Prominent Suva lawyer Richard Naidu says removing immunity provisions for coup perpetrators from Fiji’s Constitution may not necessarily result in prosecutions or legal action against those responsible for past coups.

Naidu says much of the current debate surrounding constitutional immunity has been dominated by rhetoric rather than a realistic assessment of its legal implications.

“There seems to be lots of earnest talk about constitutional immunity for coup perpetrators and whether it should be a feature of our Constitution, or deleted, etc,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji constitution reports

“And, as usual, there’s a lot of rhetoric but not much realism.”

Naidu explained that immunity clauses protect coup perpetrators from criminal prosecution and civil claims arising from their past actions, but do not protect those who might stage coups in the future.

He said removing such provisions could potentially expose Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama to criminal complaints over their roles in past coups.

However, he stressed that any decision to investigate or prosecute would rest with constitutionally independent institutions, including the Fiji Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Significant legal hurdles
“The DPP — also an independent decision-maker — would have to decide if it was in the public interest to prosecute them,” he said.

“Or they may decide — for what may be good reasons, including the long passage of time — to do nothing at all.”

Naidu said civil claims would also face significant legal hurdles because the usual limitation period for such actions was six years, or three years in some cases.

“So there is a good chance that if you deleted the immunity clause from the next constitution, nothing very much would happen,” he said.

He also questioned whether removing immunity provisions would deter future military takeovers, pointing out that those planning coups already faced serious criminal consequences, including treason charges.

“If you are planning to overthrow the government with guns, you already risk going to jail for the crime of treason — ask George Speight,” he said.

Naidu argued that successful coup perpetrators could simply replace the Constitution they had breached and introduce new immunity provisions protecting themselves.

Anish Chand is a senior Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

Republic of the Fiji Military Forces Commander Major-General Ro Jone Kalouniwai has called for a Truth, Accountability and Reconciliation Commission to replace the immunity clause in the Constitution.

Presenting before the Parliamentary Special Committee reviewing the Constitution Amendment Bill in Suva yesterday, Major-General Kalouniwai reaffirmed the RFMF’s position that it existed to serve the people and never to rule them.

In his submission, the RFMF pledged to remain neutral throughout any referendum, future elections, to respect the will of the people and continue supporting communities in times of need.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji Constitution reports

According to a Parliament statement, the RFMF took no position on the proposed referendum or any political party and encouraged the retention of key constitutional provisions, including civilian oversight of the military and the restoration of the Ombudsman, while recommending stronger protections for voting rights, human rights, the judiciary, anti-corruption institutions, children and people with disabilities.

Major-General Kalouniwai’s submission concluded with a call for reconciliation, equality before the law, and constitutional reforms that strengthen democracy and ensure that all citizens stand equal under one law.

• Fiji has endured four coups since becoming independent in 1970 after being a British colony for 96 years — two in 1987, one in 2000, and again in 2006 — and a reputation for “coup culture”.

Repeka Nasiko is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

The chair of the Pacific Elders’ Voice (PEV) says the argument that religious affinity justifies the Pacific Islands Forum’s (PIF) partnership with Israel does not stack up.

The Forum’s recent decision to make Israel a sectoral partner has drawn widespread criticism by civil society in the region, and is described as being in conflict with the Pacific’s commitments to human rights, self-determination and international law.

The Pacific Elders’ Voice — a group of former Pacific prime ministers, presidents, senior diplomats and academics — has also come out strongly against the move.

• READ MORE: Pacific Elders’ Voice calls for reversal of Forum partnership with Israel
• Open letter: Mr Gavoka, don’t present your personal theology as the ‘voice of the Pacific’
• Shameful move by Pacific Islands Forum undermines decolonisation and justice — David Robie
• Other Gaza genocide reports

According to PEV chair and former Kiribati President Anote Tong, their position has been informed by a recent report from a Middle East fact-finding mission by the global Elders Group, including former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and Pakistani human rights advocate Hina Jelani.

Their report concluded that Israel’s conduct was driving systematic occupation, annexation, and forced displacement of Palestinians amidst a prolonged campaign of violence.

“The mission also cited reports of genocide, killings, and the harassment [of Palestinians],” Tong told RNZ Pacific.

“These are not speculative, these are reports coming from the people who actually went on the ground, people who have absolute credibility. These are leaders, former leaders.”

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog has categorically rejected what he called the one-sided criticism of Israel’s conduct by the Elders.

However, deep division over the Forum’s move has been reflected in the reaction to the Pacific Elders’ stance. While many took to social media to applaud the call, others were critical of it.

For some Pacific Islanders, Israel’s partnership with the Forum makes sense because many of them are influenced by Judeo-Christian, biblical narratives and Christian Zionism, and consider the Middle Eastern country as the Holy Land.

But for the Pacific Elders’ Voice, this does not justify bringing Israel into the Forum.

“To say that we have an affinity with Israel because of religion … there is nothing morally defensible by the actions that are being described, and so that kind of an argument supporting Israel against a very clear report doesn’t really stand in any way.”

Consistency
The Pacific Elders Voice said the Forum’s decision raised questions about the consistency of the region’s positions on colonialism, human rights and self-determination.

Tong said he believed the Pacific Elders represent the views, principles, and moral standards common to Pacific Islands people.

“This is also important because in our advocacy on climate change, we’ve always emphasised the moral and the ethical perspective, which we are asking the world to step forward on climate action.

“I read the arguments that we need the technology that Israel is putting forward, but that does not give them the permit to do what it is that they are doing.

“We’re arguing exactly the same thing that the countries which are benefiting by the fossil fuel industry need to make sacrifices because what they are doing is immorally destructive.”

Tong said the Pacific Islands region should put substance to its new Ocean of Peace initiative.

“I don’t think we should be saying one thing and doing very opposite the next moment. I think it’s counterproductive.

“I guess as a non-political group of elders, we are not constrained by the political or the diplomatic constraints, and I think we can speak our mind, hopefully from from a moral perspective, more freely.”

Timing
A number of Pacific countries have recently forged closer ties with Israel’s Netanyahu regime, but Anote Tong says the Pacific should not be endorsing a government like that.

“I think it’s really the wrong time, given what is happening in that part of the world. It’s really the time to be very cautious to how we get involved with that region, particularly with a country that is very much at the forefront of the conflict.”

Tong said that from his own experience, he knows of the strong lobbying that is levvied against Pacific governments.

“There is no doubt at all in my mind that this has been the case because there is no reason why we all need now to establish relations and put offices in Israel at this time.

“We should be very cautious about getting closer to a country that is now being declared a criminal administration.”

Churches
The Forum’s move has been met with strong criticism from civil society groups in the region, including the Pacific Council of Churches (PCC).

Tong said the PCC’s strong rebuke represented a different position from those arguing the Pacific’s religious connection to Israel justifies stronger ties to the Israel state.

“That kind of argument doesn’t stand in the face of what is happening, in the face of the findings that the Elders have come up with,” he said.

“I cannot imagine any moral human being saying that religious affinity is what needs to guide our decision.”

The Pacific Elders’ Voice said the PIF should review and reverse its partnership with Israel.

Mr Gavoka, with respect, you do not speak for the “entire Pacific Islands” when you say the Pacific identifies with Israel because the relationship is “biblical, ageless and real”.

That statement is historically careless, theologically shallow and politically dangerous.

Christianity came to Fiji through the Wesleyan Methodist tradition in the 19th century, long before the modern political State of Israel was established in 1948 and before Christian Zionism became the powerful political theology it is today.

• READ MORE: Shameful move by Pacific Islands Forum undermines decolonisation and justice
• Aisake Casimira: How Christian Zionism has become hitched to the chariot of empire
• An Ocean of Peace is not built on occupation
• Other Israel in the Pacific reports

To suggest that Fijian Christianity has always carried some automatic political identification with the modern State of Israel is simply not true.

There is also a very important distinction between Christianity and Christian Zionism.
Christian Zionism is one particular interpretation of Scripture. It is not Christianity itself, and it certainly does not represent every Christian theologian, denomination or church.

The World Council of Churches (WCC) has repeatedly warned against using Scripture to justify occupation, domination or the denial of Palestinian rights. In fact, just this year in Suva, WCC general secretary Reverend Professor Dr Jerry Pillay addressed Pacific church leaders directly and warned that Christian Zionism can selectively use Scripture, neglect justice and mercy, justify territorial claims and undermine Palestinian rights.

So perhaps before politicians start telling the Pacific what Christianity supposedly demands, they should listen to people who have spent their lives studying theology.

Consider Palestinian Christians
There are pastors, bishops, biblical scholars and theologians who have studied Christianity for decades, in seminaries and universities, who absolutely reject the idea that supporting every action of the modern Israeli state is somehow a Christian obligation.

