I have read over the paper written by Litea Meo-Sewabu and Wheturangi Walsh-Tapiata very carefully. The author’s make one crucial mistake in their paper, which is what the Fiji Times story focused on. On page two the authors quote from an outdated United Nations Department of Public Information sheet. This sheet was written in 2003 and no longer exists. It was superseded in 2007 when the United Nations Permanent Forum adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is the ONLY instrument adopted by the United Nations that offers a definition of “indigenous peoples.” In the official Declaration, Article 3 specifically states “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination.” This right is reinforced by Article 33, which states “1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live. 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.”

There is NO criteria or discussion of being a “dominant” or “non-dominant” group, as noted in the paper and in the Fiji Times article. Therefore, the Fiji Times article was completely incorrect in its arguments. Likewise, the suggestion by the authors that “Given this definition, Fijians along with other Pacific nations may not be considered indigenous, as Fijians remain the ‘dominant’ group and Fijian culture has evolved without entirely losing its culture” (p. 2) is completely incorrect. It does not matter what this early text that no longer exists from 2003 said – or how it defined indigenous – the only instrument that is binding and accepted by the United Nations concerning the definition of indigenous people is the Declaration. As I noted above, in the Declaration all of this language was either taken out (if it ever existed).

Therefore, although the intent of the article is well and meaningful, because the authors used an outdated and inappropriate reference, they – along with the Fiji Times – brought up a question that has no meaning or relevancy. Fijians are indigenous people. The United Nations recognizes this, and there is no question concerning this AT ALL.

Cheers,
__________________________________

http://www.bauuinstitute.com

Editor: Indigenous Peoples Issues & Resources

http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com

——————————————————————-
Nov 8, 8:54 pm
From: “Secretariat Luvei Viti (Children of Fiji).”
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:54:33 +1300
Local: Mon, Nov 8 2010 8:54 pm
Subject: Thanks PNJ. ‘Re – USP Paper by Litea’

Thanks for your recent email and we will look forward to your comments.
Kind regards.
Luvei Vit Think Tank Team

for more read this link:

http://luveiviti.blogspot.com/2010/10/truth-about-indigenous-fijians-as.html?showComment=1286601628324#c6932173812029929875

http://luveiviti.blogspot.com/2010/11/fact-of-matter-fiji-has-been-under.html

IS FIJI READY FOR COMMUNISM?
Posted by Samuela Tawakilai

Your thoughts please. Let us not close our eyes to what is happening in our beloved country. Are we on the verge of becoming a communist country, or what we are witnessing, just a “cry for help:” from a fugitive who is running away from justice?

Replies to This Discussion

Reply by Waisake Bogirua on November 8, 2010 at 12:34am
@ Samu…for Fiji becoming a communist…nah !! dont think so…currently I believe that we are surving just fine…Globally !!! you should ask that question to the great United States of AMERICA…dua na dinau levu me sauma vei Jaina….and UNITED KINGDOM ..dinau talega tu ga vei Jaina…and Australia..sa tauyavu taka tiko e levu na bisinisi kei jaina….what we should be doing is suggesting and identifying our future leaders for the next election….guilecavi FB and lets work towards the future !!!!….GB..wais

► Reply by Samuela Tawakilai on November 8, 2010 at 8:16am
Waisake,I thank you for that response. It is always hard to accept something that we don’t want to accept, which is understandable. Who ever thought that the “paradise of the pacific” will one day become a playground of lawlessness, ruled by a dictator with a forked tongues?

Since cession, Fiji’s colonial rulers set up a colony that was run almost on communalism, but we call it “The Chifly System.” It was a system where the “white master” and the chiefs were co-rulers, and the people were told to live in their villages, tend their “teitei” and serve the chiefs.The change from that system to the present shook the Fijians mostly, because they were not prepared for the sudden shock.Cakacaka vata was the system they were taught, almost a communist system- or am I wrong? I am asking this question because of my concern that anything can happen in the political climate that Fiji is experiencing.While Bainimarama is still at the helm; Fiji’s future is still bleak, and is prudent and wise to be prepared for any eventuality that may occur.Vinaka!

► Reply by Szinestro on November 8, 2010 at 11:04am
Yes Sam, we all should be on our guard and expect the unexpected when the time comes.

► Reply by Sireli on November 8, 2010 at 1:06am
China should not replace US in Asia Pacific:US security analyst3 November 2010By ROLAND G. SIMBULAN
http://verafiles.org/front/china-shpuld-not-replace-us-in-asia-paci…

► Reply by Joe Bose 1 day ago
Fiji is communist now they’re surviving on communist aid anyway. Further more the people have been encouraged to endorse China as a great partner for trade and commerce. Yep it wont be long before mandrin and cantonese are the primary languages of Fiji.

