Jone Vakarisi was heard screaming and begging before he was “brutalised to death” in Fiji military custody last week, according to his sister.

Melehola Tagaga told RNZ Pacific Waves that the well-known drug pusher was asked if he was planning a coup, before the military arrested him at home and took him to the Queen Elizabeth Barracks for questioning last Thursday.

The Fiji Police Force classified the 37-year-old’s death as murder following a high-level meeting in Suva involving the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and security and military chiefs on Monday.

• READ MORE: Fiji police confirm murder probe launched into death of man in military custody
• Other Fiji military reports

“An investigation is underway with the support of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Commander, as earlier stated, so it will be thoroughly conducted,” police spokesperson Ana Naisoro said.

Vakarasi had become somewhat notorious in the capital, linked to turf wars and engaging in violence with law enforcement in recent years.

Local media outlets have described him as a local “drug lord” who was “involved in criminal networks”.

Fiji’s top military and police brass were on Bau Island farewelling the late President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau when news broke of his death last Friday.

His death certificate, dated April 18, lists asphyxia, aspiration of gastric contents, severe traumatic head injuries and blunt force trauma to both the head and chest as the causes of his death.

The Republic of Fiji Military (RFMF) commander Ro Jone Kalouniwai initially attributed the victim’s death to a “sudden and severe medical emergency” and “the presence of a pre-existing condition”.

However, he issued a second statement on Monday to correct the record, saying “the earlier description did not fully reflect the medical findings now available”.

Victim begged for his life
Melehola Tagaga claimed that people living close to the military barracks in Nabua, near Suva, told the family they heard Vakarisi “yelling and screaming” for hours before he died.

“My brother was saying “oi lei, au via bula”, meaning, “hey, I want to be alive,” and that is all they heard, all through the night,” she said.

Tagaga, 50, an entrepreneur in Sacramento, California, said his home was raided first by the police, then later by the military.

Both were looking for weapons and drugs, but nothing was found, then “disappointed” they questioned him about a possible coup.

“A family member that was there heard the term coup … they asked if he heard or had a plan or knew of someone that was plotting another coup. And he said he had nothing to do with it and he didn’t know anything about it,” Tagaga said.

She described the father of four as an “entrepreneur”, a “family man” but admitted he had previous “gang-related” convictions involving violence.

“What do you expect from the kind of society that we live in in Fiji … people were becoming more territorial, so if you felt threatened, wouldn’t you do something to make sure your family and friends are safe? [from rival territories and authorities].”

She said the family were demanding justice and an independent, fully transparent investigation into the death, claiming the military and the police were “in cahoots” with each other.

“With the the wrongdoing, we want accountability, regardless of what the allegations are (against Vakarisi). We still don’t have a clear explanation of what happened to him,” she said.

“His life probably didn’t matter to them [the military] but it mattered to us … he had a past with the law but that didn’t give them the right to kill him. A person’s life in custody should be protected.”

Lawyer says death ‘extrajudicial’
Rajendra Chaudhry, a lawyer and the son of former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, told Pacific Waves the death was an extrajudicial killing.

“I find it highly alarming that there was an attempt to cover it up, which is clearly unacceptable … the commander ought to have known about that. So the [initial] statement that was released under his name was misleading to say the least,” Chaudhry said.

He said it was not a simple communication oversight, it was a serious coverup that was exposed only after the death certificate was made public.

“I am quite disgusted to see comments on social media supporting the military because Vakarisi was a drug peddler, the military must respect the rule of law. He should have been handed over to the police for questioning and processing,” Chaudhry said.

“They [the police] should take charge of the investigation and deal with it independently, they should not act in collaboration with the military because the military is being investigated, it doesn’t make sense.”

While he had confidence in Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu, he said the military “leans on” section 131 of the Constitution, which states that that the military is responsible for the overall security of the country.

“That provision is a licence to act extra-constitutionally and must be read together with emergency provisions, where the military is required to act in safeguarding Fiji in the national interest, it should not have a say in domestic or governance matters, which is the role of the police and the government of the day.”

A Fiji military spokesperson, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr Eroni Duaibe, said it would be inappropriate to comment while a police investigation was underway.

Human rights abuses
The Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights (NGOCHR) echoed Chaudhry’s views, adding that Fijians were too frightened to question what the military does.

NGOCHR chair Shamima Ali called for a transparent, independent investigation into the human rights abuses involved in the murder

Aman Ravindra-Singh, a Fiji human rights lawyer who is in exile in Australia, equated asphyxia with strangulation.

Ravindra-Singh fled from Fiji in 2022 to avoid jail for contempt of court following a series of Facebook posts critical of the then prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and the former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

“In my personal view, based on other similar deaths in custody matters that I have looked at in the past, these injuries are consistent with torture, where a person is brutally beaten repeatedly to the head and chest, resulting in death,” he said.

In an exclusive interview with Mai TV’s The Brunch talkshow, Vakarisi’s ex-wife Kuini Osbourne rejected claims that he was involved in illegal drug and gun-related activities, as widely reported in local media.

She said following Vakarisi’s post-mortem, the pathologist explained to her his cause of death.

“He choked on his [own] blood and fluid that came up and [the doctor] explained that it was like strangulation.”

The pathologist said due to the severe trauma to Vakarisi’s head and chest he had internal bleeding from broken ribs, “he choked when the blood and fluids came up. He couldn’t vomit it or spit it out,” she said.

Meanwhile, Fiji police declined to say what Vakarisi’s previous convictions were.

“We will respond on policing issues, matters arising out of jurisdictional matters, such as convictions, is not for us to comment on,” Naisoro said

“We will not be commenting on anything other than the investigation, so as not to jeopardise the process,” she said.

Vakarisi’s older sister Tagaga said both their father and uncles had served in the military.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Public trust in Fiji’s mainstream media has significantly declined, a journalism academic has told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, citing decades of political upheaval, censorship and institutional pressure.

At its third expert hearing in Suva, the commission heard from University of the South Pacific’s associate professor of journalism Shailendra Singh, who detailed how censorship, intimidation and political pressure had weakened the media landscape over decades.

Dr Singh, who is contributing to the commission’s media chapter, told the TRC that repeated disruptions — including the 1987, 2000 and 2006 coups — had lasting consequences on press freedom and public discourse.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji media reports

Drawing on more than 30 years of experience, he outlined how newsrooms faced closures, financial strain and the loss of skilled journalists, contributing to declining editorial independence and professional standards.

He said journalists were often forced into difficult ethical positions, navigating threats and highly polarised environments, which led to self-censorship, and, at times, uncritical reporting aligned with dominant political narratives.

He described the 2000 and 2006 coups as defining moments for the industry.

The 2006 period, he noted, brought the most stringent controls, including the introduction of the Media Industry Development Act 2010, which entrenched censorship and self-censorship in newsrooms.

Steady decline in public confidence
The long-term impact, he said, had been a steady decline in public confidence.

Dr Singh told the commission that perceptions of bias and compliance had contributed to the erosion of trust, with some members of the public even supporting tighter media control.

At the same time, restrictions on traditional media created space for alternative platforms such as blogs, social media and diaspora outlets — opening new avenues for expression but also raising concerns around misinformation and accountability.

Despite the repeal of the MIDA legislation in 2023, Dr Singh said the sector continued to grapple with its legacy, including financial instability, skills shortages and the risk of renewed political interference.

He recommended stronger legal protections for press freedom, improved training to lift professional standards, greater media literacy and independent regulatory mechanisms.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

TVNZ’s 1News Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver has released a new memoir looking back at over 30 years of reporting in the region.

The book, titled Be Brave, details moments in Dreaver’s career in the Pacific from covering natural disasters to coups and personal tragedies.

Speaking to Pacific Waves, Dreaver said she wanted readers to see the Pacific through her eyes.

• READ MORE: Other Barbara Dreaver reports

“Be Brave” – Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver reflects   Video: RNZ Pacific Waves

“The Pacific is so important to the world, it is important to New Zealand and Australia and I thought, if I show it like the real stories . . .  what happens behind the scenes that it just might provide, you know, share that joy really of the Pacific with people.

“I’m really concerned about the way the region is going at the moment, and I think there’s volatile times ahead and so I really decided some time ago that I wanted to record it and record, for my family as well.”

The Kiribati-born journalist also encourages up and coming Pacific journalists to report “without fear or favour”.

“When people say to you, as a Pacific journalist ‘you’re not being culturally aware’ . . .  we know what’s culturally aware.

“We do and quite often people in power use it as a means of stopping you reporting.

“So you have to be really aware of the boundaries on that.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Sitiveni Rabuka, the instigator of Fiji’s coup culture, took to the witness stand for the first time today — fronting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in Suva.

The TRC was set up by Rabuka’s coalition government with the aim of promoting truth-telling and reconciliation regarding political upheavals dating back to 1987.

The five-member TRC began its work earlier this year. It was led by Dr Marcus Brand, who was appointed in January, and has reportedly already finished his role.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission reports

Rabuka had stated earlier this year he would “voluntarily appear” before the commission and disclose names of individuals involved in his two racist coups almost four decades ago.

The man, often referred to as “Rambo” for his military past, has been a permanent fixture in the Fijian political landscape since first overthrowing a democratically elected government as a 38-year-old lieutenant-colonel.

But now, at 77, he has a weatherbeaten face yet still carries the resolute confidence of a young soldier. He faced the TRC commissioners, wearing a tie in the colours of the Fiji Army, to give a much-anticipated testimony by Fijians locally and in the diaspora.

He began by revisiting his childhood and the influences in his life that shaped his worldview. He fundamentally accepted the actions of 1987 were rooted in his racial worldview.

Protecting Indigenous Fijians
He acknowledged those actions were a result of his background, being raised in an “insulated” environment (i.e. village, boarding school, military), and it is his view that he was acting to protect Indigenous Fijians.

Asked if the coups had served their purpose, Rabuka said: “The coups have brought out more of a self-realisation of who we are, what we’re doing, where we need to be.”

“If that is a positive outcome of the coup, I encourage all of us to do that. Let us be aware of the sensitivity of numbers, the sensitivity of a perceived imbalance in the distribution of assets, or whatever.”

But perhaps the most important response from him came toward the end of the almost 1hr 50min submission to a question from the facilitator and veteran journalist Netani Rika, who asked Rabuka: “Do you see the removal of immunity for coup perpetrators from the [2013] Constitution as a way towards preventing a repeat of these incidents [coups]?”

“There should be [a] very objective assessment of what can be done,” Rabuka replied.

“There are certain things that we cannot do unless we all agree [to] leave the amendment to the [2013] Constitution open to the people. If that is the will of the people, let it be.

“At the moment our hands are tied,” confirming indirectly that the removal of immunity for coup perpetrators is off the table as it stands.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Taieri MP Ingrid Leary reflected on her years in Fiji as a television journalist and media educator at a Fiji Centre function in Auckland celebrating Fourth Estate values and independence at the weekend.

It was a reunion with former journalism professor David Robie — they had worked together as a team at the University of the South Pacific amid media and political controversy leading up to the George Speight coup in May 2000.

Leary, a former British Council executive director and lawyer, was the guest speaker at a gathering of human rights activists, development advocates, academics and journalists hosted at the Whānau Community Centre and Hub, the umbrella base for the Fiji Centre, Auckland Rotuman Fellowship, Asia Pacific Media Network and other groups.

• READ MORE: Young and brave: In Pacific island paradise, journalism students cover a strange coup attempt for a course credit

She said she was delighted to meet “special people in David’s life” and to be speaking to a diverse group sharing “similar values of courage, freedom of expression, truth and tino rangatiratanga”.

“I want to start this talanoa on Friday, 19 May 2000 — 13 years almost to the day of the first recognised military coup in Fiji in 1987 — when failed businessman George Speight tore off his balaclava to reveal his identity.

She pointed out that there had actually been another “coup” 100 years earlier by Ratu Cakobau.

“Speight had seized Parliament holding the elected government at gunpoint, including the politician mother, Lavinia Padarath, of one of my best friends — Anna Padarath.

Hostage-taking report
“Within minutes, the news of the hostage-taking was flashed on Radio Fiji’s 10 am bulletin by a student journalist on secondment there — Tamani Nair. He was a student of David Robie’s.”

Nair had been dispatched to Parliament to find out what was happening and reported from a cassava patch.

“Fiji TV was trashed . . . and transmission pulled for 48 hours.

“The university shut down — including the student radio facilities, and journalism programme website — to avoid a similar fate, but the journalism school was able to keep broadcasting and publishing via a parallel website set up at the University of Technology Sydney.

“The pictures were harrowing, showing street protests turning violent and the barbaric behaviour of Speight’s henchmen towards dissenters.

“Thus began three months of heroic journalism by David’s student team — including through a period of martial law that began 10 days later and saw some of the most restrictive levels of censorship ever experienced in the South Pacific.”

Leary paid tribute to some of the “brave satire” produced by senior Fiji Times reporters filling the newspaper with “non-news” (such as about haircuts, drinking kava) as an act of defiance.

“My friend Anna Padarath returned from doing her masters in law in Australia on a scholarship to be closer to her Mum, whose hostage days within Parliament Grounds stretched into weeks and then months.

Invisible consequences
“Anna would never return to her studies — one of the many invisible consequences of this profoundly destructive era in Fiji’s complex history.

“Happily, she did go on to carve an incredible career as a women’s rights advocate.”

“Meanwhile David’s so-called ‘barefoot student journalists’ — who snuck into Parliament the back way by bushtrack — were having their stories read and broadcast globally.

“And those too shaken to even put their hands to keyboards on Day 1 emerged as journalism leaders who would go on to win prizes for their coverage.”

Speight was sentenced to life in prison, but was pardoned in 2024.

Leary said that was just one chapter in the remarkable career of David Robie who had been an editor, news director, foreign news editor and freelance writer with a number of different agencies and news organisations — including Agence France-Presse, Rand Daily Mail, The Auckland Star, Insight Magazine, and New Outlook Magazine — “a family member to some, friend to many, mentor to most”.

Reflecting on working with Dr Robie at USP, which she joined as television lecturer from Fiji Television, she said:

“At the time, being a younger person, I thought he was a little bit crazy, because he was communicating with people all around the world when digital media was in its infancy in Fiji, always on email, always getting up on online platforms, and I didn’t appreciate the power of online media at the time.

“And it was incredible to watch.”

Ahead of his time
She said he was an innovator and ahead of his time.

Dr Robie viewed journalism as a tool for empowerment, aiming to provide communities with the information they needed to make informed decisions.

“We all know that David has been a champion of social justice and for decolonisation, and for the values of an independent Fourth Estate.”

She said she appreciated the freedom to develop independent media as an educator, adding that one of her highlights was producing the groundbreaking 1999 documentary Maire about Maire Bopp Du Pont, who was a Tahitian student journalist at USP and advocate for the Pacific community living with HIV/AIDs.

She became a nuclear-free Pacific campaigner in Pape’ete and was also founding chief executive of  the Pacific Islands AIDS Foundation (PIAF).

Leary presented Dr Robie with a “speaking stick” carved from an apricot tree branch by the husband of a Labour stalwart based in Cromwell — the event doubled as his 80th birthday.

In response, Dr Robie said the occasion was a “golden opportunity” to thank many people who had encouraged and supported him over many years.

Massive upheaval
“We must have done something right,” he said about USP, “because in 2000, the year of George Speight’s coup, our students covered the massive upheaval which made headlines around the world when Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour-led coalition government was held at gunpoint for 56 days.

“The students courageously covered the coup with their website Pacific Journalism Online and their newspaper Wansolwara — “One Ocean”.  They won six Ossie Awards – unprecedented for a single university — in Australia that year and a standing ovation.”

He said there was a video on YouTube of their exploits called Frontline Reporters and one of the students, Christine Gounder, wrote an article for a Commonwealth Press Union magazine entitled, “From trainees to professionals. And all it took was a coup”.

Dr Robie said this Fiji experience was still one of the most standout experiences he had had as a journalist and educator.

Along with similar coverage of the 1997 Sandline mercenary crisis by his students at the University of Papua New Guinea.

He made some comments about the 1985 Rainbow Warrior voyage to Rongelap in the Marshall islands and the subsequent bombing by French secret agents in Auckland.

But he added “you can read all about this adventure in my new book” being published in a few weeks.

Biggest 21st century crisis
Dr Robie said the profession of journalism, truth telling and holding power to account, was vitally important to a healthy democracy.

Although media did not succeed in telling people what to think, it did play a vital role in what to think about. However, the media world was undergoing massive change and fragmentation.

“And public trust is declining in the face of fake news and disinformation,” he said

“I think we are at a crossroads in society, both locally and globally. Both journalism and democracy are under an unprecedented threat in my lifetime.

“When more than 230 journalists can be killed in 19 months in Gaza and there is barely a bleep from the global community, there is something savagely wrong.

“The Gazan journalists won the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize collectively last year with the judges saying, “As humanity, we have a huge debt to their courage and commitment to freedom of expression.”

“The carnage and genocide in Gaza is deeply disturbing, especially the failure of the world to act decisively to stop it. The fact that Israel can kill with impunity at least 54,000 people, mostly women and children, destroy hospitals and starve people to death and crush a people’s right to live is deeply shocking.

“This is the biggest crisis of the 21st century. We see this relentless slaughter go on livestreamed day after day and yet our media and politicians behave as if this is just ‘normal’. It is shameful, horrendous. Have we lost our humanity?

“Gaza has been our test. And we have failed.”

Dr Robie praised the support of his wife, social justice activist Del Abcede, and family members.

Other speakers included Whānau Hub co-founder Nik Naidu, one of the anti-coup Coalition for Democracy in Fiji (CDF) stalwarts; the Heritage New Zealand’s Antony Phillips; and Multimedia Investments and Evening Report director Selwyn Manning.

The co-founder of Auckland’s Fiji Centre is concerned that Indo-Fijians are not classified as Pacific Islanders in Aotearoa.

This week marks the 146th anniversary of the arrival of the first indentured labourers from British India to Fiji, who departed from Calcutta.

On 14 May 1879, the first group of 522 labourers arrived in Fiji aboard the Leonidas, a labour transportation ship.

• READ MORE: Other Girmit reports

That date in 1987 is also the date of the first military coup in Fiji.

More than 60,000 men, women and children were brought to Fiji under an oppressive system of bonded labour between 1879 and 1916.

Today, Indo-Fijians make up 33 percent of the population.

While Fiji is part of the Pacific, Indo-Fijians are not classified as Pacific peoples in New Zealand; instead, they are listed under “Indian” and “Asian” on the Stats NZ website.

Lasting impact on Fiji
The Fiji Centre’s Nik Naidu, who is also a co-founder of the Whānau Community Centre and Hub, said that he understood Fiji was the only country in the Pacific where the British implemented the indentured system.

“It is also a sad legacy and a sad story because it was basically slavery,” he said.

“The positive was that the Fiji Indian community made a lasting impact on Fiji.

“They continue to be around 30 percent of the population in Fiji, and I think significantly in Aotearoa, through the migration, the numbers are, according to the community, over 100,000 in New Zealand.”

However, he said the discussions on ethnic classification “reached a stalemate” with the previous Pacific Peoples Minister.

“His basic argument was, well, ethnographically, Fijian Indians do not fit the profile of Pacific Islanders,” he said.

Then-minister Aupito William Sio said in 2021 that, while he understood the group’s concerns, the classification for Fijian Indians was in line with an ethnographic profile which included people with a common language, customs and traditions.

Aupito said that profile was different from indigenous Pacific peoples.

StatsNZ and ethnicity
“StatsNZ recognises ethnicity as the ethnic group or groups a person self-identifies with or has a sense of belonging to,” Aupito said in a letter at the time.

It is not the same as race, ancestry, nationality, citizenship or even place of birth, he said.

“They have identified themselves now that the system of government has not acknowledged them.

“Those conversations have to be ongoing to figure out how do we capture the data of who they are as Fijian Indians or to develop policies around that to support their aspirations.”

Naidu believes the ethnographic argument was a misunderstanding of the request.

“The request is not to say, like Chinese in Samoa, they are not indigenous to Samoa, but they are Samoans, and they are Pacific Chinese.

“So there is the same thing with Fijian Indians. They are not wanting to be indigenous.

Different from mainland Indians
“They do want to be recognised as separate Indians in the Pacific because they are very different from the mainland Indians.

“In fact, most probably 99 percent of Fijian Indians have never been to India and have no affiliations to India because during the Girmit they lost all connections with their families.”

However, Naidu told Pacific Waves the community was not giving up.

“There was a human rights complaint made — again that did not progress in the favour of the Fijian Indians.

“Currently from . . . Fiji Centre’s perspective, we are still pursuing that.

“We have also had a discussion with Stats NZ about the numbers and trying to ascertain just why they have not managed to put a separate category, so that we can look at the number of Fijian Indians and also relative to Pacific Islanders.”

Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told RNZ Pacific that as far as Fiji is concerned, Fijians of Indian descent are Fijian.

Question to minister
Last year, RNZ Pacific asked the current Minister for Pacific Peoples, Dr Shane Reti, on whether Indo-Fijians were included in Ministry of Pacific Peoples as Pacific people.

In a statement, his office said: “The Ministry for Pacific Peoples is undertaking ongoing policy work to better understand this issue.”

Meanwhile, the University of Fiji’s vice-chancellor is asking the Australian and British governments to consider paying reparation for the exploitation of the indentured labourers more than a century ago.

Professor Shaista Shameem told the ABC that they endured harsh conditions, with long hours, social restrictions and low wages.

She said the Australian government and the Colonial Sugar Refinery of Australia benefitted the most financially and it was time the descendants were compensated.

While some community leaders have been calling for reparation, Naidu said there were other issues that needed attention.

He said it had been an ongoing discussion for many decades.

“It is a very challenging one, because where do you draw the line? And it is a global problem, the indenture system. It is not just unique to Fiji.

“Personally, yes, I think that is a great idea. Practically, I am not sure if it is feasible and possible.”

Focus on what unites, says Rabuka
Fiji is on a path for reconciliation, with leaders from across the political spectrum signing a Forward Fiji Declaration in 2023, hoping to usher in a new era of understanding between indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians.

Rabuka announced a public holiday to commemorate Girmit Day in 2023.

In his Girmit Day message this year, Rabuka said his government was dedicated to bringing unity and reconciliation between all races living in Fiji.

“We all know that Fiji has had a troubled past, as it was natural that conflicts would arise when a new group of people would come into another’s space,” he said.

“This is precisely what transpired when the Indians began to live or decided to live as permanent citizens.

“There was distrust as the two groups were not used to living together during the colonial days. Indigenous Fijians did not have a say in why, and how many should come and how they should be settled here. Fiji was not given a time to transit.

“The policy of indenture labour system was dumped on us. Naturally this led to tensions and misunderstandings, reasons that fuelled conflicts that followed after Fiji gained independence.”

He said 146 years later, Fijians should focus on what unites rather than what divides them.

“We have together long enough to know that unity and peace will lead us to a good future.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has paid tribute to all those working the media industry in his message to mark World Press Freedom Day.

He said in his May 3 message thanks to democracy his coalition government had removed the “dark days of oppression and suppressions”.

“Today as we join the rest of the international community in celebrating World Press Freedom Day, let us recommit ourselves to the values and ideals of our fundamental human rights freedom of expression and the freedom of the press,” said Rabuka, a former coup leader.

