Monday, October 13, 2008

Letters to Fiji Papers - Tui Savu & Sai Lealea

Gate’s flawed Judgement.
by Tui Savu
Townsville, Queensland.
Reading the 49 page Gate’s decision, there is a glaring omission, which in my respective view if properly considered and applied, would have upheld Qarase’s Application.
Paragraph 47 of the judgement is part of the chronology of events leading up to the coup and I specifically refer to the Wellington Talks.
ACJ Gate’s merely mentions it in passing, when he says: ‘Efforts were made through the GCC to resolve the impasse. A Meeting was organised to take place in Wellington, New Zealand on 29th November 2006 between the Prime Minister and the Commander. They met as arranged…’(emphasis mine)
ACJ Gate’s then continues with the chronology of events and concludes with the affirmation that President Iloilo was acting within his prerogative powers during the time of crisis and his subsequent actions including the ratification of Bainimarama’s actions and granting of immunity were lawful and valid.
The omission I refer to here is that following the Wellington Talks, Qarase capitulated to the demands of Bainimarama and was effectively barred by soldiers from visiting President Iloilo to update him of the same.
Bainimarama following the Wellington Talks continued to make public his intention of removing the Qarase Government and giving them an ultimatum to resign, despite the fact Qarase and his SDL Party had already capitulated to his demands!
At this point, Bainimarama no longer had any legal or moral grounds to continue with his threat because he demands had already been met!
Yet Bainimarama and his military effectively bullied and removed the lawful Qarase Government out of office and have been vindicated by the Gate’s decision.
President Iloilo indorsement of the Commander’s action ‘acting in the best interest of the nation and most importantly in upholding the Constitution’ proved to ACJ Gate’s and Justices Byrnes and Pathick, the manifestation of his intention to exercise prerogative power.
The Gate’s decision conveniently ignores the fact, President Iloilo prior to the coup had ordered Bainimarama to stand down and relieved him of command and appointed Colonel Saubulinayau to act as Commander pending investigations.
This direct order was disobeyed by the Military, and they forced President Iloilo and under duress countermanded his previous order and reinstated Bainimarama.
The issue of whether President Iloilo has prerogative powers were not disputed, but rather its scope and availability.
Paragraph 144 of the judgement says: ‘As Counsel put it ‘The prerogative, being residual and inherent consists of a rubric or category powers that are capable of adjusting to new situations.’
What the Gate’s decision in my respective view failed to consider is the fact, the prerogative, being residual and inherent cannot be used in a vacuum or used to justify the usurper’s unlawful actions, unless it can be established by facts, that it was the only means of preserving the nation from destruction.
As I had mentioned before, the demands made by Bainimarama prior to his illegal takeover had already been agreed to by Qarase following the Wellington Talks, so what was the legal basis for President Iloilo to use the prerogative to indorse Bainimarama’s actions?
Furthermore, on what evidence did President Iloilo rely upon to make a finding that Bainimarama was ‘acting in the best interest of the nation and most importantly in upholding the Constitution?’
The Gate’s decision does not elaborate on these issues, but makes swiping generalised comments scrutinising Qarase’s subsequent actions, yet fails to do the same with Bainimarama.
The Gate’s decision also failed to review whether the prerogative is available to a President who acted incompetently and/or may have inadvertently contributed to the crisis themselves?
I respectively submit, had the court deliberated on this point and reviewed the President’s behaviour leading up to the crisis, it would have found him incompetent.
Following this finding, it would have been forced to hold in rare circumstances where the President is incompetent or has been rendered defunct by the usurper, they can no longer lawfully exercise the prerogative, since they have become a tool for the usurper and cannot be trusted to independently manifest their intention to exercise their prerogative power, which is the exact situation in Fiji today.
Gate’s decision in my respective submission is flawed for the above reasons and should be appealed, so the citizens of Fiji can feel safe and rely upon a more balanced judgement.
The judgement has opened a Pandora’s box, which threatens the very democratic foundations in Fiji and only perpetuates the coup culture.
Lastly, it should be appealed because it is biased towards to the Military and now provides them with a roadmap on how to illegal remove an elected Government and acquire immunity.
Tui Savu.
Townsville QLD
Unpublished Letter to Fiji Times- by Sai Lealea
24 September 2008
Your Chance Driti
Now that the Interim PM is away from Fiji, a rare opportunity presents itself for Driti as Acting Commander, and the Military Council, to demonstrate once and for all real leadership to salvage Fiji.
Driti and the Military Council stand more chance of being remembered in history and revered, if they are to return Fiji to democratic rule. Surely in their heart of hearts they would not want to see Fiji plunge into the depth of misery as happened in Zimbabwe. Sooner or later like in Zimbabwe, authority will return to normality.
The challenge is, who will dare hasten that process so Driti, his children and his relatives, together with those of the Council and Fiji citizens, can prosper as citizens in a free and democratic nation. Fiji's future and those of its citizens right now lay in the hands of those with the real power as derived from the guns they have. Fiji looks to them to demonstrate courage in the face of dire hopelessness.
After all, history only tends to remember heroes who salvage hope, not dictators or tyrants bent on sowing misery and sorrow.
Teleni’s refusal, the demise of law and order in Fiji.
Letter to Fiji Times
Tui Savu

Commissioner Teleni’s refusal to investigate the treason complaint on the basis it will create instability simply cannot be substantiated.

I challenge Commissioner Teleni to provide evidence of where in Fiji has instability arisen as a direct consequence of Qarase and his Ministers lodging their complaint at the Raiwaqa Police Station or Beddoes filing his complaint in Sabeto?

How can the filing of a treason complaint cause instability?

Its one thing to claim that it may threaten public safety, but this treat needs to be established first and not simply used as a veneer to prevent investigations implicating Commissioner Teleni himself.

Commissioner Teleni himself is on public record before the coup in 2006, when he reassured the people of Fiji, that the Military was not going to carry out a coup against the Qarase led Government, which later proved false.

It must not be forgotten, that the previous Acting Police Commissioner Romanu Tikotikoca also said the same thing when in office, that no investigations will be conducted into allegations against Bainimarama because it will cause instability.

The State of Israel is a classical example, with hostile nations surrounding it and their military always on alert, current PM Olmert, was not exempt from investigations of alleged bribery and is going to step down from office later this month, as charges of corruption are being prepared.

So, what makes Fiji so special that Bainimarama and all those implicated in the treason complaint are exempt from criminal investigations?

