A personal view:Former organizing secretary
of the Fiji Labour Party, former media adviser to ex-Prime Minister Sitiveni
Rabuka, adviser to Opposition Leader Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, currently with the
Citizensí Constitutional Forum (CCF).
SUVA, Fiji Islands (May 25, 2000 - USP Journalism Programme/Pasifik Nius/Niuswire)---"Those who support Speightís coup are willing to have Fiji become an international pariah state and an economic basket case just so they can become members of an interim government.The members of these Fijian parties have no respect for the 1997 Constitution and the government that was democratically elected under it.They preferred its destruction through illegal means.Why then should they remain parliamentarians?"
SUVA: In his television press statement on
Monday evening, May 22, SVT member of Parliament Jim Ah Koy, after condemning
the Chaudhry-led governmentís handling of issues affecting indigenous Fijian
interests, called for dissolution of Parliament, the formation of an interim
government by the President and another commission to review the constitution.
He said the constitution was not supported
by the indigenous Fijians because in 1997, many of the provincial councils had
opposed the Reeves report.This was Ah Koyís original position before his tune
to support a ìConstitutionally correct solutionî in his advertisements on Wednesday,
May 24, 2000.
Ah Koy's television statement raised a number
of questions.The first one is whether the President, in a situation of civil
emergency, can dissolve Parliament and form an interim government.
This will not be possible because the President
assumed executive powers under the 1998 constitution.
Sections 107 and 108 of the Constitution
state the conditions under which the President may appoint a new Prime Minister
to form a Government from the House of Representatives if the current Prime
Minister has lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the House.
And, he can only dissolve Parliament, if
he accepts the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House.The President
cannot remove the Prime Minister without reference to the House of Representatives
to ascertain who can command a majority.
There is no provision in the Constitution
that gives the President the power to decide on his own to form an interim government
or the power to decide on his own to form an interim government or to dissolve
Parliament.
Even though George Speightís seizure and
imprisonment of most of its members have interrupted the current parliamentary
session, the constitution is still in place and therefore, the Parliament also
still remains.
In terms of the Constitution, the President
has no authority to listen to anybody else, including the Council of Chiefs,
about the status of Parliament or the form of government that is to come into
being once George Speight releases the hostages and surrenders his armed men
to the police.
In other words, when the "civil coup"
is over, the President has no option but to consult Prime Minister Mahendra
Chaudhry about his intention with respect to his leadership of the present government.
If the Fiji Labour Party, which has a clear majority of 37 parliamentary members, reaffirms their confidence in the continued leadership of Chaudhry, then the President has no choice but to accept that.
On the other hand, Chaudhry may decide to
step down, in which case he can advise the President if he thinks there is another
person who can be appointed because that other person can command the majority
of the members of the House of Representatives.
There is also no provision in the Constitution
for the President to pardon the coup makers and its supporters as Speightís
spokesman, Jo Nata, has been asking.People can only be pardoned under the prerogative
of mercy, after they have been tried and convicted.And they should have a good
case for presidential pardon.
Do Speightís armed group have a case to be
forgiven?
Jim Ah Koy's suggestion for appointment of an interim government is obviously the "moderate" position of those who have been opposing the 1998 Constitution and want it changed.What changes they want are another question.
They seem to sympathies with George Speightís
demand for the complete removal of the Labour-led coalition government and the
replacement of the 1998 Constitution by the 1990 Constitution.
Ah Koy represents the position of most MPs
in the S.V.T., the Nationalist party, V.L.V. and F.L.P. factions that do not
support the government, including independent Simione Kaitani and the S.V.T.
office drafter, Dr. Ahmed Ali.
With the exception of Jim Ah Koy (who is
not interested in becoming a member of Parliament at this time), Ofa Duncan
and Ratu Kinijoji Maivalili, all the other MPs (and some senators) who oppose
the Government would not mind being appointed into an ìinterim governmentî formed
in a political situation where the present Constitution is completely abrogated.
Unfortunately for them, that situation has not arisen because of the Presidentís assumption of executive authority and because the Fiji military forces, the police, the civil service and judiciaries had sworn allegiance to the President and the 1998 Constitution.That fact and probably legal advice may have compelled Jim Ah Koy to backtrack from the original preferred result.
The question then is, will his other parliamentary
colleagues follow suit? People like Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, David Pickering, Konisi
Yabaki, Ratu Esira Rabuno, Ratu Tuaíkitau and others who have not to date condemned
the coup? Then there are the others, like Rakuita Vakalalabure, Simione Kaitani,
Viliame Volavola, Peceli Rinakama, Berenado Vunibobo, etc., who were reported
to have accepted Speightís invitation to join his "Cabinet."
The question they have to answer is whether
there is any moral or legal justification at all for them now to remain as Members
of Parliament. Having supported an illegal attack on Parliament and the criminal
seizure of most of its members, I do not think they have any moral right to
remain in Parliament as representatives of the people who elected them.
I believe they should do the honorable thing and resign. For how can they remain "Honorable Members" and face the people on the opposite side of the House whose rights they have shown such utter contempt for? How can they legitimately talk about constitutional change when they were willing to endorse an illegal abrogation of the constitution that some of them had voted for in 1997?
Having actively promoted a campaign of racist
accusations against the present government and demolished Mahendra Chaudhry
as a threat to indigenous Fijians, these Members of Parliament were directly
or indirectly responsible for the civil coup of May 19.
I write here with some inside knowledge because
I was once one of Ratu Inoke Kubuabola's close advisers on the Opposition sides
between June and September 1999. I was aware then that a shadowy Committee was
formed in June last year to initiate a campaign of destabilization aimed at
toppling the Government in the shortest time possible. Thereafter, we kept hearing
rumors of postponement of dates.
It all began when Ratu Inoke said to the
SVT Management Board Meeting on May 27th 1999 (in which I was present) that
they must be prepared to fight and to shed blood if need be to return political
power to the indigenous Fijians.
In June 1999, Apisai Tora joined this committee
and later, some members of the rebel F.A.P. faction.I learnt in June last year
that there was an understanding with the late Sakiusa Butadroka, that the members
of the Fijian Nationalist Party would do the dirty work while the S.V.T. supports
from behind and fronts the public campaigns in Parliament and outside.
Most of the members of the destabilization
committee I think were not members of Parliament but their activities last year
were undertaken with the knowledge of Ratu Inoke Kubuabola.
At the time, I was in the Opposition Office;
he was receiving regular reports of these campaign activities. I do not know
whether Ratu Inoke and his S.V.T. colleagues know of George Speight's illegal
Cabinet and their other actions in which they have shown their public support
of the coup.
That is why I believe MPs who supported the
coup should leave Parliament.
Having allowed Speight to announce the abolishment
of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs), where do the SVT supporters
of Speight's coup now rest their case as the party that was formed by the BLV?
The BLV has endorsed the Constitution and
they have now upheld it again in supporting the Presidentís assumption of executive
authority.Those who support Speightís coup are willing to have Fiji become an
international pariah state and an economic basket case just so they can become
members of an interim government.
The members of these Fijian parties have no respect
for the 1997 Constitution and the Government that was democratically elected
under it. They preferred its destruction through illegal means. Why then should
they remain Parliamentarians?
This site is best viewed using Netscape 4.0 or higher.
Any problems or kind suggestions, please email: webmaster@lookinglassdesign.com
last revision 5/26/00