the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is directly linked to the advice given to the commander, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama. The Minister for Home Affairs, Josefa Vosanibola, speaking in support of the 2007 Budget said in parliament: “The Government sees the impasse and the stand off as arising directly from the continuing assertion of the commander, founded as the Government believes on erroneous advice, that the army has an extensive role to play in the political life of the nation.”

“The assertion of such role by the commander threatens to undermine the rule of law, as do the continuing threats by the commander against the democratically elected government.”The continuous outburst from the camp against the Government raises the question of the quality and qualification of the advisers to the commander. I am not degrading those advisers.I know the advisers to the commander are well qualified and have experience. However, I believe they should do a lot of research before preparing the final draft of advice for the commander. For the advice given to him on the role of the military is the cause of the entire problem. Let us have a look at the role of the military as outlined by the solicitor general Nainendra Singh, one of the legal advisers to the Government, early this year.

“The establishment of the Republic of the Fiji Military Forces is outlined in section 112 of the Constitution. Section 112(1) states that the RFMF as established by the Constitution of 1990 continues in existence. The 1990 Constitution outlined in section 94 the military’s establishment, the appointment of the commander, and the fact that the military has the overall responsibility to ensure the security, defence and well being of Fiji and its people at all times. Much controversy surrounds the interpretation of section 112(1) and whether this section can be construed to mean that section 94 is incorporated into section 112. “Of course, the short answer is that section 94 of the 1990 Constitution has been repealed in its entirety. Therefore essentially, section 94 is not incorporated into section 112 of the 1997 Constitution.

“The provision “….Military Forces established by the Constitution of 1990” could be interpreted as `the retention of the armed forces as an institution’. “Moreover, the provision for the existence of the RFMF lies in Acts of Parliament, and not in the Constitution [as per section 112(4) of the 1997 Constitution].” The commander’s advisers think otherwise.

Because of the advice given to him, the Commander had continuously issued statements against the Government that have threatened the stability of the nation. The Minister of Home Affairs says it has already had disastrous consequences in terms of the international perception of Fiji and in respect of the tourism industry and the economy, which have continued to deteriorate as a consequence of the stand off.

In the tourism industry, as confirmed by the Minister responsible, Tomasi Vuetilovoni, there is a 40 per cent reduction in new bookings. “We run the risk of new bookings virtually drying up, leaving 2007 as one of the worst ever for Fiji tourism - quite a turn around from our target of becoming a billion dollar industry in 2007,” Mr Vuetilovoni told parliament while supporting the 2007 Budget. “Air Pacific, which is already experiencing challenges highlighted earlier, will limp more badly from the 40 per cent reduction in bookings. Forty nine percent or so of foreign exchange contributed by tourism will drastically reduced. The employment of some 45,000 people becomes jeopardised. The millions of dollars of huge investments we have been experiencing are at risk.”

This is another negative impact of the advice given to the commander.Another piece of questionable advice is contained in the documents handed to the Prime Minister. The demands include that the Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes be removed, all the government members involved in the 2000 coup be removed, the Police Tactical Response Team be disbanded and the Reconciliation, Qoliqoli and Land Claims Tribunal Bills be dropped. Did the advisers look at the legal implications of these demands, especially the ones that involve the police? Did they seek advice from outside? Did they feel they were correctly advising the commander to make such demands on the Prime Minister? Did they know that the office of the Commissioner of Police is a constitutional office?

The demands are outside the constitution and surely the Prime Minister is fully aware of this.
On the removal of all government members involved in the 2000 coup, why? The people referred to by the military had been investigated and cleared. Time and again, the military has been harping about some in parliament who were imprisoned for their involvement in 2000, but regained their seat after the releaseAdvisers should be mindful of the fact that the constitution clearly states that an MP who has been sentenced to more than 12 months in prison loses his right to vote and consequently his place in the House of Representatives. Less than 12 months, they did not lose their seatThe two involved here are Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and Ratu Josefa Dimuri.

In the debate on the 2006 Budget on November 19, 2005 the Turaga Bale and Tui Cakau said as prisoner number LB3205, he did not regret his actions in assembling with his people of Cakaudrove at the army’s Sukanaivalu Barracks during the 2000 upheavals. “I will live with it without regret or shame because I do not only believe, but I know, I know, I know that what I did then was right because if I did not do anything, then part of my people, who were soldiers at Sukanaivalu Barracks would have been dead,” said Ratu Naiqama. The paramount chief had served his sentence and is now free.

