FICAC: Rabuka wants to phase out and shut the anti-corruption body down so he and his associates could repeat the loss of National Bank of Fiji, Provincial Councils and Chiefs (he had removed the Public Accounts Committee after the 1987 coups) could steal millions. The RFMF must take serious note of this DUNA, who is only interested in POWER and not ACCOUNTABILITY, at the expense of NATIONAL SECURITY. Sadly, NFP leader PRASAD has already SOLD the rights of Indo-Fijians by publicly declaring that COUPIST Rabuka will be next PM after the election.We challenge Sitiveni Rabuka to call for the removal of the Immunity in the 1990 Constitution that he granted to himself and his troops - now in 2013 Constitution. He says in his first 100 days he will remove blah, blah, blah but NOT Immunity that has been the curse of Fiji since his 1987 Coups |
Two men most responsible were SITIVENI RABUKA , who exploited Indigenous Rights and NIKO NAWAIKULA, who was the key strategist behind the scenes at the then NLTB that saw hundreds of Indo-Fijians lose their land leases (including many members of our Founding Editor-in-Chief's sugarcane farmer families who had toiled the lands for generations). |
That is the legacy of the warped reading of UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights by closet native Fijian racists and nationalists.
CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY, and don't swallow NFP's uncritical statement. We have always maintained, and still maintain, HOW MANY GENERATIONS DOES IT TAKE ONE TO BECOME A NATIVE?
Neither Rabuka nor Nawaikula had any right to come from Vanua Levu and beat and chase Indo-Fijians off the lands in Viti Levu. For those lands did not belong to these two Northerners - they don't own all Fijian lands. For that very reason the NLTB was created to administer lands in Fiji
Whose Land Is It, Anyway?
"The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago."
* The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands.
* The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless.
*The missionaries were not behind – they appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation.
CROSBIE WALSH, MARCH 2014: This article published in the Fiji Sun in November 2006 is especially pertinent now while people are again talking of the Great Council of Chiefs, chiefly authority, custom and land.
By VICTOR LAL, in the Fiji Sun, 2006
'Wherever I go now,’ the first British colonial governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon wrote, ‘the natives shout Woh! and crouch down, as before their own great chiefs, and they admit and understand that I am their master’.
His house was declared tabu: all persons passing it on the road or sailing before it in canoes, gave the tama, or shout of respect to a high chief. The people had no choice, for it was Gordon who had created the Bose Levu Vakaturaga or the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), and had come to see himself as chief of the Fijian chiefs.
The GCC is, therefore, merely a colonial invention, which Gordon had created in order to rule Fiji through the chiefs. In fact, there was nothing new about Gordon’s invention, for the British had devised similar institutions, to rule Africa through the African chiefs on that continent.
The British also introduced the African native system of government into Fiji. In other words, the British were not treating the Fijian chiefs as special although they couched their policies in that term.
However, Gordon mixed and matched titles to create Fijian customs, traditions, and institutions. He borrowed the title ‘Buli’ from Bua, where it applied to a minor chief, and that of ‘Roko Tui’ from the head of the priestly clan in Tailevu and Rewa.
It was not long before the Fijian chiefs began to accept the institution and the paraphernalia and the inventions that went with it as uniquely Fijian. They also swore to obey everything that Governor commanded them to perform during the long years of British colonialism.
As historians of Fiji have argued, there is no evidence that the councils set up by Gordon were ‘purely native and of spontaneous growth’.
The chiefs rarely met in Council until the imported institutions of government required them to do so.
In 1875 the Government interpreter David Wilkinson refused to accept that the GCC was a body based on Fijian tradition: ‘The Fijian custom being that high Chiefs seldom, if ever, meet each other in Council.’ The GCC was directly subject to Gordon’s authority, the regulation that provided for its establishment stating:
‘The Governor is the originator of the Council and he alone can open its proceedings’.
The power Gordon held over the GCC was manifestly demonstrated when he threatened to abolish it on finding out that some of its chiefly members were drunk.
He recorded his dealings with the chiefs in his personal diaries that he published in four volumes between 1897 and 1912.
The disputes over chiefly successions, which are still prevalent today, were rampant. Ratu Bonaveidogo of Macuata, giving evidence on the position of Tui Macuata when asked to explain the customs of his tribe in the matter of chiefly succession replied that the custom was to fight about it.
Another contentious issue was the ownership of land, which has again reared its ugly head following the introduction of the Indigenous Lands Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bills.
The Bua Government was the earliest in the country to have taken the effective measure to control the sale of land in Fiji, passing, in 1866, an ‘Act to regulate the sale and leasing of lands within the kingdom and state of Bua’.
The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners. However, any rebellious tribe who did not conform to Tui Bua or conspired against him, faced expulsion, as the Korovatu people found to their cost in 1866.
The Yasawa islands, conquered by Ma’afu on behalf of Tui Bua, was not spared – the rebellious chiefs of Nacula and Tavewa found their islands sold to planter Hennings as a punishment for supporting Bau.
Other chiefs, especially Ratu Seru Cakobau and the Tui Cakau were equally ruthless. A year before the Deed of Cession was signed, as historian Peter France and others have demonstrated, the survivors from the vanua of Magodro, Qaliyalatina, and Naloto, following the outbreak of war in Ba, were deported from their lands and offered for sale to white settlers, their lands being confiscated and included in the offer of cession to British Crown.
The Lovoni people, who had revolted against Cakobau, had their lands mortgaged and sold by auction, and they themselves were sold as plantation labour at three pounds a head. Cakobau also gave away 200,000 acres of land to the Polynesian Company, including the Suva Harbour, in exchange for the payment of debts to the Americans. King Cakobau’s son Ratu Epeli, on being appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Ba and Yasawa sold most of the northern islands to European settlers.
Commenting on the deeds of sale in Nasarawaqa, Bua, the Lands Commission noted that ‘they bear the signature of an extravagant of chiefs, most of whom had very little to do with the lands sold, culminating with the name of Ratu Epeli of Bau, who had about as much authority at that time, and in that part of Fiji as the Emperor of China’. Chief Ritova had alienated over 100,000 acres of land along the coast of Vanuabalavu.
The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands. The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless.
The missionaries were not behind – they appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation.
It was against that background that Governor Gordon finally summoned the chiefs in 1876 to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could be framed. The chiefs were not sure of the immemorial traditions to land rights. The Land Commissioners equally struggled, with Basil Thomson concluding as follows: ‘The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago.’
In the end the present system of land ownership was devised, with the Native Lands Trust Board as the guardian of land rights in Fiji. Those championing for the introduction of the Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Claims Bill have, as I have written elsewhere, law on their side. However, the whole land debate and legislation of the old was framed in the aftermath of native and settler disputes over land rights in Fiji.
Sir Arthur Gordon had never factored into his policy the likelihood of Fijians refusing to share with other fellow Fijians the proceeds of their tribal lands, seas, and foreshores in the 21st Century. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and other interior Fijians have nothing to benefit from the Qoliqoli Bill, and it is this that I suspect that is driving him and others to oppose it to the bitter end. He even went to the extent of claiming that the Lauans pushing for the Bill will not be affected from its fall out.
After all, the Lauan chief Ma’afu was not even a signatory to the Deed of Cession, which had unconditionally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria in 1874.
The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation? It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers.
It was the present chiefs’ ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries.
The Governor Sir Arthur Gordon had come up with a land policy in the 19th Century to ensure that Fiji survived under his governorship.