The WCC itself has called interpretations of religion that justify occupation, violence or dehumanisation a distortion of faith.

And let us not erase Palestinian Christians from this conversation.

Christianity was born in the Middle East. Palestinian Christians are among the oldest Christian communities on earth. They live in the land of Christ’s birth, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection, and the WCC has specifically recognised their ongoing experience of occupation, displacement and discrimination.

So when someone says the relationship between “the Pacific” and Israel is simply biblical, I ask: what about the Christians of Palestine? Are their lives, their churches, their land and their theology suddenly irrelevant?

Even within the Pacific, your claim is already contradicted.

International law standards
Pacific Conference of Churches general secretary Reverend James Bhagwan has publicly challenged this very position, saying the Pacific must apply the same standards of international law everywhere and cannot speak about the suffering of one people while ignoring another.

That alone proves that there is no single “Pacific Christian position” on Israel.

The real danger here is when politicians take a highly contested theological interpretation and present it as though God has already settled their foreign policy for them. That is not theology. That is politics wearing religious clothing.

Faith should make us more concerned about justice, mercy, human dignity and the protection of the oppressed. It should never become a convenient excuse for abandoning critical thought or international law.

You are free to hold your personal beliefs, Mr Gavoka.

But please do not turn your personal theology into the voice of the entire Pacific.

The Pacific is larger, wiser and far more diverse than that.

Senia Burr is a Fijian digital creator and campaigner for human rights and against social injustice. This commentary was first published as a social media post and is republished with permission.

In what is probably one of its most shameful acts ever, the Pacific Islands Forum has betrayed one of its founding principles in admitting Israel — already a global rogue pariah state — as a development partner in the middle of the genocide of an Indigenous people, the Palestinians.

As decisions of this nature are made by consensus, it means that all 18 member states of the region’s main political body – including Australia and New Zealand – have given their blessing.

The move undermines the Forum’s founding commitment in 1971 to regional decolonisation.

• READ MORE: Israel becomes world’s most disliked country, global survey finds
• Gaza Strip: A beginner’s guide to an enclave under blockade
• An Ocean of Peace is not built on occupation
• Other Israel in the Pacific reports

Six Pacific countries and territories — American Samoa, French Polynesia (Mā’ohi Nui), Guam (Guåhan), New Caledonia (Kanaky), Pitcairn and Tokelau – are still on the UN Decolonisation list.

And there are also questions about West Papua with supporters of independence long claiming the 1969 Act of Free Choice was fraudulent process – and branded as an “Act of No Choice”.

A perception of arrogance and deceit about the Israel partnership process has also angered many in the Pacific.

Israel move condemned
Already, two regional civil society groups have condemned the move after news emerged about the controversial move – not by a Forum announcement, but by a social media post by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar.

They are the Suva-based ecumenical Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC), which has called for a review of the decision, and the Pacific Regional Non-Governmental Organisations (PRNGO), which has challenged the “Blue Pacific” mantra, arguing “an ocean of peace is not built on occupation – Pacific civil society questions the Pacific Forum on Israel partnership”.

Another diplomatic achievement: Israel joins the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) as a Forum Partner.

The Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Baron Divavesi Waqa, has informed me that Israel has been accepted as a Forum Partner, following a decision at the meeting of the Forum’s member state leaders in Palau.

This follows my visit to Fiji in June, where I met with the Secretary General and presented Israel’s request to join the Forum.

Strengthening ties with the Pacific Island nations is one of my objectives. Earlier this year, I opened Israel’s Embassy in Fiji, which also serves nine other Pacific Island nations, all friendly to Israel.
Under the current government, three of these countries, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Nauru, have opened embassies in Jerusalem.

As a Forum Partner, Israel will participate in a framework for cooperation in areas of mutual interest, based on regional priorities and Israel’s expertise in water management, desalination, agriculture, tackling climate change, innovation and sustainable development.

Israel and the Forum will also develop a joint action plan setting out practical areas of cooperation and a mechanism to monitor progress.

— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) October 20, 2026

Reminding the Pacific over the failure of partnership with Indonesia regarding accountability over the Melanesian region of West Papua, “inviting another state that perpetrates occupation and denies self-determination repeats that mistake, and weakens the principle on which our decolonisation depends”, PRNGO warned the move could split the Pacific.

This controversy comes at a time when Israel has been ranked as the world’s most unpopular country because it has consistently trampled on international law, and ignored eight decades of resolutions by the United Nations, the very body that created the State of Israel in 1947 through Resolution 181 — by partitioning Palestine when the Zionists only controlled 7 percent of the land in the British mandate of Palestine with 30 percent of the population, yet granting it 55 percent as their share of land at independence.

Jerusalem and Bethlehem would become an international zone. Palestine with about 70 percent of the population of almost 1.9 million, comprising mostly Arabs, and other non-Jewish communities, would have been left with 45 percent of the land under the UN Partition plan and, unsurprisingly, rejected it.

Israel unilaterally declared independence the following year and armed Zionist militia and terrorist gangs began a campaign of ethnically cleansing and expelling some 750,000 Palestinians and razing at least 450 Arab villages known as the Nakba (the “catastrophe”).

This set in motion eight decades of illegal occupation, militarisation, wars and repression of the Indigenous Palestinian people.

In the Six Day War in 1967, Israel captured and occupied Gaza, East Jerusalem and West Bank — the occupied Palestinian Territories have been administered illegally by the Israeli military ever since.

Since October 2023, Israel has launched 100,000 attacks on five Middle East countries and territories.

Voted against decolonisation
At the UN Decolonisation Committee (C-24) meeting earlier this month, Israel and the United States were the only two countries that voted against decolonisation, and the US unsuccessfully attempted to end the committee’s mandate.

In a statement issued on Friday, the PRNGO Alliance declared: “We understand our communities’ real needs for water, food security, agriculture, development and climate adaptation. The urgent need for resources across the region is increasing, and partnerships to secure such are important.”

However, “our concern is that the Forum family will welcome, without condition, a state in continuing breach of international law. We reject antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism, and mourn every civilian life lost, Israeli and Palestinian.”

Israel’s war on Gaza since the “breakout” attack on southern Israel from the “world’s largest open air prison”, by Hamas and other resistance fighters on 7 October 2023, has led to more than 75,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children — being slaughtered.

Although a sham ceasefire was declared in October 2025, Israel has continued attacking the besieged enclave almost daily since then killing at least 1500 people, mostly children, and has failed to honour the terms of the first phase of the peace agreement. US President Donald Trump’s brokered Board of Peace is widely regarded to be a failure.

Last year, the Belgian-based Hind Rajab Foundation filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar — the very person who announced the Forum partnership.

Seeking an arrest warrant
The foundation announced at the time that it was seeking an arrest warrant for Sa’ar for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Israel’s military assault on Gaza since October 2023.

It was alleged by the foundation that as a senior member of Netanyahu’s cabinet, Sa’ar had played “a central role in shaping and implementing policies that have led to mass displacement, collective punishment, and systematic attacks on Palestinian civilians”.

Although it is understood Sa’ar is not being formally investigated by the ICC, the court had already issued arrest warrants in November 2024 against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity and is believed to be investigating other officials.

The PRNGO Alliance statement cited the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, Advisory Opinion on 19 July 2024 that found Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory unlawful and that it must be ended “as rapidly as possible”.

The UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) affirmed that the Israeli settlements had “no legal validity” and were “a flagrant violation under international law”. Also, the UNSC Resolution 478 (1980) called on States to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem.

Yet “three Forum members of Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Naoero [formerly Nauru] have opened embassies there; Samoa has announced plans to follow, and Israel’s announcement cites them,” said the PRNGO statement.

Israeli forces launch a “targeted” raid in Hebron after a shooting killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded several others, as Palestinians fear “collective punishment” days ahead of Israel’s October 27 elections.

Follow our LIVE coverage: https://t.co/FL4SrZ5U5K https://t.co/DHUJNFknqd

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) October 24, 2026

Deprivation of Gaza’s water
Noting the mounting death toll with Israeli violations since October 2025 “ceasefire”, the statement said: “Human Rights Watch found Israel’s deliberate deprivation of Gaza’s water amounts to extermination and acts of genocide.

“FAO reports nearly 87 percent pf Gaza’s cropland damaged. The war’s emissions, an estimated 33 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, fall on islands like ours. Water, food and climate security cannot be offered with one hand and destroyed with the other.”

The PRNGO statement highlighted the fact that under international law, “a ceasefire requires a complete halt to the attacks, and allows unimpeded entry of humanitarian relief at scale.

