Letter from NLTB to Military Commander on NTLB's Deed of Sovereignty Document

by 
NLTB

Our ref: 20 June 2000

Commodore Frank Bainimarama
Head of Supreme Military Council
Republic of Fiji Military Forces
Queen Elizabeth Barracks
Nabua
SUVA

Your Excellency,

Ni sa bula vinaka saka.

With the greatest respect to yourself, the Great Council of Chiefs and the Ministry of Fijian Affairs we wish to clarify the Board's position in relation to the Deed of Sovereignty.

From recent media releases we have identified that both the Military and Fijian Affairs position is as follows:

1. The Deed is about surrendering of native land to a Taukei Civilian Government (TCG).

2. The Taukei Civilian Government referred to in the Deed is Speight's Interim Government.

3. Fijian Affairs Board allegations of NLTB Management did not follow procedure to obtain Board's approval.

4. Not obtaining prior approval of the Board, FAB and BLV.

The Board's reply is as follows:

1. Allegation of Surrender of Native Land to a Taukei Civilian Government

The Deed was based on the Deed of Cession dated 10th October 1874 and surrounding circumstances inclusive of recorded understanding of ceding Chiefs Ratu Seru Cakobau distinguished between the words "LEWA VAKAMATANITU" (sovereignty) and TAUKENA (ownership). Ratu Cakobau specifically stated that the Chiefs only had LEWA VAKAMATANITU (sovereignty) and TAUKENA (ownership) of the land resided in the Mataqalis (Landowning Units). He therefore stated the chiefs could only cede LEWA VAKAMATANITU (sovereignty) and not TAUKENA (ownership) of land.

Article 1 of the Deed of Sovereignty does 4 things:- (a) Taking back the Fijian Chiefs possession of the full sovereignty over their people and Vanua wherever it may be recognizing that it had been given away in 1874 to the Crown then in 1970 the Crown during independence gave it away to a 3rd Party. The 3rd party was the Parliamentary democracy from 1970 to the recent deposed Chaudhary Government up to 19th May 2000 and now it's the Interim Military Council;

(b) Once the chiefs have taken back their full sovereignty and dominion they could ceed it to a Matanitu Vanua (Taukei Civilian Government or TCG) to:-

i) ensure safety, peace and good governance of the Fijian people, and;

ii) ensure social, economic and political power shall not fall into the hands of other races to the detriment of the Fijian people and Vanua.

(c) ensure the Taukei Civilian Government is to comprise of meritorious civilians who will carry out the following:-

i) support of the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution;

ii) to prepare a constitution to be endorsed by the chiefs to guarantee the welfare of the Fijian people and other races:

iii) define and fully restore paramount rights and interests of indigenous Fijians and recognized and in line with the Draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

iv) to consider the individual and groups rights of non-Fijians;

v) to consider the right of Fijians to govern their own lands and protect their own lands and protect their interests on such lands, e.g. Abrogation of ALTA, Sustainable Development Bill, Land Use Commission, etc;

vi) amnesty to those connected in May 1987 and May 2000 coups since their actions were all for the paramountacy of Fijian rights. Note 1987 amnesty was abrogated together with the abrogation of 1997 Constitution;

vii) Pending a replacement constitution, a temporary government be set in place to re-assert and protect the interest of Fijian and other races;

viii) temporary government is to put in place measurers, policies, institution, tribunals and/or constitutional provisions for correcting any historical wrongs of the Crown or past Government with regards to:-

- loss of ancestral lands e.g. freehold land; - removal of any unfair or discriminating provisions and practices against native landowners in legislations regulation or lease e.g. of unfair legislation ALTA, Mining Act, Local Government Act, Forestry Act, Crown Lands Act etc. Unfair Leases include 1999 year agricultural leases as in Toko, Tavua;

- bring ownership of mineral resources under the ground upto the economic zone into the hands of Fijians;