According to one of his successors, Sir Im Thurn, ‘It is too true that all Sir Arthur Gordon’s successors as Governors of Fiji have unquestionably followed him into the pit which he first dug. We-for I am a culprit too-followed his lead in thinking that the Fijians had good claims to the surplus land’.
It should not come as any surprise that in 1907 Gordon, by now Lord Stanmore, supported his land policy in the British House of Lords, for the chiefs had also given away two islands to him as a gift from the Fijian people.
Which Fijian people? And who owned those two lands to which Gordon had become the turaga taukei – a land owning chief in the country? Sadly the Fiji of 1876 is very different from the Fiji of 2006. The current stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Commodore on the Qoliqoli Bill is a testimony to that fact.
'Wherever I go now,’ the first British colonial governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon wrote, ‘the natives shout Woh! and crouch down, as before their own great chiefs, and they admit and understand that I am their master’.
His house was declared tabu: all persons passing it on the road or sailing before it in canoes, gave the tama, or shout of respect to a high chief. The people had no choice, for it was Gordon who had created the Bose Levu Vakaturaga or the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), and had come to see himself as chief of the Fijian chiefs.
The GCC is, therefore, merely a colonial invention, which Gordon had created in order to rule Fiji through the chiefs. In fact, there was nothing new about Gordon’s invention, for the British had devised similar institutions, to rule Africa through the African chiefs on that continent.
The British also introduced the African native system of government into Fiji. In other words, the British were not treating the Fijian chiefs as special although they couched their policies in that term.
However, Gordon mixed and matched titles to create Fijian customs, traditions, and institutions. He borrowed the title ‘Buli’ from Bua, where it applied to a minor chief, and that of ‘Roko Tui’ from the head of the priestly clan in Tailevu and Rewa.
It was not long before the Fijian chiefs began to accept the institution and the paraphernalia and the inventions that went with it as uniquely Fijian. They also swore to obey everything that Governor commanded them to perform during the long years of British colonialism.
As historians of Fiji have argued, there is no evidence that the councils set up by Gordon were ‘purely native and of spontaneous growth’.
The chiefs rarely met in Council until the imported institutions of government required them to do so.
In 1875 the Government interpreter David Wilkinson refused to accept that the GCC was a body based on Fijian tradition: ‘The Fijian custom being that high Chiefs seldom, if ever, meet each other in Council.’ The GCC was directly subject to Gordon’s authority, the regulation that provided for its establishment stating:
‘The Governor is the originator of the Council and he alone can open its proceedings’.
The power Gordon held over the GCC was manifestly demonstrated when he threatened to abolish it on finding out that some of its chiefly members were drunk.
He recorded his dealings with the chiefs in his personal diaries that he published in four volumes between 1897 and 1912.
The disputes over chiefly successions, which are still prevalent today, were rampant. Ratu Bonaveidogo of Macuata, giving evidence on the position of Tui Macuata when asked to explain the customs of his tribe in the matter of chiefly succession replied that the custom was to fight about it.
Another contentious issue was the ownership of land, which has again reared its ugly head following the introduction of the Indigenous Lands Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bills.
The Bua Government was the earliest in the country to have taken the effective measure to control the sale of land in Fiji, passing, in 1866, an ‘Act to regulate the sale and leasing of lands within the kingdom and state of Bua’.
The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners. However, any rebellious tribe who did not conform to Tui Bua or conspired against him, faced expulsion, as the Korovatu people found to their cost in 1866.
The Yasawa islands, conquered by Ma’afu on behalf of Tui Bua, was not spared – the rebellious chiefs of Nacula and Tavewa found their islands sold to planter Hennings as a punishment for supporting Bau.
Other chiefs, especially Ratu Seru Cakobau and the Tui Cakau were equally ruthless. A year before the Deed of Cession was signed, as historian Peter France and others have demonstrated, the survivors from the vanua of Magodro, Qaliyalatina, and Naloto, following the outbreak of war in Ba, were deported from their lands and offered for sale to white settlers, their lands being confiscated and included in the offer of cession to British Crown.
The Lovoni people, who had revolted against Cakobau, had their lands mortgaged and sold by auction, and they themselves were sold as plantation labour at three pounds a head. Cakobau also gave away 200,000 acres of land to the Polynesian Company, including the Suva Harbour, in exchange for the payment of debts to the Americans. King Cakobau’s son Ratu Epeli, on being appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Ba and Yasawa sold most of the northern islands to European settlers.
Commenting on the deeds of sale in Nasarawaqa, Bua, the Lands Commission noted that ‘they bear the signature of an extravagant of chiefs, most of whom had very little to do with the lands sold, culminating with the name of Ratu Epeli of Bau, who had about as much authority at that time, and in that part of Fiji as the Emperor of China’. Chief Ritova had alienated over 100,000 acres of land along the coast of Vanuabalavu.
The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands. The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless.
The missionaries were not behind – they appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation.
It was against that background that Governor Gordon finally summoned the chiefs in 1876 to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could be framed. The chiefs were not sure of the immemorial traditions to land rights. The Land Commissioners equally struggled, with Basil Thomson concluding as follows: ‘The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago.’
In the end the present system of land ownership was devised, with the Native Lands Trust Board as the guardian of land rights in Fiji. Those championing for the introduction of the Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Claims Bill have, as I have written elsewhere, law on their side. However, the whole land debate and legislation of the old was framed in the aftermath of native and settler disputes over land rights in Fiji.
Sir Arthur Gordon had never factored into his policy the likelihood of Fijians refusing to share with other fellow Fijians the proceeds of their tribal lands, seas, and foreshores in the 21st Century. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and other interior Fijians have nothing to benefit from the Qoliqoli Bill, and it is this that I suspect that is driving him and others to oppose it to the bitter end. He even went to the extent of claiming that the Lauans pushing for the Bill will not be affected from its fall out.
After all, the Lauan chief Ma’afu was not even a signatory to the Deed of Cession, which had unconditionally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria in 1874.
The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation? It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers.
It was the present chiefs’ ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries.
The Governor Sir Arthur Gordon had come up with a land policy in the 19th Century to ensure that Fiji survived under his governorship.
According to one of his successors, Sir Im Thurn, ‘It is too true that all Sir Arthur Gordon’s successors as Governors of Fiji have unquestionably followed him into the pit which he first dug. We-for I am a culprit too-followed his lead in thinking that the Fijians had good claims to the surplus land’.
It should not come as any surprise that in 1907 Gordon, by now Lord Stanmore, supported his land policy in the British House of Lords, for the chiefs had also given away two islands to him as a gift from the Fijian people.
Which Fijian people? And who owned those two lands to which Gordon had become the turaga taukei – a land owning chief in the country? Sadly the Fiji of 1876 is very different from the Fiji of 2006. The current stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Commodore on the Qoliqoli Bill is a testimony to that fact.