“It would end unprecedented Israeli settlement expansion and terror, guaranteeing the right of displaced Palestinians to return home, prohibit forcible transfers and end collective punishment.

“Our Forum leaders have called on all the world to uphold the UN Charter, including the sovereign equality of all states and the rights of all peoples to exist in peace and security.”

The PRNGO statement recalled that in September 2025, “our leaders declared the Blue Pacific as an Ocean of Peace, grounded in the UN Charter and international law.”

“As we said in July, a genuine Ocean of Peace means security ‘founded on justice, sovereignty, self-determination, environmental stewardship and the wellbeing of our peoples’. It rests on a strong rejection of militarisation and great power rivalry at our expense.

“A regional partnership with Israel would further facilitate and advance security cooperation, military technologies and infrastructures, in addition to the growing military exercises and security treaties crowding our ocean.”

Pacific regionalism rested on solidarity based on shared values, not merely on shared resources, PRNGO said.

Whose voice will be silenced?
“This partnership will unravel — not strengthen, that weave. It risks dividing the Forum family, tying our voice at the United Nations to bilateral favours, and making the Pacific complicit in a conflict far from our shores. Who stands to benefit from this partnership? Whose voice will it silence?

“The Pacific remembers the cost of occupation, and our peoples continue to struggle under colonisation, nuclear testing and environmental destruction. In Kanaky New Caledonia, Ma’ohi Nui, Guahan and West Papua, the struggle for self-determination continues.

“West Papua is a long standing item on our leaders’ agenda. Since 2019, they have asked Indonesia, a Forum Dialogue Partner since 2001, to allow a visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights — a visit Jakarta offered in 2018.

“It has not eventuated, yet a similar partnership has brought delay: not accountability. Inviting another state that perpetrates occupation and denies self-determination repeats that mistake, and weakens the principle on which our decolonisation depends.”

The PRNGO Alliance demanded:

• The Forum Troika — Solomon Islands, Palau and New Zealand — reflect on its concerns over partnerships;
• Forum leaders review Israel’s partnership and suspend all engagements until Israel complies with the ICJ and UN Security Council resolutions;
• The Forum Secretariat publish the basis for the Israel decision and ensure any partnership agreement commits to international law;
• Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Naoero return their embassies to Tel Aviv, consistent with Resolution 478, and Samoa reconsider its plan; and
• All Forum members ensure no partnership, aid, or security, cyber or surveillance cooperation helps maintain the occupation.

The day before the response by PRNGO, the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC), an umbrella organisation representing Christian churches and national councils across 18 countries and territories in the region, called for all engagement with Israel to be suspended until it complied with international court rulings and UN resolutions.

General secretary Reverend James Bhagwan told RNZ Pacific Waves that the region needed to apply consistent standards to its international relationships.

“We cannot invoke the [International Court of Justice] for our islands and ignore the fact that the ICJ, in 2024, stated that Israel must end its occupation of Palestinian territory as soon as possible,” he said.

Reverend Bhagwan, who is also a signatory to the PRNGO statement, was speaking in response to Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Viliame Gavoka who had claimed the “entire Pacific Islands identify with Israel” and their relationship with the country was “biblical, ageless and real”.

Responses from New Zealand
In New Zealand, the coalition government of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon which is fighting desperately to be re-elected on November 7 with tight opinion polls predicting a possible hung Parliament, has been struggling to justify support for the Forum move.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters described criticism of Israel’s inclusion in PIF as an “insult” to Pacific Island countries, adding that the decision by the Pacific leaders should be respected. However, the opposition parties led by Labour demanded explanations.

John Minto, national organiser of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), the largest activist group in New Zealand, which has been organising weekly protests against Israel for the past three years, said: “Wow – a tiny country in the Middle East is now joining the Pacific Islands forum [as a second-tier partner].

“This has nothing to do with supporting the Pacific but has everything to do with using Pacific nations to provide cover and legitimacy to a racist, apartheid state currently committing genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and conducting pogroms against Palestinian Communities across the Occupied West Bank.

“Sickening complicity by Pacific leaders!”

The chair of the Palestine Forum of New Zealand, Maher Nazzal, has called on the government to “explain itself”, especially in view of New Zealand becoming the host for the Pacific Islands Forum next year.

“Technical cooperation must not shield any state from scrutiny under international law,” he said.

Support Palestinian self-determination
Writing in the Otago Daily Times, John Hobbs, a doctoral scholar and former career public official at the University of Otago’s National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has a clear-cut message for the incoming post-election government next month:

“New Zealanders and our political parties must act and be part of the global momentum to end the brutality in Gaza, to reverse the illegal occupation of the West Bank, support Palestinian self-determination and hold Israel to account.

“To do otherwise represents a moral failure as citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand and it will severely damage our reputation among many of our traditional allies, trading partners, and the international community.”

A poignant lesson also for the Pacific.

The Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) has been and will always be for justice, peace and integrity of creation, going back to the early 1960s when it was established.

Its statement follows a well-established prophetic witness tradition that goes back to the biblical narrative and to the times of Moses, the prophets and Jesus.

PCC has worked on decolonisation since the 1960s, on West Papua, East Timor, Kanaky (New Caledonia), Māohi Nui (French Polynesia), Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, etc. It continues to this day with West Papua, Māohi Nui and Kanaky.

• READ MORE: Israel votes against decolonisation for Pacific at UN – then says it has become PIF partner
• Shameful move by Pacific Islands Forum undermines decolonisation and justice
• Other Israel in the Pacific reports

The consistency in PCC’s prophetic witness over the years inspired past leaders and continues today with emerging leaders. It takes an enormous amount of courage and a reservoir of humility (to think less of oneself and more of others) to say the things needed to be said about violence, injustice and hypocrisy.

The recent “against” vote by the Israeli state at the United Nations for the decolonisation of Māohi Nui, Kanaky, etc., then the announcement that it has joined the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) as a second-tier partner is not only hypocritically despicable but casts our Pacific leaders as stupid and incompetent (which they probably are anyway, given their recent actions).

So, thank you PCC and Reverend James Bhagwan for your prophetic consistency and inspiration to many of us.

The profound hypocrisy of the Gaza and the West Papua genocides, and Māohi Nui and Kanaky decolonisation crisis lie in the fact that all primary actors justify their positions through frameworks derived from the Abrahamic traditions.

Betrayal of core prophetic mandate
Yet each tradition has systematically betrayed its core prophetic mandate to protect the weak and the vulnerable. Christian Zionism here in the Pacific constructed twisted theological narratives to grant unconditional moral immunity to violence, which in recent times saw their blind support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and their tacit silent support for Indonesia’s murderous occupation of West Papua.

The suffering of the West Papua people since the 1960s until today (an estimated 500,000 people have been murdered and 175,000 displaced) and the Palestinians (many of whom belong to the oldest Christian communities in the world) is rendered invisible or dismissed as necessary collateral damage in a grander geopolitical or Christian Zionism eschatological drama that will soon end with the second coming.

By prioritising imperial dominance and regional political convenience over human dignity, Christian Zionism in the Pacific has, in Andrew Tuley’s words “… decoupled its theology from the cross and hitched it to the chariot of empire”.

Aisake Casimira is a distinguished Rotuman theologian, author, and thought leader whose work has profoundly shaped contemporary understandings of Pasifika identity. This commentary was originally a FB post and is republished with the author’s permission.

Israel voted against all UN resolutions concerning decolonisation of the six Pacific territories at the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee (Decolonisation — C-24) meeting last week.

Decolonisation has been a founding principle of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) since its establishment in 1971.

The announcement by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar that it has become a PIF partner on social media earlier this week has stirred controversy.

• READ MORE: Israel’s relationship with Pacific is ‘biblical, ageless, real’, says Fiji deputy PM
• NZ’s foreign policy obligation to confront Israel’s Gaza genocide
• ‘Please explain’, Palestine Forum tells NZ over Israeli-Pacific Islands Forum ‘partnership’
• ‘Serious questions to answer’ – Labour slams Luxon over Israel’s Pacific Islands Forum move
• Israel joins Pacific Islands Forum as development partner
• Other Gaza genocide reports

As well as voting against decolonisation on October 15, Israel — along with the US — were the only countries to oppose all resolutions at the Fourth Committee including:

• reporting obligations for administering powers;
• dissemination of decolonisation information;
• economic activities affecting territorial peoples;
• education and training opportunities; and
• implementation of the UN Declaration on decolonisation.

At the same meeting, the US explicitly called for the abolition of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation’s mandate. Israel did not address the committee.

On October 20, Sa’ar posted on social media that the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Baron Waqa had told him Pacific leaders accepted the country as a Forum Partner at PIFLM in Palau last month.

Another diplomatic achievement: Israel joins the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) as a Forum Partner.

The Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Baron Divavesi Waqa, has informed me that Israel has been accepted as a Forum Partner, following a decision at the meeting of the Forum’s member state leaders in Palau.

This follows my visit to Fiji in June, where I met with the Secretary General and presented Israel’s request to join the Forum.

Strengthening ties with the Pacific Island nations is one of my objectives. Earlier this year, I opened Israel’s Embassy in Fiji, which also serves nine other Pacific Island nations, all friendly to Israel.
Under the current government, three of these countries, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Nauru, have opened embassies in Jerusalem.

As a Forum Partner, Israel will participate in a framework for cooperation in areas of mutual interest, based on regional priorities and Israel’s expertise in water management, desalination, agriculture, tackling climate change, innovation and sustainable development.

Israel and the Forum will also develop a joint action plan setting out practical areas of cooperation and a mechanism to monitor progress.

— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) October 20, 2026

There was no mention of Israeli or any other country’s partner status in this year’s 55th PIFLM Communique and there has been no subsequent statement from the PIF secretariat.

On the PIF Review of the Regional Architecture and partner status, the Communique said, “leaders further agreed that the Secretary General would communicate the decision to Partners in line with the endorsed communication approach”.

PIF’s last status update on Israel was a meeting with ambassadors and its international aid agency Mashav on October 18, with no mention of its partner status.

“The criteria for PIF Dialogue Partners, which must be met by countries at the time of admission and then continuously adhered to, are:

• demonstratable commitment to advancing the vision and priorities of the Leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum;
• long-term forward commitment to the Pacific region as demonstrated through foreign policy commitments, engagement strategies, diplomatic missions and engagement with regional organisations, and transparency in declaring economic, political, and strategic interests in engaging in the region; and
• shared interests and common positions on international issues and a commitment to using global networks and membership of international organisations to support Forum priorities.”

Six of the 17 non-self governing territories on the UN decolonisation list are in the Pacific —  American Samoa, French Polynesia (Mā’ohi Nui), Guam, New Caledonia (Kanaky), Pitcairn and Tokelau.

Pacific leaders at PIFLM in 1981 passed a resolution “reaffirming their belief in the principles of self-determination and independence applying to non self-governing Pacific Island countries, including the French territories”.

In 1991, the PIF leaders Communique under the heading “Decolonisation” stated they “again reaffirmed the importance of the universal realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and the principles and practices of the United Nations pertaining thereto.”

The UN recognises the Occupied Palestinian Territories (West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) under the framework of belligerent occupation and international humanitarian law not the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation.

Stefan Armbruster is a freelance journalist covering Pacific regional issues.

• Video and transcript of the Fourth Committee meeting via UN Web TV.

A leading Palestine advocacy group in New Zealand has given the government a “please explain” message after news reports that the Pacific islands Forum (PIF), the region’s main political body, have admitted Israel as a sectoral partner.

According to 1News, the decision was made under a new two-tier partnership model, with Israel engaging at ministerial rather than leaders’ level.

The Forum Secretariat had not publicly announced the decision when the report was published.

• READ MORE: ‘Serious questions to answer’ – Labour slams Luxon over Israel’s Pacific Islands Forum move
• Israel approved as second-tier partner in Pacific Islands Forum
• Israel joins Pacific Islands Forum as development partner
• Other Israel and the Pacific reports

New Zealand, along with Australia, is one of 18 members of the Forum and will host next year’s Leaders’ Summit.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted on an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and Tel Aviv is widely condemned for its genocide in the besieged Palestinian enclave of Gaza with at least 75,000 people killed.

Both Netanyahu and New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon face elections within the next few weeks.

Four questions
Palestine Forum chair of New Zealand Maher Nazzal has called on Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters to answer four questions:

• What position did New Zealand take on Israel’s application?;
• What advice did the Government receive on the diplomatic, legal and human rights implications?;
• Did New Zealand raise Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories during its consideration?; and
• What safeguards will ensure the partnership does not undermine the Forum’s commitments to human rights, peace and self-determination?

“These are reasonable questions, and New Zealanders are entitled to clear, public answers,” Nazzal said.

“Cooperation cannot replace accountability.”

Israel has signalled interest in cooperating with Pacific states on water, agriculture, climate adaptation and innovation.

“These matter to Pacific communities. But technical cooperation must not shield any state from scrutiny under international law,” Nazzal said.

‘Consistent principles’
“PFNZ respects the sovereign right of Pacific nations to make their own diplomatic decisions. Our concern is not with the people of Israel, or with cooperation that genuinely benefits the Pacific.

“It is with consistent principles and meaningful accountability, whichever state is involved.”

Nazzal said Pacific peoples understood what land, identity and self-determination meant. That was why the Palestinian experience of displacement and occupation resonated across the region.

“PFNZ urges the government to show that its commitment to a rules-based order applies consistently, and encourages Pacific civil society and communities across Aotearoa to engage in informed discussion,” he said.

“The question is not only who may join a regional forum. It is whether the principles that guide that forum are upheld consistently.”

COMMENTARY: By Shalveen Chand

I have encountered two types of dictators in the Pacific. The first was in my home nation when a military leader overthrew the government at gunpoint and ruled with an iron fist, his rule spanning from 2006 to 2014.

The second is a democratically elected leader whose rule highlighted the blatant lack of accountability and transparency. His grab for power literally defines the phrase “absolute power absolutely corrupts”.

There is definitely a difference in how Fiji’s Voreqe Bainimarama and Samoa’s Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Schmidt have come to be in power, but what makes them similar is the blatant disregard for accountability and transparency — the “my way or the highway” attitude — sacking of people who do not agree with their goals, disregard for the rule of law and, above all, media censorship and attacks on journalists.

• READ MORE: RSF calls on Samoan PM to lift ‘unacceptable’ ban on Samoa Observer
• Other Shalveen Chand media freedom reports

Bainimarama was clear and deliberate about restricting media freedom. He set up censors in newsrooms who would stop the publishing of articles that would be deemed anti-government and later enacted the draconian media law that governed media in Fiji.

That law, repealed in 2023 by the current Fijian government, led to the persecution of journalists and the self-censorship mentality that is still practised in some newsrooms in the country.

Laauli, on the other hand, made a promising start when he was elected prime minister in Samoa in September 2025. In his first press conference, he made a promise to be transparent and accountable. A promise that he never intended to keep, which has now resulted in the banning of Samoa’s only independent publication, Samoa Observer, from government events, government officials not being accountable to the media, bullying and assault on journalists, including on me in front of his house.

This intimidation was among the reasons I left Samoa and my job there to join Cook Islands News as a senior journalist.

Serious breaches
There have been serious breaches of due process, including in top-level government appointments. It is worrying when merit is no longer a requirement to hold a top civil service position. Nepotism is rife, and his own children are acting as if the nation were the family business.

This was seen a few weeks ago when Laauli’s son snatched a camera off a reporter and deleted photos, saying it was against the law to photograph his father. Last time it was checked, no such laws existed.

While Bainimarama used guns and the might of the military, Laauli uses a new tool: social media. Fake accounts carry out his propaganda and target journalists and their families with attacks. My toddler and wife have often been victims of these attacks, even though my spouse’s political allegiance is with Laauli.

Yes, she’s Samoan, and she occasionally reminds me of how “Sleeping with the Enemy” can be viewed in a whole new context. But I am thankful that despite being critical of the media, she has always stood up for me whenever I have been targeted, either physically or on social media.

People have approached and questioned me on why I was against their prime minister. It is hard to make some people understand that it was no personal attack on the leader but a journalistic attempt to keep him honest, accountable and transparent. Many times, these physical confrontations have been met with my personal bodyguard, my wife, willing to throw a few combinations like David Tua.

Similar attacks have been levelled against journalists who were part of the newsroom I managed in Samoa. Their families and children were targeted and sometimes maligned to their worst.

One of the things that sadden me the most is how the rule of law has been compromised in Samoa. Corruption was already rife; however, when you add in a leader who believes he is above the law, the rule of law starts becoming non-existent. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has dubbed Laauli as the “Trump of the Pacific”, and his behaviour often mirrors that of the American president.

Judiciary independent
Thankfully, one of the arms of the Samoan government, the judiciary, remains uncorrupted and has stood as the final wall in the attack against the rule of law, media freedom and the rights of citizens.

However, the judiciary is powerless when the enforcement agency does not do its work. Such was the case when I was assaulted outside Laauli’s house by a relative of his. A police complaint filed on 14 November 2025, the day of the incident, has not moved forward because the police officers who witnessed the assault do not want to give a statement for fear of retribution or losing their jobs.