Other advice given to the commander that he can just walk into the Prime Minister’s office and ask him to step aside and for the military to take over is laughable. Did the advisers tell the commander of the legal repercussions of such a move? These advisers are actually working out a ploy for the removal of their own boss through legal means where the blame will not be theirs but the Government’s.The commander should be reminded that his enemies are not outside but within.The commander has worked hard through the ranks to occupy the highest office of the RFMF.

In 2000 his leadership was tested, but his advisers at that time helped him to save the nation and the institution. They have all gone.The advisers should be mindful of the fact that the commander must have a knowledge of, and appreciation for, the legal aspects of the conduct of operations. The commander must be reminded by the advisers that breaches of the law during operations at even the lowest level have the potential to be placed under public scrutiny.They should be reminded that in the modern political and legal environment in which military forces are required to operate the military commander is confronted with an increasing number of legal issues that can affect the successful completion of the military mission.

Poll on Military Stance

www.fijitimes.com - Friday, November 17, 2006

The prolonged stand-off between the Government and the military has reinforced the racial polarisation of the nation, according to the results of an exclusive Tebbutt-Times poll.

Overall, 45 per cent of those polled supported the Government and 36 per cent the military.

However, it was in the ethnic breakdown that the differences were most apparent and followed the trend set in the May general election, where the vote was divided along racial lines.

Conducted this week, the poll found that 67 per cent of Fijians backed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and 54 per cent of Indians supported army chief Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama.

The poll asked more than 1000 adults who they believed was in the right in the stand-off that raised fears of a coup and heavily affected tourist bookings.

Just 6 per cent said both were right, 4 per cent said neither was right, 8 per cent were not sure and 1 per cent refused to answer the question.

Only 18 per cent of Fijians polled supported the military, raising doubts about claims by Commodore Bainimarama that the indigenous community is deeply split over the controversial Qoliqoli and Reconciliation Bills.

However, only 24 per cent of Indians support the Government, indicating the majority see its determination to push the pro-Fijian legislation through Parliament as not being in their best interests.

Other races tended to support the Government, although the split was not as well defined.

Overall, 47 per cent of "Other" races backed Mr Qarase and 29 per cent supported Commodore Bainimarama.

Interestingly, the "Other" races group had the highest incidence of those unsure who was in the right - 13 per cent. Surprisingly, there was also solid support for the Government in the West, with 51 per cent people polled there in support, compared to 31 per cent in favour of the military's stand.

In Suva, the difference was much closer 42 per cent of people supported the Government and 38 per cent the military.

NLTB Changes Tune

By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Political Editor - www.sun.com.fj - 16 November 2006

