As a victim and survivor of the Military coup on December 5, 2006, I commend and congratulate the chairperson of the Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Marcus Brand, for his public assurances that the Commission is fully devoted to carrying out its mandate. And that is to promote stronger bonds of social cohesion and national unity in Fiji by bringing together survivors and perpetrators of past coup events to share the truth about what happened, and to forgive each other. Archbishop Peter Loy Chong, the head of Fiji’s Roman Catholic Church, has very wisely recommended that the Commission should begin its hearing with the victims and survivors of these coup events. This is for the very good practical consideration that this will enable the Commission to fully prepare itself before listening to explanations by the coup perpetrators. However, there is another very good justification for this procedure. 1. Absolute and unconditional immunity is irrevocably granted to any person holding public office (whether in their official or personal or individual capacity) from any criminal prosecution and from any civil or other liability in any court, tribunal or commission, in any proceeding as a result of any direct or indirect participation in the Government from December 5, 2006, to the first sitting of Parliament elected after the commencement of this Constitution. 2. (No court or tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to accept, hear or make any decision or order with respect to any challenge against any immunity granted or continued under this chapter, and 3. No compensation shall be payable by the State to any person in respect of damage, injury or loss to his or her property or person caused by the or consequent upon any conduct from which immunity has been granted under this chapter. What is clear from these provisions is that the State has given full protection to the perpetrators and their enablers through full immunity from any criminal prosecution and civil liability for their actions. But in complete contrast, their victims have been granted no recognition and assistance at all. This is not surprising because the drafters of the 2013 Constitution were the leader of the 2006 Military coup and those who joined his Military regime. But what is most troubling is that there is absolutely nothing in the 2013 Constitution to provide for, and to help the victims to seek judicial relief for gross violations of their constitutional and human rights. For example, Permanent Secretaries in the Civil Service, who were summarily dismissed for no justifiable cause jointly applied to the High Court for judicial relief. The High Court recognised that we had standing, and prima facie a strong justifiable case for breach of contract of service. But then the perpetrators intervened through their 2013 Constitution. All the courts and tribunals were denied jurisdiction. This was hard to understand because all the perpetrators were agents of the State. All military officers swear an oath of allegiance to obey, uphold and maintain Fiji’s Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation for the rule of law and the administration of justice in Fiji. And who will ever forget those brave and courageous women human rights activists who were forcibly taken by the military to the RFMF Headquarters at Nabua where they were reportedly tortured and abused. So, Chapter 10 on State immunity ha1`s made the 2013 Constitution an instrument for undermining the rule of law, denying all Fijians of their right to accessible and even-handed justice, and compromising the Constitution’s own legitimacy. So long as these one-sided and unjust State forgiveness provisions remain in our supreme law, the Constitution, all initiatives at promoting national reconciliation and healing are unlikely to succeed. The tragedy of cane farming families While the main focus of its mission is on the tragic consequences of past coup events, the Commission should study and examine the many tear-shedding cases of Indo-Fijian cane farming families. For example, there is a well-documented account by scholar Lieselot Whitbeck of the tragic fate of Indo-Fijian cane farming families in the Province of Macuata in Vanua Levu from the 1990s. Between 1997 and 2006, 1471 cane farming leases expired. The farmers applied for renewal of their cane farming leases on native land to the Native Land Trust Board [NLTB] in the early 1990s. For years, they waited anxiously, but sadly, when the reply eventually came, many were told their leases would not be renewed. They were now displaced farmers, or refugees. They had no choice but to re-locate to a new home and to find new sources of livelihood and security for their families. Many re-settled as squatters, for example, in the back areas of Nausori Town, such as Korociriciri and Raralevu. Others moved to areas between Koronivia and Nasinu, or the rural hinterlands of Navua and Deuba. They had to abandon their family homes in Macuata and were not entitled to any mandatory form of compensation. For Muslim families, this meant leaving behind the burial plots of their loved parents, grandparents, and ancestors, who had worked hard to make productive use of the land. Others associated with cane farming such as cane cutters, truck drivers and shopkeepers also suffered from loss of income. The NLTB is duty bound to first obtain the consent of the customary landowners. Getting the consent of the landowners by consensus can be a long process. The Government had plans for land resettlement subdivisions. But they were not ready. So, the displaced cane farming families had to fend for themselves. The Government cannot be effective and successful in promoting national reconciliation and unity if it is blind and deaf to the human security needs of members of any community in Fiji’s multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural society. So, I would strongly urge upon the FTRC to make time to study the tragic cases of cane farming families who became instant refugees when their leases were not renewed. Learning from the Solomon Islands Truth and Reconciliation Commission [SITRC] I would also encourage the FTRC to study and learn from the successes and shortcomings of Solomon Islands Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The five-member SITRC, which included our esteemed Vice President, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, and which conducted its work from 2009 to 2012, laid great emphasis on promoting truth-telling by both perpetrators and victims, and on an uncompromising pursuit of criminal justice. Persons