I clearly remember the attack. The demeanour of the prime minister’s relative and his henchman gave away what they were going to do next as they rushed outside to where I was standing on the roadside. I came to drop off a camera lens for my journalist, who was trying to get comments from Laauli. The newly elected Samoan leader had just spent several weeks in New Zealand on a medical trip without communicating with the people of Samoa after photoshopped images of him were published by the Samoan government.

The two men rushed towards me. Their body language and aggression had been something that I had experienced during Fiji media’s dark days when the nation was under the control of the military junta. The haunting assaults and bullying by the security forces, and then having to spend a few nights in a police cell for highlighting a miscarriage of justice, came rushing back.

I braced for impact and told myself not to retaliate. The relative of the prime minister shoved me twice, trying to force me into my car. This was followed by him pushing the car door at least three times in my face. While he carried on, his short and fat henchman, probably another relative of the prime minister, held me by the collar and threw a few slaps.

A police officer aided the two relatives as well, shoving me into the car while throwing punches to my abdomen. All this was witnessed by at least six other police officers, my young journalist and a senior travel writer from the British Broadcasting Corporation. The words of the journalists were not enough to lead to any formal charges — instead, the young journalist was charged with criminal trespass.

This was the start of Laauli’s restriction on free and independent media who were trying to hold him accountable and get him to talk. This has now led to the continued ban on Samoa Observer and attacks on its journalists.

Many hoodwinked
It was also surprising that there were people who still support the Samoan leader’s actions. Many are hoodwinked by the social media propaganda. This was reflected when Samoa slumped to 59 out of 180 in the Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index.

There are still a lot of people who do not realise that freedom of the press is a right and that a government should not interfere with this freedom or censor media critical of state power. For years, freedom of the press has been an essential part of democracy. A democracy cannot exist when people’s voices are stifled.

A free press fights for the truth, whether it is Fiji, Samoa or the Cook Islands. A free press uncovers the truth. A free press holds power accountable.

Many entities can benefit from the truth staying hidden, including governments. One of the free press’ main missions is to serve as a watchdog on power. The press is the bridge between the people and powerful entities. If the press is not free but instead beholden to power, it simply serves as an extension of that power.

As I begin a new chapter with the Cook Islands News, I hope that the weight currently being accorded to media freedom and accountability in this nation only improves. This is one of the best ways a government can serve its people.

Shalveen Chand is a former editor of the Samoa Observer and now works for Cook Islands News as senior journalist. This article is republished from CIN with permission.

Fiji’s constitutional reform process has brought the question of who is or can be a “Fijian” back to the fore.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government has begun the public consultation process on the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 2026 in its efforts to replace the 2013 Constitution — a document widely criticised as being imposed on the country by the previous Bainimarama administration.

Public consultations on Rabuka’s bill started last week, two days after the country marked its 56th independence anniversary. It was tabled by the government earlier this month and passed its second reading for the Fijian people to give their feedback.

• READ MORE: ‘Respect the people’ – Fiji coalition clash over Rabuka’s fast-tracked constitutional referendum
• Other Fiji constitution reports

However, the consultations last week spotlighted why ethnic anxieties remain one of the most sensitive issues in the country, even four coups and four constitutions later.

Local media widely reported on submissions made by ordinary Fijian citizens as well as community and national leaders.

A large cross-section of society remains divided about who should be called a “Fijian”, as well as the role of traditional chiefs in Fiji’s governance and politics and whether Fiji should be a Christian or secular state.

These three pillars are the defining features of the 2013 Constitution, but also remain issues that were not debated during the FijiFirst administration’s time in power.

Equal national identity
One prominent political figure with a minor party declared that the iTaukei (Indigenous) people faced a “technical genocide” because Voreqe Bainimarama’s government created an equal national identity which made all citizens “Fijians”.

Some want the Great Council of Chiefs (or the Bose Levu Vakaturaga) — another Indigenous institution that was removed by Bainimarama and has no constitutional legitimacy under the current constitution — to be given its rightful place in Fiji’s governance framework.

Submissions from Fijians of Indian descent have also been equally staunch, calling for several elements of the 2013 Constitution to remain, including keeping “Fijian” as a shared national identity for all citizens.

Fiji’s population is made up of two main ethnic groups: the iTaukei and the Indo-Fijians. While the Indigenous Fijians own 90 percent of all land, the economic power, historically, has stayed in the hands of Indo-Fijians, mostly a handful of families.

The bread-and-butter issues, like the cost of living, lack of meaningful employment opportunities, and access to housing, affect all communities, but the Indigenous population is more affected, despite being resource-rich.

But constitutional reform and the question of who is a “Fijian” have enveloped much of the political debate under Rabuka’s coalition, after initial gains in human rights protections and opening up civic space for people with opposing views to be able to express themselves without fear — something which was not possible during the Bainimarama-era.

Unity call on social media
Fiji’s Deputy Speaker Lenora Qereqeretabua urged unity on social media over the weekend: “We need less division and more understanding. We are all Fijians,” she wrote.

The process, which is branded by its opponents as “rushed”, is expected to wrap up ahead of the next Parliament session in the first week of November for the bill’s third reading. If it passes, Fiji is set to hold its first national referendum on December 9.

Rabuka has received flak for announcing the referendum date prematurely.

For his part, the prime minister, who is the chair of the special parliamentary committee on the bill, has defended the constitutional reform process, downplaying concerns about it being rushed or lacking democratic principles.

He continues to urge the Fijian people to constructively participate in the process aimed at discarding a constitution that was “not accepted by the people”.

The Fiji Times has reaffirmed its commitment to serving as the voice of the nation and championing freedom of expression, access to truth and the rights of every Fijian.

In his Fiji Day message on Saturday, Fiji Times Pte Limited chairman Kirit Prabhudas Patel said the newspaper was humbled to have journeyed alongside the people of Fiji for more than a century and a half.

“At The Fiji Times, we remain deeply humbled to have journeyed alongside the people of Fiji throughout the years,” Patel said.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji Times reports

“For more than a century and a half, we have remained committed to serving as the voice of the nation, championing freedom of expression, access to truth, and the right of every Fijian to be heard.”

Patel, who is also chairman and chief executive officer of the Motibhai Group of Companies, said the newspaper’s longstanding “Your Voice Since 1869” message represented more than a slogan.

“‘The Fiji Times — Your Voice Since 1869’ is more than a slogan; it is a promise that has endured through generations,” he said.

“Through periods of change, challenge, and celebration, we have stood with the people of Fiji, sharing their stories, reflecting their aspirations, and supporting the principles of truth, fairness, and accountability that are essential to a vibrant democracy.”

Enduring spirit
Patel said The Fiji Times would continue that commitment under the enduring spirit of “For Fiji, Ever Fiji”.

“We reaffirm our pledge to continue serving the people of Fiji with integrity and purpose,” he said.

Reflecting on Fiji’s 56th anniversary of independence, Patel said every citizen had a responsibility to contribute towards the country’s success.

“Progress is achieved not by the efforts of a few, but through the collective commitment of all.”

He called on Fijians to honour the country’s past while working together towards a peaceful, prosperous and inclusive future.

“Let us honour their legacy by upholding the values they cherished and by working together to ensure an even brighter future for generations to come.”

Anish Chand is a senior Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

ANALYSIS: By Shailendra Singh

In his address at last month’s Pacific Media Summit, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka highlighted his government’s repeal of Fiji’s Media Industry Development Act 2010, saying that it was in the interest of democracy.

While the Rabuka government has been rightly recognised for scrapping that Act in 2023, another piece of legislation with potential significant implications for journalism remains in force — the Online Safety Act 2018.

Like the Media Act, the Online Safety Act was enacted under the FijiFirst government and gives the state a role in regulating expression.

• READ MORE: Special fijivillage Straight Talk public forum on online safety
• Other Fiji online safety reports

The Online Safety Act was tabled in Parliament in 2018 in response to escalating social media abuse, but was controversial from the outset, especially the breadth of its provisions.

The backlash was such that the entire opposition voted against it, arguing that it undermined democracy. Rights groups were similarly alarmed, describing the Act as a “Trojan horse” for censorship.

However, because much of the attention focused on the draconian Media Act, and relatively few people were being charged under the Online Safety Act, the latter escaped sustained scrutiny.

That changed in 2025, as the unabated abuse of digital platforms and a spate of charges laid under Section 24 of the Act, which criminalises the posting of electronic communication that causes harm, brought it back into the spotlight.

Expecting stronger legislation
Currently, the Act is under review and Information Minister Lynda Tabuya, under whose ministry the Act falls, has told Parliament to expect stronger legislation by the end of this year.

To some extent, Tabuya’s call for tougher laws is understandable. The misuse of social media platforms is a global problem, but the threat is considered greater in fragile democracies with multiethnic societies, such as Fiji.