The Native Land Trust Board has found a new solution to the Agricultural, Landlord and Tenants Act (ALTA) problem. We all know that the NLTB with the support of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga wants ALTA abolished and all transferred leases to be governed under the Native Land Trust Act (NLTA). The NLTB has changed it’s tune now. The Minister for Fijian Affairs Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, speaking in support of the 2007 Budget said: “I am pleased to announce that the Native Land Trust Board in their vision and humility have put forward positive options for changes to their initial stand on the NLTA, ALTA debate.”
While the Minister did not elaborate on the options, we can safely say that the land problem should be resolved as early as next year. Both institutions are concerned that ALTA has many provisions that are prejudicial to the proprietary rights and interests of native landowners. The NLTB has publicly explained why it feels very strongly that the proprietary rights and interests of native landowners would be best served if native land were removed from ALTA and returned to NLTA.
Essentially, by the provision of section 59 (2) of ALTA and by the operation of certain other ALTA provisions, native landowners are seriously concerned that their rights and interests in maintaining effective control of their land have been undermined and breached. Although ALTA leases on native land began expiring in 1997, governments and parliaments before that and immediately after were not able to each an agreement on a solution. Let us look at the stand taken by the Laisenia Qarase-led Coalition Government last year.
Details of the Government’s proposals are as follows:
1) All agricultural leases on native land are to be issued under NLTA rather than ALTA. This is to respect the wishes of Fijian landowners as expressed through the Native Land Trust Board and the Great Council of Chiefs. They want all leases on native land, including agricultural leases, to be brought under one law, the Native Land Trust Act.
2) On the consent of the landowners through the NLTB, agricultural leases under NLTA will generally be for 50 years. The land needs of the landowners must always take precedence on the use of their land. But with their consent, land surplus to their needs may be leased by the NLTB for the benefit of tenants and of Fiji as a whole. The NLTB will seek their consent to grant 50-year leases, in the first instance.
3) Only if the landowners cannot agree to a 50-year lease, will shorter leases be issued. These leases may be for 30 or 40 years, but none will be shorter than 20 years. In explaining this in Parliament, the Prime Minister also supported another possibility. This is for the Government and the Parliamentary Opposition to present a joint submission to the NLTB and the GCC for this minimum tenure of 20 years to be raised to 30 years.
4) These leases under NLTA will be renewable, subject only to the consent of the landowners as required by law. If the landowners agree to allow the renewal of a lease on their land, the renewal will be for a period of not shorter than 20 years. The Government recognises that any extension shorter than 20 years will make it very hard for a tenant to borrow funds for farm improvement.
5) To further assist the tenants, the determination of the renewal of the lease will be made well before expiry. For 50-year leases, for e.g., the determination for renewal will be made by the NLTB in consultation with the landowners between the 37th and 40th year of the lease. For shorter agricultural leases, the determination of the lease for renewal will be made at least three years before the expiry of the lease. This will remove the uncertainty of leases under ALTA where there is no provision for renewal.
6) Rent under the new arrangement will be a flat 10 per cent of the UCV of the land. The existing arrangement under ALTA is for rent of up to 6 per cent of UCV. This has created a lot of uncertainties because in most cases, actual rent levied is only between 2 and 4 per cent of UCV. Setting the rent at 10 per cent is to more accurately reflect current land values.
According to the Coalition Government the new leasing arrangements under NLTA will have fair and equitable arrangements for compensation both for the farmers and for the landowners. The Fiji Labour Party wants ALTA retained and any amendments must be within the ambit of ALTA. The revelation by the Minster for Fijian Affairs is quite interesting, especially when the BLV had made its stand clear on the issue. This stand was taken after it was briefed by the NLTB.
Surely, the NLTB has to seek the support of the BLV and it is only proper that the august body was briefed on the options in its last meeting at Levuka, Ovalau next month. The multi party government is committed to finding a solution to this problem. The issue of land reform has remained unresolved for many years. Yet it affects the lives of many of our people and also contributes to the growth of the national economy. According to the Minister for Finance, Ratu Jone Kubuabola: “With the establishment of this partnership approach through the multi party government, I believe that we are in a good position to resolve the land lease issue for the betterment of our people and the entire nation.”
The Minister for Commerce and Industry, Adi Sivia Qoro, yesterday said in parliament: “Issues associated with the land tenure system under ALTA must also be resolved. The assurance given by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Fiji Labour Party that they are committed to resolve issues relating to land by first half of next year is a clear signal that an amicable solution will be found in the near future for the benefit of all, particularly landowners as well as the tenants.”
We all want to see an end to the land impasse. For this to happen, politics must not be involved. With the NLTB now changing its tune, we all hope the options provided would be agreed upon by the FLP. I mention this because ALTA is entrenched legislation and will require two thirds of the support in parliament to be amended.
Prime Minister Qarase had tabled a Bill to amend the ALTA Act but was not passed because it did not have the support of two thirds of the members in parliament. Associate Professor Biman Prasad, of the University of the South Pacific and Head of School of Economics said, “The debate on agricultural leases has created more instability in the country and a permanent solution will have a positive impact on agricultural productivity and indirectly on investment and the macro economy.”
Let us all hope that the new options now with the NLTB will put an end to the land impasse in the country. In a new twist the Prime Minister had confirmed that the FLP had suspended all talks with him on national issues and the land impasse is included. The FLP leader said the land issue could only be solved when the ground rules for the multi party Cabinet are established. Whatever happens, the people want a solution.