► Reply by Samuela Tawakilai 1 day ago
Joe Bose,Thanks for your observation. I haven’t been to Fiji for some time, but I heard that there are Chinese Restaurants in almost every corner of the city streets. We seems to be sandwitched from every sides.Keimami dau kaya mai na Yatu Lau: E vaka me sa jina mai a meca kaii !

► Reply by UKoroi 1 day ago
YA!!!MR.STAWAKILAI..I MET SOME @ THE VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAST YEAR WITH FIJIAN PASSPORTS.AU VOSA YANI ERA QAI VAKAWADRA TU GA MAI!!I REACHED NANDI INTERNATIONAL AND WAS SO SURPRISED TO SEE SOME OF THEIR KAI IN THERE WAITING FOR THEM….E DA KILA SARAGA NI RA MATAVOU O IRA NA QAI YANI KEI IRA NA MAI WAWA ISA, E SA MUA TIKO I VEI NA WAQA NI VITI??

► Reply by Joe Bose 1 day ago
Brother Samu ni ra lako mai na mataqali qoka, (ni ra tamata makawa) era kauta vatatale tikoga mai na kenai colacola. Money laundering, drug trafficking, prostitution & human trafficking, illegal gambling. E kena front wale tikoga na vale ni kana, na illegal stuff is happening behind the shop. O Viti e vakayagataki wale tikoga me staging post for drug trafficking amongst other things. What they invest into the country is nothing compared to what they’re ripping off the country. Vica ga vula sa oti e discover taki kina mai Viti na kakana sa voleka ni oti na kena “use by date” mai Malasia ka sa sega ni vakatarai me volitaki mai Malasia sa mai kune ni volitaki e Viti. Qo eratou qai mai raica tale e Viti eso nai vakalesilesi ka gole mai Malasia. Ya na vanua eda sa gole tiko kina mai Viti.Me vukei keda na Kalou ena veika sa yaco tiko oqo.

► Reply by Samuela Tawakilai 2 hours ago
Joe Bose and Ukoroi,Drau bula na wekaqu, na veitalanoa ‘qo e vaka e dua na gunu yaqona; era sa dui galu na lewe ni gunu yaqona, ka sa sega ni dua na tavasa se rogorogo; e so sa kedru sara, ka sa dro o qaravi yaqona; era yadra ga mai ka sega ni dua e vosa era dui curu vakamalua ki tuba – ki vale sara!E rawa ni da vakaraitayaloyalotaka na i vakarau ni bula ‘oya mai noda ?Na ulutaga edatou veitalanoataka tiko e bibi toka baleta nida veimaliwai tiko kei ira na “tamata makawa,” mevaka e dau kaya na qase o Butadroka: A sega na gauna ni nodra veikanikani; me vakamaumautaki gauna.

Au via kauta cake mai na i vakaraitaki ni vanua ko Maleya (Malaysia today). Era a vala e kea na noda sotia ena 1950″s ni se Colony tu ga na noda vanua. Era a vala kei ira na “Bati Kadi” (Communists) ena vanua ‘oya me vica na yabaki, ka mate e kea e vica na noda sotia. O ira na “Kominisi” ‘oya e ra kai Jaina, ka ra vala vata kei na matanitu ko Peritania kei ira na “Malay”, o ira nai taukei ni vanua; vakataki keda na kai Viti mai Viti.E levu vei ira na kai Jaina oqori era lako mai Jaina, ka ra vinakata me Kominisi na vanua ko Maleya.Ena nodra mai tiko e Maleya; taumada era vakawatitaki ira na marama ni Maleya, ka ra kune kina na Sino- Malayans, se o ira na “kawa BABA”.

Ni sa dei na yavadra, era sa qai kauti ira mai na marama ni Jaina mai “Main Land China,” me mai watidra. Ni ra sa lewe levu sa tekivu me ra via vakatulewa, baleta ni tiko vei ira nai lavo, ka voleka ni ra taukena na vei Baqe kei na bisinisi lelevu mai Maleya ena gauna ‘oya.Qai kena i lutua na nodra dau taleitaka na turaga ni vanua ka Maleya na bula sautu (luxury) ka vakavuna na nodra dinau vakasivia vei ira na vei baqe kai na bisinisi, ka ra taukena tu na kai Jaina. E tautauvata kei na nodra taleitaka eso vei ira na noda turaga na bula sautu ena loma n City; kei ira na kena marama ni bogi! Era sa rai toka na wekada Idia mai Viti; ka ra sa curu yani vakayauyau nai lala mai Jaina. Era raica ni ra sa taura vakatotolo na vei bisinisi ena loma ni City; ka levu vei ira era sa sasaga yani vakatotolo ki vanua tani me ra bula!Na democracy na qito ni lewelevu (numbers).