The Online Safety Commission received 1609 complaints in 2025 alone, with more than 50 percent involving cyberbullying, harassment and defamation.

More broadly, policymakers have warned that online misconduct poses a serious national security threat.

In March 2026, Tabuya flagged the increased prevalence of misinformation and disinformation, stating, “A single lie can divide a nation”.  Likewise, Fiji’s National Security Strategy 2025-2029 warned the malicious use of emerging technologies for misinformation and disinformation posed a threat and could “undermine the credibility of national leaders and erode public trust in governance structures”.

Even before the proliferation of social networking platforms, there were concerns in Fiji about the mainstream media’s alleged role in fomenting societal conflict, with some analysis even suggesting that the media acted as a catalyst in the 2000 and 2006 coups.

The increase in digital penetration has added a new dimension to these security challenges.

Young people particularly, the most avid consumers of online networks, risk exposure to disparaging and damaging online discourses, including racism and hate speech.

While these trends are serious and require a firm response, they do not negate legitimate concerns about the flaws in the Online Safety Act.

Implications for media and press freedom
While the aim of the Act is not specifically to regulate media — Section 4 stipulates the law applies to the “whole of Fiji” — media are, nonetheless, caught in its crossfire.

The Act contains no protections for the practice of journalism. Professional journalists using social media platforms in the public interest are lumped with ordinary citizens who may be using them with malicious intent.

This renders journalists and media organisations particularly vulnerable to the Act due to the broad provisions of “electronic communication” that causes “harm” (defined in the Act as “serious emotional distress”), as most of their work is published online and can require critiquing the actions of private individuals and public officials.

The Act also does not differentiate between public and private individuals. In general, public figures such as politicians enjoy a lower level of privacy compared to private citizens. The scrutiny can extend to their private lives should they overlap with, or endanger the fulfillment of, their public duties.

Under the Online Safety Act, media could be held culpable if their reporting causes individuals “serious emotional distress”, which could be a consequence of, for example, news coverage of actual or alleged wrongdoing.

Then there is Section 2’s treatment of electronic communication as “any information, whether truthful or untruthful…”. This suggests journalists publishing legitimate and verified information in the course of their professional duties could face the same criminal liability as bad actors posting untruthful content with malicious intent.

Section 6 raises concerns about the independence of the Online Safety Commission, including the ministerial-appointed Commissioner, which introduces the risk of a political appointment.

Indeed, the appointment of Anne Dunn as the first Commissioner by the then Communications Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was controversial for this very reason. Dunn contested Fiji’s 2018 election under Sayed-Khaiyum’s FijiFirst Party.

The potential conflict of interest could render the Commission vulnerable to political pressure, and have consequences for the Commissioner’s role as an independent and unbiased authority.

The Act does outline seven factors the courts may use to determine whether an offence has occurred, including: the extremity of the content; the age and characteristics of the victim; whether the posting was anonymous; the repetitiveness and extent of circulation; and its truth or falsity, along with the context in which it appeared.

However, it does not provide specific defences based on public interest, truth, reasonable error, or the absence of malice.

An opportunity for reform
The fact that no journalist or media organisation has been charged under the Act in the eight years since its inception is of little consolation. No journalist or media organisation was charged under the now-repealed Media Act, but we are all aware of that legislation’s deleterious effect on the media sector as a deterrent to robust journalism and a catalyst for self-censorship.

Some criticisms of the Online Safety Act — including its open-ended provisions, the Minister’s role in appointing the Commissioner, and the potentially chilling effect on freedom of expression — are uncannily similar to those expressed about the Media Act.

Against this backdrop, Rabuka’s remarks at the Pacific Media Summit are pertinent. The Prime Minister emphasised that the media are “not a threat to democracy” but a “part of” it.

The reviewers of the Online Safety Act would do well to heed his words, as well as those of Rabuka’s deputy, Manoa Kamikamica, at the same event. Kamikamica stated that while this government was committed to media freedom, there was no guarantee future governments would share the same mindset.

In other words, the weaponisation of the Online Safety Act might not be a present danger, but it cannot be ruled out as a future one.

Associate Professor Shailendra Singh is head of journalism at The University of the South Pacific. This article is derived from his submission to the review of the Online Safety Act 2018 and was first published by Pacific Security. It is republished with the author’s permission. Dr Singh’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of his employer.

Words matter in politics. They matter even more when a country is debating the document that will determine how it is governed.

That is why remarks by Justice Minister and Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga about Fiji’s constitutional review deserve some thought.

Speaking about the journey that has brought the government to this point, Turaga repeatedly invoked God.

• READ MORE: Sweeping changes to Fiji’s governance recommended by Constitution Commission
• Other Fiji constitution reports

“We got here through the miracle of God,” he said.

He spoke of people fasting and of prayer groups, including people who had travelled from Nadi and were praying at his office.

Then came perhaps the most striking part of his remarks when he recalled that the government had initially failed to secure the parliamentary numbers required for constitutional change and had then gone to the Supreme Court.

“We thought we didn’t have the numbers, but God worked in a different way,” he said.

‘We got the numbers’
He then referred to what happened to FijiFirst: “They were deregistered . . . we got the numbers.”

Nothing unusual about a Christian politician expressing his faith. Fiji is a deeply religious country, and Christians are entitled to pray. So are Hindus and Muslims.

While those holding public office do not surrender their religious beliefs when they walk through the doors of Parliament or a government office, there is a difference between seeking God’s guidance and appearing to attribute a political outcome to divine intervention.

FijiFirst was deregistered on July 1, 2024, by the Registrar of Political Parties after failing to make required amendments to its party constitution within the prescribed period. That was an administrative and legal process.

Yet Turaga’s description places that development within a striking sequence:

• The government did not have the numbers;
• People prayed;
• “God worked in a different way”;
• FijiFirst was deregistered; and
• The government got the numbers.

Again, language matters when it comes from someone exercising considerable political and legal authority, and especially now, as Fiji considers fundamental changes to its supreme law.

A Christian should be able to support or oppose the proposed Constitution. So should a Hindu. So should a Muslim. So should someone who follows another faith or professes no religion at all.

Faith and political validation
And this is where Turaga’s words raise a difficult question: when does personal faith become political validation?

If a political leader suggests that God intervened to produce the parliamentary circumstances necessary to advance constitutional change, what message does that send to those who disagree with the changes?

And whose God was Turaga talking about? Whose faith?

When a cabinet minister speaks of God intervening in a political process, Christians may understand those words through their own faith. Yet Fiji’s Constitution does not belong to Christians alone. It belongs to the Hindu family in Labasa, the Muslim family in Ba, the Christian family in Lau and the citizen who believes in no God at all.

The legitimacy of a Constitution governing a democratic, multifaith nation must come from something shared by all its citizens — their consent to the system that governs them.

Again, words matter, especially at a time like this. Therefore, those entrusted with political power should choose their words carefully.

Jale Moala, one of Fiji’s most experienced and talented journalists, has been editor of The Fiji Times, Fiji Daily Post, Islands Business, Pacific Islands Monthly, night editor of The National daily newspaper in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, and a senior journalist on several New Zealand news media. This commentary is republished from his Facebook page with permission.

Reaching communities beyond Pacific capitals must remain at the heart of journalism as technology creates new ways for the region to share its stories, says Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Opening the 8th Pacific Media Summit in Savusavu, Rabuka said the vast distances separating Pacific communities should not prevent people from being informed, heard and connected.

The summit theme, “Reaching the Remote: Media and Digital Innovation for a Connected Blue Pacific,” reflected a challenge that was bigger than technology.

• READ MORE: Rabuka urges Pacific media to verify facts, warns over rise of AI
• Other PINA reports

“Connectivity is more than just technological issue. It is a development issue. It is an inclusion issue. It is a resilient issue,” Rabuka said.

For communities far from major centres, he said access to reliable information could affect their ability to access services, participate in national discussions and respond during emergencies.

Rabuka said this was particularly important during cyclones, floods and other disasters, when accurate and timely information could save lives.

He urged Pacific journalists to go beyond reporting from capital cities and document what was happening in communities across the region.

“Reaching the remote means reaching the people,” he said.

Pacific responsibility
Rabuka said Pacific reporting also had a responsibility to take the region’s own experiences to wider audiences.

He pointed to issues including climate change, oceans, fisheries, natural resources, poverty, inequality, economic pressures and transnational crime as matters that needed to be reported through the experiences of Pacific communities.

“These are not simply statistics. They are stories about people, families, communities and livelihoods,” he said.

He said the Pacific should not be defined only by outside reporting.

“The Pacific should not only be spoken about. The Pacific must also speak for itself,” Rabuka said.