• READ MORE: NZ fares well in latest RSF press freedom index as authoritarian regimes stifle Asia-Pacific media
• RSF 2025 World Press Freedom rankings
• RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025: economic fragility a leading threat to press freedom

“With our recent history, let as not take this freedom for granted.”

Rabuka also remembered the late Sitiveni Moce who died in 2015.

RNZ Pacific reports Moce was left paralysed and bedridden in 2007 after being assaulted by soldiers shortly after the 2006 military coup.

“Today is also an opportune time to remember those in the media fraternity that made the ultimate sacrifice.”

‘Brave photographer’
“In particular, I pay tribute to my ‘Yaca’ (namesake), the late Sitiveni Moce who died in 2015.

“This brave newspaper photographer was set upon by a mob in Parliament House in 2000, and again by some members of the disciplined forces in 2007 for simply carrying out his job which was to capture history in still photographs.

“His death is a sombre reminder of the fickleness of life, and how we must never ever take our freedoms for granted.”

• Fiji was ranked 40th in the 2025 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index — a rise of four places in the ranking of 180 countries.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has revealed how arms and ammunition used to conduct the 1987 military coup were secretly brought into Fiji on board a naval survey ship.

Speaking at the commissioning of a new research vessel for the Lands and Mineral Resources Ministry on Friday, Rabuka described the strategic measures taken to ensure the weapons reached Fiji undetected.

He recounted that during preparations for his coup against Dr Timoçi Bavadra’s Labour government of 1987, Fiji lacked sufficient arms and ammunition.

• READ MORE: The media and the coup leader: Sitiveni Rabuka — Pacific Journalism Review
• Other Fiji coup reports

“I realised that we didn’t have enough weapons and ammunition in Fiji to do what I wanted to do. So I sent a very quick message to the captain who was there to pick up the ship and surprised him by asking that, get that ship commissioned in Singapore before you sail back to Fiji.”

Rabuka explained the decision, saying the commissioning had allowed the ship to fly a naval flag, ensuring it would avoid inspection at international ports.

He said the ship’s captain was instructed to load arms and ammunition en route which were successfully brought back to Fiji.

The Prime Minister said the measures were necessary at the time to achieve what needed to be done.

Rare glimpse of tactics
His remarks offered a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes tactics of 1987, highlighting the extent of planning and resourcefulness involved.

Rabuka’s comments were made during the launch of a state-of-the-art research vessel which will serve as a floating laboratory for marine geological studies and coastal surveys.

The vessel is equipped with advanced tools to map the ocean floor, study tectonic activity and support communities affected by climate change.

The Prime Minister said the new vessel marked a significant step in understanding Fiji’s marine ecosystem.

He also spoke about the importance of integrating scientific research with traditional knowledge to address critical issues such as climate change and sustainable resource management.

The PM said there was a need for informed planning to prevent disasters, referencing the recent earthquake in Vanuatu.

Rabuka said early geological surveys could have guided city planners and engineers in designing structures that mitigate damage from such events.

The new vessel is expected to provide critical insights into the ocean’s mysteries while contributing to Fiji’s resilience against climate-related challenges.

Fiji’s President celebrates birthday with military
Meanwhile, earlier today members of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) gathered at State House to celebrate the 71st birthday of Fiji’s President and Commander-in-Chief, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.

The celebration was led by the Commander of the Fiji Navy, Humphrey Tawake, with senior officers. It was marked by a march by officers and the RFMF band. adding a ceremonial and heartfelt touch to the happy occasion.

On behalf of the commander of the RFMF who is away on official leave, Commander Tawake extended birthday wishes to the Head of State.

President Lalabalavu praised the dedication of the RFMF in upholding law and order.

“The strength of our nation lies in our collective efforts, and since assuming office, I have witnessed the vital role you play in ensuring peace and stability,” he said.

The man behind the 2000 coup in Fiji, George Speight, and the head of the mutineers, former soldier Shane Stevens, have been granted presidential pardons.

In a statement yesterday, the Fiji Correction Service said the pair were among seven prisoners who has been granted pardons by the President, Ratu Wiliame Katonivere, after recommendations by the Mercy Commission.

“These pardons were formally granted on 18 September 2024. As a result, the named individuals have been officially discharged from custody today, Thursday, 19 September 2024,” the statement said.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji coup reports

“The Fiji Correction Service and the government remain committed to the principles of justice, rehabilitation, and the rule of law, and the Mercy Commission plays a vital role in ensuring that petitions for clemency are considered carefully, with due regard to the circumstances of each case.”

Speight was serving a life sentence for the charge of treason while Stevens was serving a life sentence for the charge of mutiny.

Also released are Sekina Vosavakatini, Nioni Tagici, James Sanjesh Goundar, Adi Livini Radininausori and John Miller.

Speight sought pardon
In June 2023, Speight had applied for a presidential pardon under a mercy clause, raising the possibility of his release from prison after serving more than 20 years of a lifetime sentence.

Speight’s 2000 coup was the only civilian to raise an armed group to overthrow the government.

In 2002, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka — who started the coup culture in Fiji with two coups in 1987 — had stated a pardon for Speight would be a catastrophe and could pave the way for more coups.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Fiji journalist Felix Chaudhary recalls how the harassment began: “Initially, I was verbally warned to stop.”

“And not only warned but threatened as well. I think I was a bit ‘gung-ho’ at the time and I kind of took it lightly until the day I was taken to a particular site and beaten up.

“I was told that my mother would identify me at a mortuary. That’s when I knew that this was now serious, and that I couldn’t be so blasé and think that I’m immune.”

• READ MORE: Other QUT Project reports

Pressing risks of Chaudhary’s early career
Felix Chaudhary, now director of news, current affairs and sports at Fiji TV, and former deputy chief-of-staff at The Fiji Times, was detained and threatened several times during the period of government led by former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama from 2007 to 2022.

Commodore Bainimarama, as he was known at the time, executed his military coup in December 2006 against Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and President Josefa IIoilo.

Although some media outlets were perceived as openly supporting the government then, not all relinquished their impartiality, Chaudhary explains.

“Some media organisations decided to follow suit. The one that I worked for, The Fiji Times, committed to remaining an objective and ethical media organisation.

“Everyone who worked there knew that at some point they would face challenges.”

Military impact on sugar industry
During the early days of the coup, Chaudhary was based in Viti Levu’s Western Division in the city of Lautoka, reporting about the impact of the military takeover of the sugar cane industry. It was there that he experienced some of his most severe harassment.

“It was just unfortunate that during the takeover, I was one of the first to face the challenges, simply because I was writing stories about how the sugar cane industry was being affected,” he says.

“I was reporting about how the military takeover was affecting the livelihoods of the people who depend on this industry. There are a lot of people who depend on sugar cane farming, and not necessarily just the farmers.

“I was writing from their perspective.”

A lot of countries, including Australia, in an effort to avoid appearing sympathetic to a government ruling through military dictatorship, turned their backs on Fiji, Chaudhary explains.

“These countries took a stand, and we respect them for that,” he says.

“However, a lot of aid that used to come in started to slow down, and assistance to the sugar industry, from the European Union, didn’t come through.

“The industry was struggling. But the Fijian government tried to maintain that everything was fine as they were in control.

‘Just not sustainable’
“It was just not sustainable. They didn’t have the resources to do it, and people were feeling the impact. This was around 2009. The military had been in power since 2006.”

Chaudhary chose to focus his writing on the difficulties faced by the locals: a view that was in direct contention with the military’s agenda.

He experienced a series of threats, including assurances of death if he continued to report on the takeover. His first encounter with the military saw him seized, driven to an unknown location, and physically assaulted.

Chaudhary soon realised this was not an isolated case and the threats on his life were far from empty.

“Other people, in addition to journalists, were taken into custody for many reasons. Some ended up dead after being beaten up. That’s when I knew that could happen to me,” he says.

“I figured I’d just continue to try and be as safe as possible.”

Chaudhary was later again abducted, threatened, and locked in a cell. No reason was given, no charges were laid, and he was repeatedly told that he might never leave.

Aware of military tactics
Having served in the Fiji military in 1987–1988, Chaudhary was aware of common military tactics, and knew what these personnel were capable of. Former army colleagues had also tried to warn him of the danger he was in.

“When I was taken in by the military, I was visited by two of my former colleagues. They told me if I didn’t stop, something was going to happen,” he says.

“That set the tone. It reminded me that I needed to be more careful.”

On another occasion, military personnel entered The Fiji Times offices and proceeded to forcefully arrest both Chaudhary, and his wife, the newspaper’s current chief-of-staff, Margaret Wise.

“The military entered the newsroom while we were both at work, demanded our phones and attacked [Margaret] physically. I came to her defence, and I was also attacked. These threats were not only to me, but to her as well.”

Chaudhary admires Margaret Wise’s incredible tenacity.

“She’s a very strong woman. Any other person might have wanted to run away from it all, but we both knew we had a responsibility to be the voice for those that didn’t have one,” he says.

Dictatorships have a ‘limited lifespan’
“She also knew that governments come and go, and that dictatorships only have a limited lifespan. On the other hand, media organisations have been here for decades, in our case, a century and a half. We knew we had to get through it.”

The pair supported each other and decided to restrict their social life in an effort to protect not only themselves, but their families as well.

Looking back, Chaudhary acknowledges the danger of that period, and questions whether he would have done the same thing again, if presented with a similar situation.

“I think I might have changed the way that I did things if I had thought about the livelihoods of the people working for The Fiji Times,” he says.

“I didn’t think about that at the time. Some people might say that was a bit reckless, and maybe it was.

“I kept thinking about my family, but then you have to think about the other families as well. Sometimes you have to make a stand for what is right, no matter what the consequences are.

“People think that’s bravery. It’s not really. It’s just doing what is right, and I’m glad I’m here today.

“I have a lot of respect for other people who went through what I went through and are still alive to tell the tale.”

Chaudhary maintains that anyone in a similar situation would do the same.

“What I do know is everybody, regardless of who they are, has the wanting to do what is right. And I think if presented with this sort of situation, people would take a stand,” he says.

Fiji TV dealing with harassment
Although journalists continue to experience incidents of harassment, the form of harassment has changed, with women often receiving the worst of it, Chaudhary explains.

“Harassment now is different. Back then, they had a licence to harass you, and your policies meant nothing, because they had the backing of the military,” he says.

“Nowadays, harassment is different in the sense that there is a lot of male leaders who feel like they have the right to speak to females however they want.”

Chaudhary, through his position at Fiji TV, has used his past experiences to shape the way he deals with cases of harassment, and especially when his female journalists are targeted.

“For us at Fiji TV, it’s about empowering the female journalists to be able to face these situations in a diplomatic way. They don’t take things personally, even if the attack is verbal and personal,” he says.

“Our journalists have to understand that these individuals are acting this way because the questions being asked are difficult ones.

“I’ve tried to make changes in the way they ask their questions. They are told not to lead with the difficult questions. You ask the more positive questions and set them in a good mood, and then move to the more difficult questions.

“The way you frame the questions has a lot to do with it as well.

“When the females ask, especially these sources get personal, they use gender as a way to not answer the question and just deflect it. So, now we have to be a bit more creative in how we ask.”

Things are improving
Nevertheless, Chaudhary maintains that things are improving, citing the professionalism of his female journalists.

“We are able to break a lot of stories, and it’s the female journalists doing it,” he says.

“They are facing this new era with this new government with the hope that things are more open and transparent.

“I’m really blessed to have four women who are very strong. They understand the need to be diplomatic, but they also understand the need to get answers to the questions that need to be asked.

“They are kind of on their own, with a little bit of guidance from me. We worked out how to handle harassment, and how to get the answers. They have kind of done it on their own.”

While asking the tough questions may be a daunting exercise, it is imperative if Fiji is to avoid making the same mistakes, Chaudhary explains.

“I think for me now, it’s just about sharing what happened in the past, and getting them to understand that if we don’t ask the right questions now, we could have a situation similar to that of the last 16 years.

“This could happen if we don’t hold the current government to account, and don’t ask the hard questions now.”

Fiji’s proposal to end sexual harassment
A 2022 research report, ‘Prevalence and Impact of Sexual Harassment on Female Journalists’, revealed that more than 80 per cent of Fijian female journalists have experienced physical, verbal and online sexual harassment during the course of their work.

The report by The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme and Fiji Women’s Rights Movement also proposes numerous solutions that prioritise the safety and wellbeing of female journalists.

Acknowledging the report’s good intentions, Chaudhary argues that it hasn’t created any substantial change due to long-standing Fijian culture and social norms.

“The report was, for many people, an eye opener. For me, it wasn’t,” he says.

“Unfortunately, I work alongside some people who hold the view that because they have been in the industry for some time, they can speak to females however they want.

“There wasn’t necessarily any physical harassment, but in Fiji, we have a lot of spoken sexual innuendo.

“We have a relationship among Fijians and the indigenous community where if I’m from a certain village, or part of the country and you are from another, we are allowed to engage in colourful conversation.

“It’s part of the tradition and culture. It’s just unfortunate that that culture and tradition has also found its way into workplaces, and the media industry. So that was often the excuse given in the newsroom.

Excuse that was used
“Many say, ‘I didn’t mean that. I said it because she’s from this village, and I’m from there, so I’m allowed to.’ The intent may have been deeper than that, but that was the excuse that was used,” he says.

Chaudhary believes that the report should have sparked palpable policy change in newsrooms.

“It should have translated into engagement with different heads of newsrooms to develop policies or regulations within the organisation, aimed at addressing those issues specifically. This would ensure that young women do not enter a workplace where that culture exists.

“So, we have a report, which is great, but it didn’t turn into anything tangible that would benefit organisations.

“This should have been taken on board by government and by the different organisations to develop those policies and systems in order to change the culture because the culture still exists,” he says.

Maxim Bock is a student journalist from the Queensland University of Technology who travelled to Fiji with the support of the Australian Government’s New Colombo Plan Mobility Programme. Published in partnership with QUT.

In a democracy, citizens must critically evaluate issues based on facts. However in a very polarised society, people focus more on who is speaking than what is being said.

This was highlighted by journalism Professor Cherian George of the Hong Kong Baptist University as he delivered his keynote address during the recent 2024 Pacific International Media Conference at the Holiday Inn, Suva.

According to Professor George when a media outlet is perceived as representing the “other side”, its journalism is swiftly condemned — adding “it won’t be believed, regardless of its professionalism and quality.”

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Media 2024 reports

Professor George, an author and award-winning journalism academic was among many high-profile journalists and academics gathered at the three-day conference from July 4-6 — the first of its kind in the region in almost two decades.

The gathering of academics, media professionals, policymakers and civil society organisation representatives was organised by The University of the South Pacific in partnership with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and the Asia-Pacific Media Network (APMN).

Addressing an audience of 12 countries from the Asia Pacific region, Professor George said polarisation was a threat to democracy and institutions such as the media and universities.

“While democracy requires faith in the process and a willingness to compromise, polarization is associated with an uncompromising attitude, treating opponents as the enemy and attacking the system, bringing it down if you do not get in your way,” he said.

Fiji coups context
In the context of Fiji — which has experienced four coups, Professor George said the country had seen a steady decrease in political polarisation since 2000, according to data from the Varieties of Democracy Institute (VDI).

He said the decrease was due to government policies aimed at neutralising ethnic-based political organisations at the time. However, he warned against viewing Fiji’s experience as justification for autocratic approaches to social harmony.

“Some may look at this [VDI data] and argue that the Fiji case demonstrates that you sometimes need strongman rule and a temporary suspension of democracy to save it from itself, but the problem is that this is a highly risky formula,” he explained.

Professor George acknowledged that while the government had a role in countering polarisation through top-down attempts, there was also a need for a “bottom-up counter-polarising work done by media and civil society.”

Many professional journalists feel uncomfortable with the idea of intervening or taking a stand, Professor George said, labelling them as mirrors.

“However, if news outlets are really a mirror, it’s always a cracked mirror, pointing in a certain direction and not another,” he said.

“The media are always going to impact on reality, even as they report it objectively.

Trapped by conventions
“It’s better to acknowledge this so that your impact isn’t making things worse than they need to be. There’s ample research showing how even when the media are free to do their own thing, they are trapped by conventions and routines that accentuate polarisation,” he explained.

Professor George highlighted three key issues that exacerbate polarisation in media:

• Stereotypes — journalists often rely on stereotypes about different groups of people because it makes their storytelling easier and quicker;
• Elite focus — journalists treat prominent leaders as more newsworthy than ordinary people the leaders represent; and
• Media bias — journalists prefer to report on conflict or bad news as the public pay most attention to them.

As a result, this has created an imbalance in the media and influenced people how they perceive their social world, the professor said.

“They may come to believe that different communities in their society do not get along, since that’s what their media, all their media, regardless of political leaning, tell them every day,” Professor George explained, adding, “this perception can be self-fulfilling”.

To counter these tendencies, he pointed to reform movements such as peace and solutions journalism which aim to shift attention to grassroots priorities and possibilities for cooperation.

“We must at least agree on one thing,” he concluded. “We all possess a shared humanity and equal dignity, and this is something I hope all media and media educators in the Pacific region, around the world, regardless of political position, can work towards.”

Opening remarks
The conference opening day featured remarks from Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, head of the USP Journalism Programme and conference chair, and Dr Matthew Hayward, acting head of the School of Pacific Arts, Communications, and Education (SPACE).

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises and Communications, Manoa Kamikamica was the chief guest. Professor Cherian George delivered the keynote address.

Professor George is currently a professor of Media Studies and has published several books focusing on media and politics in Singapore and Southeast Asia. He also serves as director of the Centre for Media and Communication Research at the Hong Kong Baptist University.

The conference was sponsored the United States Embassy in Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu, the International Fund for Public Interest Media, the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, New Zealand Science Media Centre and the Pacific Women Lead — Pacific Community.

The event had more than 100 attendees from 12 countries — Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Cook Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, the United States and Hong Kong.

It provided a platform for the 51 presenters to discuss the theme of the conference “Navigating Challenges and Shaping Futures in Pacific Media Research and Practice” and their ideas on the way forward.

An official dinner held on July 4 included the launch of the 30th anniversary edition of the Pacific Journalism Review (PJR), founded by former USP journalism head professor David Robie in 1994, and launch of the book Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, which is edited by associate professor Singh, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad, and Dr Amit Sarwal, a former senior lecturer and deputy head of school (research) at USP.

The PJR is the only academic journal in the region that publishes research specifically focused on Pacific media.

A selection of the best conference papers will be published in a special edition of the Pacific Journalism Review or its companion publication Pacific Media Monographs.

Kaneta Naimatau is a final-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific. Republished in partnership with USP.

Today is the 24th anniversary of renegade and failed businessman George Speight’s coup in 2000 Fiji. The elected coalition government headed by Mahendra Chaudhry, the first and only Indo-Fijian prime minister of Fiji, was held hostage at gunpoint for 56 days in the country’s new Parliament by Speight’s rebel gunmen in a putsch that shook the Pacific and the world.

Emerging recently from almost 24 years in prison, former investigative journalist and publisher Josefa Nata — Speight’s “media minder” — is now convinced that the takeover of Fiji’s Parliament on 19 May 2000 was not justified.

He believes that all it did was let the “genie of racism” out of the bottle.

• READ MORE: Coup coup land: the press and the putsch in Fiji – David Robie
• FIJI: I was just PR consultant — Joe Nata
• USP 2000 coup student journalism archive

He spoke to Islands Business Fiji correspondent, Joe Yaya on his journey back from the dark.

The Fiji government kept you in jail for 24 years [for your media role in the coup]. That’s a very long time. Are you bitter?

I heard someone saying in Parliament that “life is life”, but they have been releasing other lifers. Ten years was conventionally considered the term of a life sentence. That was the State’s position in our sentencing. The military government extended it to 12 years. I believe it was out of malice, spitefulness and cruelty — no other reason. But to dwell in the past is counterproductive.

If there’s anyone who should be bitter, it should be me. I was released [from prison] in 2013 but was taken back in after two months, ostensibly to normalise my release papers. That government did not release me. I stayed in prison for another 10 years.

To be bitter is to allow those who hurt you to live rent free in your mind. They have moved on, probably still rejoicing in that we have suffered that long. I have forgiven them, so move on I must.

Time is not on my side. I have set myself a timeline and a to-do list for the next five years.

What are some of those things?

Since I came out, I have been busy laying the groundwork for a community rehabilitation project for ex-offenders, released prisoners, street kids and at-risk people in the law-and-order space. We are in the process of securing a piece of land, around 40 ha to set up a rehabilitation farm. A half-way house of a sort.

You can’t have it in the city. It would be like having the cat to watch over the fish. There is too much temptation. These are vulnerable people who will just relapse. They’re put in an environment where they are shielded from the lures of the world and be guided to be productive and contributing members of society.

It will be for a period of up to six months; in exceptional cases, 12 months where they will learn living off the land. With largely little education, the best opportunity for these people, and only real hope, is in the land.

Most of these at-risk people are [indigenous] Fijians. Although all native land are held by the mataqali, each family has a patch which is the “kanakana”. We will equip them and settle them in their villages. We will liaise with the family and the village.

Apart from farming, these young men and women will be taught basic life skills, social skills, savings, budgeting. When we settle them in the villages and communities, we will also use the opportunity to create the awareness that crime does not pay, that there is a better life than crime and prison, and that prison is a waste of a potentially productive life.

Are you comfortable with talking about how exactly you got involved with Speight?

The bulk of it will come out in the book that I’m working on, but it was not planned. It was something that happened on the day.

You said that when they saw you, they roped you in?

Yes. But there were communications with me the night prior. I basically said, “piss off”.

So then, what made you go to Parliament eventually? Curiosity?

No. I got a call from Parliament. You see, we were part of the government coalition at that time. We were part of the Fijian Association Party (led by the late Adi Kuini Speed). The Fiji Labour Party was our main coalition partner, and then there was the Christian Alliance. And you may recall or maybe not, there was a split in the Fijian Association [Party] and there were two factions. I was in the faction that thought that we should not go into coalition.

There was an ideological reason for the split [because the party had campaigned on behalf of iTaukei voters] but then again, there were some members who came with us only because they were not given seats in Cabinet.

Because your voters had given you a certain mandate?

Well, we were campaigning on the [indigenous] Fijian manifesto and to go into the [coalition] complicated things. Mine was more a principled position because we were a [indigenous] Fijian party and all those people went in on [indigenous] Fijian votes. And then, here we are, going into [a coalition with the Fiji Labour Party] and people probably
accused us of being opportunists.

But the Christian Alliance was a coalition partner with Labour before they went into the election in the same way that the People’s Alliance and National Federation Party were coalition partners before they got into [government], whereas with us, it was more like SODELPA (Social Democratic Liberal Party).

So, did you feel that the rights of indigenous Fijians were under threat from the Coalition government of then Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry?

Perhaps if Chaudhry was allowed to carry on, it could have been good for [indigenous] Fijians. I remember the late President and Tui Nayau [Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara] . . .  in a few conversations I had with him, he said it [Labour Party] should be allowed to . . . [carry on].

Did you think at that time that the news media gave Chaudhry enough space for him to address the fears of the iTaukei people about what he was trying to do, especially for example, through the Land Use Commission?

I think the Fijians saw what he was doing and that probably exacerbated or heightened the concerns of [indigenous] Fijians and if you remember, he gave Indian cane farmers certain financial privileges.