Ni sa na veisautaki na lawa ni digidigi mevaka e vinakata o Bainimarama me dua na tamatama dua na digidigi (common roll), ka ra sa na tiko e Viti e levu cake na Vulagi mai vei keda na i Taukei ni vanua; era na sega tale ni taura vakaukaua na matanitu; era na veiliutaki baleta ni sa lawa ni matanitu! E vei eda sa na tu kina ena gauna ‘oya?Au na tomana tale na vakasama ka’u kauta cake tiko mai, ia au na tini toka mada eke, ka waraka eso na vakasama mai vei kemuni na noda!
Vinaka vakalevu.
http://www.matavuvale.com/forum/topics/is-fiji-ready-for-communism

http://fijitoday.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/an-american-view-of-fiji/

Read more;

Commodore Frank Bainimarama says he was intoxicated when the Australian defense minister called to threaten him.

“We had a heavy grog session the night before, and I was still doped,” he explained with a silly grin to a television interviewer. “He told me, ‘Don’t ever do anything that will pit my troops against yours.’ I thought, I’m not the one who’s doped” on a kava-root beverage. “It must be this guy.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/24/IN301EH5DC.DTL

Pita Driti has told Bainimrama that he needs to remove Attorney General Sayed Khaium from the military council…or else!!
More come …. KEEP CHECKING.
Thank you
Posted by Rachel Solivakasama at 1:09 AM

http://latestfijinews.blogspot.com/2010/07/breaking-news.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FkwOP+%28Latest+Fiji+News+as+it+happens%29

Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna depicted Fiji as a three-legged stool that stood in balance.

Fijians owned the land, Indians provided the labor, and Europeans managed the government. In reality, this three-legged stool was very out of balance.

The politics that surrounded Fiji’s Independence from Great Britian in the late 1960′s, almost 100 years after Indians were first brought to Fiji, were not based on politics at all, but rather were based on race.

Fijians fought to dominat the government in order to keep in place policies that would protect their land, while Indians (who outnumbered Fijians at the time) sought for political and social rights. Even in the way that the newly independent government in 1970 was set up in Fiji reflected the innate racist notions that existed at the time. Fijians were to have a certain number of seats and Indians were to have a certain number of seats, while a few seats were up for grabs to whoever.

It is no wonder that a short time after the independence of Fiji, two different coups occurred in 1987 as different races and peoples struggled for dominance in a nation wrought with divisions. Fijians and Indians lived together harboring their prejudices for almost another ten years before they would turn into aggression and more coups.

In late 1990′s the counrty returned to a democratic government and in 1999 Mr. Mahendra Chaundry, the first Indo-Fijian, was elected Prime Minister. A seemingly amazing step toward equality of the races in Fiji would be squashed, however, a year later when Fiji would endure its third military coup. “May 19, 2000, a group of men led by George Speight held the government men hostage inside the parlimentary complex.

Mr. Chaundry and other labor members of the government were held hostage for 56 days” (“A Race for Rights”).

George Speight announced a press conference shortly after taking the Prime Minister hostage in which he stated to the world that he revoked the constitution, revoked the powers of the president, and claimed that he would now hold all executive powers.

In the documentary, “A Race for Rights”, Produced and Directed by Larry Thomas, an indeginous Fijian says that Speight was a failed business man with little credibility among his peers in the western world, educated abroad, spoke mostly English, was hardly involved in any of the cultural affairs in which Fijians participate, and yet often embraced as a savior by indegenous Fijians. The coup was non-violent, however, idegenous Fijians throughout the country quickly turned to violence in their demonstrations of support to take out their aggressions and frustrations with the Indian occupation.

 Lets state the obvious, that the key to Fiji’s development and prosperity is a democratic and accountable civilian government. That our peoples’ cannot prosper when a bunch of thugs exploit our common property. Right?

Maybe for us and only if we still lie to ourselves that the junta have the peoples best interest at heart. You see when the junta says they want to clean up and reform and move Fiji forward what they really mean is that they wish to clear the way to build a NEW FIJI.

Sounds like going down the beaten path, but what exactly is this NEW FIJI? The Bitter Truth is that unless we unite and act as one NOW to demand our inalienable right to choose our leaders, we need to stop dreaming about democracy, the rule of law and human rights,if we want things to revert to the FIJI that was is and can be.

Bananarama has presented us with a truly opportune moment to unite since all major political parties which comprise 97% of the population are unable to participate in a non existent 2014 election, so perhaps the only party that would qualify would be the Islamic League, $50 Eveli and Bananarama.

 We are on a path towards great suffering and oppression that will explode into total chaos with the imposition of permanent martial law and the total dissolution of the past and present systems, institutions and mechanisms of western democratic government, bureaucracy and international diplomacy as we have known it, in short a ‘radical change’ into slavery and dependence on the junta.

Our Nation has and is moving into a new paradigm of change. It has gone too far down this path of destruction, but it is a necessary destruction that seeks in the end to achieve their ultimate purpose. We are at the dawn of a cataclysmic tragedy and nobody will be there to pick up the pieces for us.