While technology could expand the reach of Pacific journalism, Rabuka said it also created greater responsibility for journalists to maintain professional standards.

He warned that information could reach thousands of people before it had been properly checked, while artificial intelligence, synthetic content and digital manipulation were creating new challenges for newsrooms.

Stronger media literacy
Rabuka said journalists needed to verify information and citizens needed stronger media literacy to assess what they see and hear.

“We need citizens who can question what they see and hear. We need journalists who can verify information and we need newsrooms that can adapt to new technologies while protecting professional standards,” he said.

He also linked responsible journalism to the role of the media in a democracy, saying journalists must continue to question institutions, investigate issues and hold those in positions of power accountable.

Rabuka said disagreement between governments and the media was normal in a democracy and should not prevent dialogue.

Instead, he said, differences should encourage better questions, better information and better decisions.

The Prime Minister also announced the establishment of the Pacific Centre for Communications and Journalism, through a partnership between Fiji National University and the Fijian Media Association (FIMA).

The centre will provide a platform for professional training, research, regional cooperation and the development of future Pacific media leaders, with a focus on digital journalism, media literacy and the responsible use of emerging technologies.

Rabuka said strengthening Pacific journalism would require cooperation between governments, media organisations, civil society, academia, development partners and stronger regional media networks.

He said the goal should be a media sector capable of adapting to technological change while retaining the professional standards that underpin public trust.

Prishanta Sharma is a third-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific (USP), Laucala Campus. She was sponsored by PINA and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to participate in a pre-summit workshop in Savusavu.

Fiji Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has urged Pacific journalists to check and verify information before disseminated it to the public, warning that the rise of artificial intelligence, synthetic content and digital manipulation had added to the challenges facing journalists.

Speaking at the opening of the 8th PINA Pacific Media Summit in Savusavu, Fiji, yesterday, he said headlines could reach thousands of people before facts were properly checked and verified.

False claims, he added, could spread before accurate information reached the public.

• READ MORE: In the wake of MIDA, Fiji’s news industry has turned full circle for media freedom
• Other PINA reports

“This is why professional standards matter more than ever,” he said.

He said his call for caution was not a call for journalists to remain silent.

“This is not a call for silence. It is a call for responsible journalism.”

Inflamed social tensions
He called for greater caution, especially, when reporting issues that could inflame social tensions or contribute to conflict, particularly as information spreads rapidly online.

“Information can travel across the world in seconds or in fractions of a second,” he said.

He said digital innovation should strengthen public understanding and regional co-operation rather than become a tool for misinformation, disinformation or sensationalism that divided communities.

Rabuka also called for greater media literacy, saying citizens needed to question what they saw and heard, while journalists needed to verify information.

He said newsrooms also needed to adapt to emerging technologies while maintaining professional standards.

“Freedom also comes with responsibility.”

He said a free, independent and professional media remained important to a healthy democracy.

‘Check Pacific’ launched
Pacnews correspondent Pita Ligaiula reports that Cook Islands News editor Rashneel Kumar has called for Pacific media, civil society and universities to work together to tackle the growing threat of misinformation and disinformation across the region.

Speaking at the media summit, he introduced “Check Pacific”, a new platform aimed at bringing regional organisations and practitioners together to respond to misinformation.

“We want our civil societies, our media practitioners, and universities to come together and work together to actually battle this misinformation,” he said.

Kumar said misinformation and disinformation were major challenges for Pacific countries, particularly given the region’s geographical remoteness and separation.

Republished with permission.

In 2023, Fiji’s Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) was scrapped, marking a significant moment for Fiji’s media landscape.

A year later, at the PINA Media Summit in Niue, Fijian journalists spoke openly about rebuilding — of a media industry that was learning to find its feet again, reclaim its confidence and, importantly, rediscover its freedom.

At that Niue meeting, we lobbied and won the bid to bring 2026 PINA Summit to Fiji.

• READ MORE: Other PINA Pacific media summit reports

This week, we are in Savusavu and with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka choosing to attend and officially open the summit almost four years after his government threw out MIDA, it feels like a full circle has been completed.

The Prime Minister’s announcement that Fiji National University will partner with the Fijian Media Association to establish a media training centre in Suva was the icing on the cake.

It is a significant commitment to strengthening journalism skills, professional development and the future of Fiji’s media industry.

Allowed media space
Love him or hate him, Prime Minister Rabuka has maintained an open and accessible relationship with Fijian journalists. He has taken questions, faced tough interviews and allowed the media space to scrutinise his government and his decisions.

For an industry that has spent years navigating uncertainty, rebuilding trust and finding its voice, having the Prime Minister open the regional media summit in Fiji — and announce support for journalist training — was more than symbolic.

It was a reminder of how far we have come, and how much further we still have to go.

Republished from Fiji Times managing digital editor Anish Chand’s social media post with permission. He is a former Fiji TV news operations manager.

Journalists in the Pacific have been encouraged to investigate how climate change funding is managed and whether financial assistance reaches communities affected by disasters.

Speaking during the Climate Change and Corruption Roundtable for Pacific journalists at Daku Resort in Savusavu yesterday, Pacific UNODC OIC’s Regional Anti-Corruption Adviser Marie Pegie Cauchois highlighted the importance of integrating integrity into disaster preparedness beyond the provision of food and equipment.

Cauchois explained that preparedness should also ensure community members have access to relevant councils and opportunities to have their voices heard, particularly when decisions affect their communities.

• READ MORE: Pacific media summit to set direction for next decade of Pacific media
• Other PINA reports

“Integrity is to be built in from the get-go into preparedness,” she said.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Pacific Integrity Toolkit for Disaster Planning aims to serve as a bridge between national disaster management organisations and integrity-related institutions, which may not always work closely together.

Cauchois said the toolkit had undergone a soft launch the previous year, following presentations to disaster management authorities in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, before an official launch earlier this year involving national disaster management representatives, civil society, persons with disabilities, and UN personnel.

While UNODC hopes the toolkit will be used across Pacific Island countries, Cauchois said efforts were still underway to generate interest among national disaster management organisations.

The toolkit is intended to help connect disaster management and integrity institutions, ensuring that integrity measures are incorporated into preparedness systems, even when they are not explicitly labelled as anti-corruption measures.

Looking ahead, Cauchois said UNODC was in discussions with partners about conducting a pilot project in Fiji, while efforts to implement a pilot in Tuvalu had faced funding challenges.

Journalists were encouraged to examine how national disaster management organisations incorporated integrity into their work and used questions about accountability from the toolkit when engaging with these institutions.

Cauchois emphasised that the toolkit was designed to benefit communities, particularly vulnerable people who needed access to support when disasters occurred.

“It’s not a tool for itself, it’s a tool for the community,” she said.

The importance of this approach was further highlighted during a panel discussion, where journalists shared experiences involving climate-related funding and disaster recovery projects in Fiji.

Questions surrounding climate adaptation funding
A senior journalist at The Fiji Times, Anish Chand, discussed the importance of investigating the relationship between climate funding received by countries and actual progress in climate adaptation.

Chand referred to a Fiji adaptation programme that reportedly involved about F$25 million (NZ$19.5 million) and was intended to support adaptation initiatives in smaller villages.

He explained that after several years the programme was reportedly withdrawn because the necessary agreements and documentation had not been provided.

Chand said journalists could investigate how climate-related funds were allocated, who managed them, and whether the intended projects were being implemented.

He also pointed to challenges journalists faced when attempting to access official information, noting that limited access to information could make it difficult to examine climate-related projects and financial decisions.

Lessons from post-cyclone recovery reporting
Fiji Sun journalist Ivamere Nataro shared her experience reporting on Fiji’s recovery efforts following Tropical Cyclone Winston in 2016.

Nataro explained that her investigations examined the management of funds allocated to school reconstruction and housing assistance programmes following the cyclone.

She said her reporting raised concerns about transparency, procurement processes, and the awarding of contracts to companies involved in reconstruction and the supply of building materials.

Nataro also discussed reports of families who received electronic cards intended to assist with rebuilding damaged homes but allegedly continued waiting for building materials or construction assistance.

She stressed that issues relating to disaster funding should not be considered outdated simply because several years had passed, as communities might still be affected by incomplete projects and unresolved questions about public funds.

Her experience demonstrated how journalists could continue following up on disaster recovery programmes, even years after a disaster has occurred.

Creating space for accountability reporting
The perspectives shared by Anish Chand and Ivamere Nataro highlighted the importance of sustained investigative reporting on climate change funding, disaster preparedness, and recovery programmes.

As climate-related funding and disaster preparedness continue to affect Pacific communities, the toolkit could provide journalists with another means of bringing transparency and accountability issues into public discussion.