POLITICAL MARRIAGE VOW BETWEEN COUPIST RABUKA AND HIS FIRST LADY-IN-WAITING and Minister for Women, Biman PRASAD:
'No, LOVE, I want you to be new Prime Minister. I am sh't scared of 1987, especially 2000 - when you were Chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs'
INDO-FIJIAN WOMEN, RABUKA'S SEX CANNON FODDERS
"Indian women have been gang-raped by Fijian soldiers, picknicking children beaten and made to eat cow dung for ignoring Sunday restrictions and villagers forced to bathe in raw sewage"
Amnesty International, 1987
The former DPP and once Sandhurst trained soldier ACA RAYAWA on PAP leader Sitiveni Rabuka's alleged role in the 2000 Bloody Mutiny at QEB where the current RFMF Commander Ratu Jone Kalouniwai was being held hostage by the mutinous rebel soldiers:
'I arrested Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka on 2nd November 2000 because he countermanded the lawful command by ordering a ceasefire without legitimate authority halfway through the assault. This confused us to cease fire that allowed the rebel soldiers to escape. That was aiding and abetting their escape. When I finally got confirmation that the ceasefire order was unlawful, we continued with the assault and SLR continued to order us to cease fire, even from under the table. After the assault he wanted to turn me and use me to achieve what the rebel soldiers had been demanding and that is to get the negotiation process started. This negotiation was the rebel soldiers strategy that will eventually lead to the civilians crowding into camp and a repeat of the Parliament takeover fiasco experienced 6 months earlier, repeated at QEB. I shouted that I receive orders only from the lawful Commander and no one else...KNOW THESE FACTS WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION.'
Rabuka is still hiding behind the IMMUNITY he gave himself and to his soldiers after the 1987 Coups for overthrowing the Bavadra led government, and going on to TORTURE, RAPE, BEAT and DISENFRANCHISE INDO-FIJIANS.
|
His First Lady-in Waiting BIMAN PRASAD should SHUT UP about the 1997 Constitution. Rabuka never ruled Fiji under that Constitution.
TODAY, he is telling VOTERS that Rabuka will become the PRIME MINISTER after the 2022 election, and NOT BIMAN PRASAD. If so, why is he even taking part in the election. Below, read the former DDP Rayawa's revelation of the alleged role of Rabuka in 'Blood that Followed at Camp'
BRUTAL RABUKA: 'For the youths who don't know Rabuka, this is a USP Lecturer who had been vocal against him after his military coup of 1987. He was kidnapped and beaten to a pulp up there in the forest of Colo-i-Suva. This is the type of freedom he offers' - Aca Rayawa
(Fijileaks: And so is PAAPI Sitiveni Rabuka's First Lady-in-Waiting,
​the NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD)
GUIDING REASONS: Any decision to INTERVENE and OVERTHROW or even PREVENT a PAP-NFP girmit government must be based on the two parties and their leaders pronouncements and actions leading up to poll
MY APPLICATION TO CONTEST HAD TO BE WITHDRAWN
To all my supporters, friends and family, unfortunately my application had to be withdrawn today due to a delayed delivery by the courier company of my completed original application documents, which I had couriered last week.
I had emailed HQ attaching copies of all the documents contained in the courier as well as the receipt from the courier company. When they submitted my application they were the soft copies I had emailed through last week, which was disallowed.
The original copies of my application documents I sent via courier on Nov 11 2022 were finally delivered to Unity HQ at 1.51pm today.
Obviously, I am very disappointed that this has happened. But as Sir Winston Churchill once said, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
So I have already started to change my strategy and will move to provide all the support I can for Save Narube and the Unity team as it remains my true belief that Save Narube is the person Fiji desperately needs at the helm of country moving forward and I urge all those who were going to give me their vote to please ‘find the courage, choose democracy and vote for change, and give the vote you planned for me to Save Narube and the Unity team
To all my supporters, friends and family, unfortunately my application had to be withdrawn today due to a delayed delivery by the courier company of my completed original application documents, which I had couriered last week.
I had emailed HQ attaching copies of all the documents contained in the courier as well as the receipt from the courier company. When they submitted my application they were the soft copies I had emailed through last week, which was disallowed.
The original copies of my application documents I sent via courier on Nov 11 2022 were finally delivered to Unity HQ at 1.51pm today.
Obviously, I am very disappointed that this has happened. But as Sir Winston Churchill once said, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
So I have already started to change my strategy and will move to provide all the support I can for Save Narube and the Unity team as it remains my true belief that Save Narube is the person Fiji desperately needs at the helm of country moving forward and I urge all those who were going to give me their vote to please ‘find the courage, choose democracy and vote for change, and give the vote you planned for me to Save Narube and the Unity team
Fijilleaks: We are still trying to figure out was it his 'Vaka Malua' attitude or other more serious motives that he didn't chase up application status.
In by-gone days, and in the absence of instant communication, he became Opposition Leader in 2006
In 2006, Fijileaks founding Editor-in-Chief was instrumental in persuading the Government House that MICK BEDDOES must be appointed the Leader of the Opposition while the political leaders were wrangling over the ridiculous mandatory power-sharing Cabinet concept in the Rabuka-Reddy 1997 Constitution, a concept that was clearly inserted to ensure SVT-NFP formed the coalition government after the 1999 general election.
Note: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief's widely read regular column in the Fiji Sun that he wrote for decades was banished from the paper (including him as the paper's columnist) after 2008 when he revealed that Coupist Bainimarama's Interim Finance Minister and FLP leader MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY was hiding $2million in Australian bank account
MICK BEDDOES MUST BE APPOINTED LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
The dictates of the Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
"Again according to the judgment of Goundar J. at para 7 the issue of these funds was raised in parliament on the 2nd December 2005 by the then Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase. The public record of proceedings "Hansard" which was before me with an affidavit for interlocutory proceedings reveals that MPC vehemently denied the existence of the monies. Such disdain for the gift and its purpose and such deceit in hiding its existence for so long from the authorities can only be an aggravating factor in this sentence."
Justice Paul Madigan, 2 May 2014
Fijileaks: In 2005, at the last-minute Qarase had balked, and had asked our Founding Editor-in-Chief to reveal the documentary evidence our Editor had on him in the Fiji Sun instead, which on publication, in 2008, saw the abduction, torture, and deportation of the late RUSSELL HUNTER out of Fiji as the Fiji Sun Publisher. He was banned for life from entering Fiji
" From the eventual admission to FRCA of the existence of the monies until today, the accused has shown not a shred of remorse for his breaches and appears to have been in a state of denial since 2008 that he could perhaps be in breach of the E.C.A. This is despite the advice he has received of possible breach from respected Fijian law practitioners and from eminent senior counsel in both Australia and New Zealand. Such lack of remorse and dogged interlocutory attempts to derail proceedings and to "shop" for a more "pliant" judge must also be an aggravating factor.
The Court cannot accept the defence submission that this is but a "technical" breach and of very insignificant culpability. It is a wilful and determined breach of the Act in spite of warnings and advice and a breach that the accused allowed to continue over a period of years. A technical breach might perhaps be committed by a new immigrant to Fiji who has left unforgotten a current bank account in Hong Kong with a few hundred dollars to its credit. Technically abreach but with no intention to defeat the revenue or to continue to do so.
Nor is the breach insignificant. It has been the retention of a very large sum of money in Fiji terms over a long period and for some of that period intentionally concealed. The degree of culpability if anything must be medium to high.
Justice Paul Madigan, sentencing FLP leader Chaudhry, 2 May 2014
The Court cannot accept the defence submission that this is but a "technical" breach and of very insignificant culpability. It is a wilful and determined breach of the Act in spite of warnings and advice and a breach that the accused allowed to continue over a period of years. A technical breach might perhaps be committed by a new immigrant to Fiji who has left unforgotten a current bank account in Hong Kong with a few hundred dollars to its credit. Technically abreach but with no intention to defeat the revenue or to continue to do so.
Nor is the breach insignificant. It has been the retention of a very large sum of money in Fiji terms over a long period and for some of that period intentionally concealed. The degree of culpability if anything must be medium to high.