All public services and governance systems including the entire civil service, judiciary, ministries and departments and public utilities that we see before us pretending to be working will cease to exist, because the military junta would not need it to exist to survive, to rule, to oppress and to enslave any more.

Summary judgment on the spot will be the order of the day. Such is the lust for power, the power of greed and the personification of evil.

The junta will abandon the people as intimated by its puppet. They will not have the ability, capacity or need to pretend to govern. The erosion has been gradual and consistent and they know how to divert attention with multiple big bangs when we hit the heart of the real problems.

 But these problems are not insurmountable, in fact they are just utilizing every single opportunity to use the present international financial architecture so long as they buy more time, but what exactly are they waiting for?

Once our new renewable energy sources have been fully commissioned, prepare for the arbitrary acquisition of private and communal property without compensation. And no we are not talking about sugar, Frank is after much more valuable resources then some in-arable weed infested parched farm land, resources that even landowners do not know exist but which will be compulsorily acquired and exploited by the junta.

Yes most of you will laugh this off, fortunately we are a very rich Nation, unfortunately the people will never know of their mineral wealth until it has been acquired and commercially exploited solely by the junta in their personal capacity with imported human resources and technology.

That is why they must wait for the main island of Viti Levu to be 100% self reliant in terms of our energy security which although the FEA have pledged would be ready by 2011 is highly unlikely but surely achievable in the next 3 years if the finances pull through for the R&D of this relatively new technology.

We must never forget we are surrounded by Ocean and will be transformed into the renewable energy grid for the entire South Pacific.

In terms of our food security as advised last year the processes are in motion to introduce terminator technology and to wean our farmers off their organic seeds with GMO replacement. In short, it is the ultimate control of energy, water and food that will lead to the peoples acceptance of the junta out of necessity, unless we bring this to an end NOW.

And if you think they have not prepared for total isolation from the International Community, in terms of economic sanctions, think again, they have been stockpiling arms, ammunition, food, medicine, and fuel for some time now and when they do run out then guess what your house is their house.

Our largest trading partners together with their private citizens investment in our country have a lot to lose, and the day will arrive when they will all have to leave everything behind and take a one way flight out of coup coup land, that is the political economic and investment risk that we have harped about all along.

What of the people you ask, well the people will be enslaved to the military owned and operated farm lands, to feed you know who. Posted 2/26/2010 at 12:00 PM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO.: HBC 355 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

TAITO NAVUALABA
Plaintiff

AND:

THE COMMANDER OF FIJI MILITARY FORCES
First Defendant

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Second Defendant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
Third Defendant

Counsels: Mr. S. Valenitabua for Plaintiff
Mr. J. Boseiwaqa for First Defendant
Ms S. Raramasi for Second and Third Defendants

Date of Hearing: 9th June 2008, 4th July 2008
Date of Judgment: 8th August 2008

JUDGMENT

Summary of Final Order:

Accordingly I enter judgment for the plaintiff inclusive of interest against the first and third defendants in the sum of $73,200.00. I also allow costs summarily fixed in the sum of $3,000.00. Claim against the second defendant is dismissed with costs summarily fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.

[Jiten Singh]
JUDGE

Background:

[1] The plaintiff in this action is claiming damages for personal injuries both physical and mental arising out of alleged assaults from 24th August 2000 to 25th August 2000 by the members of the police force and soldiers from the Fiji Military Forces. The assaults were allegedly committed at a temporary military camp set up at Wainavau, Naitasiri. The plaintiff told the court that he was arrested for having committed murder and robbery. His claim is that he was tortured for a period of one day as a result of which he was hospitalized at the CWM Hospital from 25th August 2000 to 11th October 2000. After his release he also attended St Giles Hospital.

[2] The first defendant in its defence denied assaulting or causing any injuries to the plaintiff. It denied knowledge of any injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The second and third defendants filed a defence which was a bare denial.

Assault:

[3] The first issue is whether the police and soldiers or any one of them assaulted the plaintiff. The only direct evidence of assault was given by the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff told the court in his brief of evidence that he voluntarily surrendered himself to the soldiers at the Naqelewai Community Hall, Naitasiri after he learnt from his wife that the soldiers were looking for him. He further stated that he was taken by soldiers from Naqelewai to Wainavau camp in Naitasiri for questioning. At Wainavau he stated that he was tortured by being beaten on his body with an iron rod; he was made to dive into a shallow stream as a result of which blood came streaming down his face. He said that he lost consciousness so hot water was poured on him and he regained consciousness. He said he was kicked on his back and also hit with rifle butts. He also told the court that he was made to collect horse manure and cow dung and the soldiers forced him to eat that as a result of which he felt so bloated that he could not eat food. He was made to sit and pistols were pointed at his head. At night he stated that he was made to sleep in a dog cage at the back of a twin cab van with two dogs. He slept close to the dogs for warmth. The next morning the beating started again. Later he was taken to the Military hospital because he could not walk. From there he was taken to CWM Hospital, Suva.