Prishanta Sharma is a third-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus. She was sponsored by PINA and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to participate in the pre-summit workshop in Savusavu. Republished as a collaboration between Wansolwara and Asia Pacific Report.

One of Fiji’s most prominent traditional and political figures is warning the country’s lawmakers “not to approve” two major bilateral agreements with Australia.

In early July, the Fijian and Australian prime ministers signed the Vuvale Union and the Ocean of Peace Alliance (Veitacini Treaty), marking a major upgrade to relations between the two nations.

The Vuvale Union is a broad political and economic framework, while the Veitacini Treaty is the specific defence and security pillar within that wider strategic partnership. Both governments have hailed the agreements as “significant” for future Fiji-Australia relations.

• READ MORE: Lau chief raises concern over Fiji treaties

Australian PM Anthony Albanese said that signing the agreements was “one of the most significant endeavours” Australia had undertaken with any country.

Fiji and Australia say the agreements will strengthen cooperation on security, economic development, climate resilience and regional stability.

However, Ratu Tevita Mara, a paramount chief of Lau Province, is urging the Fiji Parliament to withhold approval of both agreements “until the people of Fiji have been given a full, fearless and independent account of what these treaties commit our nation to”.

“Both treaties were signed in Suva on 6 July 2026. Under our [2013] Constitution, neither binds Fiji until Parliament approves it, and both are now before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence,” he said in a media statement.

‘Friendship must never require blindness’
“This is the moment — the last moment — for Fiji to examine them properly. Once ratified, they cannot easily be undone.”

He said the examination of the agreements needed to be given sufficient time, independent advice and public participation.

“Let me be clear: this is not a rejection of Australia. It is a defence of Fiji,” he said.

He described Australia as a “valued friend” but noted that an arrangement “presented in the language of family and cooperation” must still be read line by line.

“We must not accept terms whose deeper consequences become apparent only after Fiji is bound.

“Friendship must never require blindness. Cooperation must never become subordination. And no government has the right to gamble with the sovereignty of future generations.”

Ratu Tevita, who is one of the deputy chairs of Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs (Bose Levu Vakaturaga), is calling on the Great Council of Chiefs to meet to discuss the issue.

Pacific media leaders and journalists from across the region will tackle press freedom, newsroom survival, artificial intelligence, anti-corruption, climate change and the future of journalism when the Pacific Media Summit gets underway in Savusavu today.

Fijian Media Association (FMA) general secretary Stanley Simpson told PACNEWS the summit comes at a critical time as media organisations across the region face growing pressure from misinformation, disinformation, new technology and declining traditional advertising revenues.

“Newsrooms are not just fighting for their independence, they are fighting for their survival,” Simpson said.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific meda reports

The 8th Pacific Media Summit, organised by the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and hosted by the Fijian Media Association, will bring together regional media practitioners, researchers and leaders to discuss press freedom, media sustainability, climate and disaster reporting, artificial intelligence, digital inclusion and inclusive media leadership.

Simpson said the discussions would focus on how newsrooms can respond to technological change without losing the basic principles of independent journalism.

“We have really consulted widely about all the challenges facing both the big and small countries of the region, the challenges faced by newsrooms, brought about by the new technology, but also how we maintain the basics, the independence of the media,” he told PACNEWS.

The summit theme, “Reaching the Remote: Media and Digital Innovation for a Connected Blue Pacific,” reflects the need to ensure media and digital developments reach communities beyond capital cities.

Closer to communities
Simpson said Savusavu in Fiji was deliberately chosen as the venue to put the discussions closer to communities experiencing some of the challenges being discussed.

“We have come to Savusavu to talk about this, a place that is facing these challenges, as opposed to holding these meetings in a capital city where we may be far removed from the challenges we are aiming to overcome,” he said.

He said the growth of digital platforms and AI was also putting pressure on the traditional business models that have sustained news organisations.

“Many of the traditional ways of the media staying alive through advertising is under threat now with the digital spaces and AI,” Simpson said.

The summit will also examine how Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be used by newsrooms to improve coverage while maintaining editorial independence and journalistic standards.

Simpson said high-profile regional speakers would contribute to discussions on the future of Pacific media, including researchers working on AI and its application in newsrooms.

Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka is expected to deliver the keynote address on Wednesday, while Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica will also attend.

Other speakers include former Fiji President and Tui Macuata, Ratu Wiliame Katonivere, who will address climate change.

Established media figures
Established Simpson said many of the region’s established media figures including PINA president Kalafi Moala, Johnson Honimae, John Woods, Leilani Reklai, Katalina Tohi and Solomone Finau — continued to contribute to the fight for media freedom, independence and professional standards.

“Some of these names we’ve heard for many years, and still contributing, still fighting the cause of media freedom, media independence, and better standards to tell the stories of our people,” he said.

For the Fijian Media Association, Simpson said hosting the summit also carried significance after years of pressure on the country’s media sector.

“We’ve come through a long period of suppression and struggle and facing hostility. And this is perhaps a symbolic event where we can declare that we are back,” he said.

He urged regional delegates to use the summit for frank discussions on the direction of Pacific journalism.

“We really have to have honest discussions about what needs to be done and where the region needs to go,” Simpson said.

He said the summit’s focus on technology and connectivity should not come at the expense of the core principles of journalism.

“Using new technologies that we have, but essentially keeping to the basics of journalism — accuracy, fair and balanced,” he said.

Simpson said the discussions in Savusavu could help shape the direction of Pacific media for years to come.

“This is where we set the direction for the next, I would say, five to 10 years for Pacific media,” he said.

Pita Ligaiula is a journalist with Pacnews. Republished from Pacnews.

Fiji’s Tourism Minister Viliame Gavoka says people travelling to the island for tourism purposes, such as from Australia and New Zealand, know that HIV is a “global phenomenon”.

Gavoka, who is a Deputy Prime Minister, was responding to questions from local reporters about concerns from tourists who are worried about their travel plans to Fiji after the country declared a national HIV emergency this week.

Tourism is Fiji’s main driver of the economy, contributing around 40 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). The sector directly and indirectly supports more than 150,000 jobs, with nearly one in every three Fijians relying on tourism for their livelihoods.

• READ MORE: Fiji declares HIV emergency as 1 in 60 Fijian adults live with HIV
• Other Fiji HIV reports

The Fiji Health Minister confirmed on Tuesday that one in every 60 adults in Fiji is living with HIV, rising nearly threefold in five years to around one percent of the population.

The government’s response includes expanding free rapid testing and providing clean needles to drug users, a measure aimed at reducing transmission linked to intravenous drug use.

‘300pc increase since 2010’
A New Zealand health researcher has described the situation as “a once in a generation health crisis”.

University of Canterbury’s Dr Jalal Mohammed told RNZ Morning Report that one in 60 adults, or 1.6 percent of Fiji’s population between the ages of 15 and 49, have been diagnosed.

“That’s only those who have been diagnosed. So there is a segment of the population out there that remains undiagnosed and this is a significant issue.

“We’ve seen a 3000 percent increase since 2010 in the number of diagnoses.”

Dr Mohammed said there were several factors contributing to the issue, but pointed out a “significant underinvestment” in the health sector as one of the main drivers.

Gavoka said HIV was not unique to Fiji and travellers to the country needed confidence that Fiji knew what it was doing to tackle the issue.

“And that is more important than anything else,” he told Fiji One News.

“We are not sweeping [the HIV crisis] under the carpet. We are very open about it, and travellers today appreciate that.”

The New Zealand government website SafeTravel has warned people travelling to Fiji to avoid activities that could increase their risk of infection.

Calls for resource prioritisation
However, the Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS) told RNZ Pacific that public statements alone were not sufficient and that resources needed to be prioritised for the HIV response.

FCOSS chief executive Vani Catanasiga said Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka appeared to have his mind elsewhere, particularly with Fiji’s constitutional debate ahead of the 2027 election.

“I’m calling for prioritisation of resources [for] HIV because our leaders are currently juggling various issues at the national level, but health is something that really I don’t see the same prominence given to it,” she said.

Catanasiga said FCOSS was directing its available resources, including volunteers, into community awareness activities.

“We should expect the impacts and we have to brace for that. But I think, as Fijians, we’ve been through similar things in the past, and we have survived it.”

Meanwhile, the Methodist Church in Fiji said the HIV epidemic and drug abuse crisis in the country went beyond medical and social concerns.

Reverend Lote Raboila Umari said the response required a whole-of-community approach, and government, churches, families and communities must work together.

Earlier this year, the church began a three-year campaign against drugs and HIV/AIDS, mobilising its 59 divisions to participate in rotating shifts of week-long prayer and fasting.

ANALYSIS: By Tess Newton Cain and Stefan Armbruster