The F$10,000 grants to move from Labasa, when the ALTA (Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Act) leases expired. Are you talking about that?

I can’t remember the exact details of the financial assistance but when they [Labour Party] were questioned, they said, “No, there were some Fijian farmers too”. There were also iTaukei farmers but if you read in between the lines, there were like 50 Indian farmers and one Fijian farmer.

Was there enough media coverage for the rural population to understand that it was not a one-sided ethnic policy?

Because there were also iTaukei farmers involved. Yes, and I think when you try and pull the wool over other people, that’s when they feel that they have been hoodwinked. But going back to your question of whether Chaudhry was given fair media coverage, I was no longer in the mainstream media at that time. I had moved on.

But the politicians have their views and they’ll feel that they have been done badly by the media. But that’s democracy. That’s the way things worked out.

Pacific journalism educator, David Robie, in a paper in 2001, made some observations about the way the local media reported the Speight takeover. He said, “In the early weeks of the insurrection, the media enjoyed an unusually close relationship with Speight and the hostage takers.”

He went on to say that at times, there was “strong sympathy among some journalists for the cause, even among senior editorial executives”.

David Robie is an incisive and perceptive old-school journalist who has a proper understanding of issues and I do not take issue with his opinion. And I think there is some validity. But you see, I was on the other [Speight’s] side. And it was part of my job at that time to swing that perception from the media.

Did you identify with “the cause” and did you think it was legitimate?

Let me tell you in hindsight, that the coup was not justified
and that is after a lot of reflection. It was not justified and
could never be justified.

When did you come to that conclusion?

It was after the period in Parliament and after things were resolved and then Parliament was vacated, I took a drive around town and I saw the devastation in Suva. This was a couple of months later. I didn’t realise the extent of the damage and I remember telling myself, “Oh my god, what have we done? What have we done?”

And I realised that we probably have let the genie out of the bottle and it scared me [that] it only takes a small thing like this to unleash this pentup emotion that is in the people. Of course, a lot of looting was [by] opportunists because at that time, the people who
were supporting the cause were all in Parliament. They had all marched to Parliament.

So, who did the looting in town? I’m not excusing that. I’m just trying to put some perspective. And of course, we saw pictures, which was really, very sad . . .  of mothers, women, carrying trolleys [of loot] up the hill, past the [Colonial War Memorial] hospital.

So, what was Speight’s primary motivation?

Well, George will, I’m sure, have the opportunity at some point to tell the world what his position was. But he was never the main player. He was ditched with the baby on his laps.

So, there were people So, there were people behind him. He was the man of the moment. He was the one facing the cameras.

Given your education, training, experience in journalism, what kind of lens were you viewing this whole thing from?

Well, let’s put it this way. I got a call from Parliament. I said, “No, I’m not coming down.” And then they called again.

Basically, they did not know where they were going. I think what was supposed to have happened didn’t happen. So, I got another call, I got about three or four calls, maybe five. And then eventually, after two o’clock I went down to Parliament, because the person who called was a friend of mine and somebody who had shared our fortunes and misfortunes.

So, did you get swept away? What was going on inside your head?

I joined because at that point, I realised that these people needed help. I was not so much as for the cause, although there was this thing about what Chaudhry was doing. I also took that into account. But primarily because the call came [and] so I went.

And when I was finally called into the meeting, I walked in and I saw faces that I’d never seen before. And I started asking the questions, “Have you done this? Have you done that?”

And as I asked the questions, I was also suggesting solutions and then I just got dragged into it. The more I asked questions, the more I found out how much things were in disarray.

I just thought I’d do my bit [because] they were people who had taken over Parliament and they did not know where to go from there.

But you were driven by some nationalistic sentiments?

I am a [indigenous] Fijian. And everything that goes with that. I’m not infallible. But then again, I do not want to blow that trumpet.

Did the group see themselves as freedom fighters of some sort when you went into prison?

I’m not a freedom fighter. If they want to be called freedom fighters, that’s for them and I think some of them even portrayed themselves [that way]. But not me. I’m just an idiot who got sidetracked.

This personal journey that you’ve embarked on, what brought that about?

When I was in prison, I thought about this a lot. Because for me to come out of the bad place I was in — not physically, that I was in prison, but where my mind was — was to first accept the situation I was in and take responsibility. That’s when the healing started to take place.

And then I thought that I should write to people that I’ve hurt. I wrote about 200 letters from prison to anybody I thought I had hurt or harmed or betrayed. Groups, individuals, institutions, and families. I was surprised at the magnanimity of the people who received my letters.

I do not know where they all are now. I just sent it out. I was touched by a lot of the responses and I got a letter from the late [historian] Dr Brij Lal. l was so encouraged and I was so emotional when I read the letter. [It was] a very short letter and the kindness in the man to say that, “We will continue to talk when you come out of prison.”

There were also the mockers, the detractors, certain persons who said unkind things that, you know, “He’s been in prison and all of a sudden, he’s . . . “. That’s fine, I accepted all that as part of the package. You take the bad with the good.

I wrote to Mr Chaudhry and I had the opportunity to apologise to him personally when he came to visit in prison. And I want to continue this dialogue with Mr Chaudhry if he would like to.

Because if anything, I am among the reasons Fiji is in this current state of distrust and toxic political environment. If I can assist in bringing the nation together, it would be part of my atonement for my errors. For I have been an unprofitable, misguided individual who would like to do what I believe is my duty to put things right.

And I would work with anyone in the political spectrum, the communal leaders, the vanua and the faith organisations to bring that about.

I also did my traditional apology to my chiefly household of Vatuwaqa and the people of the vanua of Lau. I had invited the Lau Provincial Council to have its meeting at the Corrections Academy in Naboro. By that time, the arrangements had been confirmed for the Police Academy.

But the Roko gave us the farewell church service. I got my dear late sister, Pijila to organise the family. I presented the matanigasau to the then-Council Chairman, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (Roko Ului). It was a special moment, in front of all the delegates to the council meeting, the chiefly clan of the Vuanirewa, and Lauans who filled the two buses and
countless vehicles that made it to Naboro.

Our matanivanua (herald) was to make the tabua presentation. But I took it off him because I wanted Roko Ului and the people of Lau to hear my remorse from my mouth. It was very, very emotional. Very liberating. Cathartic.

Late last year, the Coalition government passed a motion in Parliament for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Do you support that?

Oh yes, I think everything I’ve been saying so far points that way.

Do you think it’ll help those that are still incarcerated to come out and speak about what happened in 2000?

Well, not only that but the important thing is [addressing] the general [racial] divide. If that’s where we should start, then we should start there. That’s how I’m looking at it — the bigger picture.

It’s not trying to manage the problems or issues of the last 24 years. People are still hurting from [the coups of] 1987. And what happened in 2006 — nothing has divided this country so much. Anybody who’s thought about this would want this to go beyond just solving the problem of 2000, excusing, and accusing and after that, there’s forgiveness and pardon.

That’s a small part. That too if it needs to happen. But after all that, I don’t want anybody to go to prison because of their participation or involvement in anything from 1987 to 2000. If they cooked the books later, while they were in government, then that’s a different
matter.

But I saw on TV, the weeping and the very public expression of pain of [the late, former Prime Minister, Laisenia] Qarase’s grandchildren when he was convicted and taken away [to prison]. It brought tears to my eyes. There is always a lump in my throat at the memory of my Heilala’s (elder of two daughters) last visit to [me in] Nukulau.

Hardly a word was spoken as we held each other, sobbing uncontrollably the whole time, except to say that Tiara (his sister) was not allowed by the officers at the naval base to come to say her goodbye.

That was very painful. I remember thinking that people can be cruel, especially when the girls explained that it was to be their last visit. Then the picture in my mind of Heilala sitting alone under the turret of the navy ship as she tried not to look back. I had asked her not to look back.

I deserved what I got. But not them. I would not wish the same things I went through on anyone else, not even those who were malicious towards me.

It is the family that suffers. The family are always the silent victims. It is the family that stands by you. They may not agree with what you did. Perhaps it is among the great gifts of God, that children forgive parents and love them still despite the betrayal, abandonment, and pain.

For I betrayed the two women I love most in the world. I betrayed ‘Ulukalala [son] who was born the same year I went to prison. I betrayed and brought shame to my family and my village of Waciwaci. I betrayed friends of all ethnicities and those who helped me in my chosen profession and later, in business.

I betrayed the people of Fiji. That betrayal was officially confirmed when the court judgment called me a traitor. I accepted that portrayal and have to live with it. The judges — at least one of them — even opined that I masterminded the whole thing. I have to decline that dubious honour. That belongs elsewhere.

This article by Joe Yaya is republished from last month’s Islands Business magazine cover story with the permission of editor Richard Naidu and Yaya. The photographs are from a 2000 edition of the International Press Institute’s Global Journalist magazine dedicated to the reporting of The University of the South Pacific’s student journalists. Joe Yaya was a member of the USP team at the time. The archive of the award-winning USP student coverage of the coup is here.   

Former Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has been sentenced to one year in prison, Fiji media are reporting.

Bainimarama, alongside suspended Fiji Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho appeared in the High Court in Suva today for their sentencing hearing for a case involving their roles in blocking a police investigation at the University of the South Pacific in 2021.

Qiliho has been sentenced to two years jail.

• READ MORE: Other Bainimarama case reports

Bainimarama and Qiliho jailed.      Video: Fiji Village

Bainimarama, the 69-year-old former military commander and 2006 coup leader, had been found guilty of perverting the course of justice.

Qiliho had been found guilty of abuse of office by the High Court Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo, who upheld the state’s appeal.

Bainimarama and Qiliho walked out of the High Court in Suva in handcuffs, and were escorted straight into a police vehicle.

“The former PM and the suspended COMPOL were found not guilty and acquitted accordingly by Resident Magistrate Seini Puamau at the Suva Magistrates Court on 12 October 2023,” the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said.

“The State had filed an appeal against their acquittal where the Acting Chief Justice, Salesi Temo then overturned the Magistrate’s decision and found the two guilty as charged. The matter was then sent back to the Magistrates’ Court for sentencing.

“In sentencing the duo, Magistrate Puamau announced that both their convictions would not be registered. The former PM was granted an absolute discharge while the suspended COMPOL received a conditional discharge with a fine of $1500 on 28 March 2024 by the Suva Magistrates Court following which the State had filed an appeal and challenged the discharge for a custodial sentence.

“The Acting Chief Justice quashed the Magistrate Court’s sentence and pronounced the custodial sentences respectively.”

Earlier today, local media reported an increased police presence outside the Suva court complex.

“There is more pronounced police presence than usual with vehicles being checked upon entry. A section has been cordoned off in front of the High Court facing Holiday Inn,” broadcaster fijivillage.com reported.

State broadcaster FBC reported that police only allowed close relatives and Bainimarama and Qiliho’s associates, along with the media, to sit in the courtroom.

MPs from the main opposition FijiFirst party in Parliament, including opposition leader Inia Seruiratu, Faiyaz Koya were present in court.

Brief timeline:

• The duo were sentenced by the Magistrates Court on 28 March.
• Magistrate Seini Puamau gave Bainimarama an absolute discharge — the lowest level sentence an offender can get and no conviction was registered.
• Qiliho was fined FJ$1500 and without a conviction as well.
• The 69-year-old former military commander and 2006 coup leader was found guilty of perverting the course of justice in a case related to the University of the South Pacific; and suspended police chief Qiliho was found guilty of abuse of office by the High Court Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo.
• Magistrate Puamau’s judgement had left many in the legal circles and commentators in the country perplexed.
• The State – through the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution – had appealed the sentencing straightaway to the High Court.
• They were back in court 7 days later — during the court appearance at the High Court, the Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo, gave time until the 24 April for the respondents to file their submissions and for the State to reply by the 29th.
• The sentencing hearing was last Thursday, 2 May.
• Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo sentences Bainimarama to one year in jail and Qiliho for two years.

Bainimarama’s attempt to pervert the course of justice charge had a maximum tariff of five years while Qiliho’s charge of abuse of office carried a maximum tariff of 10 years.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Army commander Major-General Jone Kalouniwai has highlighted the need for the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to “redeem itself” as an institution and embark on a process of transformation, reconciliation, and restoration.

Speaking at the Force Church Service for the RFMF at Queen Elizabeth Barracks, Major-General Kalouniwai said the 1987, 2000, and 2006 political upheavals were mentioned as key moments in Fiji’s history where the RFMF played a significant role in coups.

He said yesterday marked a significant event as the institution embarked on a journey of reconciliation and restoration.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji coup reports

Major-General Kalouniwai emphasised the importance of acknowledging past wrongs and seeking reconciliation with those who had been affected by the actions of the RFMF.

He urged members of the RFMF to reach out to those who had been wronged and amend things in order to set things right.

The army commander said the call for reconciliation and restoration came at a crucial time for the RFMF as it sought to move forward from its troubled past and build a more positive and inclusive future.

The RFMF said Major-General Kalouniwai’s words served as a reminder of the responsibility that the RFMF had to the people of Fiji and the importance of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation in order to heal the wounds of the past.

Symbolic gesture
The Force Church Service at Queen Elizabeth Barracks was a symbolic gesture of the RFMF’s commitment to reconciliation and restoration.

The army said it was hoped that this event would mark the beginning of a new chapter for the RFMF, one that was characterised by transparency, accountability, and a commitment to upholding the values of democracy and respect for human rights.

It also said that as the RFMF embarked on this journey of reconciliation and restoration, it was important for all members of the institution to reflect on their actions and strive to make amends for past wrongs.

They said by acknowledging the mistakes of the past and seeking forgiveness, the RFMF could begin rebuilding trust with the people of Fiji and move towards a more peaceful and prosperous future.

Vijay Narayan is news director of Fijivillage News. Republished with permission.

A Fiji human rights advocacy coalition has condemned Fiji’s “profoundly troubling” stance as being one of only two countries supporting continued illegal occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territories.

The Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights (NGOCHR) said the occupation had been widely recognised by the international community — including the United Nations — as a “violation of international law” and an impediment to peace and self-determination of the Palestinian people”.

It called on Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government to withdraw support for Israel and back a “just and lasting peace in Palestine” in its oral submissions before the International Court of Justice hearings in The Hague next Monday.

• READ MORE: Palestinian foreign minister tells ICJ of ‘besieged, bombed and killed’ Gazans
• What’s the ICJ case against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine?
• Other War on Gaza reports

Fiji is the only country apart, from the United States, backing Israel after its genocidal war against the Palestinians over the past four months. Fifty countries and three international organisations are supporting Palestine.

“By supporting the Israeli occupation, the Fijian government not only isolates itself from the international community but also from the very principles of justice and human dignity it purports to uphold,” said NGOCHR chair Shamima Ali.

“Such a position undermines Fiji’s reputation and casts a shadow over its commitment to the values enshrined in international law.

“The decision to support the genocidal, violent occupation raises serious questions about the processes and considerations behind Fiji’s foreign policy choices. It is imperative that the Fijian government demonstrates accountability and transparency in its decision-making.”

Transparency demanded
The coalition demanded that Prime Minister Rabuka, a former military officer who led Fiji’s first two military coups in 1987 and who is also Foreign Minister, publicly reveals who had drafted the submissions on Fiji and why the country was taking such a position.

In a statement, the coalition said that NGOCHR “and our allies, as staunch advocates for human rights and justice, expresses its profound dismay and unequivocal condemnation of the Fijian government’s decision to submit a written statement in support of the Israeli genocidal occupation of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.”

“This submission, made to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of hearings on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territor[ies], places Fiji alongside the United States as one of the only two countries endorsing such a stance.”

In September 2023, said the statement, the Israeli occupation, which had been enduring and marked by efforts to annex Palestinian land both legally and in practice, had been unequivocally deemed unlawful by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel.

In October 2023, the commission concluded that the permanence of the occupation and Israel’s annexation measures rendered it unlawful — a stance echoed by leading human rights organisations worldwide, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

“The global consensus on this matter, formed by UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing and a host of international human rights NGOs, underscores the severity of the occupation’s impact on the Palestinian people,” Ali’s statement said.

“These reports detail egregious violations of human rights and international law, painting a stark picture of the suffering endured by countless individuals under the occupation.

Serious questions raised
“The decision to support the genocidal, violent occupation raises serious questions about the processes and considerations behind Fiji’s foreign policy choices.

“It is imperative that the Fijian government demonstrates accountability and transparency in its decision-making.

“The public has a right to understand how such positions, which significantly impact [on] Fiji’s standing on the global stage and its moral compass, are determined. We call upon the government to disclose the rationale and any consultations or analyses that led to this stance.

“This call for clarity is not just about ensuring governmental transparency; it’s about reaffirming Fiji’s dedication to principles that respect human dignity and international law.

“Without this openness, the trust between the Fijian people and their government risks being eroded, especially on matters of international significance that reflect on the entire nation.”

The coalition called on the Fiji government to reconsider its position and to align its international engagements with the “principles of human dignity, justice, and respect for international law”.

‘Advocate for justice, rights’
“We urge the Fijian government to demonstrate its commitment to human rights and justice by advocating for the rights of all people, including the Palestinian people, to live in peace, security, and dignity.

“We stand in solidarity with those advocating for peaceful resolution of conflicts and upholding human rights worldwide. The NGOCHR will continue to monitor this situation closely and support Fiji in adopting a foreign policy that reflects the values of its people and the principles of international law.”

The Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights represents the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC), Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM), Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF), femLINKPacific, Social Empowerment and Education Programme (SEEP) and DIVA for Equality Fiji (DIVA).

The Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) is also an observer (PANG).

Fiji independence day celebrations — “Fiji Day” — this week was a jovial occasion with thousands of flag waving citizens accompanying the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Band as they marched through the streets Suva towards Albert Park for a flag raising ceremony.

October 10 marked the republic’s 53rd year since it gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1970.

Fiji’s chiefs volunteered to cede their sovereignty to the British realm in 1874, gathering in Levuka — Fiji’s old capital — to sign a Deed of Cession. There was a re-enactment of that historic moment with young Fijians dressed in 18th century outfits of British diplomats and Fijian and Tongan chiefs who signed the deed.

“We must remember with gratitude all of those [who] contributed to the development and modernisation of our beloved Fiji,” Fiji President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere said in a televised state address.

“Among the many important decisions taken by our forefathers embracing Christianity was and will continue to be our guiding light, we have continued to embrace and respect our multiculturalism and our diverse cultures and religions, our differences make us unique as one people,” he added.

In Albert park, a military parade took place with formations of decorated officers marching around the park to the tune of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Band.

Fiji’s elite were in attendance from the park stands led by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka. A gun salute from three Howitzers artillery guns topped off the occasions soon after crowds stood attention to the Fijian anthem.

‘Uncertain times’
Ratu Wiliame outlined some of the challenges faced by the country — re-iterating the same concerns raised by Rabuka at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York last month.

“We are living in uncertain times,” Ratu Wiliame said.

“Climate change has resulted in frequent tropical cyclones, longer dry spells, floodings and sea level rise for us in the Pacific — it has displaced communities resulting in relocations and loss of culture.

“Like the rest of the world, we cannot turn a blind eye to the current war of aggression in the Ukraine, our nation like other nations in the world are facing supply change disruptions and threats to food security being heavily reliant on food imports.”

The anniversary is the country’s first under the leadership of Prime Minister Rabuka who was elected in the general elections last year, ousting the 16 year long reign of his predecessor Voreqe Bainimarama, regarded by his opposition as a democratically elected dictator, who imposed autocratic policies restricting freedom of the press and for oppressing political opponents from scrutinising his FijiFirst government.

For many Fijians and pro-democracy advocates in the country, the 2022 general election symbolised a return to democracy, following a peaceful election. Fiji has a history of political turmoil, having experienced four coups in the space of four decades.

Rabuka himself led the first coup in 1987 — a notorious event which saw racially motivated attacks and rioting against Fijians of Indian heritage. In May this year, he offered a public apology to the victims in a special ceremony.

‘Peace a cornerstone’
“In our multicultural society, peace serves as the cornerstone that nurtures unity and drives progress,” Rabuka said.

“Together, as one united people, we will continue to build a Fiji that thrives economically and stands as a shining example of unity in diversity.”

President Ratu Katonivere called on Fijians to “focus on the future”.

“We have had our share of pain and heartaches, we have paid highly for some decisions and actions that were taken in the past,” he said.

“We must continue to remind ourselves that lessons we have learnt from the past so that we can build a better future for the next generation.

“We must embrace our strengths and achievements, and be forward looking.

“As we reflect on our history, I urge all Fijians to celebrate the triumphs we have achieved and focus on the future.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Fiji’s Parliament has passed a motion for the coalition government to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission “to facilitate open and free engagement in truth telling” to resolve racial differences and concerns in the country.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had announced in December 2022 after forming a coalition that the setting up of such a body “to heal the pains and scars left by the events of the 1987, 2000 and 2006 coups” was one of its top priorities.

On Wednesday, 28 MPs voted for the motion, 23 voted against while four did not vote.

• READ MORE: Threat of another coup still ‘one of biggest dangers’ for Fiji, says Ratuva
• Other Fiji coup culture reports

While tabling the motion in the Parliament, Fiji’s Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran said people were still hurting from “political upheavals” and “many unresolved issues” from the past.

Kiran said the commission would offer “closure and healing” to individuals who were still affected by Fiji’s turbulent history.

In May, the Methodist Church of Fiji initiated a national prayer and reconciliation programme during the Girmit Day celebrations. Kiran said the participation of leaders and various faith groups at the event signalled that Fijians were ready for the healing process.

“Some may ask whether this is the time for it. Some may say we should focus on cost of living and on better public services and I understand [that],” she said.

‘Many unresolved issues’
“I know from many long years of personal engagement with our people a lot of people are hurting. There are many unresolved issues that need closure.

“Can we be a prosperous society if we live in fear and insecurity, if we do not trust our neighbours and carry wounded hearts.”

She said Fiji had been plagued by political turmoil for more than three decades with four coups.

“We are not looking deep inside ourselves to learn the lessons of the past. It is easier to look away from the painful events and perhaps pretend that they did not happen.

“But constant echoes of divide, narratives of the past remind us that there are deep rooted wounds in may hearts unable to heal.”

An emotional Rabuka said the commission would “remove the division between the two main communities that have co-existed since well before independence” in 1970.

He said the opposition did not have any reason to oppose the motion.

‘I am opening it up’
“I have, but I am opening it up. I would probably want to hide a long of things I know [but] none of you [MPs] has anything to hide so we should cooperate and work for this,” Rabuka said.

However, opposition MPs did not back the motion, saying a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would do more harm than good.

Tackle ‘deep-rooted problems’ – Naupoto
FijiFirst MP and former military commander Viliame Naupoto, in a teary intervention, said “the problem we have is the divide in our society”.

“The divide along racial lines, now there’s even a bigger divide along political lines. I think the big task we have is try and narrow the divide as much as we can and keep working on it,” Naupoto said.

“When we have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission you are opening wounds of the past. If it needs to be opened, it needs to be treated so that it can heal.”

Naupoto cautioned that political leaders needed to ensure they were not creating new wounds by opening wounds of the past.

“Equality that we strive for can be dealt with policies that unite us,” he said.

“When we see that most of the things that were put in place by the government of the past it means also that the 200,000 voters that voted for us are feeling bad . . . and so our divide widens now.