Justice Paul Madigan, sentencing FLP leader Chaudhry, 2 May 2014
Fiji Court of Appeal upholds Conviction, 14 August 2014:
* We reduce the fine by $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars so that the fine imposed on the Appellant would be $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars.
*We do not wish to interfere with the sentence in any other respect and affirm the conviction and the other orders in the sentence subject to the variation of the order relating to the imposition of the fine which we have reduced by $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars and dismiss the appeal.
Orders of Court:
(1) The conviction of the Appellant is affirmed.
(2) The fine imposed on the Appellant is $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars.
(3) The other orders in the sentence order are affirmed.
(4) The Appeal is dismissed subject to the variation in the fine.
Hon. Justice S. Chandra
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Hon. Justice S. Temo
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Hon. Justice C. Kotigalage
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
*We do not wish to interfere with the sentence in any other respect and affirm the conviction and the other orders in the sentence subject to the variation of the order relating to the imposition of the fine which we have reduced by $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars and dismiss the appeal.
Orders of Court:
(1) The conviction of the Appellant is affirmed.
(2) The fine imposed on the Appellant is $1,000,000 Fijian Dollars.
(3) The other orders in the sentence order are affirmed.
(4) The Appeal is dismissed subject to the variation in the fine.
Hon. Justice S. Chandra
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Hon. Justice S. Temo
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Hon. Justice C. Kotigalage
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
The RFMF cannot and must NOT stand by and watch Indo-Fijian MUSLIMS and INDO-FIJIAN CHRISTIANS victimized by extremist INDO-FIJIAN HINDUS, supported by HINDUPOST from INDIA
LIU MURI: NFP Hindu leader went on to betray Fijileaks and its Editor by denying that he was in secret talks with PAAPI Sitiveni Rabuka
The founding philosophy of HinduPost is Satyamev Jayate NaAnritam, i.e. "Truth Alone Triumphs, Not Untruth. Truth will emerge from the darkness of lies and distortion all around us, only if we express ourselves, in unison and with courage."
* Critics allege that [Frank] Bainimarama gave Khaiyum a free hand in return for the victory, and [Aiyaz] Khaiyum turned all his attention against the Hindu population in Fiji. Not only temple attacks became more frequent, but also Hindu intellectuals are regularly picked up by the police and slapped with false cases.
Three Indo-Fijian HINDUS singled out as victims of Aiyaz Khaiyum are
BIMAN PRASAD, SHARVADA SHARMA and DR NEIL SHARMA.
Fijileaks to HINDUPOST:
Radio New Zealand International, 11 April 2015
Dr Sharma, a former Health Minister, was at the centre of corruption allegations posted on the blog site Fijileaks.
From Fijileaks Archive, 2015:
*SHARVADA SHARMA (KARMA) was responsible for drafting all the anti-human rights DECREES for the current FFP government that has led to the arrests of many Opposition leaders, trade unionists etc, etc, etc
The untruthful, full of lies, pro right-wing propaganda HinduPost article:
Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, the 8th and current Prime Minister of Fiji came to power in 2007 through a coup. He gave the impression that he intended to unite Fiji. However, the attacks against Hindu Fijians have not stopped. In recent years it has assumed monstrous proportions. Hindu Fijians claim that the latest round of persecutions is being headed by Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. He is the Fijian attorney general and Minister for Economy, Civil Service and Communications.
Prior to his appointment as a cabinet minister following Bainimarama’s party FijiFirst’s general election victory in September 2014, he was the Fijian attorney general and the Minister for Justice, Anti-Corruption, Public Enterprises, Communications, Civil Aviation, and the Minister responsible for Elections under the Bainimarama Government. According to The Economist, the daily functioning of the Fijian government is run by Sayed-Khaiyum. The South China Morning Post describes him as one of South Pacific’s ‘most powerful men’.
But what stands out as the force behind Sayed-Khaiyum is not the blessings of Bainimarama, who handed over power to him temporarily, while he was recovering from heart attack, but a nation far away, Bharat’s neighbor Pakistan. Such is the involvement of Pakistan, that the 2017 elections in Fiji was conducted by a Pakistani company NADRA which is the Pakistan’s National Database Registration Authority. The same company is now being accused of ballot stuffing and election fraud.
Khaiyum engaged NADRA, a Pakistani company, to manage Fiji’s 2018 election system. This is the same company, as reported by the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence, whose top ranking officers helped terrorists and other miscreants obtain fake Pakistan national identity cards [1,2].
Their officials allegedly issued ID cards to militants, including some linked to al Qaeda, in return for bribes as small as US$100. So why did Khaiyum recruit them for their services? There does not seem to have been any public tender issued for such a service. So how was NADRA awarded the contract? And what are the terms of the contract? With all this secrecy, it is feared that dirty tactics and vote rigging were involved in the 2018 elections. This helped Bainimarama to remain in power, despite serious accusations of rigging and fraud.
Critics allege that Bainimarama gave Khaiyum a free hand in return for the victory, and Khaiyum turned all his attention against the Hindu population in Fiji. Not only temple attacks became more frequent, but also Hindu intellectuals are regularly picked up by the police and slapped with false cases.
A recent case in point is a prominent intellectual and National Federation Party Leader, Professor Biman Prasad. He was recently picked up by the police and slapped with false cases. Looking closely at the persecution of Hindus since 2016, the Hindu American Foundation has pointed out several incidents where Hindus were regularly targeted [3,4]. Another prominent case is that of Sharvada Sharma.
Sharvada Sharma, in his capacity as the Solicitor-General for 10 years, loyally served Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. Yes, 10 years. When Khaiyum lost the initial court case that he brought against former SODELPA MP Niko Nawaikula, he blamed it on Sharvada.
Critics believe that Khaiyum then made the following plan: First he used PM Bainimarama to demand Sharvada should resign. Sharvada refused to resign and resisted the bullying attempt. Next Khaiyum used Elections Supervisor Mohammed Saneem to lodge a complaint against Sharvada which got him dismissed. With links to Pakistan, people in Fiji see this as a case of the Islamist brotherhood ganging up against a Hindu.
Sharvada was given the dismissal letter on Diwali day in 2021 last year when he was about to do his main pooja in the evening. Sharvada felt deeply humiliated being given the dismissal letter by Khaiyum’s men when he was about to do Diwali Pooja. Although Sharvada has filed a court case, the judiciary is seen as dragging the case continuously, which is against the 2013 constitution.
Under the 2013 constitution, only the Chief Justice and President can dismiss the Solicitor-General but in this case Khaiyum and Saneem got rid of a top devout Hindu like Sharvada. Critics claim that judiciary and justice system have all been weakened by Khaiyum and his cabal.
Dr. Neil Sharma diligently served as one of the top Health Ministers in the Bainimarama Government from 2009-2014. After winning his seat in the 2014 elections, Dr. Sharma was not included in the cabinet by Khaiyum. Sources claim that Khaiyum was influenced by top FijiFirst donors not to give the health portfolio again to Dr. Sharma because he was strict when it came to food production and its quality.
Khaiyum is alleged to have a single point agenda, which is not to let Hindu intellectuals have any say in the Government, even if it goes against the nation’s interest. With Bainimarama echoing him regularly, it shows who is running Fiji. A case to highlight is what happened in 2015.
In 2015, NFP Leader Dr. Biman Prasad brought a motion to Parliament whereby he called for an increase in health budget to address the rising Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) cases in the country. It was a very good motion and as former Health Minister, Dr. Sharma knew its importance and so voted in favour of the NFP motion. Then Leader of the House, Pio Tikoduadua (now NFP President) sorted this issue out with Bainimarama and all was okay since Dr. Sharma was asked to vote along party lines next time. But Khaiyum got angry and wanted Dr. Sharma out.