accused of gross violation of human rights were to be investigated. Leaders of the various armed groups already in prison were returned to prison after giving their statement to the SITRC. The Commission was not empowered to grant amnesty or to consider compensation. The SITRC was strongly of the view that forgiveness was strictly a highly sensitive and personal matter between the perpetrator and victims. The State has no business in involving itself in granting forgiveness or amnesty. On truth-telling, critics of the SITRC felt that this was incongruent with local kastom and tradition. People are reluctant to re-live what happened in the past. Women in particular stressed that local culture prohibited disclosure of sexual violence or kastom killings, or other human rights violations, in a public forum. The SITRC was accused of over-reliance on the Western liberal post-conflict peace paradigm of truth-seeking as a way to promote psychological healing: “that without truth, there is no justice, and that without knowledge of the past, human rights violations will recur.” The organising secretary of the Commission, a Roman Catholic priest, attributed the failure of the SITRC to the reluctance of the Commission to make full use of traditional ceremonies of mutual forgiveness and reconciliation at the community level, sponsored by the churches, women’s organisations, and community leaders. This is through the process of kastom ceremonies. These involve the coming together of families and village communities supporting the victim and the perpetrator. There are exchanges of gifts and sharing of food. There is a contribution by the churches in the sharing of the divine message. The whole purpose of these reconciliation gatherings and ceremonies is to promote mutual forgiveness, healing, and restoration of broken social relationships. This is restorative justice. This is what ensures peace and stability in villages and tribal communities. The best way forward for FTRC I believe that in Fiji, for the FTRC to successfully accomplish its mission of promoting social cohesion through healing and reconciliation, it must begin by fully understanding and appreciating that we are not just a political community of individual persons and what binds us together is our common and equal citizenry as fellow Fijians. First and foremost, as a society, we are multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural. And in this we must always remember those captivating words of the late Archbishop Petero Mataca, as the then head of the Roman Catholic Church in Fiji. “No matter how we come to be in Fiji, or how long we have been here, we are all part of this land. It is the land of our birth or the land of our adoption, the land to which we all belong.” Further, the Commission must also understand that the indigenous iTaukei and Rotumans view themselves not so much as individual persons but as a community bound together by their ownership in common of their customary land and other natural resources, and by their culture and customs. Under its enabling legislation, the Truth and Reconciliation Act 2024, the TRC’s main mission is to promote national healing and social cohesion and to achieve this through facilitating open and free truth-telling between the perpetrators and survivors or victims of the coups and associated political upheavals that occurred in 1987, 1990 and 2006. In undertaking its work, the Commission is also encouraged to acknowledge the significance of cultural, traditional and religious forms of reconciliation, healing and justice. No mention is made in the Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Act 2024 of the challenge to national reconciliation and unity posed by the State immunity provisions in Chapter 10 of the 2013 Constitution. These provisions are discriminatory. As already explained, they forgive the perpetrators, but totally ignore the victims of gross violation of constitutional and human rights of the victims. So long as they remain in the 2013 Constitution there can never be true and lasting nation-wide reconciliation in Fiji. So, does the FTRC have the courage to tell the Government that this cannot be ignored and something must be done about? For example, when the leaders of the military coups in 1987 and 2006 appear before the FTRC to explain themselves, the Commission should ask them whether they, together with the whole RFMF and Fiji Police Force, would agree to make a combined presentation before the President of the Republic of Fiji, in a designated public place, of the traditional iTaukei ceremony of matanigasau. The Republic of Fiji Military Forces has itself, in recent months, and under its wise and visionary leader and Commander, Major-General Ro Jone Kalouniwai, used this traditional and customary ceremony very effectively and successfully. This is to bring about reconciliation, healing and unity among all ranks and their families. This is restorative justice. The fundamental purpose is to restore all broken social relationships, and to promote peace and unity in the community. The President, as the head of State, acts and speaks on behalf of all the people of Fiji. He represents the unity of the State. So, when he accepts all the presentations which are part of this solemn ceremony, the message is clear. All those responsible for past coup events are forgiven. There is no longer any need for Chapter 10 on State immunity in the 2013 Constitution. The Commission should also encourage the iTaukei Land Trust Board and Government as administrator of all State-owned land, to make similar matanigasau presentations to the President. The purpose is to ask for forgiveness for their past inefficiencies in dealing with land lease renewal applications, and their inability to be more helpful to the displaced farmers and their families. This will be welcomed by those engaged in Fiji’s sugar industry. At is peak, there were more than 19,000 cane farming leases, the majority of which were on native land. Today, it has declined to just above 11,000. Not surprisingly, annual raw sugar production, a vital component of Fiji’s national economy, has declined from more than 300,000 metric tonnes to less than 180,000 metric tonnes. All this explains the significant decline in Fiji’s sugar industry and the number of people who are dependent on it, both directly and indirectly, for their livelihood and security. If the Commission succeeds in securing acceptance for the use of the traditional and cultural iTaukei ceremony of matanigasau, it will be a tremendous accomplishment in carrying out its mandate. Feedback: editorial@fijisun.com.fj