“I plead that if you want and work on that utopian dream of this country that is prosperous and peaceful and stable, we have to be tough and face the deep-rooted problems that we have.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The biggest danger to Fiji’s security and stability remains the possibility of another coup “when the circumstances are right”, warns a leading Fiji academic.

University of Canterbury’s Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies director Professor Steven Ratuva said this while speaking at the recent National Federation Party’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations in Rakiraki.

“Elections don’t solve problems — in fact in the case of Fiji, coups start after an election,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji ‘coup culture’ reports

“So elections is a means to achieving towards something. In the last few weeks we have heard rumours about coups.

“What is this thing about rumours and coups in Fiji?

“It has developed a particular consciousness where it has been seen as a potential alternative to political change.

“In the case of Fiji, because of that consciousness that is built in us, which has been there and has been deep, that whenever there is an election, people just start feeling the consciousness of the potential for a coup to happen.

“How can we talk about the consciousness of coups and the way we see coups as something that we still see, it’s there, lurking around.

“The effects may linger and when the circumstances are right, they might come out again and that is one of the biggest dangers in terms of Fiji’s security and stability in the country.”

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

Conflict and insufficient social cohesion are the biggest challenges in Fiji, and all and any efforts to mitigate and address this situation are laudable.

The research literature posits that while news media can exacerbate social and political conflicts through their reporting styles and focus, they also have the potential to alleviate tense situations by adopting conducive, conflict resolution methodologies.

The Conflict-Sensitive Reporting Manual for Fijian Journalists includes guidelines to approach and report conflicts in a responsible manner by, among other things, conducting the requisite research, and avoiding unnecessarily inflammatory tones.

• READ MORE: Other conflict-sensitive reporting articles

Dialogue Fiji is the most active civil society in the “social cohesion” space and besides this manual, it published the proceedings of its first symposium on social cohesion in 2017 entitled Ethnic Relations in Fiji: Threats and Opportunities.

The book, which I co-edited with Dialogue Fiji executive director Nilesh Lal, not only highlighted the challenges of social cohesion in Fiji, but also the reservoir of goodwill in our communities, despite everything that we have been through together.

More than 50 years after independence we are still struggling with social cohesion, not the least because it is a complex problem given our context, with no overnight solutions.

The problem requires commitment from every sector of our nation, the news media being no exception.

National media’s contribution
In this regard, conflict-sensitive reporting can be seen as the national media’s contribution to social cohesion and nation-building.

To understand how conflict-sensitive reporting can contribute positively, we first need to look at the media-conflict dynamic, that is, how media conventionally report conflicts.

According to critics, most violent conflicts are “rooted in resource or land disputes, but fought with strong references to ethnic, cultural, and religious identities”.

The news media tend to focus on the manifestations of conflict, such as the tensions, violence, and damage, rather than the root causes, or possible solutions to any disputes. This lopsided approach risks feeding prejudices and fueling misconceptions.

Conflict-sensitive reporting, on the other hand, takes a nuanced approach to the coverage of conflicts, in that it does not regard conflict as run-of-the mill, daily news reporting round, but something that needs extra care and attention.

Conflict-sensitive reporting is an informed and considered approach, based on a commitment to understanding the roots of a conflict and reporting in an in-depth and circumspect manner.

The idea is to not only “do no harm” but report stories with the aim of facilitating solutions to conflict.

Fair and balanced?
It should be pointed that conflict-sensitive reporting is an idea that is not fully accepted in the news media fraternity, which has traditionally espoused reporting the “facts” in a fair and balanced manner. But what is “fair”, “balanced” and “objective” is in itself heavily debated in the news media sector.

As a university journalism programme, we at the University of the South Pacific are open to researching and experimenting with new and innovative concepts like conflict-sensitive reporting.

The framework has been designed for developing countries with multiethnic communities at greater risk of conflict, than societies with greater ethnic homogeneity.

Such countries are highly susceptible to movement towards civil conflict and/or repressive rule. If this sounds familiar, it is because “civil conflict and repressive rule” have been very much part of our existence in Fiji.

Fiji, mired in ethnic tensions and political differences culminating in four coups fits the description of “fragile” or “vulnerable” societies”.

Media have described Fiji’s coups as “short-lived”, “clean-up-campaign” or “coup-to-end all coups.”

This terminology is regrettable because it grossly underestimates the lingering, sustained, pervasive and long-term damage of our coup culture.

Infrastructure deficit
For example, research published by professors Biman Prasad and Paresh Narayan in 2008 indicates a 20-year infrastructure deficit of $3.4 billion partly due to instability.

Likewise, Professor Wadan Narsey in his 2013 article estimates that by 2011, Fiji had lost $1700 million because of the 2006 coup alone.

This included $400 million in government revenue, which could have been used in education, health, infrastructure and public debt repayments.

Because of just a few deaths due to the four coups in Fiji, media often describe these upheavals as “bloodless coups”.

However, in social and economic terms, the coups caused a bloodbath.

The expression “death by a thousand cuts” comes to mind. We do not feel the pain immediately because after the initial shock, there are smaller aftershocks that we feel and absorb over the course of years and decades.

In time, these repeated blows add up to inflict deeper wounds that are more difficult to heal, but we adjust to the pain, normalise it, and learn to live with our situation, especially the poor and disadvantaged, who face the brunt of it.

Low life expectancy
In Fiji these wounds are manifest in the lack of services, dilapidated infrastructure, low life expectancy, lack of opportunities, low employment and high crime, brain drain, and so forth.

Fiji gives meaning to renowned author Paul Collier’s words: “Wars and coups are not tea parties: they are development in reverse”.

Some of the key underlying causes of our lack of progress are the lack of social cohesion and national unity, which equal unrealised potential.

Since the 1980s there has been idle talk of turning Fiji into a Singapore, and more recently, political chatter about Fiji surpassing Australia and New Zealand

In my opinion, this is a pipe dream unless and until we get social cohesion right, learn to resolve our differences without guns, and move together as a united force.

This requires leadership and vision from the government, support and selflessness from citizens and professionalism and responsibility from the news media, with regards to taking it on themselves to understand the national context, and tailor their coverage accordingly 

This is an edited version of Associate Professor Shailendra Bahadur Singh’s launch address for Dialogue Fiji’s Conflict Sensitive Reporting Manual for Fijian Journalists on 8 August 2023 at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji. It was also first published in The Fiji Times.

Research on climate crisis as the new target for disinformation peddlers, governance and the media, China’s growing communication influence, and journalism training strategies feature strongly in the latest Pacific Journalism Review.

Byron C. Clark, author of the recent controversial book Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists, and Canterbury University postgraduate researcher Emanuel Stokes, have produced a case study about climate crisis as the new pandemic disinformation arena with the warning that “climate change or public health emergencies can be seized upon by alternative media and conspiracist influencers” to “elicit outrage and protest”.

The authors argue that journalists need a “high degree of journalistic ethics and professionalism to avoid amplifying hateful, dehumanising narratives”.

• READ MORE: The July 2023 PJR table of contents
• Other PJR editions

PJR editor Dr Philip Cass adds an article unpacking the role of Pacific churches, both positive and negative, in public information activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Several articles deal with media freedom in the Pacific in the wake of the pandemic, including a four-country examination by some of the region’s leading journalists and facilitated by Dr Amanda Watson of Australian National University and associate professor Shailendra Singh of the University of the South Pacific.

They conclude that the pandemic “has been a stark reminder about the link between media freedom and the financial viability of media of organisations, especially in the Pacific”.

Dr Ann Auman, a specialist in crosscultural and global media ethics from the University of Hawai’i, analyses challenges facing the region through a workshop at the newly established Pacific Media Institute in Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Repeal of draconian Fiji law
The ousting of the Voreqe Bainimarama establishment that had been in power in Fiji in both military and “democratic” forms since the 2006 coup opened the door to greater media freedom and the repeal of the draconian Fiji Media Law. Two articles examine the implications of this change for the region.

An Indonesian researcher, Justito Adiprasetio of Universitas Padjadjaran, dissects the impact of Jakarta’s 2021 “terrorist” branding of the Free West Papua movement on six national online news media groups.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, media analyst Dr Gavin Ellis discusses “denying oxygen” to those who create propaganda for terrorists in the light of his recent research with Dr Denis Muller of Melbourne University and how Australia might benefit from New Zealand media initiatives, while RNZ executive editor Jeremy Rees reflects on a historical media industry view of training, drawing from Commonwealth Press Union reviews of the period 1979-2002.

Across the Tasman, Griffith University communication and journalism programme director Dr Kasun Ubayasiri presents a powerful human rights Photoessay documenting how the Meanjin (Brisbane) local community rallied around to secure the release of 120 medevaced refugee men locked up in an urban motel.

Monash University associate professor Johan Lidberg led a team partnering in International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) studies about “the world according to China”, the global media influence strategies of a superpower.

The Frontline section features founding editor Dr David Robie’s case study about the Pacific Media Centre which was originally published by Japan’s Okinawan Journal of Island Studies.

A strong Obituary section featuring two personalities involved in investigating the 1975 Balibo Five journalist assassination by Indonesian special forces in East Timor and a founder of the Pacific Media Centre plus nine Reviews round off the edition.

Pacific Journalism Review, founded at the University of Papua New Guinea, is now in its 29th year and is New Zealand’s oldest journalism research publication and the highest ranked communication journal in the country.

It is published by the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) Incorporated educational nonprofit.

“The people of Fiji don’t deserve to go through another coup.”

This was the view shared by Fiji Navy commander Captain Humphrey Tawake while speaking to The Fiji Times during the Fiji Navy Day celebrations at Stanley Brown Naval Base in Walu Bay, Suva, this week.

“Fiji, as a nation doesn’t need another coup,” said Tawake, who is also deputy RFMF commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF).

• READ MORE: Other Fiji coups reports

“The RFMF commander has made his stance and we will abide by that.

“We will abide by the rule of law, there will be no more coups.

“We will respect the democratic process that has taken place and we must be mindful that we all have a role to play.”

Captain Tawake said at the event on Thursday that people or institutions should stop using the RFMF for their personal or political agenda.

‘Steadfast’ over rule of law
“RFMF is a professional institution and we stand steadfast to the rule of law and democracy.

“I stand by the RFMF commander, and I want to reiterate that again.”

RFMF commander Major-General Ro Jone Kalouniwai said last week he had made it clear during the Commander’s Parade earlier this month that the constitutional process must be followed.

He said they would continue to abide by the rule of law and order and continue to respect the decision of the people for voting in this particular government — the ruling coalition of Sitiveni Rabuka, who is both a former coup leader and prime minister.

Meanwhile, he said Thursday’s event was about commemorating 48 years of existence and the institution’s humble beginning in 1975.

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

“Our people are fed up with coups”  — this is the message from renowned Fijian academic Professor Steven Ratuva as he reiterated the statement shared by Minister for Home Affairs Pio Tikoduadua earlier this week.

Professor Ratuva, director of Canterbury University’s Centre for Pacific Studies in New Zealand, said coups had no place in modern politics and Fiji was no exception.

“It corrupts and destroys the very principles on which constitutional democracy is built, it is destructive to the economy, disrupts social relationships and wellbeing and creates a cycle of instability in the long run,” he said.

• READ MORE: ‘Get used to the political culture of coalition’, says Ratuva
• Fijians desire peace; no more coups – Tikoduadua
• Other Steven Ratuva reports

“A coup is like the covid epidemic with a long tail and unfortunately, we are still in the shadows of the long tails of the previous coups because the impacts are still with us, even as years pass.

“Up to a point, people will reach the coup-fatigue threshold and Fiji would have reached it long ago, as people are just fed up [with] coups and simply hearing rumours associated with coups, it is psychologically traumatising to say the least.”

Professor Ratuva said the whole nation had collectively been traumatised by the series of coups in the past since 1987 and it was time to “put a stop to this scourge”.

He added that the military, as a professional security institution, was often subjected to external political interests and pressures to serve narrow political and personal ends.

Military for ‘nation-building’
He also commended the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) Commander Ro Jone Kalouniwai for his conduct during this time.

“The military must be an independent institution for national security and nation-building, not a tool for illegal state capture by some,” Professor Ratuva said.

“Fiji’s military commander is a highly educated officer with an internationally reputable status and his calm and intelligent response to destabilising rumours, gives the nation a sense of assurance and comfort.

“He and the military will need support by all political parties and citizens generally to maintain stability in these challenging times.”

Shayal Devi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Fiji’s 2000 coup leader George Speight, who has been serving time in prison for more than 20 years, has applied for a presidential pardon so he can be released.

When questioned by Fijivillage News, Attorney-General and Chair of the Mercy Commission, Siromi Turaga confirmed that Speight had made an application and the consideration process was underway.

According to the 2013 Constitution, on the petition of any convicted person, the commission may recommend that the President exercise a power of mercy by granting a free or conditional pardon to a person convicted of an offence; remitting all or a part of a punishment.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji coup reports

The commission may dismiss a petition that it reasonably considers to be frivolous, vexatious or entirely without merit, but otherwise

• must consider a report on the case prepared by the judge who presided at the trial; or the Chief Justice, if a report cannot be obtained from the presiding judge;
• must consider any other information derived from the record of the case or elsewhere that is available to the Commission; and
• may consider the views of the victims of the offence.

The Constitution states that the President must act in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.

Fijivillage News has received information that the process has gone through the Fiji Corrections Service, the case management process for George Speight has been done through the judiciary, the commission has had its meeting and a decision is expected from President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere.

Next batch release?
Based on the processes followed under the Constitution, Speight could be released in the next batch of people to be given mercy by the President.

Speight was arrested and taken into custody on 26 July 2000.

In February 2002, he was convicted of treason and sentenced to death — the sentence was later commuted to life in prison by the President.

George Speight led a small group of armed men to the Parliament complex in Veiuto on the morning of 19 May 2000, and seized then Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and his government hostage.

The hostage crisis lasted for 56 days.

In 2020, the then Leader of Opposition, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu urged the President and the then government to also consider the release of prisoners like 2000 coup leader George Speight and Naitasiri high chief, Ratu Inoke Takiveikata.

When questioned by Fijivillage News, Ratu Naiqama said there were more than 3000 people that were charged and incarcerated in relation to the events of 2000, and all including George Speight should be released.

While speaking in Parliament at the time, Ratu Naiqama said this was not to create another coup but to take a step forward.

Vijay Narayan is news director of Fijivillage News. Republished with permission.

Chiefs are to serve people and not to be served, Fiji President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere told the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) on Bau Island in Fiji today.

The Council — regarded as the apex of traditional Fijian leadership and also accused of being a racist institution — was discarded by former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama following his 2006 military coup.

Today, 16 years since it was removed, the Great Council is returning under Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government.

• READ MORE: Other great Council of Chiefs reports

Ratu Wiliame Katonivere said the Great Council was now challenged more than ever in their decision making as traditional leaders to safeguard, collaborate and promote inclusivity in the dynamics of an evolving Fiji.

He said the Turaga Tui Macuata urged chiefs to stand to together in unity in their service, while expecting challenges and changes.

Ratu Wiliame said the chiefs met in a new dawn and they needed to welcome those who made up Fiji’s multicultural society and have made Fiji their home.

“We are chiefs in our own right — we have subjects, we are inheritors of our land, sea, and its flora and fauna,” Ratu Wiliame said.

‘Unifying vision’
“As we meet, we bring with us the hopes and the needs of our people and our land that depend on our vision in unifying our wise deliberations that shall lead to inclusive decisions that encompasses all that we treasure as a people and a nation.”

“As it reconvenes, the GCC must focus on two principles, firstly, we need to be conscious of the existence of those who will challenge the status quo; and secondly, to encourage our people to work together for our advancement as a people, where no one is left behind,” he said.

Ratu Wiliame said the reinstatment of the Great Council was happening at a critical stage in Fiji’s development and the challenge was for the chiefs to stand up and be counted by playing their roles that they were born into, reminding them of the words of the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna that being a chief was not an ornament.

“The title of chief is not an ornament. An ornament is adorned to be marveled and admired, or as fashionable wear, rather as chiefs we are bound by duty and responsibility that require our intentional and undivided attention,” he said.

With this new beginning, it was “paramount that we reflect on our traditional ties with one another as iTaukei, to the government of the day and to the church.”

He said it was crucial that the reconvened Great Council of Chiefs delivered on the very purpose with which it was initially established, for the preservation of the iTaukei land, marine and natural ecosystem, guided by relevant legislation.

“The Great Council of Chiefs is duty-bound to safeguard, defend, liberate all-encompassing matters of all Fijians respecting the rule of law,” Ratu Williame said.

Ratu Sukuna’s legacy
Speaking to the gathering on Bau Island, Ratu Wiliame also referred to the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna.

“He was predestined for leadership that included military training and he was awarded the Croix de Guerre for his gallant role in World War I under the French Foreign Legion.

“The preordained life of Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna became the gateway to his life of servitude to his people, the land and the crown.”

He said these were traits that the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna was renowned for, a visionary, decisive and intellectual leader that was indicative only of a leader who was divinely anointed.

Ratu Sukuna was Fiji’s older statesman and he helped in setting up iTaukei leadership and land systems.

New vision and mission
Ratu Wiliame said it was therefore crucial that the Great Council of Chiefs establish and build on its previous accomplishments and embark on a new vision and mission to be able to better navigate the new changes and developments as we chart our way forward.

He said their role as leaders remained to be the fiercest defender of Fiji’s natural resources both on land and at sea, particularly with protecting their frontier from the current effects and impact of climate change.

He also called on chiefs to remember their role equally lay in encouraging iTaukei and people to contribute to growing the economy and to promote economic empowerment and stability to better enhance their livelihoods.

“Should we want a better Fiji, it is pertinent that our younger generations are groomed in iTaukei protocol, leadership and all mannerism befitting a servant leader,” he said.

“The Great Council of Chiefs is now challenged more than ever in our decision making as traditional leaders to safeguard, collaborate and promote inclusivity in the dynamics of our evolving Fiji.”

Ratu Wiliame acknowledged the Turaga na Vunivalu na Tui Kaba, Ratu Epenisa Cakobau for inviting the Great Council to be held on Bau Island.

Ratu Epenisa is the paramount chief of Fiji in his traditional title as the high chief of the Kubuna Confederacy.

Forgiveness
The opening ceremony also saw the seeking of forgiveness from government and the Christian churches in Fiji for past events that had caused splits within the Great Council and Fiji as a nation.

The government’s traditional apology, or matanigasau, was presented by Apimeleki Tola, Acting Commissioner of the Native Lands Commission and was accepted by the Marama Bale Na Roko Tui Dreketi, Ro Teimumu Kepa, the traditional head of the Burebasaga confederacy.

Tola asked the chiefs to forgive the past government and its decision to de-establish the Great Council and also asked for their blessings and support in the work that government is doing for the people of Fiji.

Ro Teimumu accepted on behalf of the chiefs and urged government and civil servants to continue their service to the people of Fiji.

Two other apologies were presented and accepted.

The first was from the government to the church and religious leaders and the second from the religious leaders to the chiefs of Fiji.

The official opening ceremony was preceded by a church service conducted by the president of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma and full traditional Fijian ceremony of welcome.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

History unfolded live at the Vodafone Arena at Laucala Bay in Suva yesterday when the Methodist Church of Fiji and Rotuma and descendants of the Girmitya exchanged apologies and forgiveness in a solemn church service marking the fourth day of the inaugural Girmit Day celebrations.

An emotional Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, fought back tears as he sought forgiveness for the hurt and pain inflicted on Fijians of Indian origin during the colonial era and the political upheavals of 1987 and 2000.

“I am not making this confession as Prime Minister of Fiji, as I do not hold the government accountable for my actions of 1987,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Girmitya reports

“I do not claim to be making this confession on behalf of the vanua of Navatu, I am not Tui Navatu and I am just a member of the Yavusa Navatu of Cakaudrove.

“But I make this confession on behalf of all those that took part with me in the military coup of May 14, 1987.

“We confess our wrongdoings, we confess that we have hurt so many of our people in Fiji, particularly those of our Indo-Fijian communities at that time and among them were sons and daughters of those that were indentured as labourer from India between 1879 and 1960.”

Rabuka said they had every right to be angry about what was done to them.

‘I ask for your forgiveness’
“I stand here to confess and ask for your forgiveness. I have made our confession to some who were affected by our deeds in 1987.

“To those I did not reach, I hope [this is] coming through for us here, please forgive us.

“As you forgive, you release us and you are released. You are released from hatred and from your anger and we begin to feel the peace of God coming to our beings and our lives.”

In an emotional response, former prime minister and Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry said it was a great day for the nation and worth celebrating.

It would go down well in history and everyone must build on it.

“I am deeply honoured by this gesture. Prime Minister Rabuka, I also accept your apology. In your personal capacity you apologised,” he said.

“I accept the apologies of the Turaga na Vunivalu na Tui Kaba, Marama Roko Tui Dreketi and the Tui Cakau. Thank you very much for your magnanimity.

“I think the spirit is there now, that we can all work together, may God bless Fiji.”

‘One nation of different beliefs’
Fiji Times journalist Navnesh Reddy reports that on Saturday Prime Minister Rabuka spoke at the Western Girmit Day Remembrance Celebration held at Churchill Park in Lautoka.

“Today I am wearing the Hindu salusalu and have accepted the ‘tika’ on my forehead because we are now one nation of different beliefs.

“We are now one nation of different cultures and rather than offend the young student who put that on me, I accept it because my custom now is acceptance and to co-exist harmoniously.”

Rabuka said that as the nation moved forward, there was a need to create more awareness on how Fijians could overcome their differences.

“The underlying theme of the new Girmit Day holiday is about unity and I believe we all — the descendants of the Girmitya, the indigenous people and the chiefs — [must] live in harmony and we have to lay that foundation now.

“Our children need to know that we cannot build a new future by relying on our vision and beliefs from the past.”

He also acknowledged the organisers for putting together a programme that envisaged what the Coalition government believed in.

“This morning we came together and worshipped in three different religions and heard prayers from the Pundit, Reverend, and also the Imam.

“This is a very special time for Fiji because we are now coming together as a nation to observe the first public holiday to acknowledge and honour the Girmitya of India, who came to Fiji between 1879 to 1916.”

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when suddenly a Molotov cocktail went crashing through their living room window.

It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

For the past decade Fiji’s media have operated under tight restrictions and scrutiny, with strict rules governing how stories can be reported.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s media veterans recount intimidation under FijiFirst government – eye on reforms
• WATCH ON ABC PACIFIC: The stories on this page
• ‘No Fiji TV broadcast tonight due to censorship’ – Rika recalls Fiji media intimidation
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

Now journalists are hoping for changes to Fiji’s controversial Media Act, or its complete removal, to protect the freedom of the press.

Credits:
Lice Movono, Reporter
Hugo Hodge, Producer

Featuring:
Netani Rika, former editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times and manager of Fiji Television News
Sean Dorney, former ABC Pacific correspondent
Professor David Robie, former director of the AUT Pacific Media Centre
Samantha Magick, editor of Islands Business International

Fiji’s 14 December 2022 election will go down as a momentous occasion in the nation’s history — including for potential impacts on Suva’s diplomatic ties with Pacific partners.

Immediate tasks identified by new Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s tripartite coalition include the revival of the pandemic-scarred economy, the re-examination of foreign relations, and the restoration of democratic institutions, which never quite recovered from the battering of the 2006 coup.