Bainimarama had no option but to listen to Khaiyum and on his demand, forced Dr. Sharma to resign. Feeling humiliated at his intervention being ignored, Pio Tikoduadua also resigned. Hence, it is believed that because of Khaiyum’s arrogance, FijiFirst lost 2 good and capable people like Tikoduadua and Dr. Sharma.
In a nation where the government holds a big sway, many believe that temple attacks cannot happen easily without involvement of some central authorities. A few cases of temple attacks highlight the precarious situation facing Hindus in Fiji:
September 2019 — A man broke into a temple in Suva and stole several religious items. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
August 2019 — The temple door and windows at the Kaliamman Temple of Vomo St, Lautoka were broken by vandals. (Chaudhary, 2019)
July 2019 — At least two temples – the Sita Ram Mandir of Calia, Navua and the Hindu Temple at Malolo, Nadi were broken into and donation collections were stolen. (Gopal, 2019; Chaudhary, 2019)
January 2018 — At least one temple near Suva was vandalized, while others in Suva were reportedly also broken into in previous months. (Radio New Zealand, 2018)
December 2017 — The Tirath Dham temple in Nadi was vandalized with racially motivated graffiti, donation boxes were stolen, and murtis (statues of deities) were desecrated with paint poured on them. (Radio New Zealand, 2018)
June 2016 — The Lovu Sangam School on the outskirts of Lautoka and an adjacent Hindu temple were vandalized multiple times, and Hindu symbols and sacred items desecrated. The vandals also wrote messages taunting the school that serves 500 Bharatiya students. (Citizens’ Constitutional Forum, 2016)
In the last few years Hindu activities have been curtailed and Hindu activists have attracted false cases. The public shaming of Hindus who rose to prominence adds to the low morale of Hindus in Fiji where conversion is rampant. Also, the involvement of Pakistan and thereby its ally China calls for much concern in the Pacific nation. It not just endangers the interest of Bharat, United States but also Hindus across the world and Fiji itself.
The Fijian Hindus whose forefathers mostly went to Fiji in the late 19th Century from Bharat, have been under constant attack. While 45% Fijians called themselves Hindus in the 1976 Census, only 27.9 % people are Hindus according to the 2007 census. Most of the Hindu population has strong ties to Bharat and thus an effort is made by Bharat’s enemies in collusion with the Church to convert the Hindus and stop Hindus from staying organized. A series of coups in the last few decades have further moved the nation that direction.
With the elections to be held by January 2023, the Hindus who can vote need to organize themselves to stop the intervention of civilizational enemies threatening the existence of the community. A strong Hindu community in Fiji is not just in the interest of Bharat but Fiji as well. How they vote will decide the civilizational existence of the community in the Pacific.
References
1) https://www.abc.net.au/.../pakistani-organisation.../8639384
2) https://www.truthforfiji.com/2017-april-to-june.html
3) https://www.hinduamerican.org/.../human-rights-report/fiji
4) https://hindupost.in/.../hindu-temple-in-fiji-repeatedly.../
Update
Nov 15, 1 PM: Minor edits have been made to the article to improve readability and correct some typos.
Fijileaks: The above is still full of factual errors.
Prior to his appointment as a cabinet minister following Bainimarama’s party FijiFirst’s general election victory in September 2014, he was the Fijian attorney general and the Minister for Justice, Anti-Corruption, Public Enterprises, Communications, Civil Aviation, and the Minister responsible for Elections under the Bainimarama Government. According to The Economist, the daily functioning of the Fijian government is run by Sayed-Khaiyum. The South China Morning Post describes him as one of South Pacific’s ‘most powerful men’.
But what stands out as the force behind Sayed-Khaiyum is not the blessings of Bainimarama, who handed over power to him temporarily, while he was recovering from heart attack, but a nation far away, Bharat’s neighbor Pakistan. Such is the involvement of Pakistan, that the 2017 elections in Fiji was conducted by a Pakistani company NADRA which is the Pakistan’s National Database Registration Authority. The same company is now being accused of ballot stuffing and election fraud.
Khaiyum engaged NADRA, a Pakistani company, to manage Fiji’s 2018 election system. This is the same company, as reported by the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence, whose top ranking officers helped terrorists and other miscreants obtain fake Pakistan national identity cards [1,2].
Their officials allegedly issued ID cards to militants, including some linked to al Qaeda, in return for bribes as small as US$100. So why did Khaiyum recruit them for their services? There does not seem to have been any public tender issued for such a service. So how was NADRA awarded the contract? And what are the terms of the contract? With all this secrecy, it is feared that dirty tactics and vote rigging were involved in the 2018 elections. This helped Bainimarama to remain in power, despite serious accusations of rigging and fraud.
Critics allege that Bainimarama gave Khaiyum a free hand in return for the victory, and Khaiyum turned all his attention against the Hindu population in Fiji. Not only temple attacks became more frequent, but also Hindu intellectuals are regularly picked up by the police and slapped with false cases.
A recent case in point is a prominent intellectual and National Federation Party Leader, Professor Biman Prasad. He was recently picked up by the police and slapped with false cases. Looking closely at the persecution of Hindus since 2016, the Hindu American Foundation has pointed out several incidents where Hindus were regularly targeted [3,4]. Another prominent case is that of Sharvada Sharma.
Sharvada Sharma, in his capacity as the Solicitor-General for 10 years, loyally served Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. Yes, 10 years. When Khaiyum lost the initial court case that he brought against former SODELPA MP Niko Nawaikula, he blamed it on Sharvada.
Critics believe that Khaiyum then made the following plan: First he used PM Bainimarama to demand Sharvada should resign. Sharvada refused to resign and resisted the bullying attempt. Next Khaiyum used Elections Supervisor Mohammed Saneem to lodge a complaint against Sharvada which got him dismissed. With links to Pakistan, people in Fiji see this as a case of the Islamist brotherhood ganging up against a Hindu.
Sharvada was given the dismissal letter on Diwali day in 2021 last year when he was about to do his main pooja in the evening. Sharvada felt deeply humiliated being given the dismissal letter by Khaiyum’s men when he was about to do Diwali Pooja. Although Sharvada has filed a court case, the judiciary is seen as dragging the case continuously, which is against the 2013 constitution.
Under the 2013 constitution, only the Chief Justice and President can dismiss the Solicitor-General but in this case Khaiyum and Saneem got rid of a top devout Hindu like Sharvada. Critics claim that judiciary and justice system have all been weakened by Khaiyum and his cabal.
Dr. Neil Sharma diligently served as one of the top Health Ministers in the Bainimarama Government from 2009-2014. After winning his seat in the 2014 elections, Dr. Sharma was not included in the cabinet by Khaiyum. Sources claim that Khaiyum was influenced by top FijiFirst donors not to give the health portfolio again to Dr. Sharma because he was strict when it came to food production and its quality.
Khaiyum is alleged to have a single point agenda, which is not to let Hindu intellectuals have any say in the Government, even if it goes against the nation’s interest. With Bainimarama echoing him regularly, it shows who is running Fiji. A case to highlight is what happened in 2015.
In 2015, NFP Leader Dr. Biman Prasad brought a motion to Parliament whereby he called for an increase in health budget to address the rising Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) cases in the country. It was a very good motion and as former Health Minister, Dr. Sharma knew its importance and so voted in favour of the NFP motion. Then Leader of the House, Pio Tikoduadua (now NFP President) sorted this issue out with Bainimarama and all was okay since Dr. Sharma was asked to vote along party lines next time. But Khaiyum got angry and wanted Dr. Sharma out.
