|
|
| Politics: BAINIMARAMA SHOULD RESIGN, SAYS FORUM EPG |
Regime faces international condemnation
Samisoni Pareti
Perhaps Fiji’s coup leader would agree that February was a two-month coup anniversary best forgotten. Instead of congratulatory notes on a coup well executed, blood-less, even curfew-less, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, still Fiji’s military commander but now interim prime minister, received one report after another which although authored by different people and organisations were all consistent in their condemnation of the action of the military. There were altogether four reports by press time, with more expected in the months ahead.
EPG REPORT
One of the most damaging was the 21-page report of the Pacific Islands Forum’s Eminent Persons Group that visited Fiji on January 29 to February 1, 2007.
 |
Welcome to my humble abode... EPG chair Sato Kilman of Vanuatu (left) and ousted Fiji’s Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase at his home island in Vanuabalavu. Behind them is Samoa’s Faumuina Liuga.
|
Chaired by Vanuatu’s deputy prime minister, Sato Kilman, the group also had the retired head of the Australian Defence Force, General Peter Cosgrove; Papua New Guinea’s retired chief justice, Sir Arnold Amet; and Samoa’s natural resources and environment minister, Faumuina Liuga.
The report said a “firm restatement” ought to be made that “in the Forum’s view, the takeover of government by the RFMF (Republic of Fiji Military Forces) on December 5 was unconstitutionali and unacceptable”.
“Despite the views expressed by the RFMF, the interim government and some organisations, and notwithstanding the absence of any court ruling, it seems the events of December 5 and what followed are widely viewed as having no justification in law,” said the EPG report.
“Following our discussions and analysis of the legal precedents in relation to the doctrine of necessity, the EPG is persuaded by the majority view that the RFMF’s takeover of government was unlawful.”
In noting that “the immediate next step” would be the recovening of parliament and restoration of “constitutional government drawn from the elected parliament”, the report acknowledged, however, that regrettably, this was unlikely to occur”.
The EPG report called for:
• Bainimarama to vacate the position of interim prime minister and allow a civilian to fill the post;
• return to barracks of soldiers;
• lifting of the state of emergency;
• commitment to a “firm timeframe for a national election” in between 18 months and two years;
• human rights abuses “to immediately cease”;
• reinstatement of the chief justice;
• independence of the judiciary to be respected and for all interference to cease;
• country’s 1997 constitution to be respected and interim decrees be restricted “in purpose and scope”;
• Fiji’s domestic and international obligations be respected and upheld;
• citizens to be free to seek legal redress in courts in relation to the events on and following December 5.
Do all these and the EPG report said Fiji’s military-sanctioned government could expect the Forum’s assistance in the form of “financial and technical support” for the election, help in the formation of its anti-corruption commission that will make it “credible and independent” and aid to “restore the independence of the judiciary”.
In stating that the Forum should consider “further options” if Fiji “chooses not to commit to a roadmap along these lines and take the suggested steps,” the EPG—it seems—wants to keep the option of expelling the island nation from the Forum open. It also suggested that the “EPG or a variant” should remain to continue dialogue and “closely engaged” on Fiji.
SHAMEEM REPORT REBUTTAL
Circulated on the quiet in mid-February was a legal response authored by several local but un-named lawyers to the Shaista Shameem’s Report, named after the director of the Fiji Human Rights Commission. Her report seemed to suggest that the military coup was lawful and necessary.
This 21-page rebuttal shredded the Shameem’s Report into pieces with good doses of adjectives and phrases that included “misconceived, pointless, and not persuasive”. It questioned the report’s judgement and sense of balance, adding the report was “one long poem of praise for the Fiji army.”
Rejecting the Shameem Report’s arguments on the doctrine of necessity as justifying the military’s action on December 5, the rebuttal paper proposed that “on an objective assessment of the circumstances”, there was no basis for the reliance on the said doctrine.
“The country was at peace,” it said. “The economy was functioning but sluggishly if not at optimum level. The multiparty government was in control.
“The electorate widely accepted its authority. The only challenge was posed by the Republic of the Fiji Military Forces as the self-styled watchdog of the people.
“The perceived threat was one generated by the RFMF into a self-fulfilling prophecy of creating a crisis where there was none.”
The rebuttal report said it was pointless for the Shameem Report to “assert the unconstitutionality of the 2001 general election and the illegitimacy of the SDL Government from 2001 to 2006”.