Mahendra Chaudary is on public record soon after leaving the interim cabinet saying the coup was illegal and wrong.

John Samy is also on public record admitting the same during a recent NCBBF Meeting.

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that Bainimarama’s unlawful takeover of the Qarase Government on 06 December 2006 was treason.

So why are we shying away from this fact, especially we, Lawyers and Judges who all took an oath as officers of the court, to uphold the law?

Why do we continue to pretend that all is fine in Fiji, whilst the nation and its institutions are crumbling?

Race relations have never been as polarised as a direct result of the Bainimarama coup and the FLP’s support.

All claims of ‘clean up, ‘transparency’, ‘level playing field’ etc have been lost along the wayside, but its antithesis have now become the norm in Fiji.

The outstanding unsolved murders of the late Sakiusa Rabaka and Nimilote Verebasaga seems to have been indefinitely suspended together with the unsolved CRW murders?

How can Fiji move ahead with all their blood crying out for justice?

How can the interim government be so simplistic and think, the divisive Charter will address all these endemic problems by calling ourselves a common name and changing the electoral system!

There has to be behavioural change in Fiji to permanently eradicate the coup culture and the quicker we face the inevitable, the less painful for all its citizens.

Fiji can start its slow road to recovery by everyone facing up to the truth, which is Bainimarama committed treason in 2006.

Only after accepting this fact, can we progress to the next question, where do we go from here?

Tui Savu.
Townsville QLD.
Naked truth - 10 Aug 2008
by Sai Lealea
IF any reaction to the draft Charter should gravely alarm Fijians, it is the sombre but accurate comment by Dr Brij Lal in observing that it was ironic that a handful of mostly non-indigenous Fijians in the NCBBF were telling the majority population who were indigenous Fijians what they should be called.
Therein lay the profound truth about the disdain and disrespect demonstrated by the authors of the Charter.
Who are they to define for Fijians what they should be called?
The draft Charter must be rejected by all proud Fijians who have no need to be told by an unrepresentative group what to be called.
The Charter is ill conceived and designed to divide instead of unite.
No amount of consultation or arm twisting by John Samy and his cronies will conceal this naked truth.
SAI LEALEA, Wellington, New Zealand.
Charter Flaw
Unpublished letter to Fiji Times - 8 Aug 2008
It is interesting observing from afar the various justifications for the draft Charter put up by its supporters. Of course they will trumpet its benefits and downplay its flaws. Yet the Charter has been conceived out of the illegal takeover of a legally mandated and representative government. Supporters of the Charter therefore derive their authority, moral or ethical, from such a source. It is no wonder that a great many detractors regard supporters of the Charter and the current illegal regime as one and the same. One major flaw of the whole sad enterprise, is that unless people share in first defining the problems the Chater is supposed to address, then you can't expect them to be part of the solution. The fact remains that many regard the Fiji Military, specifically its leadership, as the problem. Yet the Charter skirts around and even appears to be advocating a prominent place for the military. There is no point in beating around the bush on this. Fiji does not need a military of the current size. It has become a drain both on the Fiji economy and on the democratic governance of its people. The Police should be more than adequate to deal with most of the role currently performed by the military. To argue otherwise is to perpetuate the myth ingrained in the draft Charter.
Sai Lealea, Wellington.
Lessons to learn from the US Supreme Court’s historical Guantanamo Bay ruling. - 16 June 2008 - Tui Savu