Bainimarama had no option but to listen to Khaiyum and on his demand, forced Dr. Sharma to resign. Feeling humiliated at his intervention being ignored, Pio Tikoduadua also resigned. Hence, it is believed that because of Khaiyum’s arrogance, FijiFirst lost 2 good and capable people like Tikoduadua and Dr. Sharma.
In a nation where the government holds a big sway, many believe that temple attacks cannot happen easily without involvement of some central authorities. A few cases of temple attacks highlight the precarious situation facing Hindus in Fiji:
September 2019 — A man broke into a temple in Suva and stole several religious items. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
August 2019 — The temple door and windows at the Kaliamman Temple of Vomo St, Lautoka were broken by vandals. (Chaudhary, 2019)
July 2019 — At least two temples – the Sita Ram Mandir of Calia, Navua and the Hindu Temple at Malolo, Nadi were broken into and donation collections were stolen. (Gopal, 2019; Chaudhary, 2019)
January 2018 — At least one temple near Suva was vandalized, while others in Suva were reportedly also broken into in previous months. (Radio New Zealand, 2018)
December 2017 — The Tirath Dham temple in Nadi was vandalized with racially motivated graffiti, donation boxes were stolen, and murtis (statues of deities) were desecrated with paint poured on them. (Radio New Zealand, 2018)
June 2016 — The Lovu Sangam School on the outskirts of Lautoka and an adjacent Hindu temple were vandalized multiple times, and Hindu symbols and sacred items desecrated. The vandals also wrote messages taunting the school that serves 500 Bharatiya students. (Citizens’ Constitutional Forum, 2016)
In the last few years Hindu activities have been curtailed and Hindu activists have attracted false cases. The public shaming of Hindus who rose to prominence adds to the low morale of Hindus in Fiji where conversion is rampant. Also, the involvement of Pakistan and thereby its ally China calls for much concern in the Pacific nation. It not just endangers the interest of Bharat, United States but also Hindus across the world and Fiji itself.
The Fijian Hindus whose forefathers mostly went to Fiji in the late 19th Century from Bharat, have been under constant attack. While 45% Fijians called themselves Hindus in the 1976 Census, only 27.9 % people are Hindus according to the 2007 census. Most of the Hindu population has strong ties to Bharat and thus an effort is made by Bharat’s enemies in collusion with the Church to convert the Hindus and stop Hindus from staying organized. A series of coups in the last few decades have further moved the nation that direction.
With the elections to be held by January 2023, the Hindus who can vote need to organize themselves to stop the intervention of civilizational enemies threatening the existence of the community. A strong Hindu community in Fiji is not just in the interest of Bharat but Fiji as well. How they vote will decide the civilizational existence of the community in the Pacific.
References
1) https://www.abc.net.au/.../pakistani-organisation.../8639384
2) https://www.truthforfiji.com/2017-april-to-june.html
3) https://www.hinduamerican.org/.../human-rights-report/fiji
4) https://hindupost.in/.../hindu-temple-in-fiji-repeatedly.../
Update
Nov 15, 1 PM: Minor edits have been made to the article to improve readability and correct some typos.
Fijileaks: The above is still full of factual errors.
Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is in deep concern regarding a fake article that he says is an attempt by those who have an agenda against his government.
Bainimarama says the article made horrible and false allegations of religious strife in Fiji and yet no political party has come out to criticise it.
The article is on the HinduPost, which is an online digital platform that says it aims to provide the correct perspective on issues concerning Hindu society around the world.
In the article, it is claimed that Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is engaging in war against the Hindus in Fiji through the patronage of the Fijian government and Pakistan.
The article does not have the name of the author who penned the story, and questions sent to HinduPost remain unanswered.
Prime Minister Bainimarama has strongly condemned the article and the attempt to poison Fiji with lies.
“The Fiji I lead does not tolerate antagonism against any faith. Christians, Hindus, and Muslims are all loved, accepted and protected in Fiji, that is the character of our country, that is the security provided by our constitution.”
Bainimarama says Fijians live together, worship in peace, openly celebrate religious festivals, and work together to build the country.
The Prime Minister also raises concern about those who continue to share the fake article knowing that it is all lies.
He adds that what is even more concerning is that people in politics are not standing up for the truth.
“What is really quite sad is that no other politician has condemned this nonsense for what it is, even though they know it is a lie. Ordinary Fijians know exactly who is most responsible for the communal and religious division that nearly tore our country apart in the 1980s and 1990s. “These same people want to drag us back to the darkness.”
Bainimarama says the truth is that in Fiji today, any Fijians of any faith, any ethnicity, any gender, any province, and any physical ability—rich or poor—can rise in this country as far as their talents and ambitions can carry them.
He says that this is his promise to all Fijians and that he has seen it fulfilled during his tenure as Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister also promised to keep his word.
The idea of HinduPost emerged at a media conference conducted by the Hindu Media Forum (HMF) during the inaugural World Hindu Congress 2014.
It was conceptualized and launched in January 2016 by the Hindu Media Forum (HMF). HMF is a forum for elements advocating the interests of the Hindu community, both in the traditional as well as the emerging forms of media, to come together on one platform.
Its site is filled with anti-muslim articles and has rising anti-Muslim sentiments instigated by ultra-right Hindu actors.
We have also sent questions to the Indian High Commission. Source: FBC News
Bainimarama says the article made horrible and false allegations of religious strife in Fiji and yet no political party has come out to criticise it.
The article is on the HinduPost, which is an online digital platform that says it aims to provide the correct perspective on issues concerning Hindu society around the world.
In the article, it is claimed that Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is engaging in war against the Hindus in Fiji through the patronage of the Fijian government and Pakistan.
The article does not have the name of the author who penned the story, and questions sent to HinduPost remain unanswered.
Prime Minister Bainimarama has strongly condemned the article and the attempt to poison Fiji with lies.
“The Fiji I lead does not tolerate antagonism against any faith. Christians, Hindus, and Muslims are all loved, accepted and protected in Fiji, that is the character of our country, that is the security provided by our constitution.”
Bainimarama says Fijians live together, worship in peace, openly celebrate religious festivals, and work together to build the country.
The Prime Minister also raises concern about those who continue to share the fake article knowing that it is all lies.
He adds that what is even more concerning is that people in politics are not standing up for the truth.
“What is really quite sad is that no other politician has condemned this nonsense for what it is, even though they know it is a lie. Ordinary Fijians know exactly who is most responsible for the communal and religious division that nearly tore our country apart in the 1980s and 1990s. “These same people want to drag us back to the darkness.”
Bainimarama says the truth is that in Fiji today, any Fijians of any faith, any ethnicity, any gender, any province, and any physical ability—rich or poor—can rise in this country as far as their talents and ambitions can carry them.
He says that this is his promise to all Fijians and that he has seen it fulfilled during his tenure as Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister also promised to keep his word.
The idea of HinduPost emerged at a media conference conducted by the Hindu Media Forum (HMF) during the inaugural World Hindu Congress 2014.
It was conceptualized and launched in January 2016 by the Hindu Media Forum (HMF). HMF is a forum for elements advocating the interests of the Hindu community, both in the traditional as well as the emerging forms of media, to come together on one platform.
Its site is filled with anti-muslim articles and has rising anti-Muslim sentiments instigated by ultra-right Hindu actors.