Injuries suffered:

[4] In his statement of claim the plaintiff listed his injuries as follows:

“(a) body pains;
(b) right ankle pains; had to use crutches for about 4 months;
(c) tenderness over the back and the lateral chest walls;
(d) swelling over right forearm and dorsum aspect of right hand;
(e) restrictions in lower limbs joint movement;
(f) fracture to the base of his middle phalanx of his left index finger;
(g) his wound was cleaned and sutured and his left hand put on back slab to immobilize.”

[5] In his brief of evidence he noted some injuries which are not specified in his statement of claim or the medical report issued by the CWM Hospital. In his brief of evidence he had noted following injuries:

“(a) bruises, cuts and wounds on my head;
(b) my head and eyes were swollen so I could not see for a week;
(c) I had a complex fracture on left middle phalanx of left index finger;
(d) Complex fracture on left ankle;
(e) My hair was cut with a pair of scissors after the assaults to mock me;
(f) A Nigerian doctor showed me the x-ray of my lower back and said that I had a dislocated lower spine;
(g) Restrictions of lower jaw thus the inability to eat solid food; for one week I had milk pumped through my nose with the use of a tube; two weeks I had food, food juices using the same pipe; the next week I had mashed food; then I started eating solid food;
(h) I had blood coming out from my ears and nose when I was admitted to CWM Hospital.”

He told the court that he does not rely on the medical report from the CWM Hospital for his claim.

[6] The records officer from the CWM Hospital Lanieta Katirewa was called. She testified on the basis of the file kept at CWM Hospital. The records show that the plaintiff was admitted on 25th August 2000 to CWM Hospital and discharged on 11th October 2000. The records also show that the plaintiff had difficulty getting up from bed and moving about so he was subjected to physiotherapy. The records confirm the fracture on left phalange middle finger and left forearm. It showed that the plaintiff complained of ear ache. He was also referred to the fracture clinic for review of spine.

[7] This was an action filed in August 2003 so it had been in court for about four years and nine months. The medical certificate of the plaintiff was issued in 2001. Hence there was abundance of time for the plaintiff to realize that if he is telling the truth then the medical certificate did not show all the injuries. Even his statement of claim does not tally with injuries in his brief of evidence. There is no mention of complex fracture of left ankle either in his statement of claim or in his medical report. His statement of claim refers to right ankle pains not fracture. There is no reference to left ankle. There is no mention of injury to spine in his statement of claim but it may well be covered by tenderness on back as pleaded in statement of claim. The hospital records also stated that he was referred to the fracture clinic for spine injury so it is likely that he did suffer some injury there. There is no mention of restriction of lower jaw and inability to eat food in the statement of claim or in the hospital record or blood oozing from ears and nose. These are significant injuries and would have occurred to the plaintiff to include in his statement of claim especially as it was drafted closer to the time when the events had occurred. Further, it should have dawned on the plaintiff when he was preparing his brief of evidence that some injuries which he was complaining about were not included in his statement of claim. An application for amendment of the statement of claim could easily have been made by seeking to insert the additional injuries but this was not done. I doubt very much there would even have been need for an adjournment as the amendment was not something substantial. In any event the defendants had stated that they had no knowledge of any injuries so inclusion of more injuries by amendment would not have affected defendants’ pleadings or search for additional evidence by them.

[8] Having heard the evidence I have no doubt at all that the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered himself to the soldiers at Naqelewai Community Centre. At the time he was in good health and injury free. A day later he ended up with injuries. He was in custody of the soldiers. When a person is in custody of police or security forces, they have complete control over his person. It is therefore their duty to take proper care of the person to ensure his safety and to see that he remains free from harm until he was set free or at liberty.

[9] The question remains how did the plaintiff get injured while in custody. The plaintiff denied in cross-examination that he got injured while running away from custody. This was not pleaded in the defence. The defendants have not led any evidence of escape. The only defence witness was MELI RADREKUSA now a security officer who was a police officer based at Wailoa Power Station, Naitasiri and not at Wainavau military camp at the material time. All he could say was that the plaintiff was not assaulted by police at the Wailoa Power Station. The plaintiff did not claim to have been assaulted there either.

[10] The plaintiff told the court that he did not know the name of the police officer who hit him. However he had also earlier named Corporal Meli. Meli Radrekusa told the court that he was directed to go with the military to Monasavu to arrest those who had taken over the Monasavu Dam. He stated that the military was taking the lead role. Meli Radrekusa was not questioned in cross-examination that he had assaulted the plaintiff even though the plaintiff had made this allegation.