Fijian State versus Fijian Army

By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Political editor, www.sun.com.fj - 9 November 2006

There is a lot to the stand-off between the Government and the military. From what that has transpired we can easily conclude that someone is trying to portray a picture to the public that one is Mr Clean and is after the dirty rats in the country
Some others are of the view that Mr Clean should clean his backyard first before policing other people's compounds. The military's plate is full of all sorts of allegations against the Government and had been released for public consumption without proof.
But this battle is far from over.
The military is firm on its stand for the Government to withdraw the three proposed lawss - Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill, Qoliqoli Bill and the Land Claims Tribunal Bill.
However, Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase has confirmed to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga that his government will not in any way withdraw the Bills that the military is saying are very controversial.
The Government has followed all the democratic processes in the preparation of its proposed legislation.
But the military is applying warfare tactics to pressure the Government to withdraw the Bills.
On Wednesday, Prime Minister received a document setting out matters the army wished to discuss.
Prime Minster Qarase immediately replied with an assurance that the Government was ready to meet with the commander, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, and his senior officers for consultations.
However, the commander called a press conference a little later and again attacked the Government saying the Prime Minister had lied to the people on many occasions.
We now wonder about the contents of the documents handed to the Prime Minister.
Reading through the press release handed out to the media on Wednesday, I suspect the military wants to discuss the investigation into the deaths of the some of the soldiers at the height of the political upheaval in 2000.
In the release the Commander said: "The RFMF has stated from the outset that the events of 2000 were wrong and all that is happening now is an overflow of that event. Whilst the RFMF agrees that we all want to move forward there is an urgent need to effectively address the past to be able to move forward without having to commit the same mistake again.
"Firstly the death of soldiers in the events of 2000 must never be forgotten. They sacrificed their lives to rid the lies and corruption that a lot of people in the position of leadership were identified with in 2000. We will not let them die in vain. Defending the sovereignty and the well being of every citizen of this country is of paramount importance to the RFMF To date there has never been any public declaration of those who are currently in government that the 2000 crisis was wrong. The introduction of the Reconciliation Bill is seen by the RFMF as an endorsement of the 2000 crisis and a means of trying to escape from the long arm of the law."
There were also some members of the counter revolutionary warfare (CRW) group that died and the police are still investigating. No one can interfere with their work. I'm sure the investigation will reveal the real truth behind the killing of the soldiers. No one can escape from the long arm of the law.
Who gave the orders for the killing?
Another issue I suspect that is in the document is the Commissioner of Police.
In his release Cdre Bainimarama said: "I am somewhat surprised at the Commissioner of Police's recent change in attitude towards the RFMF and towards the general security situation in Fiji. The commissioner's outburst on the RFMF's importation of ammunition has caused unnecessary tension between the two forces, a rift that does not augur well for the relations between the police and military and the decision to investigate me is not in the interest of crime prevention and investigation but to remove me from office a result of political pressure on the Police Commissioner to silence the RFMF.'
The Acting Commander who wrote a letter to Commissioner Hughes calling for his resignation presented the document to the Prime Minister.
With the Prime Minister now ready to talk with the military on what is in the document, it will be better not to talk on things that involve the police.
Prime Minister Qarase has assured the country that he is not passing the buck to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) to solve the impasse between the Government and the military.
"I come here in accordance with the law and out of respect for your chiefly authority. I do not wish to pass to you a problem the Government must solve," the Prime Minister said in his presentation at the BLV meeting.
It was very unfortunate for the commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Commodore Voreqe Bainiamarama, to be absent.
This special GCC meeting was called at the request of the Prime Minister to help bring to an end the fear and uncertainty that hangs over our country.
It is a fact that the absence of the Commander will be viewed by many as very disrespectful.
We should be mindful of the fact that the commander has sent his apology to the BLV chairman and Tavua high chief Ratu Ovini Bokini.
I'll come back to that later.
The Prime Minister in his presentation to the BLV said the solution to the problem was clear. And that is: "We need to put right the relationship between the Government elected by the people and the state institution of the army, charged with responsibility for national security."
So from what had transpired yesterday, the Prime Minister had clearly told the BLV on the stand of the government.
In his opening address the BLV chairman said the main object was to find a solution to the conflict.
The Prime Minister would inform the BLV on the problems the Government was facing and the Commander was expected to tell the BLV why the military was against the Government.
And after hearing both sides of the story the members would exchange views in the chiefly manner and come up with recommendations on how the impasse would be solved.
From the military's side, the members of the BLV had to go to the camp to traditionally ask the commander to attend the second day of the meeting.
However, while he agreed without condition, he later set out his own condition through the media for public consumption and that its for the BLV to back off from the impasse.
It seems we are back to square one.
Who will now back down?
The commander has gone out of his own way to criticise the Prime Minister.
I know this is his right but the military must remember that the Prime Minister is the head of the government and must be respected.
The Land Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bill had been endorsed by the commander when he was the Head of State and Prime Minister Qarase the Interim Prime Minister, in July 13, 2000 at the BLV meeting.
Now he has taken huge turn and is totally against the two Bills.
The impasse has set a totally new scenario that Prime Minister Qarase has correctly said- "At one level, the current crisis is between a government and a institution of the state. But when we look deeply into it, we see that this concern the relationship between a Fijian-led government and a Fijian-led army."
The Government and the military will only solve the impasse.
However, this can only happen if the military shelves its demands.
The military's action borders on dictatorship and this is undemocratic.
Let the Government exercise its duties freely and let the people decide for themselves in the next general elections on its performance.
What had happened in 2000 is now history but we have to support the police investigation to bring to rest once and for all the undemocratic event that resulted in the unlawful abrogation of the constitution by the military.
There is always a way out of the crisis and it is out there.