We have also sent questions to the Indian High Commission. Source: FBC News
Recently, the current DDP Pryde had directed Police Commissioner Brigadier General Sitiveni Qiliho to drop the two counts of indecently insulting or annoying a person that was filed against NFP leader Biman Prasad. He was alleged to have hugged and kissed the cheek of Ari Taniguchi, the wife of former NFP provisional candidate Hiroshi Taniguchi, on two separate occasions in July and August of this year. *Instead of letting the Court decide, Pryde concluded that 'the credibility of the complainant (Mrs Taniguchi's evidence) under cross-examiantion would not meet the evidentiary threshold and therefore would not be likely to result in a conviction'.
*Pryde spent thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in putting the former CEO of FHL, Fareed, through the courts on similar charges.
Fijileaks: The former DPP Rayawa should provide a statement to Police Commissioner Qiliho regarding alleged past indecent behaviour on Prasad's part as Rayawa alleges on his Facebook page.
Mrs Ari Taniguchi, Police Statement:
"This act was not welcomed at all by me because it is not in our culture to touch someone without their permission. We stand, at least a meter away, and bow in greeting, even with close associates. And, since Mr Biman Chand Prasad has stayed in Japan in the past, I'm sure he must be aware of this culture as well. I want police to investigate this case and Mr Biman Prasad to be taken to task."
STATEMENT TO FRIENDS OF USP VOTING IN FIJI’S ELECTION 2022.
TURN UP AND MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT
We will be casting our votes on 14 December.
Nine political parties are contesting. Apart from Fiji First Party (FFP), the other serious contenders are Rabuka's People’s Alliance Party, Prasad/Tikoduadua’s National Federation Party (NFP), and Gavoka's Social and Democratic Party (SODELPA). SODELPA has been imploding for some time!
Since 2018, FFP government has withheld Fiji's contribution to USP. All other parties have campaigned to pay what Fiji owes. Most of us would like to see a change of government because of the government’s refusal to pay its contribution which stands at FD$85 million.
As preposterous as it may sound, it means that eight small member countries such as Tokelau (pop. 1,400), Niue (1,600) and Tuvalu (11,300) are subsidising Fiji, having the largest population with nearly a million people!
Despite five independent investigations confirming corrupt practices by the former Vice Chancellor and President (VCP), and confirming the current VCP’s report on the corruption, the government continues to shield the former VCP and his supporters.
Through its domineering presence in Council, the government lobbied hard to terminate the current VCP, Dr Ahluwalia’s contract. When Council rejected it, the government unprecedentedly deported Dr Ahluwalia and his wife Gestapo-like. It declared them persona-non-grata in the same shameful manner as the late pre-eminent Pacific Historian Dr Brij Lal and his family.
With Council’s support, USP is being run from Samoa Campus, home of current Chancellor (Head of State Tuimaleali'ifano) former mother and daughter Pro Chancellors (Fetaui and Fiame Naomi Mata'afa), and VCP Professor Ahluwalia.
There are three serious implications of the Fiji debt.
First, institutional utilities and student services are likely affected as maintenance and upkeep of buildings and facilities are compromised.
Second, the growing vacancies across a number of academic, professional and support staff will not be filled quickly, thereby increasing the work-load of an already overstretched staff.
This is exacerbated by the protracted delays in the issuance of work permits to expatriates and regional staff from member countries such as Tonga and Solomon Islands.
Staff shortage threatens availability and variety of programmes (e.g. Pasifika orientated programs in Governance, Law, Social Sciences, Climate Change, Engineering, MBA etc), erosion of quality of teaching and research output.
The third and most critical is the obvious collateral damage to the education of students (35,000 to 40,000 in 2022) and 50 years of capacity building with an alumni of 60,000 plus across the globe.
For USP to continue as the premier university to nurture and realize the spirit of Pasifikan regionalism, a change is necessary.
In 2018, the FFP narrowly won by 150 votes. A groundswell of support is evident for Rabuka’s Peoples Alliance Party (PAP), and Prasad/Tikoduadua’s National Federation Party (NFP). To make the change and ensure USP’s survival, make your vote count.
Voting is at the polling stations shown on the voter registration card. For iTaukei voters intending to travel to the islands and villages before 14 December, before traveling, check the polling station shown in your voter registration card and avoid disappointment.
WE must turn up and not waste OUR votes on FFP, smaller parties and independent candidates.
God Bless Fiji and USP.
Rev. 135 Nov. 2022.
Nine political parties are contesting. Apart from Fiji First Party (FFP), the other serious contenders are Rabuka's People’s Alliance Party, Prasad/Tikoduadua’s National Federation Party (NFP), and Gavoka's Social and Democratic Party (SODELPA). SODELPA has been imploding for some time!
Since 2018, FFP government has withheld Fiji's contribution to USP. All other parties have campaigned to pay what Fiji owes. Most of us would like to see a change of government because of the government’s refusal to pay its contribution which stands at FD$85 million.
As preposterous as it may sound, it means that eight small member countries such as Tokelau (pop. 1,400), Niue (1,600) and Tuvalu (11,300) are subsidising Fiji, having the largest population with nearly a million people!
Despite five independent investigations confirming corrupt practices by the former Vice Chancellor and President (VCP), and confirming the current VCP’s report on the corruption, the government continues to shield the former VCP and his supporters.
Through its domineering presence in Council, the government lobbied hard to terminate the current VCP, Dr Ahluwalia’s contract. When Council rejected it, the government unprecedentedly deported Dr Ahluwalia and his wife Gestapo-like. It declared them persona-non-grata in the same shameful manner as the late pre-eminent Pacific Historian Dr Brij Lal and his family.
With Council’s support, USP is being run from Samoa Campus, home of current Chancellor (Head of State Tuimaleali'ifano) former mother and daughter Pro Chancellors (Fetaui and Fiame Naomi Mata'afa), and VCP Professor Ahluwalia.
There are three serious implications of the Fiji debt.
First, institutional utilities and student services are likely affected as maintenance and upkeep of buildings and facilities are compromised.
Second, the growing vacancies across a number of academic, professional and support staff will not be filled quickly, thereby increasing the work-load of an already overstretched staff.
This is exacerbated by the protracted delays in the issuance of work permits to expatriates and regional staff from member countries such as Tonga and Solomon Islands.
Staff shortage threatens availability and variety of programmes (e.g. Pasifika orientated programs in Governance, Law, Social Sciences, Climate Change, Engineering, MBA etc), erosion of quality of teaching and research output.
The third and most critical is the obvious collateral damage to the education of students (35,000 to 40,000 in 2022) and 50 years of capacity building with an alumni of 60,000 plus across the globe.
For USP to continue as the premier university to nurture and realize the spirit of Pasifikan regionalism, a change is necessary.
In 2018, the FFP narrowly won by 150 votes. A groundswell of support is evident for Rabuka’s Peoples Alliance Party (PAP), and Prasad/Tikoduadua’s National Federation Party (NFP). To make the change and ensure USP’s survival, make your vote count.
Voting is at the polling stations shown on the voter registration card. For iTaukei voters intending to travel to the islands and villages before 14 December, before traveling, check the polling station shown in your voter registration card and avoid disappointment.
WE must turn up and not waste OUR votes on FFP, smaller parties and independent candidates.
God Bless Fiji and USP.
Rev. 135 Nov. 2022.
The government is not in a position to misuse taxes just because somebody is putting political pressure on them, says FijiFirst General Secretary Aiyaz-Sayed-Khaiyum.