Findings:

[11] I believe Meli Radrekusa, as this was a period in the aftermath of the 2000 coup that the military intervened to restore law and order. The plaintiff’s evidence is confined to assaults at Wainavau camp which was a military camp. Meli Radrekusa was not even aware that a camp existed at Wainavau. On balance of probability I am not satisfied that the plaintiff was beaten by members of the police force but that he was beaten only by soldiers.

[12] I accept the plaintiff’s version of events in that he was assaulted at Wainavau military camp by being punched and kicked, hit with iron rod, of him having hot water poured over him and being hit with rifle butt. I accept that he was forced to eat horse manure.

[13] However, I do not believe that such beatings continued for hours as the plaintiff made out to be otherwise he would be in the form of a pulp. Further I do not believe the plaintiff that he was made to dive into a dry river bed as alleged in his statement of claim or in a very shallow water. I would have expected serious injuries in his face and head if this had occurred. I do not accept that he suffered a fractured left ankle.

[14] But it is obvious that he received some injuries. He was beaten so he would have body pains with tenderness on back and both chest walls. He received fracture to the middle phalanx of his left finger. I also accept that he suffered fracture of left forearm which had to be put on a back slab. The beatings also resulted in the plaintiff not being able to move and had difficulty to even sit in bed. Given that the plaintiff was punched and beaten, I do believe his wife that his face was swollen and he had black eyes and his arms and legs were swollen.

Evidence of Post traumatic Disorder:

[15] The principal piece of evidence in respect of above is contained in a medical report issued by the St Giles Hospital. It is dated 8th February 2008. It explains that a post traumatic stress disorder is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying or life threatening event or ordeal in which serious physical harm occurred or was threatened. The plaintiff had first visited St Giles Hospital on 3rd August 2002. On 15th March 2004 he was re-living his trauma and developed fears that unspecified persons were trying to harm him. He also suffers from increased irritability and insomnia. His wife, who would know him well, stated that he is short tempered now. His prognosis therefore is not very promising as even over seven years after the event he suffers from insomnia and irritability. Doctor Agnes Chang from St. Giles Hospital had not personally attended to the plaintiff. However she stated from records that the plaintiff suffered from post traumatic disorder. These are symptoms which could also be displayed by someone who had been in prison.

[16] I conclude therefore that the plaintiff was assaulted by soldiers; that he received injuries and he also suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, insomnia and irritability.

Damages:

[17] The plaintiff’s prayer for relief claims special damages, general damages, exemplary or punitive damages, interest and costs.

Loss of Income:

[18] The only relevant detail in the statement of claim relevant to special damages is that the plaintiff was a villager. There is nothing mentioned about his occupation or the level of his remuneration be it weekly or some other term. There is no mention of him having a farm producing crops for sale.

[19] In his evidence the plaintiff stated that he worked for Jiko Fishing from 1997 to 1999. So he was not employed by Jiko Fishing prior to the time of incident. He stated that at Jiko’s he was receiving $150.00 per week plus bonuses. Additionally he got paid $30.00 per kilogram for shark fins and $200.00 per kilogram for shark tails. But he did not specify how much shark fins or tails he managed to secure per week.

[20] In the year 2000 he stated that he began to plant yaqona and dalo which he sold. He stated that he sold these twice a week, that is, two bundles of yaqona worth $600.00 and carrier full of dalo. After beating he stated that he could not farm a lot because of injuries. The wife farms now.

[21] He told the court that while he was at school, he did farming during holidays and also did farming while on leave from Jiko Fisheries.

[22] If the plaintiff is to be believed, he sold weekly yaqona valued at $600.00 and a carrier full of dalo. He did not tell the court what was the size of the carrier he transported the dalo in. He produced no names or places where he sold such significant amount of farm produce. If he was using someone else’s vehicle to transport produce, that person could have been called as witness.

[23] I do not believe the plaintiff that he was selling dalo and yaqona to the extent he makes out. He may have done some small scale farming but not the amount he is trying to make out. Further he admitted that yaqona takes five years to mature so he is hardly likely to have yaqona ready for sale in 2000 if he left Jiko Fisheries in the year 1999.

[24] The law is clear. Plaintiffs who claim substantial damages must show both the fact that he/she suffered damages and the extent of those damages. Difficulty of proof does not dispense with necessity for proof. If precise evidence is available or obtainable, then the court expects a plaintiff to produce it. It is not enough for plaintiff to simply write down figures or make assertions and throw them at the court and expect the court to grant those damages: Bonham Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel – (1938) 6 TLR 177; Ratcliffe v. Evans – (1982) 2 Q.B. 524, 532. In the latter case Bowen L.J. recommended that

“As much certainty and particularity must be insisted on, both in pleading and proof or damage, as is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances and to the nature of the facts themselves by which the damage is done. To insist upon less would be to relax old and intelligent principles. To insist upon more would be the vainest pedantry”.