Fiji and Great Council of Chiefs

BLV needs more powers

By MAIKA BOLATIKI
www.sun.com.fj- 9 November 2006, Political Editor

The Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) must be given more powers under the constitution. As it stands, the august body is toothless. It is toothless in the sense that under the 1997 Constitution section 116 clarifies its role as:
(1) The Bose Levu Vakaturaga established under the Fijian Affairs Act continues in existence and its membership, functions, operations and procedures are as prescribed from time to time by or under that Act.
(2) The Bose Levu Vakaturaga has, in addition to the functions set out in the Fijian Affairs Act, the functions conferred on it under this Constitution
The BLV is established under section 3 of the Fijian Affairs Act. This section is the shortest in the 1997 Constitution. The BLV, also known as the Great Council of Chiefs, has its roots in the chiefly councils established by Ratu Epenisa Cakobau in the 1800s.
During the colonial rule the BLV was retained as a consultative body.
It had no formal political role, however, until Fiji became independent in 1970.
Under the independence constitution, it gained the authority to nominate eight of the then 22 Senators In the 1997 constitution the BLV nominates 14 Senators out of 32, and also chooses the President and the Vice President.
Though the BLV is enshrined in the1997 Constitution, it does not have enough powers.
As already mentioned the BLV is established under the Fijian Affairs Act but we should be mindful the fact that the Act is merely a legal document that could be amended at the whim of politicians. S3 (1) of the Fijian Affairs Act states: “There shall be in respect of the Fijian people a council called the Great Council of Chiefs which shall consist of such number of appointed, elected and nominated persons as the Governor General may by regulation prescribe.”
S3 (2) “It shall be the duty of the council, in addition to any powers or duties especially conferred upon it, to submit to the Governor General such recommendations and proposals as it may deem to be for the benefit of the Fijian people as the Governor General or the board may from time to time submit to the council and to take decisions or make recommendations thereon.”
Let us look at some recommendations made by the Reeves Commission Report.
l The constitution should provide that the functions of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga are to advise the Government of the Republic of the Fiji Islands principally on any matter relating to the well-being of the Fijian people but also matters affecting the nation as a whole, whether referred to it by the Minister or the Fijian Affairs Board, or taken up by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga on its own initiative.
l The Bose Levu Vakaturaga should also have the functions later recommended concerning the nomination of candidates for the office of the President and the approval of Bills altering the entrenched legislation relating to Fijians, Rotumans and the Banaban community or any other Bill certified by the Attorney General as affecting Fijian land or customary rights.
l The constitution should authorise parliament to confer additional functions on the Bose Levu Vakaturaga by Act, so far as those functions are consistent with its recommended duty to act independently.
The Reeves Commission in its submission said the BLV must act independently.
It says this implies an independence not only from government but also from any political party. Submissions from some Fijians expressed concern abut the identification of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga with party politics.
That development was a product of its time.
The conferment of additional constitutional responsibilities on the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and explicit recognition of its duty to act independently and will give it the opportunity to distance itself from party politics, though the BLV will continue to be involved in politics in the broader sense.
Also the Commission considers that, as facet of its independence from government, arrangements should be made for the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to have reasonable autonomy in matters relating to its secretariat and its funding. Because the BLV meets only at intervals, it might be necessary for both to continue to be provided through the Ministry of Fijian Affairs Board.
However, the BLV should have delegated authority to approve expenditure within the limits of the amount appropriated for its use by parliament and the members of the secretariat should be answerable to the BLV and its chairperson.
On the function of the BLV the Commission submits that many submissions urged that alterations to the entrenched legislation and other matters affecting Fijian land or other customary rights should be taken out of the hands of parliament, so that they no longer appear to be at the mercy of political process.