He made this comment during a campaign meeting last night after he was asked by a University of the South Pacific student why the government’s annual grants to the university are on hold.
The environmental science student claimed that they have not been able to go on field trips or even conduct laboratory work because they have been advised by USP that they do not have enough money to fund certain school projects.
In response, Sayed-Khaiyum says that the government had requested an independent investigation be conducted after allegations of financial discrepancies were raised by the University’s pro-chancellor and the chair of the audit risk committee.
“We’ve said this so many times, we’ve said it in Parliament-our Prime Minister has said it but they are not doing it so they are saying, don’t vote for FijiFirst and unfortunately, there is a lot of propaganda going on around it so I urge USP students through you, you can be their spokesperson now to go back and tell them what’s the reason.”
Sayed-Khaiyum claims that USP still has funds; thus, they are making such remarks to students about the financial status of the university because they want the students to feel aggrieved, blame the government, and then refuse to vote for FijiFirst.
FijiFirst Leader Voreqe Bainimarama says the government is aware of the concerns raised by Fijians about bias in the media and the lies and misinformation spread by their opponents.
“Their lust for power is so great that no lie is too low for them.They even lie about how many people going to FijiFirst meetings.Why? Because they are afraid. They know that the majority on this country wants what is best for families and future generations, something they can never deliver.So they lie and lie and lie some more.”
The two leaders say they’ve felt the support of Fijians everywhere they’ve gone, and they’re grateful because FijiFirst is the only party with a plan, principles, and a track record of success.
He made this comment during a campaign meeting last night after he was asked by a University of the South Pacific student why the government’s annual grants to the university are on hold.
The environmental science student claimed that they have not been able to go on field trips or even conduct laboratory work because they have been advised by USP that they do not have enough money to fund certain school projects.
In response, Sayed-Khaiyum says that the government had requested an independent investigation be conducted after allegations of financial discrepancies were raised by the University’s pro-chancellor and the chair of the audit risk committee.
“We’ve said this so many times, we’ve said it in Parliament-our Prime Minister has said it but they are not doing it so they are saying, don’t vote for FijiFirst and unfortunately, there is a lot of propaganda going on around it so I urge USP students through you, you can be their spokesperson now to go back and tell them what’s the reason.”
Sayed-Khaiyum claims that USP still has funds; thus, they are making such remarks to students about the financial status of the university because they want the students to feel aggrieved, blame the government, and then refuse to vote for FijiFirst.
FijiFirst Leader Voreqe Bainimarama says the government is aware of the concerns raised by Fijians about bias in the media and the lies and misinformation spread by their opponents.
“Their lust for power is so great that no lie is too low for them.They even lie about how many people going to FijiFirst meetings.Why? Because they are afraid. They know that the majority on this country wants what is best for families and future generations, something they can never deliver.So they lie and lie and lie some more.”
The two leaders say they’ve felt the support of Fijians everywhere they’ve gone, and they’re grateful because FijiFirst is the only party with a plan, principles, and a track record of success.
An EYE-WITNESS STATEMENT TO POLICE: From an Indo-Fijian HINDU woman who was also present at the dinner hosted by the Taniguchis
Even the Supervisor of Elections Saneem, whom the High Court declared was illegally sitting in the Election Chair, is being HERO WORSHIPPED
Fijileaks: It has given the Political Arkarti the opportunity to dream of forming a girmit government, and for the PAAPI to become | Many of those who collaborated with the Russians after they occupied Kherson at the start of the war in March have fled the city in the past few weeks. But these two men were detained and were being guarded by a Ukrainian soldier as they awaited their fate |
A VOTE FOR NFP AND PRASAD A VOTE FOR RABUKA TO BECOME PM
"We have asked you NOT to Vote for Coup Makers"
Fijileaks: Yes, for he will NEVER allow an Indo-Fijian to be Prime Minister. And Political Arkarti BIMAN PRASAD and his new side-kick SASHI KIRAN are trying hard for the Coupist and Racist to fulfil his DREAM
"When Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum tries to play politics with FRIEND, he does not insult her; he insults all of FRIEND’s workers, volunteers and all the people who gave the organisation millions of dollars in money and goods to help people affected by the COVID-19 outbreak."
NFP provisional candidate Sashi Kiran
Partners with FRIEND FIJI:
To sustain its poverty alleviation initiatives in under-served communities in Fiji, FRIEND works with a number of national and international donor partners. These include:
Our other valued partners include:
To sustain its poverty alleviation initiatives in under-served communities in Fiji, FRIEND works with a number of national and international donor partners. These include:
- USAID
- Irish Aid
- European Union
- AUSAID
- NZAID
- Canada Fund
- Motibhai Group of Companies
Our other valued partners include:
- Secretariat of the Pacific Community
- Foundation for the People of the South Pacific International
- European Union Education Sector
- Asia Pacific Ladies Friendship Society
FijiFirst General Secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum claims the National Federation Party proposed candidate Sashi Kiran was using FRIEND Fiji for her political advancement while Kiran asks whether Aiyaz really thinks that all these people’s money, kindness and hard work, was just for people who voted NFP.
While speaking outside the Saint Stephens building after the FijiFirst Party filed their candidate nominations, Sayed-Khaiyum says a number of NGOs in Fiji are in a position of using the NGO facade to further a political agenda.
He says that has now manifested with Sashi Kiran being nominated by NFP.
He adds he does not know if they have done their nomination but when they do, they will announce Kiran as a candidate and this is the manifestation of that.
He alleges they used people on the ground in the rural areas and the message was that they did not give ration to those who openly supported FijiFirst.
Sayed-Khaiyum adds we cannot have people who lead NGOs have that kind of attitude and seeing she is simply trying to just get attention by trying to appeal to a certain number of vote banks.
Meanwhile Kiran says when Sayed-Khaiyum tries to play politics with FRIEND, he does not insult her, he insults all of FRIEND’s workers, volunteers and all the people who gave the organisation millions of dollars in money and goods to help people affected by the COVID-19 outbreak while Sayed-Khaiyum was nowhere to be seen and he left Dr James Fong to do all the talking.
Kiran says after December 14th, no one will worry about Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Kiran adds Sayed-Khaiyum and his party are the past and NFP is the future.
She further says who cares what Sayed-Khaiyum thinks anyway. Source: Fijivillage News
While speaking outside the Saint Stephens building after the FijiFirst Party filed their candidate nominations, Sayed-Khaiyum says a number of NGOs in Fiji are in a position of using the NGO facade to further a political agenda.
He says that has now manifested with Sashi Kiran being nominated by NFP.
He adds he does not know if they have done their nomination but when they do, they will announce Kiran as a candidate and this is the manifestation of that.
He alleges they used people on the ground in the rural areas and the message was that they did not give ration to those who openly supported FijiFirst.
Sayed-Khaiyum adds we cannot have people who lead NGOs have that kind of attitude and seeing she is simply trying to just get attention by trying to appeal to a certain number of vote banks.
Meanwhile Kiran says when Sayed-Khaiyum tries to play politics with FRIEND, he does not insult her, he insults all of FRIEND’s workers, volunteers and all the people who gave the organisation millions of dollars in money and goods to help people affected by the COVID-19 outbreak while Sayed-Khaiyum was nowhere to be seen and he left Dr James Fong to do all the talking.
Kiran says after December 14th, no one will worry about Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Kiran adds Sayed-Khaiyum and his party are the past and NFP is the future.
She further says who cares what Sayed-Khaiyum thinks anyway. Source: Fijivillage News
[email protected]
ARCHIVES
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
October 2012
September 2012