“That can only be determined in a court of law and since there was no such challenge, the law would make a presumption of legality,” the report said before it went on to observe: “The director (Shameem) has served in her position since 1999. She has never previously raised any of the questions on the status of the two Qarase Governments.
“Why is the (Shameem) report so supportive of the RFMF? Is it mere coincidence? Why does the case put by the commander of the RFMF on 5 December 2006 subsequently echoed the stance the report has taken? This point is made in light of the fact that the commander has no legal background and would not normally be familiar with concepts such as the doctrine of necessity.”
In disagreeing with the Shameem Report’s assertion that ousted prime minister Laisenia Qarase had a perceived lack of confidence in parliament prior to the coup, the rebuttal report went on to remark: “As for the stance adopted by the military, it went far beyond their accepted role in parliamentary democracies. The impression gained from the facts as presented by Shameem is a sense of crisis. That, with respect, was generated by the increasingly strident calls and actions of the military in the days leading up to December 5, 2006.”
The rebuttal report continued: “That the (Shameem) Report should further tar the former government of ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ phrases which have repugnant connotations in international law and evoke images of Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, Cambodia, Sudan and Nazi Germany—merely reflecting on the report rather than its target. It calls into question the report’s judgement and sense of balance.”
It was clear from the rebuttal report that the authors had a strong opinion of the Fiji army and its recent actions. Point 5.0 of the rebuttal report said in part: “It is in the report’s support for the role of the RFMF under the 1990 Constitution that discloses its slant. It goes to extraordinary lengths to put a gloss on the military having an expanded brief in normal life. The explanation may have a reassuring feel among those who have applauded their recent actions.
“One succumbs to this delusion at his/her peril. Fiji has had four coups. All have had their genesis in the RFMF with some participation of outside elements. It is an armed military commanded by officers who arrogate to themselves the role of watchdog, for no other reason than their possession of guns, which remains a constant threat to our fledgling democracy.”
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Two international human rights organisations also released their positions on Fiji in February.
Amnesty International’s statement on February 16 cited Fiji’s interim government on mounting reports of human right abuses.
The organisation expressed particular concern at continuing reports of threats made against critics of the coup, arbitrary detention and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment) of civil society activists and media professionals, as well as other men and women, said the Amnesty statement.
The London-based human rights watchdog was particularly concerned about the immunity decree the Fiji army had given itself and called for its immediate revocation.
“Despite repeated assurances by the Interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum that the Fiji Human Rights Commission would handle complaints of human rights violations with the government’s full support, the fact that the persons covered by the decree cannot be held accountable for any human rights violations that they may have committed seriously jeopardises the state of human rights and the rule of law in Fiji.
“This decree entrenches the legacy of impunity experienced in Fiji in recent times.
“Whilst the decree provides that victims of human rights violations since the coup could be granted ex gratia compensation under the requirements of international law and standards, this is not an adequate substitute for full investigations and prosecution of suspected perpetrators, as well as reparations for the victims, including compensation, the level of which is either agreed by the victims or set by the courts.”
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
On February 5, the New York-based Human Rights Watch wrote to both Bainimarama and Fiji’s president Ratu Josefa Iloilo urging for a swift return to an elected government.
“In addition, Human Rights Watch called on them to immediately and publicly make an unambiguous commitment that fundamental human rights will be respected, and those who exercise them will be protected,” said a statement from the international body.
“An independent investigation into the death of a person in military custody and allegations of arbitrary detentions, beatings, and harassment of more than a dozen individuals by the military should be first steps towards helping restore confidence.”
INTERIM REGIME RESPONSE
Both Sayed-Khaiyum, Fiji’s interim attorney general, and Shameem as Fiji Human Rights Commission director have responded to the criticisms levelled at the new Fiji regime.
The latter was particularly cutting about her reactions to the EPG Report, dismissive of its observation that the commission has been compromised.
She questioned the appointment of Sir Arnold Amet and General Peter Cosgrove and erroneously blamed the Secretariat of the Pacific Islands Forum for their selection (when it was the Forum’s Foreign Ministers Meeting that selected the EPG membership.)
A more measured reaction came from Bainimarama who a day after the EPG report was leaked to this magazine and the Suva-based Pacific news agency PACNEWS—in a statement said it would be “improper and discourteous” to comment publicly on it.
“The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat was the implementing agency for the visit of the EPG and co-ordination of the report preparation,” he said.
“It is only proper that the FFAMM (Forum Foreign Affairs Ministers Meeting) get to consider the report first.
“The interim government will let its position on the report known directly to FFAMM.”
|
|
|
Other Stories
|