Last Thursday the US Supreme Court handed down a divided (5-4) historical ruling concerning terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, that the detainees ‘have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus’, but more importantly ‘the laws of the Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times’, dealing a major blow to the Bush Administration’s questionable tough stance on terrorism.
Fiji’s constitutional history is very short in comparison to the US. After the Rabuka coup in 1987, Rabuka abrogated the 1970 Constitution, declared Fiji a Republic and introduced the 1990 Constitution. The Reeves Commission reviewed the 1990 Constitution, resulting in the Constitution Amended Act 1997, which remains the supreme and extant law in Fiji tody.
Bainimarama after assuming Executive Authority from the late Tui Nayau Ratu Mara during the Speight coup in 2000 sought to revoke the 1997 Constitution, but was rebuffed by then Justice Gates in Chandrika Prasad as ‘not within the doctrine of necessity and such revocation was unconstitutional and with no effect. The Constitution is the supreme and extant law of Fiji today.’
President Iloilo and the interim government have maintained since the removal of the Qarase Government in December 2006, that the 1997 Constitution remains the supreme and extant law in Fiji and all reforms will be in compliance of the same.
Its has been over 3 months since Qarase’s Constitutional case was heard before Acting Chief Justice Gates and Justices Pathick and Byrnes and judgement is still on Notice. This case is more important than previous Constitutional cases and the courts composition of 3 Justices instead of a single Judge bears testimony of how seriously the judiciary viewed Qarase’s case.
The Court in previous coups has attracted severe criticism both from within and without. Now it is provided with an opportunity to show to the world its tenacity to be independent and will to uphold its sacred judicial duty.
On this occasion, its decision will also be closely scrutinised because of other outstanding issues, one surrounding the legality over the appointment of Acting Chief Justice Gates and the legality over the suspension of Chief Justice Fatiaki.
Fiji’s judiciary in the past have stood up to the plate when required and the latest US Supreme Court ruling should fan the fire in their belly to stand up for justice, the rule of law and not shirk away from its Constitutional duties.
Acting CJ Gates’ himself eloquently summed up the Court’s proper role in a Constitutional case, such as in Chandrika Prasad when His Lordship quoted with emphasis and approval from Makenete, which I respectively submit, it is duty bound to apply to Qarase’s case as well:
“The Courts become the pivot on which the constitutional arrangements of the country turn, for the Bench can and must determine the limits of the authority both of the executive and of the Legislature. The consequence follows that the Bench of Judges is the guardian of the constitution…
Judges appointed to office under a written constitution, which provides certain fundamental laws and restricts the manner in which those laws can be altered, must not allow rights under that constitution to be violated. This is a lasting duty for so long as they hold office, whether the violation be by peaceful nor revolutionary means. If, as in South Africa, the Courts were obliged to stand resolutely in the way of what might be termed a legitimate attempt to override the constitution, a fortiori must a court stand in the way of a blatantly illegal attempt to tear up a constitution. If to do this is to be characterized as counter-revolutionary, surely an acquiescence in illegality must equally be revolutionary. Nothing can encourage instability more than for any revolutionary movement to know that, if it succeeds in snatching power, it will be entitled ipso facto to the complete support of the pre-existing judiciary in their judicial capacity. It may be a vain hope that the judgment of a court will deter a usurper, or have the effect of restoring legality, but for a court to be deterred by fear of failure is merely to acquiesce in illegality. It may be that the court’s mere presence exercises some check on a usurper who prefers to avoid a confrontation with it. (Emphasis added)
I am in full agreement with these views and in particular with the warning that a court ought not to shirk its constitutional duty because it fears that its orders may not be executed by the usurper.”
Tui Savu.
What now Yabaki?
Rev. Akuila Yabaki’s behaviour during these past 2 coups are highly questionable.
After the Speight coup in 2000, he together with 7 FLP Members took legal action against President Iloilo and the AG, seeking 4 Declarations before Justice M.D. Scott. (Refer [2001] FJHC 116)
The Declarations sought from the Court in 2001 were as follows: (a) to Declare the President’s failure to recall Parliament after its prorogation on 27/05/00 was inconsistent with the Constitution; (b) to Declare the purported dismissal of Chaudary as PM on 14/03/01 was inconsistent with the Constitution and is therefore null and void; (c) to Declare the purported dissolution of Parliament on 14/03/01 was inconsistent with the Constitution and is therefore null and void & (d) to Declare the appointment of Qarase and others on 15th, 16th & 19th March 2001 was inconsistent with the Constitution and is therefore null and void.
Yet, in less than 5 years, his stance has evolved drastically from one diabolically opposed to an illegal takeover of an elected government to that of unconditionally supporting an illegal regime.
His recent outbursts against Qarase and the SDL, especially about the so claimed ‘racist bills’ and labeling others who have the moral courage and fortitude to stand up to him, Bainimarama and the illegal regime as all ‘racist’ contradict everything he previously stood and fight for!
Father David Arms’ proposal to the NCCBF ‘ the military regime was more or less acting outside the Constitution, the NCBBF should take the opportunity to push through the electoral reforms and amend the Constitution, by taking advantage of the military authority and giving the legal Constitutional requirements for making such changes..’ was correctly criticised by Mick Beddoes as ‘treasonous’. (Emphasis mine)
Since, Rev. Yabaki holds a position of responsibility within the NCBBF, why has he not condemned this ‘treasonous’ proposal?
Am I correct to construe by his silence that he concurs?
Also what momentous difference was there between the Chaudary led Multi Cabinet Government and the Qarase led Multi Cabinet Government, which influenced him to favour the former and condemn the latter?
Furthermore, why is he so out of touch with the majority of Fijians including his own Provincial Council, whom have all rejected the People’s Charter?
Can he also substantiate, how the Qoliqoli & Land Claims Tribunal Bills were going to ‘place greater restrictions on non-indigenous people over the ownership and use of land and sea in Fiji’ and its ‘devastating effect’ when passed into law?
Finally, I wish to remind Rev. Yabaki of Justice Scott’s final comments in his case, after refusing Declarations B, C & D, as I believe it is very relevant to Fiji’s political situation today and to the NCBBF’s role as well.
‘I do not question the motives of the Applicants which I am sure are sincere but courts must remember that they are part of society and not above it. Their Judgements must be sensible and practical and should avoid excess legalism. They would do well to remember the words of William Blake who wrote: ‘the errors of a wise man make your rule rather than the perfections of a fool.’
Tui Savu.
Townsville. QLD
Qoliqoli and Lands Tribunal bills – racist or not? - 5 June 2008
Akuila Yabaki’s labeling SDL’s policy of returning the Qoliqoli back to the traditional owners and Lands Tribunal, as racist needs to be properly scrutinized and tested.
Yabaki relies on the United Nations Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommendation that indigenous rights declaration should not harm the enjoyment of human rights of other ethnic groups.
Qarase has said that should the SDL return to power, it will consider reintroducing the Qoliqoli and Land Tribunal Bills.
It is these Bills, which Yabaki, Bainimarama, Shaista and others have labeled as ‘racist.’
The UN Committee of Elimination of Racial Discrimination does not condemn declaration of indigenous rights per say, but only recommends against those declarations, which harms the enjoyment of human rights of others.
What harming of enjoyment of human rights of non-indigenous will the Qoliqoli & Lands Tribunal Bills affect?
Reading the Hansard Transcripts of then Fijian Affairs Minister, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu on 09/08/06 when tabling the Qoliqoli Bill, he clearly outlines the history and purpose of the Bill. (I thoroughly recommend all to read.)
He exposes the lies being spread by the Hoteliers in their quest to defeat the Bill, as they claim it will affect their unlimited use of the foreshores around their project sites.

Ratu Naiqama challenged what right did the hoteliers claim in having unlimited use of the foreshores around their projects at the exclusion of all others?
As the law of Fiji stands, indigenous Fijians only have customary rights over their Qoliqoli’s and the Bill was to confer proprietary over their Qoliqoli’s as well.
Yabaki claims that indigenous rights are already entrenched in the Constitution, so no further rights should be imposed, which is nonsensical.
Having entrenched rights in the Constitution should not bar further protection of fundamental right, when brought to light, such as proprietary rights over the Qoliqoli’s, as natural justice and convention dictates it should be protected as well.
The enactment of the Qoliqoli and Lands Tribunal Bill is consistent with the recommendation of the UN Committee of Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Yabaki and several NGO’s in their Submission to the Committee dated August 2007 in its Executive Summary erroneously states:
‘Additionally the State party (Qarase led Government) was embarking on new land bills that would have had a devastating effect on Indo-Fijians and other ethnic minority in Fiji, such as descendants of Solomon Islanders, Rabi, Kioa, Chinese, Europeans and Part Europeans and others. These were the so-called Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Tribunal bills. These bills would have placed greater restrictions on non-indigenous over the ownership and the usage of the lands and sea in Fiji…’
The Lands Claim Tribunal was set up to address and resolve long standing grievances of native owners through successive governments. (I thoroughly recommend all to read.)
This concept according to Qoriniyasi Bale is nothing novel since it was modeled after the Waitagi Tribunal from New Zealand, established under the New Zealand Waitagi Treaty Act. Qoriniyasi Bale said this initiative is also found in Australian and Canadian legislation.