The election ended the 16-year reign of the FijiFirst government headed by Voreqe Bainimarama, the country’s larger-than-life figure after seizing power in 2006, before winning elections in 2014 and 2018.

• READ MORE: Steven Ratuva: What an election in Fiji – some reflections, lessons
• Other Fiji politics reports

Bainimarama’s military background coupled with Fiji’s “coup culture” had raised concerns about a smooth transfer of power amid fears about the military being called to assist police.

For two weeks after the new government was finally sworn-in on Christmas Eve on a slim, three seat majority in the 55-member house, the country was on edge as tensions between the former and successor governments intensified.

Bainimarama’s actions suggested that he would not leave quietly. Not only did Bainimarama fail to concede, he did not bother to congratulate the new prime minister, as per democratic tradition.

To the contrary, Bainimarama upped the ante with belligerent media statements claiming the ruling coalition was engaging in “repressive conduct”, attacking the values and principles of the 2013 constitution, and that the country was “reliving the dark ages”.

Sharp rebuke
This was met with a sharp rebuke from Rabuka, who accused Bainimarama of bombarding the country with lies and trying to create racial disharmony alongside former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

Police confirmed receiving a complaint against Bainimarama for “inciteful” statements, with a border alert issued for Sayed-Khaiyum should he return to Fiji for allegedly “inciting communal antagonism”.

It was a remarkable turn of events for what had been the two most powerful men in the FijiFirst government, which had ruled with an iron grip yet could only secure 42.5 per cent of the vote in December.

The government diffused a potentially risky situation, and despite a stand-off over the role of the police chief, seems to be in control so far.

The actions of military commander Major General Jone Kalouniwai have been crucial. In an address at the military’s end-of-year parade just a week before the elections, Kalaouniwai had ordered his troops to honour the democratic process and respect the wishes of voters.

Kalaouniwai’s pledge is significant in light of the description of Fiji by longstanding Pacific academic Professor Stewart Firth as a democracy by military permission. This was in reference to Fiji’s 2013 constitution mandating that “It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians”.

‘Hybrid regime’
Professor Firth calls this provision a “capacious definition of the military’s role that could easily be invoked to justify another coup”. In 2017, the Economist Intelligence Unit categorised Fiji as a “hybrid regime”, while the 2022 Freedom House report rated Fiji only as “partly free”.

Should the new government remain cohesive and the present situation prevail, it will mark Fiji’s first smooth transition of power. Rabuka staged the first two pro-indigenous Fijian coups in 1987 against perceived Indo-Fijian dominance. During his prime ministership from 1992–99, the former military commander had a change of heart and adopted a multiracial stance by forging a partnership with the late National Federation Party (NFP) leader Jai Ram Reddy to usher in the more equitable 1997 constitution, only to be rejected at the 1999 polls.

For Rabuka, re-claiming government is a vindication of his partnership with the NFP and its current leader, Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad. In his pre-election campaign Rabuka stressed the importance of social harmony in a country with “so many races, so many religions”.

Rabuka’s multiracial credentials in this ethnically tense country will be put to the test during his term.

The new government’s 100-day “first order of business” emphasises not just the economy, but democracy and human rights. A pledge to ensure “separation of powers” in crucial institutions such as the judiciary, “strengthen human rights”, and review the draconian 2010 Media Industry Development Act will be welcomed by international partners such as the United States, which is assembling a “community of democracies” to counter growing authoritarianism.

How the government handles its diplomatic relationships will be the focus of regional attention. Whereas the Bainimarama government enjoyed close relations with China, all three leaders of the coalition government have stated that they preferred to align with countries with democratic traditions.

While campaigning, Rabuka indicated that his government would forge closer ties with Fiji’s traditional partners, Australia and New Zealand, while distancing from China. But in a subsequent interview with the ABC in his first week in office, he changed tone, chiding Australia and the United States for their “colonial” mindset while praising China for seeing “us as just development partners”.

Largest development partner
While Australia is the largest development partner in the region, China remains an important actor in Fiji and the Pacific — a reliable source of development finance and aid, a market for the Pacific’s resources sector, including fisheries, and a growing source of tourists. Given its unprecedented debt challenges in the wake of the pandemic, Fiji is unlikely to scorn any source of development funds.

At a “New Approaches to Economic Progress” panel discussion in Suva last week, Professor Prasad, who also holds the finance portfolio, stated that the “task ahead of us is huge” and announced the forthcoming budget to be released in about six months will target job creation, the high cost of living and investor confidence.

Professor Prasad emphasised that ultimately Fiji’s progress hinges on social cohesion and political stability. Building consensus on major policy issues, equitable sharing of economic benefits, keeping the coalition intact and preventing the collapse of government will be the key challenges.

Dr Shailendra Bahadur Singh is associate professor and head of the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific. He is a research associate and board member of the Pacific Journalism Review and Asia Pacific Report and a member of the Asia Pacific Media Network. This article was first published in The Interpreter and is republished with permission.

Fiji’s military commander stirred a wave of anxiety today with an extraordinary statement claiming concern over the “ambition and speed” of political changes since last month’s election that could have “fateful” security consequences.

Major-General Ro Jone Kalouniwai, commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), said in the statement that the military played a “guardian role” under the Constitution and “new assaults” on Fiji’s democracy would “not be tolerated”.

But he was summoned by Home Affairs Minister Pio Tikoduadua for a meeting this afternoon and Major-General Kalouniwai denied to news media that the military planned any takeover.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s government summons top military commander
• Other Fiji politics reports

Fiji has had four coups in less than four decades, carried out by either the military or rogue soldiers.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka staged the first two coups in 1987, but he was the elected prime minister 1992-99, while businessman George Speight supported by rogue troops carried out the third in 2000, and then military commander Voreqe Bainimarama seized power in 2006 with a “coup to end all coups”.

Bainimarama has held power for the past 16 years, half of them as the elected leader, but narrowly lost his FijiFirst party majority in last month’s election.

All four coups have been marked by allegations of ethnic tension between indigenous iTaukei Fijians and Indo-Fijians.

RFMF ‘backs democracy’
However, in an exclusive interview this afternoon with Fijivillage News, Major-General Kalouniwai stressed that the RFMF would continue to stand for democracy, the rule of law and honour, and the government.

Home Affairs Minister Tikoduadua said after their meeting he had assured the commander that all the actions of the new People’s Alliance-led coalition government had been guided by the law.

The minister also claimed that the commander’s statement had been “sensationalised” by media and he was concerned that state-run FBC News was “inciting and misrepresenting” what Major-General Kalouniwai had said.

Tikoduadua said the news had been “corrected” by the commander.

Major-General Kalouniwai’s statement and reaction have been widely carried by news media in Fiji.

According to The Fiji Times, Major-General Kalouniwai had raised concern in his statement over some of the rapid changes the government had undertaken in “just 16 days in office”.

He said that section 131 of the Constitution stipulated “the RFMF plays a guardian role where the excesses of the past are not repeated and any new assaults on Fiji’s emerging democracy are not tolerated”.

‘Creating shortcuts’
Major-General Kalouniwai said: “The RFMF has quietly observed with growing concern over the last few days, the ambition and speed of the government in implementing these sweeping changes are creating shortcuts that circumvent the relevant processes and procedures that protect the integrity of the law and the Constitution.

“Whilst the RFMF recognises the justifications by the current government to establish these changes, the RFMF believes that trying and failing to democratise in adverse circumstances has the potential to bring about fateful, long-term national security consequences.

“The RFMF is concerned whether these rapid changes are being pursued without a full understanding of the process and procedures or intentionally done to challenge the integrity of the law and the Constitution of this land.”

Major-General Kalouniwai said the RFMF firmly believed the separation of powers between the executive and the judicial arms of the state must be respected, reports The Fiji Times.

“It must be important to understand and appreciate that a strong rule of law is built on respect for and adherence to a clear separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

“Whatever the reasons may be, the RFMF feels that such actions and decisions is putting at risk the very nature of the law and the separation of powers that clearly demarcate the independence of the three arms of government.”

Major-General Kalouniwai said section 131 of the Constitution also ensured the values and principles of democracy, including the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, were not undermined.

‘No takeover plan’
FBC News reports that Major-General Kalouniwai said he did “not plan to take over the government”.

The commander said he would not make any further comments about his earlier statement and Minister Tikoduadua would brief Fijians about their meeting this afternoon.

Major-General Kalouniwai told Fijivillage News that RFMF had spoken in defence of democracy and the rule of law before, during and after the 2022 general elections.

The commander said that today’s statement focused on ensuring that the government followed proper procedures and processes when making changes.

He said the “rule of law must be paramount”.

Home Affairs Minister Pio Tikoduadua, who is also Minister of Defence, said he had assured Major-General Kalouniwai that all the government’s actions had been guided by the law, reports Fijivillage News.

He added that he had had a “cordial meeting” with the commander, who had assured him that he would no longer be making any public statement such as the one earlier today.

Tikoduadua said he had discussed two main issues with the commander — concerns over the government plan for sacked Fiji Airways and Air Terminal Services staff to be rehired, and over the future of Fiji diplomats abroad.

In May 2020, 758 Fiji Airways and 258 ATS staff lost their jobs due to covid-19.

Tikoduadua said the major-general had pledged support for the government.

“Merry Christmas Fiji!”

This was the message to Fiji from kingmakers Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa) management board member and MP Tanya Waqanika after their meeting in Suva ended this evening.

Asked whether her Christmas wishes meant good news for the people of Fiji, she responded: “Free at last.”

Waqanika was one of the 26 management board members who participated in the secret ballot — which voted in favour of a coalition with the People’s Alliance and the National Federation Party, the second time in barely 72 hours that the board backed the coalition.

• READ MORE:  Sodelpa joins Fiji coalition with Rabuka’s Alliance in split vote
• Tight Fiji police security for new Sodelpa party board meeting
• ‘Writing on the wall’ for authoritarian FijiFirst government, says Ratuva
• ‘PM at first sitting’ — Fiji’s former elections chief explains how
• Fijian Aucklanders see promise and hope with Rabuka as likely PM
• ‘Nothing to concede’, says FijiFirst in wake of contested election
• Reports of ‘anomalies’ in Sodelpa vote to go with opposition parties
• New chapter for Fiji — Rabuka to lead coalition
• Other Fiji elections reports

This vote confirms the end of 16 years of domination of Fiji politics by 2006 coup leader Voreqe Bainimarama — half as the military leader and the rest as an elected FijiFirst party prime minister.

It will usher in a new era with coalition rule and 1987 coup leader and former prime minister Sitiveni Rabuka heading the government.

A secret ballot held at the meeting at the Southern Cross Hotel resulted in 13 votes for the PAP-NFP coalition and 12 for the FijiFirst Party.

‘Anomalies’ forced new vote
In Tuesday’s vote, the numbers were 16-14 in favour of the People’s Alliance-led coalition. However the validity of that vote was challenged over claimed “anomalies”.

Party vice-president Anare Jale said the next step now was to work on a coalition agreement.

He said that agreement would detail all the information and work that would be taking place today and during the holidays.

“Hopefully, something will be concluded and signed on Wednesday next week,” Jale said at the press conference after the day-long Sodelpa meeting.

Timoci Vula is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

• Parliament will hold a vote for the new prime minister, expected to Sitiveni Rabuka, on Saturday.

#Proclamation summoning #Parliament of the Republic of #Fiji
Click https://t.co/64m3AOG68v#FijiNews #TeamParliament pic.twitter.com/Htkc7AsGrD

— Fijian Parliament (@fijiparliament) December 23, 2022

Not out of the woods yet
RNZ Pacific reports that Fijians will have to hold back their celebration until a final decision is made on the floor of Parliament, where MPs will cast their votes for the next prime minister and speaker of the house in a secret ballot.

Soldepa vice-president and head of negotiations Anare Jale told media urgency was the utmost priority for the party.

“What we are doing today is to issue directives to our three members of Parliament on how they are going to vote for the position of speaker and also prime minister,” Jale said.

“We know Parliament will convene shortly, so, more the reasons these directive needs to be in the hands of the members of Sodelpa’s MP in Parliament.”

He added that a coalition agreement was to follow in the next few days … “Hopefully, something can be concluded and signed by Wednesday.”

When the final election results were announced around 4pm on Sunday, many Fijians, at home and around the world, breathed a collective sigh of relief: the government of coup-maker Voreqe Bainimarama looked like it had finally been defeated at the ballot box.

Could it be that the militarised political culture, pervasive in Fiji since the 1987 coups, was finally being effectively challenged — peacefully?

Bainimarama’s FijiFirst Party (FFP) collected 42.55 percent of votes, well short of the majority needed to return to power. The closest rival, the People’s Alliance Party (PAP), led by 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka, won 35.82 percent, followed by the National Federation Party (NFP) on 8.89 pecent and the Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa) with 5.14 percent of the votes.

• READ MORE: As Fiji prepares to vote, democracy could already be the loser
• Fiji’s other crisis: away from the covid emergency, political dissent can still get you arrested
• Two past coup leaders face off in Fiji election as Australia sharpens its focus on Pacific

Total voter turnout was 68.28 percent, less than the 71.92 percent at the 2018 election. With the Unity Fiji and Fiji Labour parties not reaching the required 5 percent threshold to gain seats under Fiji’s proportional representation system, the maths indicated a dead heat –– and some anxious coalition horsetrading.

The vote shares mean FFP will have 26 seats in the new 55-seat Parliament, the PAP 21, NFP 5 and SODELPA 3. The PAP and NFP had already signed a pre-election agreement to form a coalition, meaning they are tied with the FFP on 26 seats.

Led by Viliame Gavoka, Sodelpa was suddenly thrust into the role of kingmaker. Given its fraught history with both FFP and PAP, the stage was set for some hard bargaining on all sides this week.

Family ties
The PAP, in fact, is a breakaway faction of Sodelpa. The divorce was bitter and littered with bruised souls. A faction within Sodelpa wanted nothing to do with Rabuka and the PAP.

On the other hand, Sodelpa’s relationship with FijiFirst has been equally strained. The founding leader of Sodelpa, the late prime minister Laiseni Qarase, was deposed, arrested and jailed following Bainimarama’s 2006 coup.

But there is a personal link between Sodelpa and the FFP, whose secretary general (as well as Attorney-General and Minister for the Economy in the previous government) is Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. An Indo-Fijian Muslim, Sayed-Khaiyum is the son-in-law of Sodelpa leader Viliame Gavoka, an indigenous Fijian (Taukei).

While this multiracial connection may have its political advantages, the reality is that many in Sodelpa vehemently oppose Sayed-Khaiyum for what they view as his imposing and arrogant style.

Return of Rabuka
There were early indications that Sodelpa might go with the PAP and NFP partnership to form a grand coalition, and that played out as by Friday the party’s management board had carried out two votes, both giving a very narrow margin in support of the grand coalition (16-14 then 13-12). Ideologically and politically, Sodelpa and PAP share the same basic vision and strategies regarding indigenous Fijian issues — after all, they were once the same party.

#LATEST Fiji’s kingmaker, Sodelpa has announced it’s joining Sitiveni Rabuka-led People’s Alliance-National Federation (PA-NFP) coalition to form the next government.https://t.co/57wLytvuHf

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) December 23, 2022

Gavoka and Rabuka are similar in various ways. They both have ethno-nationalist tendencies and embrace fundamentalist evangelical Christian doctrines. Gavoka has advocated setting up a Fijian embassy in Jerusalem, and Rabuka has been known as an admirer of Israel since he was commander of Fijian peacekeepers in the Middle East in the 1980s.

Furthermore, Sodelpa has been under pressure from its international and local branches (which fund the party) not to entertain any FFP coalition proposals. The message coming through from supporters is that their votes for Sodelpa were also votes against FFP.

There have also been fears that an alliance between Sodelpa and FFP could provoke old grievances and escalate into wider political instability.

Lastly, “non-negotiables” laid down by Sodelpa include enacting policies that promote indigenous Fijian interests (including the reinstatement of the Great Council of Chiefs (which Bainimarama abolished), forgiving scholarship debt and setting up a Fiji embassy in Jerusalem.

These are similar to the PAP policies in the party manifesto but quite different from the FFP positions.

Culture change
If the election sees FijiFirst finally leave power, there is the potential for democratic progress. One of the major challenges for an incoming new government will be reform of the country’s civil service, judiciary, education and health systems, and the economy in general.

Over the years, Fiji society has been configured in ways that suit the narrow ideological interests and centralised control of the FFP. Security, public order and media laws have been used to undermine democratic debate, free expression and public engagement.

Democratising the institutions of state and making them more relevant will be a huge task. It will require significant financial, political and intellectual resources. It also has ramifications in the wider Pacific region, given Fiji’s role as an economic, communications and political hub.

Many Pacific leaders, including in Australia and New Zealand, have been unhappy with Fiji under the Bainimarama-Kaiyum axis. Actions such as the government’s refusal to release more than FJ$80 million in funding for the University of the South Pacific — creating a major crisis at the regional institution — only reinforce such perceptions.

Tense times, sense of Déjà vu in Fiji. As I wrote in ‘Anticipation & Apprehension in Fiji’s 2022 Election’ historically elections are riskiest period in Fiji. Anticipation of election turning into Apprehension about its outcome. The backgrounder is here:https://t.co/g3cxFhHyxo https://t.co/rivuVf1fGA

— Dr Shailendra B Singh (@ShailendraBSing) December 22, 2022

This time, Rabuka and Bainimarama — both former military leaders and coup makers — have used the democratic electoral system rather than guns and force to try to win to power. But behind them sits a culture of command and control that will be difficult to dislodge.

This is subtly woven into various aspects of the 2013 Constitution, such as the role of the military as the nation’s constitutional security watchdog. But there is growing confidence that the chances of another military coup following this election are virtually nil.

Fiji’s civil service and operations of state have incorporated micromanagement, authoritarianism and coercion as part of the institutional culture. The test will be to ensure that a coalition of parties can rule together in a way that expands political participation and enhances democracy.

Dr Steven Ratuva is director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

It is an ironic fact in Fiji, a multiethnic Pacific nation of under one million people, that coups don’t work and ultimately lead to constitutional reforms and democratic elections.

As Fiji goes to the polls this Wednesday, the choice is between choosing one former coup leader or another to govern Fiji for the next five years.

Both fought the same battle in 2018, and the incumbent Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama won in an election considered largely free and fair.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji election articles

The two combatants are Prime Minister Bainimarama and his challenger Sitiveni Rabuka, a former prime minister.

Bainimarama staged a coup in 2006 when he was the commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), and after changing the constitution, he was elected as prime minister twice in 2014 and 2018 in national elections.

Rabuka, at the time a lieutenant colonel in the Fiji Military, staged two coups in 1987, claiming to reassert ethnic Fijian supremacy.

Following the adoption of a constitution in 1990 that guaranteed indigenous Fijian domination of the political system, he formed the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) political party of indigenous Fijians and won two elections in 1992 and 1994 to become prime minister.

Rabuka lost power
Rabuka lost power at the 1999 election, and he was succeeded ironically by the Fijian Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry who fought the elections on a nonethnic platform and became Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister.

A few months later, in May 2000, he was ousted by businessman George Speight with the help of rogue troops.

Significantly, Speight was not a soldier and was backed by only one faction of the army. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and remains in jail. Both Bainimarama and Rabuka were clever and powerful enough after their coups to ensure that Fiji’s constitution was rewritten to absolve them of any legal wrongdoing.

Fiji is a unique country where a Hindu Indian population known here as “Indo-Fijians” have established themselves as part and parcel of the country.

Their ancestors were brought to the islands as indentured labour by the British to work in the new sugar cane plantations. But now they have established themselves in the business sector and in politics, so much so that the economic czars of both political camps are Indo-Fijians.

The four coups of the 1980s and 1990s led to a massive out-migration of Indo-Fijians and their ratio of the population has now dropped from 50 per cent in 1987 to about 35 per cent. Ethnic tensions have in recent years diluted with the Bainimarama government’s “One Fiji” policy and the recognition of the role Indo-Fijians have played in building modern Fiji.

Though race politics is still in the background, Bainimarama and Rabuka are fighting the forthcoming elections on mainly an economic platform, with the incumbent government arguing that they have protected Fiji better than many other countries of its size from global economic currents of recent years.

Economic ‘volcano’
However, Rabuka’s opposition alliance is arguing that Fiji is in the grip of an economic volcano about to erupt.

The December 14 general election is being contested by 342 candidates from nine political parties. Bainimarama’s ruling FijiFirst Party (FFP) and Rabuka’s Peoples’ Alliance Party (PAP) will each contest 55 seats, while the National Federation Party (NFP) led by former University of the South Pacific’s economics professor Biman Prasad will field 54 candidates.

Rabuka and Prasad have formed a strong political alliance and have been campaigning together for months leading up to this election. If the PAP-NFP alliance wins, Prasad is expected to be Rabuka’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

Meanwhile, Bainimarama’s Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Minister for the Economy, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum — an Indo-Fijian Muslim — has been accused of running the government for Bainimarama and expanding the influence of Indo-Fijian Muslims with money from Arabs at the expense of the Hindu Indo-Fijians.

Rabuka and Prasad have been campaigning across the country, asking the people to vote out the FijiFirst government to rid Fiji of the “damaging legacy of Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum”.

They are offering a “consultative government” and a democracy — as opposed to Sayed-Khaiyum’s “dictatorship”.

The message seems to have hit a chord, even though the Fiji economy has not been doing badly compared to many other countries, and Rabuka is strongly tipped to win a close election.

‘Unstoppable’, claims leader
“We are unstoppable all over the land,” Rabuka said at a recent election rally in Lautoka, an Indo-Fijian stronghold.

“We are ready to make history on December 14,” he added, “tell the people about our plans and keep emphasising that they are the centre of our mission.”

In an interview with Fiji Live, Professor Prasad revealed that if his party forms the next government with the PAP, Sitiveni Rabuka would be the Prime Minister, despite any party having more seats than the other after the election.

He confirmed that the two parties have decided that between the two of them, they will form the government, and that is the bottom line. Prasad is optimistic that they will win substantially more seats in this election and will be in a very strong position when they form the government with their partners, the PAP.

Something that is worrying Fijians is whether an unfavourable result for the government would trigger another coup. Bainimarama’s 2013 constitution has given the Fijian military constitutional rights to be its custodian:

“It shall be the overall role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.”

It goes on to say the armed forces will perform its “Constitutional Role locally and also ready to tackle the modern-day security challenges brought about by Climate Change, Radicalism and Transnational Crime”.

Honouring democracy
In an address on December 5, the RFMF commander, Major-General Jone Kalouniwai, ordered his soldiers to honour the democratic process by respecting the outcome of the votes in the 2022 general election. This comment has been widely welcomed across the political spectrum.

Fiji Labour Party Leader Mahendra Chaudhry says the statement by Major-General Kalouniwai is reassuring for the party.

He told Fiji Broadcasting Corporation that FLP was twice robbed of its mandate to govern by coups executed or supported by the military.

People’s Alliance deputy party leader Manoa Kamikamica said: “Major-General Ro Jone Kalouniwai has voiced what the bulk of Fiji want to hear — which is, we wait for the ballot box to decide.”

Professor Prasad said: “That’s an absolutely fantastic statement from the commander, and I want to thank him because everybody who believes in democracy, who believes in good governance, who believes in a free and fair election, will respect the outcome of the election.”