- bring resources above ground into Fijian ownership - e.g. mahogany, pine, Crown Schedule A&B; etc;

- revert ownership of foreshore and marine life within the islands territorial economic seas into the hands of Fijian ownership;

- ensures proper equitable and economic return on foreshore sand, soil and marine life e.g. landing and warfage fees, royalty on commercial fishing; etc;

- cultural properties and protection of Fijian intellectual property rights e.g. collection of royalties on use of Fijian traditional designs as trademarks, such as lali, Fijian names, etc (this may be within the provision of FAB duties);

- make provision for the welfare of other races in Fiji;

- make provision for the placement of the Fijian people in the international community in accordance with conventions the chiefs wish to ratify;

- review the taking of all lands for PUBLIC PURPOSES and return such lands that are no longer needed for public purposes to native owners e.g. in Nadi Airport, Lautoka Town, Suva City, Tavua Town, Korovou Town, etc;

- ensure fair share of ownership and income between the State and fishing rights owners on Reclaimed Land;

- ensure equitable (market) annuity sum in the hands of the State for public purposes as compared to current trend e.g. Nadarivatu, Suva, Lautoka etc;

- shall put in place provision for Christianity to be the paramount Religion of Fiji with freedom to others to practice their own religion except for religion which takes life or dignity of the human person;

d) Existing government institutions (including the military, executive, judiciary) and funds to be transferred to the new Government.

1. The Deed in no way extinguishes native land rights of Fijians but intends to safeguard and seek to acquire all those ownership rights which were lost and neglected in the 1970 and 1997 Constitutions and ensure protection and paramountacy of indigenous rights.

2. It is clear form all of the above that the Deed of Sovereignty DOES NOT SURRENDER native land to the Taukei Civilian Government and it must also be added that the Deed of Sovereignty is to be signed by the Chiefs and Turaga ni Yavusas where sovereignty resides and not at the Mataqali and Tokatoka level where ownership of Land resides.

3. The allegation therefore by the Military that the Deed of Sovereignty is poisoning the minds of the rural Fijian people is false, mischievious and defamatory of the Board.

4. The Board also reiterates and reaffirms that the selection of the mentioned Taukei Civilian Government members shall be on the sole prerogative of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga hearing submission of names form its Committee, Fijian Institutions, Speight's group and Military Council

It must be clear to all parties that the Deed was prepared after seven (7) days from Speight's takeover without attempt of specification of "indigenous rights" by his group. To avoid non-specification of what Rabuka called "objectives of the coup" the NLTB prepared the Deed which was in circulation by the week ending 26th of May 2000 before the Military takeover. We strongly believe that the main reasoning of the coups (1987 and 2000) is the addressing of Taukei indigenous rights and we thought that the Deed was the best way to address the issue form 1874 to the present.

2. Recognition of Speight's Interim Administration

It must be affirmed to all parties in particular to all native Fijians even Mr. Speight himself affirmed to the Board that he will not be part of the new Government unless the Bose Levu Vakaturaga endores him. The composition of the Taukei Civilian Government referred to in the Deed of Sovereignty was to come from the lists prepared by Speight, those prepared by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga, Fijian Institutions, Taukei interest groups and Military Council. The Deed of Sovereignty take into consideration the resolution of BLV that a Civilian Government be put in place by virtue of the fact that it was a Civilian Government with the endorsement of BLV. The Board find it appropriate to name the government on Deed of Sovereignty as theTaukei Civilian Government or Matanitu Vanua.

The recent lists submitted by Speights Group as in the Daily Posts (19 June 2000) to the Military affirms that the proposed civilian government is not a totally Speight administration.

The recent Media Report (Fiji Times 19 June 2000) alleges the Deed of Sovereignty angers the Military is unfounded and perhaps is occasioned only by the following preamble on page 7 of the Document.