He further stated that the bill will not disturb the indefeasible title of the current proprietor and if there is no other remedy, then compensation may be applicable to address the grievances of the native owners by the party at fault.
So what ‘greater restrictions’ or ‘great devastating effect’ does Yabaki and his cronies rely upon to substantiate their ‘racist’ claim?
The only difference now with respect to the Qoliqoli bill is that the Qoliqoli owners will directly benefit from what has always been theirs prior to the Cession and users will pay, which is normal business practice (user-par system).
With the Lands Tribunal bill, there is no difference, as current indefeasible titleholders remain intact, although if they wish to sell it voluntarily, then the native owners have first refusal. The native owners if no other remedy is available, maybe entitled to compensation from the faulting party, in which most circumstances will be the Government.
So, after viewing these 2 bills, why are they labeled ‘racist’?
It seems to me that unscrupulous politicians using the race card heighten certain groups and ethnic communities fears, each time Fijian rights are espoused; because they maliciously interpret they would be further marginalised.
However, when you consider the Qoliqoli & Lands Tribunal bills objectively, they are only conferring back to the native owners or recognizing what had always been theirs since time immemorial and not placing ‘greater restrictions’ of will have ‘greater devastating effects’ upon them.
It seems quite obvious to me that Yabaki and his supporters are guilty of scare mongering and inadvertently further widening the racial divide.
Tui Savu.

Do it Frank - 02 June 2008

LET the interim PM go ahead with his threat to abrogate the Constitution.

Let it destine him and his illegal regime to a charge of treason. He and his cronies will never sleep as they will bear the brunt of Fijian nationalism and anger.

Go on Frank, do it.

Those of us from the brave island of Yacata, would dearly love the opportunity to face you upfront one and for all for our beloved Fiji's sake. Be a man and let Fiji free to realise its many potential.

Sai Lealea

Shifting sands.

In one of my letters regarding Qarase’s dialogue with Bainimarama, I quoted Qarase speaking after the Wellington talks concerning Bainimarama’s mental state ‘we are dealing with somebody completely deranged and unstable, so that is part of the problem.’

The questioned I posed was how has Bainimarama’s mental state improved over the past 18 months making him competent and reliable to deal with?

His recent threats about No Charter - No Elections and now the illegal regime and Military will ensure that SDL does not contest the General Elections in 2009 because it opposes the People’s Charter and NCBBF, is conclusive evidence of how utterly incompetent and unreliable he is.

I had exhorted the Military Council to put a stop to the illegal regime, but it seems from Bainimarama’s statement they are in cahoots.

Does this mean the illegal regime and Military Council will also prevent the NFP & UPP from contesting the General Elections, as they too oppose the People’s Charter and NCBBF?

What does Bainimarama and the Military Council say to the 85% of the 14 Fijian Provinces, including his own Province Tailevu, which have rejected the People’s Charter and NCBBF?

Will the illegal regime and Military Council also prevent people from these Provinces from standing in the Elections as well?

Bainimarama’s constant changing grounds makes it impossible for any competent person to take him seriously.

As soon as a policy or directive is not fulfilled, he makes threats against the majority who resist it and adds further pre-conditions before General Elections will be held.

He and his illegal regime have become so disillusioned in their own quagmire of illegality, that they fail to realise their repulsiveness.

The illegal regime suffers from an inferior complex, therefore all challenges are met with threats, as they lack the ability to objectively distinguish constructive criticism.

Khaiyum’s concession that President Iloilo had already granted immunity to the Military, is finally admission by the illegal regime’s chief Legal Advisor, that the coup was illegal!

Bainimarama has portrayed over and over again, that he lacks the moral fortitude to engage in proper and constructive dialogue.

I urge Qarase, NFP, UPP and the majority of people of Fiji to review their current tactics and change their strategy in engaging with the illegal regime because to remain passive and be reactionary is exactly what they envisage and hope for.

However, when the shoe is on the other foot, the illegal regime will, it is my belief will be found wanting.

Tui Savu.

Final Test for the Military Council
23 May 2008

Over 18 months ago, I had written that Bainimarama does not understand the niceties of dialogue, but only rule by the gun.

This is clearly portrayed on one hand entering into dialogue with Qarase and on the other hand, maintaining that if the People’s Charter is not accepted then no General Elections in 2009.

His stubbornness to hold a referendum to elect a Vice President if there is no quorum for the GCC to convene is further proof that despite the Fijians total repudiation of his illegal rule and policies, he continues to push his agenda down their throats.

The illegal regime’s insistence on its right to rule only further polarises ethnic tension, which will have terrible consequences, yet ironically this is what he maintains the People’s Charter will eradicate!

Bainimarama and his cronies in their stubbornness have become so tunnel vision, that nothing else is acceptable except their claims!

The 14 Provinces have overwhelming rejected the People’s Charter and have either refused to send delegates to the GCC, refrained from sending its delegates or is sending its same delegates to the previous GCC, who are disqualified under the new Regulation.

The Military Council has no legal justification whatsoever to continue supporting the illegal regime, now that the lawful Fijian Provincial Councils and Bose Vanuas have so eloquently spoken their mind.

The Military Council can still exonerate itself from its erroneous way by withdrawing its unconditional support to the illegal regime.

Because to continue to support the illegal regime despite the overwhelming rejection by the 14 Provinces, only lends credence to Roko Tui Bau’s words, that many in the Fijian heartland view this coup as an Indian coup because there is simply no rationale why the Military Council should continue supporting this illegal regime.

The illegal regime is only able to rule, impose and dictate policy to the people of Fiji because of the Military Council’s unconditional support.

Once this support is withdrawn, the illegal regime will crumble like a house of cards because its legitimacy is not built upon legality, but brute force.

The Military Council’s resolve is now being finally tested, whether it will return to upholding the rule of law, for which the Military as an Institution swears to uphold or will it continue to be manipulated and be a pawn of failed politicians and devious people?

The illegal regime is quickly running out of options and the doors are quickly closing in around them.

The postponing of General Elections next year seems inevitable, but my question to the Military Council is why delay the inevitable?

The Military Council will one day be questioned on its role in seizing a lawful government and its mistreatment of civilians, so why not cut its losses now and protect itself?

They can be assured that when this fiasco is all over, the illegal regime will fend for itself and not indemnify the Military Council.

Furthermore, they cannot indemnify the Military Council because it is trite law that following an illegal order is not a defence.

To continue upholding the illegal regime, which has been thoroughly repudiated by the Fijian people, means the Military Council will eventually have to come to the forefront and openly confront the Fijian people and having more blood on its hands.

Is this what the Military Council envisages for itself?

Tui Savu.


Townsville. QLD

Open dialogue then what?