In a commentary published by the Fiji Times, Professor Wadan Narsey, a senior economist and political analyst in Fiji, expressed some views that reflective many of the voters, which may ultimately tip the scales of who governs after next week.

He argues that under the 2013 Constitution, the government has been able to stifle freedom of expression by the public and the media, with a large section of the taxpayer-funded public media being brought under the control of the government, effectively acting as government propaganda and to attack opposition parties and MPs.

Proper dialogue promised
“There were no such restrictions or control in the Rabuka government era, and these are unlikely to happen in the Rabuka/Prasad era,” argues Professor Narsey.

He points out that “in his recent public statements, Rabuka has promised to govern through discussion, dialogue, proper debate and compromise when necessary”.

He points out that the views of the people are not respected, even though Fiji is functioning under a “democracy”.

The government has arrested those who express views that the government does not like.

Pointing out to the MOU between PAP and NFF, Professor Narsey believes “they would not rule by fear or imposition of two men’s views on the whole country.

“They would focus on providing good health services, education, water and infrastructure like roads and electricity, which have all been failures under the current government, despite massive expenditures using borrowed money”.

“Whether it is a yearning for improvements to infrastructure, construction and allocation of school quarters, assistance to construct a bridge, issues on education, or discussions over manifestos, it is encouraging to note that many Fijians are actually making an effort to be part of the voting process,” The Fiji Times noted in an editorial last week.

“Now, as we look ahead to next Wednesday, there is a sense of ownership in the air. There appears to be a willingness to cast a ballot. There is a willingness to be part of the process,” The Fiji Times added.

Ravindra Singh Prasad is a correspondent of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. This article is republished with permission.

When Fijians elect a new parliament on December 14, it is likely their votes will be counted fairly — yet the country will remain a conditional and fragile democracy.

This will be the third election since the “coup to end all coups” in 2006, which followed two earlier coups in 1987 and a civilian overthrow of the elected government in 2000.

After the 2006 coup, Fijian military head Voreqe Bainimarama appointed himself prime minister. In 2013 he rejected a new constitution commissioned to support a democratic state.

• READ MORE: Democracy spreads in waves – but shared cultural history might matter more than geography
• Behind the ‘world’s friendliest COVID protocols’, Fiji’s health system remains stretched and struggling
• NZ journalists arrested in Fiji have been released but a new era of press freedom is yet to arrive

Instead, he promulgated his own. Section 131(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji states:

It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.

In other words, overall responsibility for the wellbeing of Fiji and its people does not belong to the government or Parliament. The military interprets this as meaning it is “mandated to be the guardian of Fiji”.

Democracy’s fragility is entrenched. Furthermore, Fiji’s unicameral Parliament is not big enough to support robust parliamentary checks on government, even though it will grow from 51 to 55 members at this year’s election.

Freedom and the military
Bainimarama went from self-appointed to elected prime minister in 2014 when his FijiFirst party won the first election under the new constitution. It won again in 2018 with just over 50 percent of the vote in the country’s proportional representation system.

International observers found votes were fairly counted, but the campaign was marred by intimidation of opposition candidates.

Shortly before the 2018 election, opposition leader Sitivini Rabuka was charged with electoral fraud. He was acquitted just in time to take his place as a candidate.

Rabuka was prime minister between 1992 and 1999, having led the coups in 1987 and having described democracy as “a foreign flower unsuited to Fijian soil”. In 2022, however, Rabuka’s People’s Alliance, in coalition with the National Federation Party, is the most likely alternative government.

Cost of living, poverty and peaceful and orderly government are important election issues.

Significantly, though, the People’s Alliance manifesto suggests exploring amendments to the constitution. It also wants to remove measures that suppress human rights, previously highlighted by Amnesty International and others.

Land rights and the protection of the indigenous iTaukei culture are also important in this campaign, to the extent they have prompted an outburst typical of Bainimarama’s florid rhetorical style. At a campaign rally last week, he said of an opponent’s land rights policy:

This conversation will cause stabbing, murder and blood spilled on our land, and unlawful entering [of property] will happen if that conversation is condoned.

Fragile free speech
There are also restrictions on political reporting. As the Fiji Parliamentary Reporters’ Handbook (published in 2019) explains: “As in rugby, knowing the rules is the difference between enjoying the game and not being able to follow it.”

Journalists are reminded that the right to free speech does not allow “incitement to violence or insurrection”. The handbook goes on to remind them:

There is scope in the Constitution to “limit […] rights and freedoms […] in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or the orderly conduct of elections”.

Interpretations of these limits can be broad. In November, for example, longstanding government critic and election candidate Richard Naidu was convicted of “contempt scandalising the court” following a lighthearted Facebook post in which he pointed out a spelling mistake in a High Court judgment.

The charge — which Amnesty International says should be withdrawn — was brought by the attorney-general.

Towards a more stable democracy
In my 2017 book, Indigeneity: a politics of potential – Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, I argued that political stability requires ordered and principled measures for protecting iTaukei (ethnic Fijian) rights to land and culture. This is a matter of respecting human dignity, but also to ensure those rights are not used as a pretext for settling wider and sometimes unrelated conflicts.

Stability does not arise only from the freedom to vote and from being confident one’s vote will be fairly counted. It comes also from well-informed expectations of what governments should do and what constitutions should protect, including:

• a free and diverse media, with a culture of detailed and critical investigation and reporting on public affairs
• a politically independent military, police and judiciary that aren’t called on to intimidate opponents
• a larger parliament that is more representative and allows stronger checks on the executive.

For now, while the military enjoys considerable credibility and support, its role as defender and arbiter of the public good ensures perpetual instability.

The diplomatic and economic value of its contributions to United Nations peacekeeping missions means it remains an important national institution. And the recent gift of military peacekeeping vehicles from the US is an example of the soft diplomacy used by democratic states, including Australia and New Zealand, to influence contemporary Fiji.

The effectiveness of that influence will be tested at some point. In the meantime, the Fijian people are free to change their government on December 14. But the possibility they will not be free to keep that government means, whatever the election outcome, democracy has lost before a vote is cast.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Fijians will go to the polls to choose their next government on December 14.

In a statement yesterday, the Fiji government said Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama visited President Wiliame Katonivere on Sunday morning to advise him on the date of the general election.

Parliament has also been dissolved with immediate effect as the government moves into caretaker mode.

• READ MORE: Fiji announces general election date – December 14
• Other Fiji election reports

Almost 700,000 Fijians are registered to choose their next government in a one-day election set to cost F$26 million.

The Chair of Fiji’s Electoral Commission, Mukesh Nand, said the Fijian Elections Office team of 7541 staff would conduct polling between 7.30am to 6pm on election day, in 855 venues across the country.

There are also 613 early voting venues. More than11,000 people registered for postal votes during the 2018 Fijian elections.

Bainimarama has been in power since a 2006 military coup that led to him becoming acting president and acting prime minister before being sworn in as prime minister following the 2014 election.

He also spent several months in Australia earlier this year recovering from heart surgery.

The ruling FijiFirst Party has announced a further 10 provisional candidates to its line up of aspiring parliamentarians, the most notable of whom is former SODELPA MP Mosese Bulitavu.

Opposition welcomes election
The leader of one of Fiji’s main opposition political parties said the next six weeks would be one of the most critical periods in the country’s history.

National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad said that four more years of Voreqe Bainimarama and his Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum in power would destroy Fiji’s democracy and reduce the nation to a “two-man dictatorship”.

He said only a fresh start, under a new People’s Alliance and NFP government, could take Fiji away from the politics of fear and division.

Prasad said the people now had the chance to vote in a government that would bring the country together and “lead with vision, humility, and compassion”.

Fiji government agencies have plans to provide free transportation for all voters during election day.

The FBC reports the Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem as saying a public transport booklet would be released detailing what would be operating to help voters on polling day.

He said there would be alternatives in areas that had no bus services.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

There is a shameful public tragedy unfolding day by day as the Bainimarama government tries to stop a potential political candidate, lawyer and former journalist Richard Naidu, from getting into Parliament by trying to “criminalise” him over a trivial social media post.

Richard Naidu is one of Fiji’s leading lawyers, for decades a fighter for democracy and rule of law, with a deep social conscience that drove him to frequently write articles in the media to enlighten Fiji on relevant issues of vital interest.

Naidu’s alleged crime: a trivial post on his personal Twitter account that a legal judgment probably intended to say “injunction” rather than “injection” — an error that may have even been a typist’s error which the learned judge failed to pick up (as we all all do now and then).

• READ MORE: Richard Naidu case: ‘Constitutional right’ — Naidu applies to cross-examine A-G in contempt case
• Graham Davis: Scandalous or ridiculous? The timing of a Fiji political lawsuit
• Other reports on the Richard Naidu case

No big deal any sensible person or judge would have thought, or even slightly funny.

But the malevolent forces running the Bainimarama government, suddenly pounced on Richard Naidu five months after that social media post, for allegedly “scandalising the judiciary”.

The media speculation was that Naidu became a target when there were public indications that he might be a candidate for the opposition National Federation Party (NFP), and if elected would have made an excellent Attorney-General.

But if he is convicted of this alleged “crime”, Richard Naidu would not be allowed to be a candidate in the 2022 elections, he might face a jail term and be deprived of legal practice. One can only imagine the dreadful trauma for his wife and family — all for a trivial throwaway line on Twitter, by a witty lawyer.

The tragedy is not that the Attorney-General and Minister of All Things (Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum) is driving this legal persecution — which he is — just as he has been the driver of the Bainimarama government for more than 14 years.

The real tragedy is the utter silence of the many bright people, once upon a time pro-democracy fighters with me, who have helped to bring Bainimarama to power and strengthened his government’s credibility nationally and internationally over the last 16 years.

The unfolding tragedy is far more painful for me personally as most of these silent warriors for Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum, were friends with whom I closely interacted more than a decade ago.

The shameful silences
At the head of the list of course has to be Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum himself, who shared a cell with me for our 1988 Sukuna Park protest against the Rabuka coup. My wife and I attended his first wedding function.

Then there is Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum who was a good journalist friend who used to invite me to his family home for Eid. Riyaz has been driving the vicious Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC) media campaign to tarnish Richard Naidu. Aiyaz and Riyaz are sons of Khaiyum Sr who welcomed me into the NFP parliamentary team in 1996.

Then there are Nazhat Shameem and Shaista Shameem who were part of the Shameem family who used to welcome me and my wife to their mother’s home in Samabula.

As a bright High Court judge, Nazhat took to the slippery slope when she irregularly chaired a committee that replaced Chief Justice Danial Fateaki with Tony Gates.

We all remember that Gates tried to justify the 2006 coup alongside fellow High Court judges Davendra Pathik and John Byrnes, but failed when the 2009 Court of Appeal overturned their judgment.

Nazhat Shameem is now a high flying international bureaucrat, President of the International Human Rights Council. But she has been totally silent on the abuse of human rights going on in Fiji, and currently to the mistreatment of her old legal colleague Richard Naidu.

Shaista Shameem, a friend for decades until she justified the 2006 coup as a Fiji Human Rights Commissioner assisted by once radical unionist James Anthony. Despite that, I went to months of trouble to help her in making the legal case for pensioner (the late) David Burness against the Bainimarama government’s illegal reduction of his pension.

Shaista Shameem is now professor of law and vice-chancellor at the University of Fiji. She is totally silent on the abuse of human rights in Fiji and that of Richard Naidu who is also a lawyer like her.

Shaista has even appointed as professor of law Brigadier Aziz who saw at close quarters through his membership of the Evans Board of Inquiry into the 2000 coup and mutiny, the erosion of human right to life in the Republic of Fiji Military Force (RFMF).

There is Dr Satyendra Prasad, a former USP colleague who was part of our group (including the Citizens Constitutional Forum) that battled for democracy and racial equality after the 1987 Rabuka coup. Dr Prasad has astonishingly resurfaced politically serving the Bainimarama cause in New York and Washington.

Then there is Ashwin Raj (head of the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission) who once upon a time was helped by Professor Biman Prasad and me to get a substantive post at USP.

He has faithfully served the Bainimarama regime for years (including the vicious persecution of the late Ratu Timoci Vesikula for an alleged racist remark), but Raj could never be accused of defending the many persons in Fiji whose basic human rights have been attacked by the Bainimarama regime itself.

Ashwin Raj is silent on this current attack on the basic human right of a Fiji citizen to point out on social media, a possible spelling mistake in a legal judgment.

There is the shadowy RFMF Military Council which is the real power behind Voreqe Bainimarama, that Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has silently used. I have little doubt that many of these officers were in the post-2000 classes I taught at the RFMF Officer Training courses in Vatuwaqa.

They would also have been in the early 2006 pre-election workshops at the RFMF camp in Nabua, attended by the top 400 RFMF officers, including Commander Voreqe Bainimarama who today is allegedly powerless to control his rampaging deputy.

Then there is also Brigadier General Ioane Naivalarua who, as Commissioner of Police in 2010, invited me to give a two hour workshop to his top police officers on how to tackle escalating crime in Fiji and the costs to the police of the coups.

It would seem that all my detailed explanations to the RFMF and police hierarchy of the terrible economic costs of the coups — and to them — clearly fell on deaf ears.

Then there are the corporate giants of Fiji who have been financially backing the Bainimarama government’s FijiFirst Party for years. The donors’ lists released by the Supervisor of Elections through the Fiji Sun two years ago, showed conclusively that hundreds of thousands of dollars were donated over the period 2014 to 2018 by the owners, their wives, daughters, mothers and even employees of Tappoos, Vinod Patels, Punjas, RC Manubhais, CJ Patels, the Wella Pillays etc through the strong-arm fundraising by Sanjay Kaba and other collectors.

These corporate giants, while occupying key positions on pubic enterprise boards in Fiji as never before, have never spoken out on their social responsibilities in Fiji such as the protection of human rights.

Yet Richard Naidu is a principal lawyer of a top law firm in Fiji, Munro Leys, with a well-earned reputation for protecting lawful corporate rights in Fiji — including theirs.

The silent Pontius Pilates
Like modern day Pontius Pilates, the above silent protagonists for Bainimarama and Khaiyum seen to have washed their hands of the basic human rights of Fiji citizens which are being battered left right and centre by the Bainimarama government that they helped to install.

As if all that matters to them are their profits and their personal careers and interests.

But Fiji will not forget them and their complicit silences, nor their shared responsibility in the abuses of human rights taking place in Fiji.

Sadly, Fiji people have not spoken out and taken to the streets when so many individuals have been unjustly persecuted after the 2006 military coup, like Russel Hunter, Hank Arts, Fred Wesley, Netani Rika, Anish Chand, Mereana Kitione, Kemueli Naiqama, Professor Pal Ahluwalia and so many others.

Many, like Professor Biman Prasad and other critical opposition MPs face daily attacks by the FBC and Fiji Sun for their efforts to hold the Bainimarama government to account.

And now they are after decent law-abiding lawyer Richard Naidu, all because he put up his hand to serve Fiji in Parliament at great financial cost to himself.

As I have done before, I remind Fiji readers of the wonderful lines attributed to Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller who was originally anti-Communist, an early supporter of Hitler, and even thought by some to have had anti-Semitic views:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Niemöller, like Archbshop Chong (head of the Catholic Church in Fiji) currently, frequently spoke on the dangers to decent society of the apathy of the general public.

I would urge the governments of Australia, NZ, US and Canada to keep a close watch on the progress of this legal case by the Bainimarama government and also of the names of the silent collaborators, who will one day no doubt want to settle in decent countries with respect for the rule of law, which they have helped to destroy in Fiji.

Dr Wadan Narsey is a former professor of economics at The University of the South Pacific and a leading Fiji economist and statistician. This article is republished from the author’s blog Narsey On Fiji with his permission.

A Pacific media academic says Fiji is still not a fully-fledged democracy and is recovering from the impacts of the 2006 coup — the country’s fourth since gaining independence 52 years ago.

The University of the South Pacific’s head of journalism Associate Professor Shailendra Singh said Fiji’s transition from authoritarianism to greater democracy was an ongoing process.

Dr Singh said that was why it was important that everyone accepted the outcome of the 2022 general elections, which must be held before January 23 next year.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji elections articles

“The reason is simply that any stalemate or instability could be very damaging. Any instability will undo all those painstaking achievements we’ve made since 2006,” said Dr Singh, who is also a board member of Pacific Journalism Review and one of the founders of the Asia Pacific Media Network.

“There are also wider implications, given that Fiji is a major country in our region. So, any instability in Fiji is not good for the region as a whole.”

Nearly 690,000 Fijians have registered to cast their vote across 1468 polling stations when the much-anticipated general elections are held.

Polling date yet to be announced
While a date for the polls is yet to be announced, nine political parties are officially vying for the 55 parliamentary seats.

Dr Singh said the 2022 elections would be Fiji’s third election, under its fourth constitution, since gaining independence from Britain in 1970.

He said this was indicative of the kinds of political problems faced by the country.

“So, this election is really, really crucial. I mean all elections are important. This one is arguably more so than perhaps any other recent elections.”

Now, the thing is regardless of who wins the election, what is really most important for Fiji is a smooth transition. This is really crucial for the sake of continuity and stability,” Dr Singh said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The last time the Australian Labor Party came to power (in 2007), Australia was imposing sanctions against Fiji as a result of the country’s fourth coup in 2006.

Relations worsened before they improved and, partly at Australia’s prompting, Fiji was suspended from the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in 2009.

Fast forward to 2022. Fiji’s 2006 coup leader is now its prime minister, Fiji is chairing the Pacific Islands Forum, and it was the first Pacific country that Australia’s new Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, visited.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji politics reports

In fact, not only is Voreqe Bainimarama Prime Minister, but his main rival in elections scheduled for later this year is the leader of Fiji’s first coup, in 1987, Sitiveni Rabuka.

How did this come to pass?

The only coup leader to have actually suffered as a result of their actions is George Speight, who led Fiji’s third coup. Significantly, Speight was not a soldier, and was only backed by one faction of the army.

He was sentenced in 2000 to life imprisonment and remains in jail to this day.

Both senior military leaders
By contrast, both Bainimarama and Rabuka were senior military leaders. And they were clever and powerful enough after their coups to ensure that Fiji’s constitution was rewritten to absolve them of any legal wrongdoing.

Rabuka was the pacesetter in terms of rewriting the constitution, and the first coup leader to become PM, returning five years after his coup to successfully contest the 1992 elections. He served as PM to 1999.

Bainimarama was Fiji’s first coup leader to decide not to step back, but rather to stay in politics. He gave himself eight years of uncontested rule before facing elections, enough time to put him in a position to win.

Fiji’s coups have been bad for both the country’s economy and for its democratic standing.  Today, it is classified by Freedom House as “partly free”. The think-tank sums up the situation in Fiji as follows:

The repressive climate that followed a 2006 coup has eased since democratic elections were held in 2014 and 2018. However, the ruling party frequently interferes with opposition activities, the judiciary is subject to political influence, and military and police brutality is a significant problem.

Combine this with whatever genuine support Bainimarama commands, and it has been difficult, indeed impossible so far, to dislodge him from power. This in turn has made those who want him out think that their only way to depose him is to back another strongman, another former coup leader and PM.

Rabuka is seen as more moderate than some of the other alternatives to Bainimarama. But also, only Rabuka, it is now thought, can take on Bainimarama.

Is this progress to democracy, or entrenchment of a coup culture? It has been 16 years since the last coup, in 2006. If Fiji was on a path to democracy, one might accept this dominance of coup-turned-political leaders as a necessary transition, a price to be paid to return Fiji to liberal democratic ways.

Ethnic tensions
If only this were the case.

It is certainly true that the coups have led to a massive out-migration of Fijian Indians, whose share in the population has fallen from a threatening 50 percent in the late 1980s to only about 34 percent now. Ethnic tensions, a driving factor behind all the coups to date, have lessened, though by no means disappeared.

But it would be a serious mistake to think that coups are a thing of the past. Rabuka and Bainimarama are both ageing: Rabuka is 74; Bainimarama is 68, and recently had serious heart surgery.

Once they retire or die, it is quite possible that the Fijian political scene will become unstable and/or unpredictable, and that the army will, over time, see it as necessary to intervene. After all, it now has the constitutional role, given to it by Bainimarama, of ensuring not only Fiji’s security and defence but also its “well-being”.

The military describes itself as its country’s “guardian”.

In the meantime, Fiji remains stuck as, at best, a semi-democracy. Just last year, several MPs were arrested for opposing government legislation. A recent US government report on Fiji notes credible reports of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by government agents [and] serious restrictions on free expression and media, including censorship; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly; and trafficking in persons”.

Personalised authoritarianism
Fiji’s brand of authoritarianism is highly personalised:

• A group of women are challenging a new law that requires married women who change their name to also change their birth certificate if they want to vote, a rule introduced last year that may disenfranchise up to 100,000 women.
• This change apparently arises from a court case involving an opposition MP who incurred the government’s ire. The courts refused to disqualify the MP on the basis of the name he used to register to vote — not the one on his birth certificate. (The MP in question has since been sent to jail on other charges.)
• The government also, at the start of last year, expelled the vice-chancellor of the University of the South Pacific (USP) and has refused him entry back into the country, because he blew the whistle on the former VC who is a government ally.
• The government has this year charged prominent opposition-affiliated lawyer Richard Naidu with contempt of court because of a social media post he made responding to a spelling mistake in a court judgement. Amnesty International has highlighted the “climate of fear” this charge contributes to.

As James Loxton has recently shown, the re-emergence of authoritarian leaders after democratic transitions is a global phenomenon.

Thailand provides perhaps the closest parallel to Fiji. In that country, after enduring decades of alternating coups and democracy, the 2014 coup leader General Prayut Chan-o-cha decided that he would not relinquish power, and transitioned out of his military role into political leadership.

Since then he has stayed as prime minister, winning elections in 2019, and protected by the same sort of rigging of rules that Bainimarama has engaged in.

Vying for power
However, while Thailand has had many more coups than Fiji, only in the latter do we see two former coup leaders vying for power.

The situation in Fiji seems widely accepted. In 2014, former soldier turned academic Jone Baledrokadroka wrote of the “acquiescence to military intervention” of the Fijian people as “a hallmark of politics in the country”.

Many coup critics have left the country; some have died. A number linked to the coup and/or subsequent governments now hold leadership positions within regional and international organisations.

International partners have also changed tack. Australia’s Coalition, when it came to power in 2013, promised and delivered a new, more constructive approach to Fiji, on the basis that the adversarial approach of earlier years was driving Fiji into the arms of China.

In the decade since, as concerns about China have escalated, those about democracy and human rights have been put on the back burner. Australia is now even supporting Fiji’s army, building a base to support its export of peacekeeping forces.

Rabuka first went up against Bainimarama in the last, 2018 elections, and lost. His prospects are thought to be better this time round according to public opinion polling, but the lack of a united opposition makes predictions difficult.

If Bainimarama is defeated in November, it will be the first time Fiji has changed its PM through the ballot box since 1999. That itself would be a victory for democracy.

However, the fact remains that, whatever the outcome of this year’s election, it is most likely that the country’s next prime minister will be someone who first came to power through the barrel of a gun. This is a clear sign of how deeply entrenched in Fiji’s politics its military has become.

Sadhana Sen is the regional communications adviser at the Development Policy Centre. Stephen Howes is director of the Development Policy Centre and professor of economics at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. This article was first published here by DevPolicy Blog and published with permission under a Creative Commons licence.