"AND WHEREAS it is our experience from 1987 that military officers cannot attain these abjectives when they take on civilian rule as ministers, it is therefore our desire that meritorious civilian Taukei except for soldiers with skill desired be found for the attainment of the said objectives by the exercise of these our sovereignty which we now assume and grant to a Matanitu Vanua or Taukei Civilian Government to govern Fiji with the hope that our people will be brought to par in areas where they lag behind and that in the recognition and exercise of our rights, other peoples rights be safeguarded and honoured before Almighty God."

3. FJIAN AFFIARS ABOARD ALLEGATIONS OF NLTB MANAGEMENT DID NOT FOLLOW PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN BOARDS APPROVAL

The allegations that management and employees of the Board in circulating the Deed of Sovereignty are involved in politics as alleged by FAB, Chairman BLV and the Military is shallow and farcical since as explained above; LEWA VAKANATANITU (Sovereignty) and Taukena (ownership) are quite distinct.

That LEWA VAKAMATANITU (Sovereignty) was ceded to Her Majesty in 1874 in Trust that she will look after the welfare of the Taukei. If that LEWA VAKAMATANITU (Sovereignty) is in "wrong hands" it may be exercised to affect native land that may impinge on the best interests of landowners. When that happens or is about to happen the Board is by law involved.

Two (2 ) prime Examples are:-

a) ALTA - NLTB was never involved in its inception nor the statutory 20 years extension in 1975 was only through the advice of a Minister who used to be a former NLTB employee.

b) Crown Schedule A&B - Despite the Boards approval for both Schedule A&B to revert to native owners, both past two (2) government have used them as political ploy rather than complete the necessary process.

The recent bills prepared by Chaudhary Government affecting native land was never resisted by FAB. Hence, our comment that FAB in the Fiji One TV News on Thursday 15th June 2000 has lost its primary role to be the custodians and servants of the Fijian people rather than Government. It rather has taken on the role of imposing the political will of current Government of the Fijian people and has contributed to the economic and social failure of the Fijians.

4. ALLEGATION OF NOT OBTAINING PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE BOARD, FAB AND BLV

First and foremost, Management is only answerable and responsible to the Board of NLTB. With the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution, there was no President and also no Minister of Fijian Affairs to chair the Board.

Management therefore went to consult with the chiefs and Turaga ni Yavusas to ensure specific programs and objectives is put in place after the events of 19th of May, 2000.

Management consider this to be the best interest of landowners if Sovereignty was ceded to a Taukei Civilian Government or Matanitu Vanua with specified objectives rather than repeat the mistakes of 1987 military coups as outlined in the above preamble.

Once the mandate from each Chiefs and Turaga ni Yavusa was obtained then Management will submit to the Board which shall then further submit to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga. It is our honest belief and intention by the preparation of the Deed Sovereignty shall assist in finding a quick solution to the present impasse and immediate release of the hostages.

Conclusion

In conclusion we wish to state that our Management had visited with your Head of Operation Lt. Col Meli Saubulinayau, Colonel Emori Tudia and Major Caginavanua on the 9th of June 2000. We had agreed in that meeting that there would be written commitment from the Supreme Council that the objectives in the Deed of Sovereignty would be carried out by the interim Government and that the Board make release clarification that reference in the Deed to Taukei Civilian Government meant meritorious civilian administration.

That has been done by our Public Relations Officer in the recent releases in the dailies. The main thrust is to have meritorious civilian to carry out the objectives of establishing indigenous rights. The Deed sets out those objectives as set out above.

Since we have carried out our part of the bargain, we ask you to withdraw the presence of your armed personnel from our premises.

Finally , we sincerely believe that the Military, FAB, GCC and NLTB should work together to see that the objectives of the Deed of Sovereignty are achieved. In our view it addresses the real issues and reasons why the events of May 19th happened and how it should be resolved. We are aware that Speight and his group have brought these issues to the forefront and accordingly their views should, equally, be considered.

We look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

_______________________ (Niko Nawaikula Esq.) BOARDS SECRETARY