The Commission agrees with this approach. Parliament will still need to be involved in any proposals to change the existing law, but as proposed in Chapter 20, the Bose Levu Vakaturaga will have the veto power.
This should reassure indigenous Fijians that the proposed changes in the composition of parliament and the encouragement of multi-ethnic government would not put their land and other customary rights at risk.
Well we all know that all the Reeves Commission’s proposals above were not taken on board by the parliamentary select committee that made the final decision on the 1997 Constitution before it was enacted.
Now the BLV has been summoned to meet tomorrow to look into the impasse between the commander of the army and the Government.
We all know that during the crises of 1987 and 2000, the nation looked up to the BLV to make decisions for the benefit of the people and the nation and it worked in both cases.
We must take heed of the Vice President, Ratu Joni Madraiwuiwi’s advice.
The Bau high chief says while there has been some criticism of the decision to summon the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to discuss the relationship between the Government and the military we have to be aware that just as the military is a player in our affairs, so is the Bose Levu Vakaturaga.
“It is the highest advisory body of Fijian opinion. Given the composition of our population as well as the two institutions in conflict, it is only appropriate that the Bose Levu Vakaturaga be consulted. Dialogue and communication are critical at this time.
Where that can be pursued in furthering the national agenda, that is all to the good.
We owe it to those who gave their lives for this country to do everything possible to retreat from the abyss.”
This is an opportunity for both Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama to state their case.
As the Vice President said: “It reminds us first of the biblical passage from Ecclesiastes.
There is a time and place for everything and that life goes on.”
Life has to go on here in Fiji and we need an institution like the BLV to intervene and give that chiefly advice that will act as the beacon for the way forward.
Though many will question its constitutional duty, at this time what the nation needs is a recognised body that has the national interest at heart to give advice.
As the Vic President said: “The overwhelming consideration must be the national interest, and a spirit of compromise that allows the country to move forward.”
He said the wider role the military sees for itself is a matter for further reflection and debate.
According to Prime Minister Qarase our present constitution legitimises the existence of the RFMF, but not the broadened responsibilities given to it in the 1990 Constitution.
In other words, the constitutional and statutory authority of the RFMF is strictly confined to maintaining and safeguarding national security within a democracy.
What transpired in the last few weeks was a move to derail our democratic system and let our ship sail into unchartered waters.
When this happened in 1987 and 2000 it was the BLV that guided the nation back into charted waters.
We have to honour the sacrifice made by the BLV.
Now that it is called to convene an urgent meeting to solve the impasse, it will surely be successful.
However, the concern that we should really look into now is that the BLV must be given more powers in the constitution.
These powers must be written in the constitution and not under an Act.

Province won’t back commander

By MAIKA BOLATIKI - www.sun.com.fj - 9 November 2006

The Tailevu Provincial Council cannot support Army Commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama at the Great Council of Chiefs meeting tomorrow as the nation tries to solve the difference between the Government and the military. “In the GCC meeting, there is a time where the participants have to break up into confederacies,” said council chairman Josefa Seruilagilagi.
It was there that the participants had to discuss and agree together. He said if there was anything their representative had to raise in the meeting, it must first have to be approved in the provincial council meeting.
“They can not just form their own agenda while on their way to the meeting,” he said.
Mr Seruilagilagi said the council could not afford to support the commander as everyone was trying to find a solution to the standoff. He said Ratu Timoci Vesikula, Ratu Semi Seruvakula and Ratu Epenisa Cakobau would represent the province tomorrow.
Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase had called for this urgent meeting to help address the impasse between Government and the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.
Mr Qarase said it was crucially important for us to seek the advice of the GCC because the legislative measures the commander said he was opposed to were being undertaken with the specific authorisation of the council.
“Furthermore, the GCC is a repository of chiefly wisdom and authority. And there is a role for it in assisting to resolve the crisis,” said Mr Qarase.