In Fiji’s politically charged context, national elections are historically a risky period. Since the 2022 campaign period was declared open on April 26, the intensity has been increasing.

Moreover, with three governments toppled by coups after the 1987, 1999 and 2006 elections, concerns about a smooth transfer of power are part of the national conversation.

The frontrunners in the election, which must be held by January 2023 but is likely to be held later this year, are two former military strongmen — Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

• READ MORE: Social media in Fiji’s national election
• Gender quotas and the 2021 Samoan constitutional crisis
• Other Fiji democracy articles

Both men have been involved in Fijian coups in the past.  Rabuka took power through the 1987 coups in the name of Indigenous self-determination. He became the elected prime minister in 1992 but lost power in 1999 after forming a coalition with a largely Indo–Fijian party.

Bainimarama staged his 2006 coup in the name of good governance, multiracialism and eradicating corruption, before restoring electoral democracy and winning elections under the FijiFirst (FF) party banner in 2014 and 2018.

FijiFirst was formed by the leaders and supporters of the 2006 coup during the transition back to democratic government via the 2014 election. Many of the FF leaders were part of the post-coup interim government that created the 2013 constitution, which delivered substantial changes to Fiji’s electoral system.

These changes included the elimination of seats reserved for specific ethnicities, replaced by a single multi-member constituency covering the whole country, and the creation of a single national electoral roll. Seat distribution is proportional, meaning each of the eight competing parties will need to get five percent of the vote to win one of the 55 seats up for grabs this year.

Popularity a key factor
As votes for a particular candidate are distributed to those lower down their parties’ ticket once they cross the five percent threshold, the popularity of single candidates can make or break a party’s electoral hopes.

For example, Bainimarama individually garnered 69 percent of FF’s total votes in 2014 and 73.81 percent in 2018, demonstrating the extent to which his party’s fortunes rest on his personal brand.

This will be crucial as FF’s majority rests on a razor thin margin, having won in 2018 with only 50.02 percent of the vote, compared to its 59.14 percent in 2014.

As for his major rival Rabuka, following his split with the major Indigenous Fijian party, Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), he formed and now heads the People’s Alliance Party (PAP).

The split came after Rabuka lost a leadership tussle with SODELPA stalwart Viliame Gavoka. Rabuka’s departure is seen as a setback for SODELPA, given that he attracted 77,040, or 42.55 percent, of the total SODELPA votes in 2018.

When it comes to issues, the state of the economy, including cost of living and national debt, are expected to be at the top of most voters’ minds. Covid-19 brought a sudden halt to tourism — which before the pandemic made up 39 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) — putting 115,000 people out of work.

As a result, the government borrowed heavily during this period, which according to the Ministry of Economy saw the “debt-to-GDP ratio increase to over 80 percent at the end of March 2022 compared to around 48 per cent pre-pandemic”.

Poverty ‘undercounted’
The government stated that it borrowed to prevent economic collapse, while the opposition accused it of reckless spending. The World Bank put the poverty level at 24.1 percent in April 2022, but opposition politicians have claimed this is an undercount.

For example, the leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) Professor Biman Prasad has claimed the real level of unemployment is more than 50 percent.

Adding to this pressure is inflation, which reached 4.7 percent in April — up from 1.9 percent in February — and while the government blames price increases in wheat, fuel, and other staples on the war in Ukraine, the opposition attributes it to poor economic fundamentals.

Another factor which could define the election outcome was the pre-election announcement of a coalition between the PAP and NFP. By combining the two largest opposition parties, there is clearly a hope to form a viable multiethnic alternative to FF.

This strategy, however, is not without risks in the country’s complex political milieu. In the 1999 election, the coalition between Rabuka’s ruling Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei Party and NFP failed when Rabuka’s 1987 coup history was highlighted during campaigning.

This saw NFP’s Fijian supporters of Indian descent desert the party.

Whether history will repeat itself is one of the intriguing questions in this election. According to some estimates, FF received 71 percent of Indo-Fijian votes in 2014, and capturing this support base is crucial for the opposition’s chances.

Transfer of power concerns
Against the background of pressing economic and social issues loom concerns about a smooth transfer of power. Besides Fiji’s coup culture, such anxieties are fuelled by a constitutional provision seen to give the military carte blanche to intervene in national politics.

Section 131(2) of the 2013 Fijian constitution states: ‘It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians’.

This has concerned many opposition leaders, such as NFP president Pio Tikoduadua, who has called for the country to rethink how this aspect of the constitution should be understood.

These concerns are likely to increase by the prospect of a close or hung election. As demonstrated after last year’s Samoan general election, the risk of a protracted dispute over the results could have adverse implications for a stable outcome.

As such, it is essential that all candidates immediately commit to respect the final result of the election whatever it may be and lay the foundations for a peaceful transition of power. In the longer-term interest, however, it will be necessary for Fiji to clarify the potential domestic power of the military implied by the constitution to put all undue speculation to rest. 

Dr Shailendra Singh is coordinator of the University of the South Pacific journalism programme. This article is based on a paper published by ANU Department of Pacific Affairs (DPA) as part of its “In brief” series. The original paper can be found here. It was first published at Policy Forum, Asia and the Pacific’s platform for public policy analysis and opinion. Republished with the permission of the author.

Opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad has questioned the motive of the FijiFirst government to continuously highlight the 1987 coup during the girmit celebrations while refusing to mention the devastation brought about by the 2000 and 2006 coups on Fijians.

He highlighted this issue during a rally in Tadevo, Navua, on Saturday.

“They are talking about 1987 coup which happened 35 years ago, but they never mention anything about the 2000 and 2006 coup,” Professor Prasad said.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji elections reports

“They are talking about the 1987 coup because they want to stoke fear in the minds of people, especially on the Fijians of Indian descent voters.

Professor Prasad said the government should also apologise to the family of the late Professor Brij Lal for banning him from the country of his birth and who died at his home in Brisbane, Australia, last year.

“Every government minister and every government member in the FijiFirst party, if they have any shame left in every girmit function that they organise, they should apologise to the family of late Professor Lal and to all the descendants of the girmitya in this country on how they brutally banned him from Fiji.”

He said it was hypocritical for the Minister for Education, Heritage and Arts Premila Kumar and other senior government officials to be parading and giving speeches about the struggles of Fijians of India descent, yet forget the extremely shameful act of banning the historian who had written everything on girmit about Fijians of Indian descent.

“It’s obvious they are using the situation to campaign for the next general elections by highlighting what happened in 1987 and forgetting what happened in 2000 how people were terrorised, forgetting who was a RFMF commander at that time, forgetting the 2006 coup, how many people including women were brutally treated by those were in power at that time,” he said.

Professor Prasad said the girmitya would be “turning in their graves looking at how the shameless government used this occasion for a political gimmick”.

Questions sent to Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama remained unanswered when this edition went to press.

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Fiji’s police chief Sitiveni Qiliho looks to have dug out an old playbook that was used over a couple of years ahead of Voreqe Bainimarama’s 2006 coup.

Qiliho is on a shorter game plan though, he’s got to sow uncertainty and fear in Fiji’s population quickly — before the June general elections.

If he doesn’t, then Bainimarama and his Sancho Panza, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, will lose the elections and the likely winner will be 1987 coup maestro Sitiveni Rabuka.

• READ MORE: Flashback: Exposed – scandal at the Fiji Sun
• Other Fiji elections reports

At least that is what seems to show through the Fiji Sun’s recently heavily doctored opinion poll.

Today the Fiji Sun came out with this: “Police ready to prevent potential unrest.”

The one-sided slavish account of a ramble by Qiliho carried no details or names of those “elements” or what they might do. Other than to explicitly mention Rabuka.

Undoubtedly 1987 with its two coups — staged by Rabuka — was a disaster, but the unrest and uproar was not all his work. As we know now, Sayed-Khaiyum himself was one of the 1987 “elements”.

Arson investigative skills
Qiliho himself had arson investigative skills in another coup or two.

But the Fiji Sun left that out.

“We’ve had past history where some people have utilised elements to create instability,” Qiliho is quoted in the Fiji Sun as actually saying. “Not in particular during election period, but there have been reports with our history from 1987 that people can be utilised for the wrong reasons.”

Qiliho and the intelligence boys are planning countermeasures.

“We are awake to that and our intelligence bureau and other stakeholders that we continue to discuss these issues with, we are well awake to that to see that there is no political influence on those types of activities,” he said.

“In terms of the security landscape it’s important for us to provide that security and stability so that elections can run smoothly and keep the criminal landscape stable as well.

“We don’t want to be used as a political football if we don’t provide that secure environment so that is important now.”

Qiliho has a short memory.

‘Dirty politics at its worst’
Ahead of the May 2006 elections, which saw Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase reelected, Bainimarama was one of those “elements” that Qiliho now talks of. Bainimarama referred to “Mr Qarase and his cronies” and said Fijian politics was “dirty politics at its worst…it is cannibalistic.”

Qarase responded that Bainimarama’s “stated intention of involving the military in the national election campaign is a threat to peace and stability, and the conduct of free and fair elections. It goes against the rule of law and good governance.”

It would appear Qiliho – a military officer rather than a constable — is keen on getting 4576 police into the political game. What roll the 10,000 strong Fiji Military Force — the traditional leader of coups – is not spelt out.

In 2006 Bainimarama was explicit about the May elections and said that if the result was not to his liking, then he would act.

Has Qiliho with his piece today stuck his toe into the tub?

Michael Field is a co-publisher of The Pacific Newsroom. He is the author of Speight of Violence: Inside Fiji’s 2000 Coup. This article is republished with permission.

Brij Vilash Lal, banished from the land of his birth by the Bainimarama government in November 2009 for championing democracy and barred from entering Fiji upon the orders of the Prime Minister, has died in Brisbane, 12 years after the draconian act of a heartless government.

The sudden and shocking death of Professor Brij Lal at the age of 69 should create a moment for all Fiji citizens to pause and reflect, even while we are distracted by our many personal challenges brought on by the pandemic and our other deep national problems.

Professor Lal was a giant on the international academic stage. But for the last 12 years of his life he was banned by the Bainimarama and FijiFirst governments from returning to the place of his birth.

• READ MORE: Renowned Fijian academic dies in exile
• Professor Brij Vilash Lal passes away
• Fiji’s finest scholar dies

Some of Fiji’s most outstanding people, with international reputations, are sporting figures, business people or international diplomats. But among historians and scholars, Professor Lal stood tall around the world.

From a poor farming family in Tabia, Vanua Levu, Professor Lal rose to be an emeritus professor of Pacific and Asian history at the Australian National University, one of the world’s highest-ranked places of learning.

He was an acknowledged expert on the Indian diaspora around the world. He was recognised as the pre-eminent historian on the history of indenture and Girmitiya.

Among his many books, he wrote authoritative biographies on A D Patel and Jai Ram Reddy, two of Fiji’s most influential political leaders.

1997 Fiji Constitution architect
Professor Lal will be remembered as one of the architects of the 1997 Fiji Constitution. His membership of the three-man Reeves Commission, with former Parliamentary Speaker Tomasi Vakatora, ushered in multiparty government and a national governing law strongly protective of good governance, human rights and multiracialism.

It is this constitution that current Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, as Army Commander, twice abrogated in May 2000, only for it to be restored by the Fiji Court of Appeal in March 2001, and again in April 2009, bringing in a new legal order.

However, Professor Lal may be best remembered in Fiji as the target of a small-minded two-man government of Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, which banned him and his wife Dr Padma Lal indefinitely from returning to Fiji.

This was because Professor Lal spoke up for democracy and rule of law at a time the Bainimarama government did not want to be criticised. Professor Lal remained excluded from Fiji to the day of his death because Fiji’s insecure political leaders could never say they were wrong.

And they repeatedly refused to reconsider their reprehensible act despite resumption of parliamentary democracy 7 years ago in October 2014.

Pettiness of Fiji leaders
The pettiness of Fiji’s leaders will not take away Professor Lal’s towering achievements and scholarship, for which he will one day be fully recognised in the place he was born. All of us in Fiji are the poorer for his irreplaceable loss.

The opposition National Federation Party will be organising a condolence gathering to remember Professor Lal and details on this will be announced soon.

The party offers its deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences to Dr Padma Narsey Lal, children Yogi and Niraj and the Lal and Narsey families in Fiji and abroad.

“I do not know whether I will ever be able to understand the mystery that is Fiji, and whether I will ever be allowed to return to again embrace the land of my birth. But I know one unalterable truth whatever happens, the green undulating hills of Tabia will always be a special place for me. Home is where the heart is.”

– Professor Brij Vilash Lal, October 2020

Professor Biman Prasad is leader of the Fiji opposition National Federation Party (NFP) and a former colleague of Professor Brij Lal at the University of the South Pacific.

The opinion polls about voting intentions for Fiji’s 2022 General Election suggests that voters face the horrible challenge of choosing as their next Prime Minister one of two former military officers.

Both of these former soldiers have carried out military coups removing lawfully elected governments.

Is Fiji genuinely between, as the saying goes, “a rock and a hard place”? I suggest that today’s young voters, who have only known the 14 years of governance by the Voreqe Bainimarama government, need to think also about how Sitiveni Rabuka governed Fiji after his 1987 coup.

• READ MORE: Other Professor Wadan Narsey articles on Asia Pacific Report

Both coup leaders may have coup skeletons in their cupboards.

But only one is being very selectively focused on by the current Republic of Fiji Military Force (RFMF) commander, writing (appropriately) in the other daily newspaper, Fiji Sun.

Fiji’s voters ought to focus on historical facts by answering the following difficult questions about the two coup leaders:

• Who were really behind the coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006?
• How did each coup leader change Fiji’s constitution and Fiji’s governance?
• How did each coup leader change the powerful institutions of state, such as police, prisons and judiciary?
• How did each coup leader influence the media?
• Were our coup leaders collective decision-makers or dictators?
• Were the coup leaders accountable to the voters or to “powers behind the throne”?

Perhaps Fiji is more accurately “between a rock and a softer place” with political and economic progress only possible if there is a change in government.

Behind the 1987 coup?
The world knows that Sitiveni Rabuka, the third in command in the RFMF, implemented the first 1987 coup.

But anyone watching the very public protests against the 1987 NFP/FLP government would have known that the former Prime Minister (the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara) and the Governor-General and later President (the late Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau), and all their entourages, would have had their ears very close to the ground and, possibly, their fingers in the pie.

But importantly, what did Rabuka do afterwards as coup leader?

Rabuka became multiracial
Victor Lal and Fijileaks rightly remind readers about the trauma that Rabuka’s 1987 coup caused the Indo-Fiji community.

But what needs also to be discussed is Rabuka’s reform of the racist 1990 Constitution and his support of the revolutionary 1997 Constitution.

Rabuka, in partnership with Jai Ram Reddy (Leader of the National Federation Party) agreed to the appointment of the three-person Reeves Constitution Commission (Sir Paul Reeves, Tomasi Vakatora Snr and Dr Brij Lal).

Their report was the basis of the 1997 Constitution, with one valuable addition not in the report.

It is sadly often forgotten today that the 1997 Constitution included a “multiparty government” provision.

This ensured that any party with at least 10 percent of the seats in Parliament had to be invited to join the cabinet and share in the governance of Fiji.

Of course, there was one huge defect in its electoral system, which I had explained even as I (as a NFP Member of Parliament then) voted to pass the 1997 Constitution. (“The Constitution Review Commission Report: sound principles but weak advice on electoral system”, The Fiji Times, November 1, 1996).

But we in the NFP were in a hurry to approve the progressive constitutional change agreed to by Rabuka.

We knew he had to convince some very reluctant colleagues, and we fully co-operated for the 1999 Elections.

I remember accompanying Ratu Inoke Kubuabola in his election campaigns in the Yasawas and Ratu Sakiusa Makutu in Nadroga.

Sadly, both Indo-Fijian and indigenous Fijian voters rejected the multiracial stance of Rabuka and Reddy.

Nevertheless, it is to Rabuka’s credit that he accepted the results of the election and humbly offered his services to Mahendra Chaudhry as the incoming PM (on the phone in my presence on the Vatuwaqa Golf Course).

Unfortunately, for reasons that historians can explore till the cows come home, Chaudhry did not accept that humble offer from Rabuka, who soon after lost the leadership of SVT to Ratu Inoke Kubuabola.

Ignored today are the following:

• the historical opportunity to implement a multiracial multiparty government (of the Fiji Labour Party and Mr Rabuka’s Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) party went begging. Thus the cogs of the 2000 coup were set in motion;
• the 1997 Constitution had an upper house — the Senate which was a solid “checks and balances” mechanism of national leaders, and which could officially hold the decisions of the elected House of Representatives to account; and
• by and large the institutions of government were relatively independent of the government of the day. Less clear are the events of 2000.

Behind the 2000 coup?
It is a real tragedy that while George Speight is seen as the leader of the 2000 coup, the truth has never been revealed about who else, including military officers, might have had more than just a sticky hand in it.

It is a real tragedy that Fiji has forgotten the names of a few honest RFMF officers who were very ethically opposed to the 2000 coup. From personal communications to me, I list the following: Ilaisa Kacisolomone, George Kadavulevu, Vilame Seruvakoula, Akuila Buadromo and several others.

But also conveniently forgotten are the names of RFMF officers who were at least initially behind the 2000 coup, many revealed by the Evans Board of Inquiry Report (which can be freely downloaded from the TruthForFiji website).

What is historically indisputable is that after RFMF gained control of the situation  Bainimarama chose not to restore the lawful Chaudhry government to power but appointed the interim Qarase government, thereby effecting the real coup.

It is said that some of the CRW soldiers involved in the November 2000 mutiny did so because they felt betrayed by some in the RFMF hierarchy.

It is not disputed that a number of CRW soldiers (not necessarily involved in the mutiny) ended up dead after the mutiny in circumstances not known to this day.

It is not in dispute that Rabuka, with his uniform, appeared at Queen Elizabeth Barracks at the time of the mutiny.

But while one newspaper is focusing on his actions, the roles of several other senior RFMF officers during the 2000 coup are not being similarly examined.

2006 and governance since then
Now we come to the 2006 coup.

In contrast to those which went before, there is no doubt whatsoever that the then RFMF commander, Voreqe Bainimarama, was the sole leader of the 2006 coup and totally controlled the government thereafter, while still controlling the RFMF.

Given what have I sketched above, the sheer contrasts of the Bainimarama coup with the Rabuka coup are all too obvious.

It is tragically forgotten that the 2006 coup did not just depose Qarase’s SDL government.

It deposed a multi-party government — a government of Qarase’s Soqosqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) Party and FLP.

One can understand why Chaudhry as FLP leader has never emphasised that point.

Soon after the 2006 coup, he joined Bainimarama’s government as Minister of Finance.

It is indisputable that Bainimarama ruled Fiji for eight years as the head of a military government which was not democratically accountable to the Fiji public.

A “People’s Charter” exercise was carried out under the leadership of John Samy and the late Archbishop Mataca but rejected without explanation.

Professor Yash Ghai’s Constitutional Commission was appointed by Bainimarama and Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

It produced a comprehensive draft constitution, but Professor Ghai and his Commission were also were sent packing for reasons never clarified.

A 2013 Constitution with little popular input was imposed on Fiji without the approval of any elected Parliament.

The Senate was abolished.

Parliament has become a rubber stamp for the legislative changes the current government wants.

Many important institutions of government were allowed by the Constitution to come under the direct or indirect control of the politicians who controlled the government.

Large sections of the media (with the painful exception of The Fiji Times) and the Media Industry Development Authority came under government influence or control.

Undermining the Ministry of Information, a massive amount of money was spent annually on American propaganda machine Qorvis.

One government minister, not the Prime Minister, clearly became all powerful while others toed the line or were ejected from Parliament.

To fund the ruling party’s electioneering, the owners of some of Fiji’s largest businesses have worked their way around the annual political donation limit of $10,000 by using family members and even in some cases staff, contributing hundreds of thousands in cash.

A distorted electoral system
Under the 2013 Constitution an electoral system was imposed, supposedly proportional, but designed to elect a President type “leader” with the bulk of the votes, while the rest of his MPs and ministers had pitifully small numbers.

There was an outrageous ballot paper for one national constituency without names, faces, or party symbols, just one number among more than 200 from which Fiji’s largely undereducated voters were to select one number.

Voters were not allowed the help of even a “voter assistance card” (common in all democratic countries) which was astonishingly made illegal with heavy fines.

This utterly contrived electoral system was given the stamp of approval by many authoritative figures such as the Catholic cleric Reverend David Arms and even self-censoring USP academics whose academic journal covering the 2014 elections blazoned “ENDORSED” on their cover.

That system was perpetuated through the 2018 Elections and is now in full swing for the 2022 elections.

The outcome of those elections will be interesting to say the least, given that under the Constitution the RFMF can claim legal responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of Fiji, which may be what they decide themselves.

Between a rock and a softer place?
Of course, Fiji’s voters might also want to examine the impact of the two coup leaders on the public debt, FNPF and the economic welfare (and poverty) of ordinary people of Fiji.

But even the very simple comparisons and contrasts that I have drawn above between Rabuka and Bainimarama in their governance of Fiji, would suggest that Fiji is not between “the rock and a hard place” but “between a rock and a softer place”.

I am sure that The Fiji Times readers are intelligent enough to decide who is the “rock” and who is the “softer place” — regardless of the skeletons rattling in both their cupboards.

Professor Wadan Narsey is a former professor of economics at The University of the South Pacific and a leading Fiji economist and statistician. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

“So many detractors were saying, ‘no you won’t get it, the Supervisor of Elections won’t allow it’. I said, ‘well let him just do his work’. And I believe in the goodness of the man. We got it and we’re happy.” — Sitiveni Rabuka, CFL/FijiVillage interview. 8 September 2021

The leader of the new People’s Alliance has given Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Kahyum yet another masterclass in how to win friends and influence people in the Fijian political context.

Of course, he doesn’t necessarily “believe in the goodness” of Elections Supervisor Mohammed Saneen, who tried to prevent him from contesting the 2018 election and will do his damnedest to try to exclude him from the 2022 election.

Or maybe he does. It doesn’t matter because Sitiveni Rabuka has spoken well of someone who everyone regards as his nemesis and in doing so has presented himself as magnanimous and humble.

• READ MORE: Other articles on the Fiji elections

Fijians like that and Rabuka knows it. Which makes it all the more astonishing that Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum still don’t know it after 15 years in power.

It was Rabuka’s humility and forbearance in the face of an ordeal in the courts before the 2018 election that triggered a wave of community sympathy that manifested itself on election day and took the Bai-Kai duo to the brink of defeat.

Readers of my website will know that in the immediate aftermath of the election, I tried and failed to get Bainimarama to realise that the FijiFirst government’s appearance of arrogance — its vei beci, viavialevu attitude to everything — was the prime cause of its electoral collapse.

But they still don’t get it. And having given them a fright in 2018 but still not having learnt their lesson, I suspect that the Rabuka juggernaut is going to bear down on them in the coming months and flatten them like toads on hot bitumen.

Why? Because the Fijian people are fed up with them, not just the usual burden of longevity in government and people tiring of their increasingly tired faces but a visceral distaste for the manner in which they conduct themselves.

Always right. Never wrong. Always contemptuous. Never, ever humble.