Tui Savu - 20 May 2008
Bainimarama’s dialogue with Qarase is a positive sign and we hope this is an opportunity to resolve the political impasse.

Qarase, Beddoes and the NFP’s meeting last week indicate the dialogue had been known beforehand.

Bainimarama’s instigating this dialogue concedes an admission, that the IG cannot deliver on its claims in conducting the coup and now needs the assistance of Qarase, Beddoes & the NFP to absolve it out of its quagmire of illegality.

There are still many difficult obstacles ahead, which they need to tread prudently and decide wisely upon, otherwise Qarase, Beddoes and the NFP may receive a backlash from its supporters resulting in the formation of new political parties.

I have maintained all along, that the only means to permanently eradicate the coup culture in Fiji is to hold people accountable for their illegal actions and bring them to justice, but I stand to be corrected.

Roko Tui Bau offers a pragmatic solution, which is granting immunity to the Military.

Beddoes expands that immunity be applied across the board to include Speight and his men, but to have conditions excluding those Military personnel involved in serious crimes against humanity.

Jokapeci Koroi of the FLP opposes Beddoes’ inclusion of Speight and his men, from immunity.

We should recall, that Qarase after his Wellington talks with Bainimarama in November 2006 capitulated to over 95% of Bainimarama’s demands, including terminating all pending legal investigations against Bainimarama, yet he still went ahead and executed his coup.

Qarase’s comments concerning Bainimarama’s mental state then said ‘we are dealing with somebody completely deranged and unstable, so that is part of the problem.’

I ask, what has improved with Bainimarama’s mental state, over these 18 months that makes him competent and reliable to deal with?

It is my view, that immunity does not address the issue perpetuating the ‘coup culture’ and if too hastily accepted as the only ‘pragmatic solution’ then it may amount to a wrongful diagnosed ‘band-aid’ solution to more serious medical procedure requiring ‘staples’.

Tui Savu.

Damned GCC Meeting and its consequences

There has been much speculation over the much-anticipated GCC Meeting to nominate a Vice President.

Nawalowalo, the head of the Task Force sent out to the 14 Provinces has stated that as long as they obtain the 2/3 or 32 out of the 52 delegates, they have a quorum to convene the GCC.

So far, Tailevu, Rewa, Cakaudrove, Naitasiri, Namosi, Lomaiviti, Ra and Nadroga have rejected both the People’s Charter and the newly constituted GCC and will refrain from sending its delegates to the GCC.

Ba, on the other hand chooses to abstain and awaits the outcome of Ratu Ovini Bokini’s & Ors court challenge, but will not send its delegates as well.

9 Provinces will refrain sending its 27 delegates to the GCC (the majority traditionally owners of native lands throughout Fiji) under the 2008 GCC Regulation; a quorum of 34 delegates is required before the GCC Meeting can legally proceed.

Therefore the proposed GCC Meeting for June is already damned because it lacks the necessary legal quorum and further rejections from other Provinces only substantiates what many Fijians have been claiming all along, which the IG has been rejecting, that the majority of the Fijians reject the IG and all what it stands for.

It is intriguing when you muse that if another Province was to either reject or abstain from sending its 3 delegates to the GCC Meeting, then it brings up the total of 30 delegates or more than 2/3 of the total 42 delegates from the 14 Provinces even including Rotuma’s delegates will not be present, which is undisputed evidence of where the Fijian peoples’ true loyalty and sympathies lie.

Bainimarama and the IG are aware they are the scourges of Fijian society despite what they claim to the contrary and this is evidenced in the fact, they cannot freely travel in Fiji without bodyguards.

Why then continue with the charade that they have the right to rule Fiji, bringing about great misery, poverty, unemployment, injustice, nepotism, threaten the media, unilaterally make decisions without regard to the rule and law as seen in the unlawful deportation and perversion of the course of justice in Evan Hannah and Russell Hunter’s case amongst others and their wasteful expenditure of hard earned tax-payer funds in numerous questionable overseas trips and white elephant NCBBF?

Why prolong the inevitable? The coup in December 2006 was illegal and there is simply no justification at all despite all the legal jargon and claims.

Even if the illegally appointed Gates, Pathick and Byrnes rules in favour of the IG and against Qarase, their decision will never withstand proper scrutiny and will never be accepted by the majority of Fijians and other Fiji law abiding citizens and may trigger massive unrest in Fiji.

The majority of Fijians and all law abiding citizens everywhere eagerly await the demise of the IG and anticipate the time when they and their shadowy advisors are brought to justice.

I foresee courts reconvened in large auditoriums, such as the Tradewinds Convention Centre, to accommodate the large interest both domestically and internationally observing due process of law at work in holding people accountable for their actions and bringing them to justice.

It is the due process of the law, holding people accountable for their actions and bringing them to justice and not the self-claimed white elephant People’s Charter, which will guarantee the permanent eradication of the coup culture in Fiji.

Tui Savu.

Fishing expedition investigations

I am astonished at the continual ‘fishing expedition investigations’ into Qarase’s tenure as PM, to see whether there is any past conduct that could constitute an offence.

FICAC is to be commended on one hand for being very thorough, but when their investigations are solely confined to Qarase and not extended to other former PM’s, such as Mahendra Chaudary for nepotism when appointing of his own son as his Private Secretary and abuse of funds when using state funds to renovate his personal residence at Laucala Bay, etc, one begins to question their neutrality and impartiality.

The IG in its determination to find fault with Qarase with the assistance of certain expatriates has now become fanatical and personal and is no longer objective.

The best it has come up with so far is to charge him with some ridiculous offence supposedly when he was still Managing Director of FDB!

Where is the endemic corruption Qarase supposedly committed whilst PM, which Bainimarama and his IG cronies relies upon to justify the illegal 2006 coup?

Tui Savu.

Gross legal incompetence - 21 April 2008

The Constitutional Commission’s decision to revoke Dr. Coughlan’s appointment as Supervisor of Elections highlights the absolute incompetence of the IG and its appointees.
Chairman Rishi Ram’s excuse that Dr. Coughlan never disclosed the fact of his disbarment during his interview, seriously questions his competency for the job.
What is more alarming is the fact Chairman Ram sent Dr. Coughlan’s name over to the Minister for Elections, whose office vetted his name and gave the green light before Dr. Coughlan’s contract was dully executed.

COC’s lawyer, Gavin O’Driscoll speaking on behalf of the Commission tells the media, they will not commit the same mistake again, which is simply not good enough and too little too late.

