ANALYSIS: By Denise Fisher

Monday night saw demonstrations by independence supporters in New Caledonia erupt into serious violence for the first time since the 1980s civil disturbances.

The mainly indigenous demonstrators were opposing President Emmanuel Macron’s imposition of constitutional change to widen voter eligibility unless discussions about the future begin soon.

The protests occurred the day before France’s National Assembly was to vote on the issue, and just after Macron had proposed new talks in Paris.

• READ MORE: New Caledonia unrest: Pro-independence calls for calm ‘to preserve peace’
• Curfew in New Caledonia after Kanak riots over French voting change plan
• ‘A lot of fire, violence’: Nouméa erupts as protests halt New Caledonia
• Independence for Kanaky: A media and political stalemate or a ‘three strikes’ Frexit challenge? – David Robie
• Other New Caledonia crisis reports

On Monday, May 13, in Noumea, as France’s National Assembly debated the constitutional change in Paris, their local counterparts in the New Caledonian Congress were debating a resolution calling for withdrawal of the legislation.

The debate was bitter, after months of deepening division between independence and loyalist parties and focusing as it did on one of the most sensitive issues to each side, that of voter eligibility. The resolution was passed, as independence parties secured the support of a small minority party to outnumber the loyalists.

Macron, in an eleventh hour bid to prompt all parties to participate in new discussions about the future, proposed on May 13 to hold talks in Paris, but only after the Assembly vote of May 14 (albeit before the next step in the constitutional amendment process, a meeting of both houses).

Independence party leaders had called on their supporters to demonstrate against the constitutional reform, to coincide with the National Assembly’s consideration of the issue. The evening of May 13 was marked by violence on a scale not seen in decades.

Burning of buildings, roadblocks
It included the burning of buildings and businesses, roadblocks preventing movement in and out of the capital, and the closure of airports and ports in some of the islands. Police were targeted with gunfire and stoning, resulting in 35 injured police.

As of yesterday, Tuesday May 14, people were being asked to stay at home, with a curfew imposed. France, which already had 700 police on the job in New Caledonia, has sent reinforcements to maintain order.

The violence immediately brought to the minds of leaders the bloodshed of the 1980s, termed “les événements”.

The French High Commissioner, or governor, suggested things were moving “towards an abyss” and cancelled some incoming flights to prevent complications from tourists being unable to access Noumea, while noting that the airport and main wharf remain open. He urged independence leaders to use their influence on the young to stop the violence.

The Mayor of Noumea, Sonia Lagarde, described the situation as “extremely well organised guerrilla warfare” involving “well-trained young people” and suggested “a sort of civil war” was approaching.

On the face of it, to an outsider, Macron’s plan to broaden voter eligibility to those with 10 years’ residence prior to any local election, unless discussions about the future begin, would seem reasonable.

He sees the three independence votes held from 2018–21 as legal, notwithstanding the largely indigenous boycott of the third. (Each referendum saw a vote to stay with France, although support was narrow, declining from 56.7% to 53.3% in the first two votes, but ballooning to 96.5% in the third vote boycotted by independence supporters.)

‘Radical’ for white Caledonians, ‘unconscionable’ for Kanaks
For New Caledonians, Macron’s positioning is radical. Loyalists see it as a vindication of their position.

But for independence parties, France’s stance has been unconscionable.  Independence leaders reject the result of the boycotted referendum and want another self-determination vote soon.

Some have refused to participate in discussions organised by France, although one of the most recalcitrant elements suggested some discussion would be possible just days before the violent demonstrations.

But they have all strongly opposed Macron’s imposing constitutional change to widen voter eligibility unilaterally from Paris. They were affronted by his appointment of a prominent loyalist MP as the rapporteur responsible for shepherding the issue through the Assembly.

They have instead been calling for a special mission led by an impartial figure to bring about dialogue.

More importantly, they see the highly sensitive voter eligibility issue as a central negotiating chip in discussions about the future. Confining voter eligibility only to those with longstanding residence on a fixed basis — not by a number of years prior to any local election as Macron is proposing — was fundamental to securing independence party acceptance of peace agreements over 30 years, after France had operated a policy of bringing in French nationals from elsewhere to outweigh local independence supporters who are primarily indigenous.

Differences have deepened
With the inconclusive end of these agreements, differences have only deepened.

Loyalist leaders have accused independence leaders of planning the violence. Whether it was planned or whether demonstrations degenerated, either way it is clear that emotions are running high among independence supporters, who feel their position is not being respected.

No sustainable solution for the governance of New Caledonia is possible without the cooperation of all parties.

It seems that, regardless of Macron’s evident intention of spurring parties to come to the discussion table, his plan has backfired. Discussions are unlikely to resume soon.