[25] All the plaintiff has done is making assertions of his loss with no supporting evidence. I cannot in the circumstances grant him any damages for loss of income, he having already left his job at Jiko Industries. Besides there was nothing to stop the plaintiff from employing someone on part time basis so his crops could be tendered. This employee would assist his wife in the tilling of the crops. Mitigation of damages is not an idle concept.

[26] His claim for loss of income is therefore dismissed.

General Damages for Pain & Suffering:

[27] The plaintiff was admitted at CWM Hospital for 47 days. He faced great difficulty in moving and had to go through physiotherapy. I have already made my findings as to the physical injuries he suffered and the resulting post traumatic stress disorder he underwent. He still suffers from insomnia and irritability.

[28] The plaintiff must have gone through intense fear for his life during the time he was in custody. The damages in such a case have to be higher than and usual personal injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents where events occur within seconds and the fear is over. Here the trauma continued for hours while in custody. The cases on motor vehicle accidents therefore do not provide an accurate guide. This prolonged fear and stress has to be compensated for.

[29] It is now well established that previous awards of personal injuries provide a guide and to maintain a level of consistency in awards. However each case has to be considered in light of the particular claimant and his circumstances: Jovesa Rokobutabutaki and Attorney General of Fiji v. Lusiana Rokodovu: ABU 88 of 1998.

[30] In Sashi Prakash v. Commissioner of Police and Attorney General – HBC 237 of 2001 (Lautoka) the High Court awarded a sum of $42,000.00 for pain and suffering both post and future where a suspect was held in police custody from 7.30 p.m. to 1.30 a.m. and suffered seven fractured ribs, four on the right and three in the left. He also had a swollen mouth and broken dentures and other lesser injuries. There was no evidence of any post traumatic stress disorders.

[31] I grant the plaintiff a sum of $45,000.00 for pain and suffering being $40,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $5,000.00 for future pain and suffering.

Exemplary Damages:

[32] The main purpose of exemplary damages is to punish the defendants. Mr. Valenitabua submitted a figure of $150,000.00 being total exemplary damages. That by any yardstick is a colossal amount. In Doctor Anirudh Singh v. Sotia Ponijiasi & Others J Coventry had ordered a sum of $100,000.00 exemplary damages for an extreme case where soldiers had kept surveillance on the plaintiff. The plaintiff was handcuffed and hooded so he had difficulty breathing and brutalized for twelve hours. The present case is nowhere close to the brutality in that case. He had been kidnapped.

[33] Courts have emphasized that in certain circumstances exemplary damages can be awarded by courts. There is a difference in approach between England and Australia on the issue of exemplary damages. In England Lord Develin in delivering the judgment in the House of Lords in Rookes v. Barnard – (1964) 1 ALL ER 36 looked at exemplary damages with disfavour as such damages could confuse the functions of the civil law and criminal law. Therefore he confined the award of exemplary damages to three categories. One of the situations for which exemplary damages according to Lord Devlin can be awarded is for oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the state as where police assault a suspect. In Australia to found a claim for exemplary damages the conduct must amount to “conscious wrongdoing in contumelious disregard of another’s rights”. This formula was accepted by Knox CJ in Whilfield v. De Lauret & Co. Ltd. – 1920 29 CLR 71 at 77. Isaac J explained that exemplary damages are considered “to be punitive for reprehensible conduct and as a deterrent” at p. 81. In Australian Consolidated Press Ltd. v. Uren – 1967 117 CLR 221 the Privy Council confirmed that this expression correctly delineates the defendants’ conduct for purposes of award of exemplary damages. Exemplary damages also serve the valuable purpose in restraining the arbitrary and outrageous use of executive power and in vindicating the strength of the law: Kuddus v. Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary – (2002) 2 A.C. 122 at 147.

[34] The question whether the defendants conduct has reached this threshold is a factual one. In the present case it really does not matter whether I apply the English or the Australian approach. They both fit the facts of this case.

[35] The plaintiff had surrendered himself to the army camp. If he was a suspect he should have been handed over to police to investigate the allegations against him according to law. The plaintiff was alone among soldiers. Far from protecting him, they assaulted him. They subjected him to totally unwarranted indignities of forcing him to eat horse manure. Regardless of how heinous a person’s conduct may be, neither the police nor the armed forces have the right to punish a person for such conduct. The punishment of an offender is for a competent court of this country after all due process is provided to him. The conduct of the soldiers in this case was extraordinarily undignified having no respect for the defendants’ right. This is a proper case for aggravated or exemplary damages as there was oppressive and high handed act on part of the soldiers. I award the plaintiff a sum of $18,000.00 as exemplary damages are not supposed to be crippling but rather punitive. Besides awards must be considered in local context not in the context of other developed countries.