How can these so-called legal professionals Gavin O’Driscoll, Minister Khaiyum and Christopher Pryde allow such a glaring omission by-pass scrutiny at the preliminary stages of the Selection Process?

It seems very strange to me, that Christopher Pryde wasn’t aware of Dr. Coughlan’s disbarment, as they both practiced in New Zealand?

O’Driscoll, Khaiyum and Pryde should disclose to the people of Fiji, what steps (if any) did they actually take to pass Dr. Coughlan’s application?

For instance, did they inquire with the New Zealand Law Society or New Zealand Bar Society?

Did they insist on seeing his Certificate of Good Standing before advising the Commission? If not, why not?

A quick look at the New Zealand Bar Association website reveals Dr. Coughlan is not a Member of that Association, although he maybe a Member of the New Zealand Law Society.

However, if he was a Member of the NZLS, then a Certificate of Good Standing if requested, would have disclosed his disbarment.

How can these incompetent so-called professionals continue to practice in Fiji with immunity?

Expatriate lawyers working in Fiji; know full well, gross incompetence of this magnitude back in their home jurisdictions would have cost them their job; reputation and even possible disciplinary action for bringing the Law Society into disrepute.

Expatriate Lawyers, Judges, Consultants, etc working in Fiji should maintain at all times the same professional and ethical standards expected of them in their home jurisdictions when working in Fiji because much more is expected of them, hence the higher salary and benefits they receive over their local counter-part.

If they can’t, then they should resign because they’ve now become a financial burden on the taxpayers of Fiji.

Tui Savu.
Townsville QLD

Teleni’s kafuffle

Teleni’s comments over Peceli Kinivuwai’s wrongful prevention to travel to Australia shows his gross ineptitude and utter failure to comprehend the seriousness of the breach.

Fijilive quotes him as saying ‘I told him that I will check the matter first’ and ‘Kinivuwai should check with me today. He will have to get back to me today not me getting back to him.’

Teleni is also quoted as saying that Kinivuwai should have first checked with the Ministry of Home Affairs before approaching him directly, despite the fact, the forged letter purports to have been signed by him.

Teleni is correct in pointing out the proper administrative channels to follow during normal business, but the breach was ‘extraordinary’ and time was of the essence.

The fact Teleni was purportedly the author of the said letter, would have been reason enough for any competent Police Commissioner to act swiftly.

Teleni should have acted swiftly, denied authorship, rejected its authenticity, informed Immigration to allow Kinivuwai to depart Fiji, then launch a full scale investigation into this very serious breach.

Yet, Teleni tells Kinivuwai, he’ll look into it and then for Kinivuwai to contact him later to find out what he’s uncovered.

This is sheer ignorance. Kinivuwai knows very well trying to contact Teleni later on in the day, would be impossible, if he does not want to be contacted.

What is the purpose for the talks when the purpose of Kinivuwai departure no longer matters?

Teleni’s investigation would have taken its normal course, but Kinivuwai, the victim has been left stranded.

Teleni should have acted more professionally, apologised for any misunderstanding and give an undertaking that he’ll utilise the full resources within the Police Force to uncover this conspiracy.

However, the impression one gets from Teleni’s comments is his indifferent to the seriousness of the security breach, which naturally raises suspicion of his involvement, knowledge or acquiescence of the forged letter.

I had written last year that Teleni was not suited for this position, when he was chosen over then Acting Police Commissioner Romanu Tikotikoca and this kafuffle further validates my claim.

Another note of concern, which some may find trivial, is that Teleni seems to have forgotten the fact; there is no longer a Ministry for Home Affairs.

When Cabinet was reshuffled, Minister Ganilau became the 1st Minister for the newly renamed Ministry of Defence, National Security and Immigration taking over the former Ministry for Home Affairs.

Teleni’s continual kafuffles is a serious breach of national security and is a matter of grave concern.

I am reminded of the Roman poet, Juvenal’s famous quote ‘quis custodiet ipsos custodies’ which is so true of Fiji’s situation today.

Tui Savu.

Townsville QLD.

The only way for the Interim Government to extricate itself from the perilous position it is in now is to recall Parliament and for a representative coalition government to take Fiji to the next election.

And if they really believe that its ill fated, expensive and useless charter is worthy of consideration by all the people of Fiji then it can include it for referendum at the elections.

Otherwise, the charade and deceit over its misrule and bullying will drive Fiji further into the doldrums. The cost and those involved in developing the Charter have now come under bitter scrutiny. Yet we hear little or nothing to justify the use of taxpayer's hard-earned money in such a worthless exercise that only detracts from the real priorities to be addressed.

John Samy should indeed reveal if in fact he began working on a charter prior to the 2006 coup. If so, he should have the decency and intestinal fortitude to say so and reveal who had put him up to it. The whole enterprise suffered from a flawed conception, deceptive and intimidating process and unclear expectation in the final outcome. Everyone agrees there are problems that need to be addressed, but there is no agreement that the Charter is the way to do it. Especially when there are existing instruments such as the Compact part to the Constitution and the numerous national plans and various government strategies.
Sai Lealea

John Samy and the NCBBF saga

by Tui Savu
The recent revelation of salaries paid to John Samy and other Consultants, which both Bainimarama and Mataca sought to conceal from the public, has been met with overwhelming condemnation.

Many are outraged at the seemingly huge salaries, which in reality is not when considering the international market for the kind of work they are carrying out in Fiji.

However, it is the fact John Samy together with Bainimarama and Mataca sought to conceal it from public scrutiny, calling in question his salary and involvement in NCBBF.

Especially when you consider Minister Nailatikau’s statement last month, that the vision for rebuilding Fiji that underpins the overarching objective is guided by 6 key principles, one of which is ‘transparent and accountable government.’

John Samy justifies his salary due to the personal sacrifice he’s put in over the past 10 months.

I recall before the formation of the NCBBF, Minister Nailatikau and the interim regime claiming sole authorship of the Charter, until John Samy contradicted them from New Zealand and claimed he together with another were its rightful authors.

I would like to ask John Samy:

When were you invited or instructed to prepare drafting the Charter and by whom?’

I stand to be corrected, but remain skeptical until proven to the contrary, that John Samy was invited or instructed before the December 2006 coup.

My skepticism is based on the above facts, that the interim regime first claimed sole authorship of the Charter, until contradicted by John Samy and his subsequent actions thereafter.