Do not be used, chiefs urged

By SAMANTHA RINA

Maintain your integrity and do not be manipulated, Fijian institutions have been advised.
Referring to the Great Council of Chiefs and other institutions that had “fallen victim to the Government’s manipulative tactics”, former secretariat member Kini Rarubi said the Government had always used the GCC and the church in cases where there were disagreements.
Mr Rarubi said the meeting between the Government and the GCC tomorrow would not help resolve the impasse with the military.
“Our concern is the influence on the chiefs,” said Mr Rarubi.
“They will only get the discussion paper, read through it and be expected to make a decision. I think this is unfair to the chiefs and it is unfortunate that they have to be dragged into all this.
“The sanctity of any institution must be preserved and in this case it is the GCC.”
He said the GCC, being a non-political body, would lose its reverence and respect if it chose to involve itself in the Government and military conflict.
“It should maintain its independence and shouldn’t allow itself to be manipulated or else it could drive a wedge between the military and the Fijians,” he said.
Government, said Mr Rarubi, was fond of employing this strategy and when people criticised it for its actions, it always had the tendency to fall back on the GCC or the church.
“It is deceptive, misrepresentative and downright fraud to use these bodies.”
He said people would also later question the GCC’s involvement in matters that were not for it to decide on.

GCC a ‘toothless tiger’

The Great Council of Chiefs is a toothless tiger, says Vanua Levu Forest Owners Association secretary Posiano Nauku.
He told the Fiji Sun yesterday the chiefly institution would not solve the dispute between the Government and the army because of the existence of some members who did not qualify to be part of the institution in the first place.
“There are real chiefs who are not members of the GCC but the educated commoners are,” he said.
“If it is the GCC, then the real chiefs are supposed to be there and there should be no room for commoners.
“There will be no mana because the divinely-appointed chiefs are not there to make such an important decision for the nation.
“Surely, there are certain chiefs at the Great Council of Chiefs whose presence are not questionable but what we fear is the presence of commoners who got their way in through their educational qualifications. These people are not chiefs.”
Mr Nauku said it would hard for the Great Council of Chiefs to convince Army Commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama because it had betrayed his trust before.
“They shook his hands and clapped when the army made its presentation to the GCC on why they were against the Reconciliation Bill but when it came to the show of hands, the result was totally different,” he said.
“This is simply because some of the Great Council of Chiefs members were openly supporting the rebels in Parliament.
“So it will be a tough time for them to win his confidence.”
Mr Nauku also called on Home Affairs Minister Josefa Vosanibola to come out of hiding and try to solve the differences between the army and the police.
“Why is Vosanibola hiding?” said Mr Nauku.
“He is the minister responsible for the two forces and I don’t understand why he is keeping quiet when he is supposed to be intervening out there.”

Plot to remove President, says party

The Great Council of Chiefs meeting could be an attempt to traditionally request the President to step down, says the National Alliance Party.
Spokesman Kini Rarubi said the Government had adopted the same tactic for years.
“The question here would be: Does the Prime Minister still have confidence in the President’s ability to lead the nation?” said Mr Rarubi. “Nowhere has he stated this and so the decision to call a meeting with the GCC is to attempt to oust the President.”
Mr Rarubi said it was difficult for indigenous people to refuse a traditional request and as the President was present at every GCC meeting, it would also be difficult for him.
“How is the GCC expected to solve the impasse between the Government and the military?” he said. “They may be using this as an excuse to call for a meeting with the GCC but there could be other motives like trying to ask the President to step down.”
Mr Rarubi said the SDL Government had a habit of using the President to push its agenda and referred to a case in 2001.
“The Attorney-General, Qoroniasi Bale, had presented a paper to the GCC, saying the President had reserved powers that could be applied to the situation then,” he said.
“So even after the Court of Appeal had ruled that the FLP be reinstated, the AG and PM addressed the President via the GCC.” He said earlier this year, prior to the re-election of the President, there had been moves to discourage his nomination.