Even some of my closest friends say Rabuka cannot win — that the burden of his two coups in 1987 and the hatred and bitterness that lingers — especially among Indo-Fijians – is too much of a cross to bear, let alone such things as the fiasco of the National Bank collapse under his watch when he was eventually elected prime minister.

But politics is more about perception than substance wherever it is practiced in the world. And is equally true that electors have notoriously short memories, never mind that a great many voters weren’t even born when Rabuka held the reins of power.

I am coming to the view that not only can Rabuka win the next election but probably will.

For many Fijians, the events of 1987, let alone Rabuka’s period in government, aren’t a part of their lived experience. In any event, Bainimarama and Khaiyum have yet to learn the most basic lesson of politics — that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them.

And these two conjoined twins — with their chronic hubris and arrogance — are doing everything they possibly can to lose.

I’ve chosen the accompanying selection of photos to illustrate Rabuka’s extraordinary journey from coup-maker in 1987 to the benign figure that the opinion polls now tell us is set to make the most extraordinary comeback in Fijian political history. Provided of course, that Bainimarama and Khaiyum keep to the election timetable and the people still get their say.

There’s “Rambo” – the smiling tough guy and defender of iTaukei rights who forced thousands of Indo-Fijians to leave Fiji post 1987. And there’s Rabuka as Prime Minister in the 1990s forming a warm partnership with the main Indo-Fijian politician, Jai Ram Reddy, that produced the 1997 Constitution and eventually led to Rabuka’s defeat.

There’s the “treasonous” soldier who abolished the monarchy and took Fiji out of the Commonwealth when it wouldn’t accept his takeover. And there is the barefooted Prime Minister at Buckingham Palace making a formal apology to HM the Queen for his act of lese majeste and it being graciously accepted.

The man has had an incredible journey, that’s for sure. And maybe, just maybe, he is going to cement his place in Fijian history next year with an incredible final twist.

Is it in the stars? It doesn’t matter. It’s already in the opinion polls.

And you can bet your last saqamoli that it’s keeping Frank Bainimarama and his puppet master, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, awake at night with agonising intimations of their own political mortality.

Fiji-born Graham Davis is a Walkley Award and Logie Award-winning Australian-based journalist and media consultant. He is publisher of the Grubsheet blog on Fiji affairs. This commentary is republished with permission.

Former Fiji opposition leader Sitiveni Rabuka has submitted his application to register his newly proposed political party — the “People’s Aliance”.

A statement released by the Fijian Elections Office stated that the Registrar of Political Parties, Mohammed Saneem, was now processing the application to register the party.

According to the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding & Disclosures) Act, an association of persons or an organisation shall not operate, function, represent or hold itself out to be a political party unless it has been registered.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji politics stories

Under the Act, the application for registration of a new proposed political party should be accompanied by a schedule setting out the names, addresses, signatures and voter identification card numbers of at least 5000 members from all four divisions.

Rabuka said the proposed party would have to wait for the result and at the same time plan on what to do in the near future.

He said he would not be able to comment further as the proposed party awaited its application result.

Meanwhile, speaking to The Fiji Times during an interview last week, Rabuka revealed that some people who contested the 2018 general elections had resigned from political parties they represented to join him in contesting the next election.

He confirmed this during an interview at his home in Namadi Heights.

“Some people have resigned from their political parties in the last general elections to join me,” Rabuka said.

“They have shown their support for the next general elections.”

• As a third-ranked military commander, Sitiveni Rabuka staged the first two of four coups d’etat in Fiji in 1987 and was later elected prime minister, serving the country between 1992 and 1999.

Litia Cava is a Fiji Times reporter. This article is republlshed with permission.

I thank The Fiji Times for covering this story. I also thank Archbishop Peter Chong for providing a space for men to talk about issues that affect them. My shared experience with thousands of other Fijians, an experience of torture and abuse – we only have our faith to turn to. Here is what happened to me after the 5 December 2006 military coup in Fiji.

It was Christmas Eve 2006, we had returned from Mass. The sermon, Christmas carols, the nativity play — and the reaffirmation of Christ’s presence among us! It was a beautiful service. I recall meeting [former Minister of Labour] Kenneth Zinck outside church. We wished each other a Merry Christmas!

I remember helping my late mum prepare for the next day’s cooking [because Mum cooked one day ahead] — I placed the corned beef on the stove and brought the pork out of the fridge to defrost — little did I know, that I wouldn’t eat any of it.

Around this time, I received a phone call, that the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) were at my gate, it was around 11pm. My late stepfather, Ratu Timoci Vesikula, ran out and told off the men who came to take me.

• READ MORE: Fijian activist shares trauma of abuse — The Fiji Times
• Beating justice: How Fiji’s security forces get away with torture – Amnesty International

I recall him saying that this was too late in the night to be taking anyone to the military camp.

Eight solders with guns. I asked my stepdad to let me go, as I did not know what these men were capable of — since they were holding guns. When I got in the car, I saw my good friend [activist] Laisa Digitaki in the vehicle. We had a brief chat, before she was dropped off at a very dark QEB [Queen Elizabeth Barracks]. When I say dark, I mean they had turned off all the lights — that was strange to me.

I was ordered to stay in the vehicle and that I was to go and collect my cousin Jacque. I recall as I and Jacque conversed as we journeyed back to the camp, I realised both her and Laisa had canvas on. I had flip flops.

Christmas was fast approaching! And I’m not sure whether it was my idea or my cousins, but I started wishing all the officers along the checkpoints a Merry Christmas.

Friendly, then things changed
The two officers driving us to the camp, were friendly. When we reached the camp, things changed.

As we drove into the camp, there was silence in the car. The whole complex was blacked out, I recall the only light was from the vehicle that was carrying us. Weirdly as we exited the vehicle, the soldiers asked for our phone and wallet.

I didn’t have my phone on me, so I gave over my wallet that had some money in it — my wallet was returned the next day, without the contents.

The soldiers said “Waqavonovono” and they told me to run up to the Mess Hall. I stared at them, firstly because I didn’t know where the Mess Hall was and secondly, I didn’t understand why they were telling me to run anywhere.

Than they told us to run to the ground. As I jogged to the ground these same men followed me and they kept hitting me and swearing at me. I stopped and tried to catch a glimpse of their faces and I am sure that I gave one them a left hook, this was when I was violently knocked to the ground and kicked repeatedly.

I heard the voices of the then commander and the land force commander. I shielded my face as they all had a go at me.

They dragged me to the cricket pitch. Here I realised that there were other people lying on that pitch. They kept kicking and punching us, but what I didn’t understand was the stomping on our backs and the demand that we kiss their boots.

Refusal to kiss their boots
My refusal to kiss their boots, gave me more kicks!

As they attacked us, they kept referring to the [2006] coup and that they were trying to help Fiji, I was not helping them do their job effectively. I recall them asking someone near me, if she was pregnant — I am certain I heard a yes.

That’s when I heard her scream! I tried to stand up, but was pinned down and told to stay down.

A soldier knelt down and told me that I would be killed that night. I was told that my body would be dumped in the sea — no one would care. This same officer put a gun to my head and pressed it hard against my head. He said that I could be easily killed.

Around this time, was when I realised two things, the smell of alcohol from the officers and the fact that a separate group of officers were singing Christmas Carols.

I have never heard Christmas Carols sung in a such a circumstances. Disgusting! Shameful!

As we lay on the cricket pitch, I felt something heavy on my head. It was someone’s boot.

Standing on my head
Someone was standing on my head and pressing it to the cement pitch. The officer released their hold, and walked to line of soldiers that stood facing us.

I was punched in the face, for looking at the gentlemen who lined up in front of us. I wanted Driti, Frank, and Ului to know that I saw them! We were ordered at the count of three, to run to Lami and tear down our Democracy Shrine.

[What we didn’t know, was that officers had already torn down the signs and ransacked the property in Lami].

Like a child, I picked myself up and ran at the mention of the number three. There was a drain that we had to jump over, someone feel in, I helped the person out. As we ran I noticed Imraz Iqbal [then a journalist and activist] in front of me, as we jogged out of QEB, I noticed a vehicle and Shamima Ali was standing there trying to tell officers to let us go.

This is when I realised, that part of group that had just been attacked, was Viri.

It was around this time where a few soldiers stopped me and tried to pick a fight with me. They continued to hit me as I ran, at one point I stopped and took a boxing pose, the soldiers tackled me and continued to beat me.

I was placed in the tray of a vehicle and taken back to the camp.

Dragged into a room
I accepted that I probably would die, when I was dragged into a room and two soldiers preceded to beat me up, they were interested in right leg and continued to kicked it.

One of the men then held me down, while the other decided to pull my pants down and sodomise me. This is when I realised that since they were raping me, they could actually kill me. My cries didn’t stop them, as they taunted me.

Another soldier walked into the room and I recall him being very disappointed with the two. He told them off, and told them to take me home. They instead threw me on the side of the road at Colo-i-Suva.

A vehicle picked me up, and took me home from there.

I was told to leave Suva, and the next day [Christmas Day], I flew to Levuka — with my wounds still raw and myself being unable to walk.

I testify, if it weren’t for my family, I would have done something terribly wrong to myself. I would wake up at odd hours, reliving my ordeal, I had suicidal thoughts, and to see the people that attacked me running the country — that really broke my spirit.

I recall, a session I had with one of my cousins — he actually was very disappointed that a few days after been taken to the camp, I was still meeting with pro-democracy advocates and speaking out!

Family critical for recovery
But in the end family play a critical part in my recovery — they encouraged me to realise that I needed to talk to an expert. I spoke to a Catholic priest and a psychologist – they helped me understand that I had a greater purpose and that I had to release my perpetrators.

I forgave them, all the soldiers that hurt me and those that abused me — I forgave them. I forgave them, stood up, and continued my work! I wish I could say, it was easy getting over what happened to me — it wasn’t!

For those of you who were also tortured by the military, please know that not all officers are disgusting and violent. But for that small group of officers that arrested me and tortured me, I hope that they one day have the guts to speak about their actions — they carry a heavy burden in their hearts, they need closure.

Sadly, I could not take this matter to court because of the immunity provisions in sections 155 to 158 of Fiji’s Constitution, which act as a barrier to any investigation and prosecution of torture cases.

So family, friends and professional mental health providers stepped up for me!

Torture is wrong, in any situation, it is wrong!

I know I am not the only one who has faced this type of brutal force – I understand that there are many others like me who are dealing with our situation, but our scars exist for a reason! And they highlight lessons that should be learnt.

I still speak up! I still protest! I still pray for them! I still defend my country!

Pita Waqavonovono, one of the so-called Democracy Six group in 2006, is a youth activist and was president of the opposition Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) youth wing. The Fiji Times published a front page report about his allegations yesterday and put questions to Republic of Fiji Military Forces Commander Rear Admiral Viliame Naupoto but had received no reply at the time the newspaper went to press. Waqavonovono’s account of the torture allegations circulated on social media is published here with the permission of the author.

Retired politics professor and historian Robert “Robbie” Robertson, 69, co-author of the book Shattered Coups about the 1987 coups led by then Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, has died in Melbourne, his family has confirmed.

Dr Robertson wrote the book with his partner Akosita Tamanisau, then a Fiji journalist. It was published in January 1988 and he also wrote other books and papers on Fiji and globalisation.

He and Dr William Sutherland co-authored the fast moving and readable Government by the Gun: The unfinished business of Fiji’s 2000 coup.

• READ MORE: The General’s Goose: Coups, globalisation and Fiji’s reset ‘democracy’ paradigm
• Fiji’s actions threaten to unwind the Pacific’s great experiment in regional education at USP – Robbie Robertson and Akosita Tamanisau

His last book on Fiji in 2017 was The General’s Goose: Fiji’s contemporary tale of misadventure.

Dr Robertson was the second person at the University of the South Pacific to have his work permit rescinded and he was deported to New Zealand by Rabuka’s government.

Attempts to have him relocated to Port Vila were sabotaged by the then Vanuatu government.

Moved to Australia
He moved to Australia and joined La Trobe University and became associate professor of history and development studies in Bendigo.

Dr Robertson returned to USP from 2004 to 2006 as professor and director of development studies.

Subsequently, he served as professor and head of school of arts and social sciences at James Cook University (2010-2014) and as professor and dean of arts, social sciences and humanities at Swinburne University of Technology from July 2014 until he retired.

Retired professor of development studies at USP Dr Vijay Naidu and New Zealand researcher Dr Jackie Leckie recalled his contribution as a progressive and inspirational academic, and his sense of humour, Dr Leckie saying “Robbie was one of the good guys. I am so sorry that he had suffered in health recently.”

Dr Robertson is survived by his wife Akosita and sons Nemani and Julian.

Bananas, balaclavas and banners … these were stock-in-trade for human rights activists of the New Zealand-based Coalition for Democracy in Fiji who campaigned against then Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka’s original two coups in 1987 and the “banana republic” coup culture that emerged.

Many of the activists, politicians, trade unionists, civil society advocates and supporters of democracy in Fiji gathered at an Auckland restaurant in Cornwall Park to reflect on their campaign and to remember the visionary Fiji Labour Party prime minister Dr Timoci Bavadra who was ousted by the Fiji military on 14 May 1987.

Speakers included Auckland mayor Phil Goff, who was New Zealand foreign minister at the time, and keynote Richard Naidu, then a talented young journalist who had emerged as Dr Bavadra’s spokesperson — “by accident” he recalls — and movement stalwarts.

• READ MORE: Other articles about Fiji’s 1987 coups and the coup culture
• Photo gallery by Del Abcede

The mood of the evening was a fun-filled and relaxed recollection of coup-related events as about 40 participants — many of them exiled from Fiji — sought to pay tribute to the kindly and inspirational leadership of Dr Bavadra who died from cancer two years after the coup.

Participants agreed that it was a tragedy that Dr Bavadra had died such an untimely death at 55, robbing Fiji of a new style of social justice leadership that stood in contrast with the autocratic style of the current Fiji “democracy”.

Naidu, today an outspoken lawyer and commentator, spoke via Zoom from Suva about Dr Bavadra’s unique approach to politics, not unlike a general practitioner caring for his patients, a style that was drawn from his background as a public health specialist and trade unionist.

He referred to Johns Hopkins University in the United States — “the bible of global statistics about covid-19 pandemic in the world” — and remarked that Dr Bavadra had gained his public health degree at that celebrated campus.

Covid and Dr Bavadra
Naidu asked how, if he had been alive today and still prime minister, Dr Bavadra might have approached the Fiji covid-19 crisis with 46 new cases of infection being reported last night.

Fiji has now had 360 cases in total since the first case was reported in March 2020, with 161 recoveries and four deaths.

Naidu described the current leadership in Fiji in response to the covid pandemic as unresponsive and lacking in direction. He believes Fiji is in a worse position today than it was in 1987 and poverty and food shortages were a growing problem.

The challenge for Fiji was a lack of consultation with grassroots organisations and a “bubble” mentality among the key leaders of Voreqe Bainimarama’s government that refused to see the suffering on the ground.

“Everything was bad in Fiji before 2006 [when Bainimarama staged his coup],” he said, reflecting the leadership’s mantra. “Everything good in Fiji is after 2006.”

Lawyer Richard Naidu speaking about Dr Bavadra’s legacy and the reality of Fiji today. Video: David Robie/FB

Naidu referred to a social media posting in relation to the Samoan constitutional crisis when he commented: “ Australia and New Zealand must be wondering: Is Samoa ‘21 just a rehearsal for Fiji ’22?” The question is what would happen if Bainimarama and FijiFirst lose the election next year.

In spite of his fears for the future, Naidu said he still remained optimistic because of the young leadership and committed civil society that was emerging in spite of the barriers.

‘Have we won?’
Looking back 34 years, Naidu asked the audience: “Have we won?”

With a negative response, he challenged the participants to keep working for a better Fiji.

Auckland mayor Phil Goff speaking at the Bavadra reunion last night. Image: David Robie/FB

Mayor Phil Goff said that after the 1987 coups, New Zealand did not just have a “trickle of migration, we had a flood of migration, and I think something like 20,000 or 30,000 people came from Fiji in the wake of the coups”.

And, he added, “that was a huge benefit to our country, it strengthened our country. But it was a huge drain on Fiji because these were the people with skills and energy and they could have been contributing had Fiji been a welcoming country, if everybody had first class citizenship.

“But they didn’t see that future for themselves in Fiji and I understand that and they came to make a better life in New Zealand.”

Goff called on those present to keep campaigning for human rights.

Union and NFIP days
Trade unionist Ashok Kumar recalled when he had worked for the Fiji Public Service Association and Dr Bavadra had been president at the time and he had inspired many people with the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement, “which had been a big issue for Fiji”.

Trade unionist Ashok Kumar speaking. Video: David Robie/FB

Other speakers also spoke of their admiration for a “forgotten” Dr Bavadra and how they hoped to “keep his memory alive”.

Former National Federation Party MP Ahmed Bhamji said it was hoped that the Bavadra lecture event would become an annual one and he declared that they were already planning for the 35th anniversary of Rabuka’s first coup next year.

Bhamji was a sponsor of this year’s event and among his fellow organisers were Nikhil Naidu, Rach Mario and Maire Leadbeater, who was MC for the evening.

• More information about CDF

The pictures of Professor Pal Ahluwalia, the vice-chancellor of the University of the South Pacific (USP), and his wife Sandra Price on the morning of Thursday, February 4, during their long and unexpected plane journey back to Brisbane after their shock expulsion from Fiji brought back memories for us.

Former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, still very much a politician and leadership contender for elections in 2022, argued that the FijiFirst government’s behaviour in deporting Professor Ahluwalia and his wife was nothing short of childish.

He should know. He began Fiji’s coup culture with two coups in 1987, unleashing a wave of violence upon Fiji’s people: assaults, burglaries, arson, and imprisonment.

• READ MORE: Other USP saga articles

One group of demonstrators was gassed. Dr Anirudh Singh, a university scientist who criticised Rabuka’s biography, was hijacked by a military unit and severely tortured, his hands broken. In effect, anyone who by their actions signalled dissatisfaction became fair game.

In January 1988, we found out too that we had become fair game. After the first coup in May 1987, we had been warned by economist Wadan Narsey (another victim, later forced out of USP by government pressure and, in his case, the Bainimarama government) that our close friendship with William Sutherland, the deposed Prime Minister’s permanent secretary, might create problems for us. (William escaped Rabuka’s military, who came for him immediately after the first coup, and managed to leave the country. But at Nadi, troops dragged him off the plane. Only the pilot’s brave refusal to take off without all his passengers enabled him to leave.)

In reality, anything could cause problems. USP where one of us (Robbie) worked as a senior lecturer had long been subject to cliques at loggerheads with each other.

A simple call to the military could create a lifetime of pain for helpless individuals. Then VC, Geoffrey Caston, soon discovered this when hash harriers (social runners) left their cars outside his home and he was charged with holding unauthorised meetings.

Shadowy Taukeist activists
We had a member of Rabuka’s shadowy Taukeist activists living next door to us in Raiwaqa who didn’t look kindly on us, particularly around the time of the second coup in September 1987 when he held operational meetings in his home.

We also brought attention upon ourselves because we decided to write on the coups in our evenings. All news was censored, so to find out what was happening we would frequent certain bars where public servants and officers often hung out.

Asking the odd question, but mostly listening to conversations, could provide some framework for understanding what was happening.

The other author of this article (Akosita) was a journalist with the then Fiji Sun, but also did stories for London’s Gemini news service. She had been asked to send a story on the current political scene, but the only way to get it out was via Fintel, the government’s centralised telecommunications system.

She discovered on handing over the article to be faxed that Fintel had been militarised. An officer read her piece, said the fax was down and asked her to come back in the late afternoon.

We did, but before we could enter an employee exited and whispered that a whole group of soldiers was waiting for her. We decided to leave but were followed by a military vehicle for some time. Eventually we headed up to the Sun editor’s home and got approval to fax from the newspaper’s offices.

That still had to go through Fintel and was refused. In the end we used an old telex. But no sooner had the article been sent, power to the suburb was cut.

Things heated up
From that moment on, things seemed to heat up. Our house was raided by military intelligence. The family we allowed to live in the empty quarters under the house was turned against us and became the military’s spies. And our phone was tapped. After the first raid we took to taking everything to work that we had been writing in the evening.

Then everything went quiet. Classes finished at USP and we travelled to Vanuatu where Robbie taught for three weeks. Then we took a three-week holiday in Australia, in part to relieve the tension that went with two military coups, roadblocks, curfews, arrests, and beatings of friends.

When we returned in January, we went to Akosita’s parents to inform them that we intended to marry. On arriving back in Suva, Robbie received an urgent message to go to the university. There he was told that the government had decided not to renew his work visa and asked that he leave the next day.

The university suggested we go into hiding while they tried to sort it out. The sociologist Vijay Naidu (later thrown by the military into Fiji’s old death row cells) kindly took us up to the New Zealand High Commissioner’s residence, but his wife informed us that her husband was in the bath preparing to go out.

“We couldn’t help Richard Naidu (another expelled local who had been assaulted by Taukeists),” she argued. What makes you think you are different?

The next day was busy. Packers in to remove nine years of living. Then a quick trip down to the Registry Office. Then off to historian Jacqui Leckie’s house ostensibly to hide. Nothing worked. Everyone knew where we were and Rabuka refused to budge.

How did it come to this?
He told a New Zealand newspaper that Robbie was a security risk and had to go. So he eventually did, flying first to Auckland to stay with journalist David Robie, feeling we suspect much like Ahluwalia and possibly thinking: how did it come to this. And what is next?

As it turned out USP was good to Robbie. They kept him employed and planned to install him in Vanuatu. He would fly into Suva two or three times a semester to teach. But once the Fijian government heard of these plans, they declared him a prohibited immigrant and encouraged Vanuatu to ban him also. He eventually found work in Australia and the university paid for our effects to come over.

All’s well that ends well, and he did go back to teach again in Fiji as a professor of development studies in 2004, smartly leaving ahead of the well-advertised 2006 coup.

That coup was led by the current Prime Minister and bore all the clandestine and nasty tactics that Rabuka and others had employed since 1987 in the name of sovereignty. This is a country that now chairs the UN Human Rights Committee yet has managed to impose a draconian curfew ever since covid-19 became a potential threat.

Standing up to political pressure is not something that comes naturally to the politically appointed USP Council. Let’s hope it does for Pal’s sake and for the health of the Pacific’s regional university.

Let’s hope also for the notion of academic freedom, unfortunately often more honoured in the breach in the Pacific. In the early 1980s Mara’s pre-coup government pressured Ziam Baksh – a young Indo-Fijian academic – who called for a common term to refer to all Fijian citizens.

Much later, USP bowed to criticism and forced Professor Narsey to resign. Governments like to be in control, and Fiji is no different from many others in this regard, preferring instead a culture of silence.

But its assault on good governance under the pretence of sovereign rights, its attempt to pre-emptively sack a vice-chancellor, now threatens to unwind the Pacific’s great experiment in regional education and end the diversity of views and pathways so valuable for any democracy that wishes to garner the best for its peoples. All will lose if they succeed.

Dr Robbie Robertson is adjunct professor at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne where he was formerly Dean of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities. Akosita Tamanisau works as an assessor in the Victorian homelessness sector. They are co-authors of Fiji: Shattered Coups. This article first appeared on DevPolicyBlog and is republished here with the authors’ permission.