Just as the Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, and his People’s Alliance think they have their new constitution in the bag, the RFMF Commander, Major General Ro Jone Kalouniwai, has thrown a massive spanner in the works by calling for the removal of the immunity provisions.
He appears, in the following Fiji Village story, to refer to the whole of Chapter 14 – providing not only the existing immunity for anyone who took part in the coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006 but also future actions taken by any public official right up to the first sitting of the parliament after the new constitution comes into effect in March 2028.
Must they go before any vote in the parliament this week that would take the 2026 Constitution to its next step – a national referendum on December 9?
The stakes are immense if the immunity provisions go altogether. Sitiveni Rabuka himself would lose his immunity for the two coups he conducted in 1987, so would Frank Bainimarama for his coup in 2006, plus anyone else who took part in the national upheavals of ’87, 2000 and 2006.
They would all be open to prosecution, including senior military personnel currently on Kalouniwai’s staff such as Colonel Penioni “Ben” Naliva and Colonel Aseri “Rocky” Rokoura, who assisted Bainimarama with his coup. And so, incidentally, would the Tui Nayau and high chief of Lau, Ratu Tevita Mara, who as another of Bainimarama’s colonels, also played a role in the 2006 coup.
But it is the following passage of the draft constitution which is most contentious and the RFMF says it specifically rejects – immunity granted to anyone holding public office for actions taken between the Bainimarama coup and the first sitting of the parliament after the new proposed constitution is supposed to take effect on March 31 2028. (though it can be introduced sooner by presidential proclamation).
Why are the current immunity provisions being widened? What dastardly deeds are being planned between now and when the new constitution takes effect that would require legal protection for any public official? That’s a question already on the minds of many Fijians and now, it seems, on the mind of the RFMF Commander, who says it must not be included in the supreme law.
It is a stunning development on the eve of parliament gathering for the third reading of Bill 32 – the Constitutional Amendment Bill – that leaves a great many people suddenly exposed.
- Will Sitiveni Rabuka be willing to fall into line and remove the immunity provisions, knowing that without them he faces the distinct possibility of prosecution for his conduct in 1987?
- Will everyone else in the parliament who took part in the coups of ’87, 2000 and 2006 vote to remove a provision that continues to protect them from prosecution? As it happens, that includes the Opposition leader, Inia Seruiratu, the Minister for Immigration, Viliame Naupoto, and the Minister for Policing and Communications, Ioane Naivalurua, who were all military officers in Frank Bainimarama’s coup.
- Will it spell the end of the careers and ambitions of the likes of Filipo Tarakinikini, Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who was a junior officer in 1987 and military spokesman in 2000? Rumour has it that Tarakinkini has been earmarked by the President, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, to eventually be fast-tracked to the top as Sitiveni Rabuka’s replacement as prime minister. But that clearly won’t be happening if he were to be prosecuted.
- And why would immunity be included in the new constitution for future actions? What are the President and the Prime Minister secretly planning that would motivate them to build legal protection for themselves and those who carry out their orders into the new document? Is it to protect the President is he chooses to fast-track the implementation of the new supreme law? Or is it something more sinister?
We’re still reading between the lines of the RFMF Commander’s extraordinary submission to the Constitutional Review Committee in which he calls for the Immunity Provisions to be replaced by entrenching the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the supreme law.
Is it optional? Can the parliament simply ignore the call? Or is it an “or else”, which however unlikely given Kalouniwai’s insistence that the military stays out of politics, is nonetheless a possibility. Because once the Bill passes the third reading next week and then the referendum, it becomes the supreme law – immunity provisions and all.
Question: Why would the RFMF Commander just be going through the motions of making a comprehensive, formal submission on the draft constitution if it is already a done deal? What do you think, Fiji?
This is a major development that will be causing all sorts of consternation behind the scenes. Because never mind the number-crunching currently going on and the confident predictions by the Prime Minister’s matanivanua, Manoa Kamikamica, that the bill will pass, a great many people will have just one thought on their minds reading this news. Their own arses.
Yet one thing is certain. It reinforces the almost universal belief that things are moving far too quickly and that this week’s parliamentary vote and subsequent referendum must be delayed.
It is one thing for the Prime Minister to face down the demands by his fellow MPs and most of the country for more time for the new constitution to be debated. But will he have the guts to face down the RFMF Commander?
Jone Kalouniwai may be in the habit of speaking softly but he carries a hell of a big stick. And given Fiji’s history, do we really think that the RFMF’s submission this close to the parliamentary vote can simply be ignored?
Oh dear. Listen carefully and you’ll be able to hear the “damns” shattering the peace of the church choirs this Sunday morning. Because nobody seems to have thought of any of it.
_____________________
The provision the RFMF Commander wants gone…
POSTSCRIPT:
Oh, and a reminder about Savenaca Narube‘s appearance this morning on the return of Sashi Singh‘s program, which has assumed new importance after Narube’s stellar performance in the new opinion poll by the Centre for Democracy and Dialogue.
Leave a Reply