[36] Mr. Valenitabua further in his final submission is seeking compensatory damages for constitutional breaches. He relies on the authority of Proceedings Commissioner, Fiji Human Rights v. The Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General – ABU 2003 of 2006 to make these submissions. That was a claim purely brought for damages for breaches of certain sections of the bill or rights, provisions in the Constitution. The present proceedings are a claim in tort. There is no reference to breaches of the Constitution in the statement of claim or the amended statement of claim. Even if there were such claim, the court would not grant damages twice for the same wrong – one for tort and one for breach of constitutional right. That would be against the whole object of compensatory damages. Hence I cannot grant him any compensatory damages under this head.

[37] Given the nature of the case, the honourable course for the state should have been to accept liability, and let the court assess the damages.

Conclusions:

The plaintiff’s claim for loss of income is dismissed. I grant him the following sums:

(a) For pain & suffering
(i) Past pain & suffering $40,000.00
(ii) Future pain & suffering $5,000.00
(b) Exemplary damages $18,000.00

The plaintiff has claimed interest which I allow at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the writ (25th August 2003 to date of judgment) roughly 51 months on past pain and suffering that is $10,200.00.

Final Order:

Accordingly I enter judgment for the plaintiff inclusive of interest against the first and third defendants in the sum of $73,200.00. I also allow costs summarily fixed in the sum of $3,000.00. Claim against the second defendant is dismissed with costs summarily fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.

[Jiten Singh]
JUDGE

Posted by Sai Lealea

http://wwwfijicoup2006.blogspot.com/2010/02/fiji-military-torture-of-taito.html?

The Amnesty International findings on Fiji All Fijians in Fiji and abroad, We now have an absolute confirmation of human rights abuse, if it was not correctly reported before, it is now.

The on going investigations of Mr.Bose of the Amnesty International Pacific region rep. has exposed the abuse in minute detail like the prisoners going home and having their jail term deducted from annual leave. It has all been documented and Amnesty International has sent out warnings to the Regime that it has to stop.

Confirmation of these reports, are the no arguments coming from QEB to protest the validity of these allegations or deliver another version of Mr. Bose’s claims. Missing from the picture is the peoples’version, which I understand is hard to obtain because of the decrees and the intimidation that has turned our Nation into a country of frightened citizens, a web of espionage (Kai Colo) and a regime finely tuned in the art of telling lies, misinforming the public and spinning rhetorics.

The argument by Richard Herr, that the Australian government should change its approach towards relation with Fiji, should be highly regarded, since he is from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) but I would have accepted his input if this was supporting a legal and democratically elected government which he himself is part of one. His contribution in support of the Regime’s policy changes, places all the past governments of Fiji since independence in a category with incompetent implications

In the country’s 40years of independant governance, we have been able to contibute positively towards the Pacific region and in multilateral realtions on a global scale. We have also been able to, despite the drawbacks of military takeovers, evolve with progress and this is evident in the new leaders with new ideas who have taken Fiji forward from the Colonial days.

The deposed SDL party had most of its members holding bachelorettes, Masters and even doctorates. That is sinificant of a changing and evolving leadership that is aware of Fiji taking its place amongst the big policy changers of the modern world.

Mr. Herr has also rightly declared in his paper that Fiji holds a significant part of Australia’s trade in the Pacific with close to $2billion in investments. That is not a new development, it has progressed from the mid 1800 to today, which resulted in the Colony of Fiji being considered for inclusion into the Australian Federation in 1890. Since then the relationship has matured and grown with understanding and trust, finding thousands of scholars from Fiji developing and homing medical, business, teaching and other skills from Australian Institutes.

That should be proof enough to say that, when Australia progresses and changes, Fiji will too as most, if not all of our leaders are being trained and groomed from Australia. Herr telling Australia to change because a dictator says it should is arrogant to say the least, even if is only sanctions that he is trying to change.

The relationship has been long and trusting for illegallity to be the basis of change in policies, views and emotions. I understand that Mr Herr and I are talking about two different situations, but the principle is the same. We set the rules, we adhere to them, if you break them, you correct yourself, not the rules.

The roudtable discussions about the tri-lateral talks which New Zealand is trying to start has shown good intensions with Prime Keys and Foreign Minister McCully both having a big part to play. Fiji on the other hand has shown contemptuous behaviour in disregarding two high profile politicians and announcing Leweni to be our representative in Wellington, and it was further delineated as a test by the Land Force Commander, Driti. That is also an abuse of some form. An abuse of trust, of goodwill of Biblical teachings (as we are a Christian State) – that is a misrepresentation of “Do unto others what you want done unto you”.

There is also an element of insolence in the whole effort by Fiji. Bainimarama is not very vocal in the whole exercise, and it seems to imply that this is a waste of time for him as his date is set for 2014. Regardless of all their motives, policies, decrees, lies and coverups, Amnesty International is on to them, and we all should help these International bodies who are coming to our aid and hearing our plight by standing up for Nation, stand up for our rights, STAND UP FOR OURSELVES !!!