Denise Fisher is a visiting fellow at Australian National University’s Centre for European Studies. She was an Australian diplomat for 30 years, serving in Australian diplomatic missions as a political and economic policy analyst in many Australian missions in Asia, Europe and Africa, including as Australian Consul-General in Nouméa, New Caledonia (2001-2004). She is the author of France in the South Pacific: Power and Politics (2013). This article was first published by the Lowy Institute’s The Interpreter and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem has issued a legal direction to The Fiji Times to remove an article which he said misquoted him.

Saneem objected to the headline of the article, which read: “Saneem: I will not apologise.”

Unity Fiji party candidate Riaz Mohammed had demanded that Saneem apologise for initially rejecting his nomination on the grounds of an alleged criminal conviction.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji elections reports

In response, Saneem, declining to apologise, said that if Mohammed wanted an apology “that means we have some malice, there is no malice in this”.

Saneem issued a legal notice to The Fiji Times yesterday under section 144A of the Electoral Act, directing the removal of the online article.

In a separate letter to The Fiji Times, Saneem said he “did not make the statement as quoted in your headline”.

“The headline is clearly misleading and also appears to be fabricated by Fiji Times,” Saneem said.

“If the same is your own views, then you should correctly identify it to yourself and not the SOE.”

Fiji Times disagrees
Section 144A, giving the power to the Supervisor to remove or correct “false statements” was enacted by Parliament last year.

Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley replied it was not necessary for the Elections Supervisor to serve legal notices on the newspaper every time he wanted a correction to a news story.

Wesley said he did not agree that The Fiji Times had breached the law but was prepared to remove the article as directed because “it was not an article of great importance”.

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Unionists and political activists are among seven prominent women who have brought a lawsuit against the Fiji government challenging new electoral laws requiring them to use their birth certificate names to be registered as voters.

The seven are former government minister Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, politicians Priscilla Singh and Seni Nabou, teacher and community worker Adi Davila Toganivalu, unionists Dr Elizabeth Reade Fong and Salote Qalo and Yasmin Nisha Khan.

They have filed a constitutional redress action against the Attorney-General and the Supervisor of Elections, challenging changes passed by Parliament earlier this year to the Electoral (Registration of Voters) Act and the Interpretation Act.

The seven are challenging the requirement that citizens must only use the name on their birth certificates for voting and other official purposes — including for official identification documents.

Under the new laws, people who wished to use their married or adopted names for these purposes must formally change their names on their birth certificates.

In their action, the applicants say they believe the new laws have a disproportionate, adverse impact upon married women compared with other groups. An estimated 100,000 women are believed to be affected by the law.

The matter was called in the High Court in Suva yesterday before Chief Justice Kamal Kumar.

The Chief Justice gave directions for the filing of affidavits and fixed the case for hearing on February 24.

The applicants are represented by Munro Leys partner and former Supervisor of Elections Jon Apted.

Lawyer Devanesh Sharma, of R Patel and Co, represents the Attorney-General and the SOE.

Fiji faces a general election next year.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Fiji’s pposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad told Parliament yesterday that the Electoral Registration of Voters (Amendment) Bill was the product of dictatorship, pseudo-democracy and the “my way or the highway” approach to governance in a bid to ensure continuity of FijiFirst rule in the country.

Professor Prasad said the changes did not even remotely resemble the flaws exposed by the High Court about registration of names of voters after a successful case in the Court of Disputed Returns by SODELPA MP Niko Nawaikula.

Prasad said Nawaikula’s nominations for election candidature had been duly accepted and approved by the Supervisor of Elections twice, in 2014 and 2018.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji politics reports

He said the Supervisor of Elections failure rate in removing candidates for elections as well as members of Parliament was alarming.

“This Bill is the product of dictatorship, pseudo-democracy and my way or the highway approach to governance in order to ensure continuity of the FijiFirst rule in this country,” he said.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said in 2015, the Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem had been asked by the Pacific Islands Forum to lead the observer mission group to Bougainville, in 2016 he had been part of the MSG Observer Mission to the Vanuatu snap elections and in 2017 he had been part of the observer mission to the Tongan elections.

He said Saneem also held elections in a “fair and credible” manner.

Parliament yesterday passed the Bill, which now requires Fijians to use the name as stated in their birth certificate and no other aliases.

The Bill, which has now become an Act of Parliament, was tabled by Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and fast-tracked under Standing Order 51.

Debating legislation in Parliament before the vote yesterday, Sayed-Khaiyum referred to the ruling of the Court of Disputed Returns last month in the case of Nawaikula.

He said Nawaikula’s case had a significant impact on the National Register of Voters, and the changes to the Electoral Registration of Voters Amendment Bill were necessary to ensure people registered with the names on their birth certificate.

Sayed-Khaiyum told Parliament that in its ruling, the court had stated that the law did not specifically require the use of birth certificate names and for the purpose of the registration as a voter allows the use of names other than the birth certificate name.

He said neither the court nor the legal counsel had considered the practical implications of such a strict literal reading of the law, and it was not brought to the court’s attention and therefore, they did not expect to make a ruling on that.

Fiji faces a general election next year.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.