I invite John Samy to answer my question and reserve my right to respond, which I remind him is one of the 6 key principles mentioned by Minister Nailatikau, namely ‘a just and fair society.’

Tui Savu.

Townsville QLD.



by Tui Savu
12 April 2008

Is Nawalowalo so stupid in thinking that his role this time to inform Provincial Councils of the interim government’s directives before the sitting of the GCC is proper and vakaturaga?

The last time the Task Force went around, it was to obtain the Provinces view regarding the composition of the GCC, which was vakaturaga.

However, after the interim government rejected certain crucial recommendations of the Task Force, Nawalowalo simply overlooks this breach, but seems ever so keen on returning to the Provinces, only this time to lay down the law and any Province who rejects it he has the audacity to label as ‘renegade.’

It is these kinds of arrogant, elitist, spineless, insensitive and stubborn behaviour, which gives chiefs a bad name.

I ask Nawalowalo & his Task Force, what if the Provinces of Tailevu, Rewa and Cakaudrove and others refuse to join this GCC?

Do they truly believe any decision taken by ‘subordinate chiefs’ will be binding and respected on the Paramount Chiefs and Fijians?

‘Rogo kei na dokai, kua ni guta mai dei ko na leqa kina.’

Tui Savu.

Townsville QLD.


Burning house analogy
by Tui Savu
Townsville, Australia

The analogy sought as justification: ‘seeking to help put down the fire from a burning house rather then standing idly by and watching it raze to the ground’, has been used several times over the years to justify ones involvement in an interim government or organ after a military coup, which must be scrutinised on its own merit.

It was used by the late Ratu Mara to justify his involvement as head of the interim government after the 1987 Rabuka coup, Minister Ganilau in taking up his appointment as Fijian Affairs Minister after the 2006 Bainimarama coup, Pramesh Chand to justify his appointment as PS in the interim PM’s Office and now Josefa Serulagilagi to justify his involvement in the Charter Group, during the Charter debate.

They maybe others claiming the same, which I am unaware of, but the same principles, applies to them as well.

After closely scrutinising this analogy, serious fundamental flaws become apparent, that needs to be addressed to ascertain whether the analogy is properly justified in each instance.

The analogies of the ‘burning house’ in all instances refer to the adverse political, social and economical effects upon the nation of Fiji as a whole, as distinct from the unlawful act of the forceful removal of the lawful Government of the day.

When political, social or economical turmoil unravel the coup perpetrator’s objectives, they approach certain persons or groups viewed by the community as neutral and above politics to assist them steer Fiji away from imminent destruction caused by their coup.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the forceful removal of the government of the day.

Now, to correctly use this analogy to justify ones involvement in the interim government or Charter Group, one must first ‘come with clean hands’.

In other words, one must not have been involved either directly or indirectly or supported or was indifferent or silently acquiesced to the illegal removal of the Bavadra or Qarase Government, which resulted in the ‘burning house’ or imminent destruction of Fiji.

If one was involved either directly or indirectly, supported or was indifferent or silently acquiesced to the illegal removal of either of these Governments, then one could be guilty of arson (treason) or by association at the very least and cannot legally or morally rely upon this analogy to justify their involvement.

Granted, there would be some who may genuinely risk their lives in helping put down the flames of the burning house, but they would be clearly visible for all to see.

Unfortunately, there has been none to date or if there were any, they have faded into the background and become barely visible.

Tui Savu.
Townsville QLD.

Common interests

by Tui Savu
Townsville QLD.

Chaudary’s statement in the North that General Elections will only take place after the formulation of the People’s Charter clearly reveals his fear of facing the wrath of the voters and the long arm of the law.

His claim that the Charter will eradicate all of Fiji’s fundamental problems first before going to the polls is simply ludicrous.

Chaudary after all did win the 1999 General Elections under the current Constitution and at no time did he seek to put in place a Charter to eradicate all of Fiji’s fundamental problems, but rather pushed to implement his own FLP’s Manifesto, but was cut short by Speight’s coup.

He now tries to buy himself and his FLP cronies time and immunity before a lawful Government is elected.

Chaudary has become too powerful and is recklessly making bold statements wholly contrary to what Minister Nailatikau had assured the Foreign Minister’s in New Zealand, that Fiji would go to the polls next year.

What Chaudary does not realise is that he is becoming a liability to the interim regime.

His assurances to Bainimarama that he would be able to revive the economy, secure the release of sugar grants from the EU, obtain loans from India, ensure smooth transition to democratic elections, legal immunity and the full backing of the FLP has come to naught.

Some of his own senior supporters have resigned from the FLP and some of his fellow interim Cabinet Ministers now realise their interests are being jeopardized due to his continual arrogant and confrontational ways.

This coup interestingly brought together many individuals and groups through ‘common interest’ and not loyalty.

Each individual, such as Bainimarama, Minister Nailatikau, Minister Ganilau, Minister Chaudary, Justice Gates, Justice Shameem, Justice Mataitoga, Commissioner Shameem, etc, all had their individual selfish interests, but what they had in common was the removal or acquiescence to Qarase’s removal from power.

Once PM Qarase and his government were illegally removed, all other interests came on board because the coup created the opportunity for them to realise their own selfish ‘common interest.’

The next perceived obstacle was CJ Fatiaki, so he too was removed on some flimsy grounds, which took nearly 12 months to establish a Tribunal and to date, still has not deliberated on the substantive matters.

The problem with these kinds of liaisons is that they are based on ‘common interests’ and ‘common interests’ change together with the political and social changes.

Some of the main perpetrators who instigated the coup are still in Cabinet and in the shadows.

They are seeing the writing on the wall and these are dangerous times because the rest of the individuals and groups who came on board with their ‘common interests’ now become expendable.

The Military has guns and it must be daunting for the other individuals and groups to know, that they are vulnerable, when the main players start becoming desperate.

It would not be surprising for some of these individuals and/or groups to be secretly evaluating their own ‘exit strategies’ because, what they hoped for or were promised is slowly dissipating before their very eyes.

The coup was a high stakes gamble gone terribly wrong and only time will reveal its total carnage in terms of human, economic and social cost.

Tui Savu.
Townsville QLD.

Charter A Waste of Money and Effort
by Sai Lealea - unpublished letter to Fiji Times

Efforts by the Interim Government to force the Charter down the throat of Fijians will surely fail. It is a total waste of money that could have gone to paying for the education of young peoples in Fiji and those in dire need of support. Any anticipated gains from it will surely be offset by the long term division and disunity that will result from the exclusion of a majority of peoples in Fiji. These are peoples who firmly believe that the necessary environment for such an enterprise can only be provided with a democratic mandate.

Achievement of the ideals and expectations in the Charter will never be possible with the involvement of those who are tainted with the act of overthrowing a democratically elected government. That is why the Interim PM's attempt to deceive the people of Fiji by asserting the autonomy of the initiative will be recognised for what it is, naked and unadulterated deception by a desperate dictator.

Others who have prostituted their spiritual calling at the expense of pointing out injustices must also be held accountable. Only when people are able to truly and freely express their views will this be possible. This is clearly not the case in Fiji at the present time. That is why an immediate return to democratic rule is critical for Fiji and its future. To say and behave otherwise points to extreme desperation on the part of the Interin government. History has parallels for such tyranical acts. Nazi Germany and Mugabe's current rule in Zimbabwe instantly springs to mind. Fiji and its peoples just don'tdeserve this comparison.

Sai Lealea

Nawalowalo’s folly.

Nawalowalo’s labeling the Naitasiri Province as a ‘renegade’ for rejecting the amendments to the newly comprised GCC, is not ‘vakaturaga’ but grossly insulting for someone who struts around with a ‘ratu’ title next to his name.

He unashamedly echoes his political master’s naïve claim, that Provincial Council’s no longer will be responsible for electing its members to the GCC because they have become political.

I challenge Nawalowalo, Bainimarama and all puppet Provincial Council Chairmen to explain, when has their Councils ever abstained from being involved in political issues affecting their particular Provinces or the Fijian people as a whole?

Section 7 (1) of the Fijian Affairs Act creates the 14 Provincial Councils and subsection (2) empowers the Councils, subject to the Minister’s approval to enact by-laws for the health, welfare and good government of Fijians residing in or being members of the community of the Province.

Section 3 (1) creates the GCC and subsection (2) imposes a positive duty upon the GCC to submit to the President such recommendations and proposals it deems to be for the benefit of the Fijian people and to consider questions as to good government and well being of the Fijian people.

Furthermore, section 185 of the Constitution of Fiji specifically grants exclusive vetoing powers to the Senate nominees of the GCC with respect to all matters affecting Fijian, Rotuman and Banaban rights.

So the intention of the legislators when enacting the Fijian Affairs Act and the Constitution, which had by-partisan support of the Indian members in Parliament, intended for the GCC and Councils to be involved in political issues, which directly affected their respective Provinces or the Fijian people as a whole.

The GCC’s rejecting President Iloilo’s nomination of Minister Nailatikau for Vice President clearly was within its Constitutional duties conferred upon it by section 90 of the Constitution, but in doing so, attracted the wrath of the interim government leading to its dissolution by Minister Ganilau.

It is therefore quite reasonable for certain Provinces to be weary of the interim government’s intention of a newly composed GCC especially if it will only act as a rubber stamp to Minister Nailatikau’s nomination for Vice President.

Nawalowalo’s insistence that even if 5 of the Provinces did not take part in the election of the Vice President, the GCC will still go ahead and make the appointment is worrisome.

The 5 Provinces likely to reject the proposed changes are; Rewa, Nadroga, Namosi, Naitasiri, Cakaudrove.

These Provinces simply cannot be over-looked in any proper GCC resolution.

How can this newly constituted GCC be truly recognised and accepted by Fijians if the traditional heads of Burebasaga and Tovata, Rewa, Nadroga, Namosi Naitasiri and Cakaudrove are excluded or refrain from being members, especially when you consider it was their ancestors who were signatories to the Deed of Cession?

Nawalowalo in his appeasement policy towards the interim government, is political as well, such as securing the interim government leasing their Provincial House, fails to see the hypocrisy and not ‘vakaturaga’ in returning to the Provincial Councils only this time to tell them of the new amendments.

He should recall when the Task Force first went around the 14 Provinces it was to seek their views in relation to proposed amendments to the composition of the GCC.

When the interim government rejected its recommendation that the GCC be apolitical and the President, VP and PM not be part of the GCC, former Chairman Tu’uakitau had the decency to speak out against it and replacements of other Task Force Members, could be interpreted as their agreeing with Chairman Tu’uakitau.

Nawalowalo is a ‘water-bottle principle man’. Water always takes the shape of its container and he always seem to be able to finagle himself back into the good books of the interim government, so it comes as no surprise, when Chairman Tu’uakitau was axed, Nawalowalo was elevated in his place.
This time instead of seeking the views of the 14 Provinces as before, he is now proudly tasked to tell of the amendments regardless of whether it is accepted or not and then has the audacity to label those Provinces rejecting it as ‘renegades.’

Who is guilty of ‘being political’? The interim government in trying to push ahead its agenda to secure the re-nomination of Minister Nailatikau as Vice President or the rejection by certain Provinces?

The answer is they both are playing politics and there is nothing wrong at all with it, so long as it is done with the interests of their Provinces and Fijian people at heart.

Bainimarama and his cronies loosely use the term ‘being political’ to anyone who oppose their agenda, but conveniently ignores the fact they too are playing politics, but have not succeeded in gaining their support.

Nawalowalo, if he is a truly installed chief should know fully well, that any decision supposedly made by the GCC without the acquiescence of the traditional heads of the certain Provinces within Kubuna; Burebasaga and Tovata Confederacies will not be morally or traditionally binding on the Fijian people.

However, of greater concern is the division it is going to cause within the GCC and its detrimental consequences on the Fijian people.

Nawalowalo should humble himself and remember a saying from his own Province: ‘mai ya so, mai vale e mino.’

Tui Savu.
Townsville. QLD

Failures of past Politicians?

Bainimarama told the NCBBF, that ‘the solutions to the deep-seated problems of this country are not entirely in the hands of the familiar politicians who have failed us in the past 20 years. They have failed us with their narrow-mindedness, racially divisive politics. Lack of vision and irresponsible social and economic management.’

These kinds of general, selective and inaccurate statements riddled with erroneous facts, seem to be the only consistency with Bainimarama.

Rabuka in his 2nd book revealed the 1987 coup was instigated by familiar politicians at the time and used him as a willing puppet.

The evil consequences of those familiar politician’s greed for power continue to haunt Fiji today, but this time, the puppet is Bainimarama himself.

Bainimarama should heed this quote; ‘Progress, far from consisting in change depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there is no being to improve and no direction to set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it ’

Tui Savu.
Townsville. QLD.

No comments: