Blue Ribbon Campaign (Fiji) - Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase

Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase

Despite mounting controversy and passionate public pronouncements both for and against the legislation, Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase has emphatically rejected calls for a national referendum, stating on 23 May that there is no legislation providing for a referendum to be held. He said that it was the government's prerogative to pass any legislation it wished, and that he did not want to comment further. He referred all questions to Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale, who was out of the country at the time.

On 27 May, the Fiji Human Rights Commission agreed to hear a complaint filed by four Opposition parliamentarians – Poseci Bune and Daniel Urai of the Fiji Labour Party, Mick Beddoes of the United Peoples Party, and Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party. This decision was criticized on 20 June by Joji Kotobalavu, a spokesman for the Prime Minister, who said that it was inappropriate for the Commission to accept complaints about bills before they were tabled and before the public had had a chance to express its views.

Speaking in Auckland, New Zealand on 11 June, Prime Minister Qarase said that his government detected strong support for the legislation from "important and large sections of opinion" – but that media coverage failed to reflect that. He said that the legislation would make it easier for people to come forward who might otherwise be unwilling or afraid to talk. "Some of those already convicted, may be prepared to make a clean breast of things. Others may decide to keep their secrets and remain in custody, with no amnesty", Qarase said.

Qarase reiterated on 14 June that there would be no general amnesty; the proposed Commission is intended to look at each case individually, and recommend amnesty only for those found to be deserving. He said there would be no general amnesty and every applicant would have to argue their case individually. He said that applicants would have to persuade the Commission that their motives for involvement in the coup were not criminal. They would also have to make full disclosure of everything they knew.

Qarase said that many people were opposed to the legislation because they misunderstood how its amnesty provisions would function. He also implied that they were mean-spirited: "They favour the strict application of punishment as retribution or revenge. There is apparently no room in their thinking for amnesty, as an ingredient of restorative justice. The offenders are not deserving of any form of mercy and forgiveness."

He said that there was international precedent for the legislation. "The sections of the Bill dealing with amnesty were not plucked out of thin air. They have been taken from legislation adopted and successfully used elsewhere. The principles of amnesty are well known and accepted internationally. We have done the research on this", he declared.

Prime Minister Qarase said on 8 July that he thought the legislation would end investigations into the 2000 coup. Speaking at a meeting in Kubulau in Bua Province, Qarase said that the legislation was necessary to prevent the investigations from dragging on endlessly. "I mean, if 10,000 to 20,000 people are going to be investigated, God knows when it will end," he declared. "Trial after trial and the list goes on. About 2500 people have been investigated. Those who turned up in Parliament was close to 20,000 people." He added, however, that litigation currently in progress will not be affected, except at the discretion of the courts.

Qarase said on 14 July that the debate on the legislation involved many issues of critical importance to the country. He acknowledged that sensitive questions of race and culture were at stake, but insisted that it was important to "learn to respect each other's views and to differ without anger or ill will."

On 22 July, Qarase announced that if the legislation were passed, there would be an inquiry into the underlying causes of the 2000 coup, as well as the earlier 1987 coups. "We need to concentrate more than ever on identifying the reasons for the upheavals of 1987 and 2000 and making sure that such tragedies never happen again," Qarase said at a meeting of the National Advisory Council, a think-tank representing Fiji's ethnic communities, which he chairs. He said there was a fundamental lack of trust between Fiji's two main racial groups, coupled with radically different understandings of the events of 2000. For most indigenous Fijians, he said, the coup was about indigenous rights, whereas for most Indo-Fijians, it was simply a lawless act of terrorism. He did not condone the acts, he said, but believed that it was time to bring closure to the painful aftermath of the coup, which had dragged on long enough. "Wounds are reopened when cases go to court and convictions handed down. Racial tensions increased and there was further uncertainty and apprehension," he said. (The Prime Minister's comments were rejected the next day by Opposition Leader Mahendra Chaudhry, who said that the principal reason behind the coups of both 1987 and 2000 was greed, and that it was a "lie" to say that they were carried out in the name of indigenous interests).

At an address to the Lautoka Chamber of Commerce on 23 July, Qarase spoke at length about the bill. He said there was "no question" of withdrawing it, as to do so would be a "denial" of democracy. He denied that the fundamental purpose of the bill was to pardon all who were imprisoned on coup charges. "There is no free pass to amnesty for anyone," he insisted. He also said that while he recognized that expatriate businessmen working in Fiji had a right to comment on issues that were directly related to their commercial and professional undertakings, they "should exercise care and discretion to avoid crossing the line into active politics." His admonition reinforced a warning to the Fiji Employers Federation from the Ministry of Home Affairs that foreign workers and businessmen who spoke against the government would risk forfeiting their permits. Conference participants were not allowed to question the Prime Minister about the parts of his speech related to the Unity Bill.

On 26 July, Qarase reacted angrily to remarks by Opposition Leader Mahendra Chaudhry, who accused him of manipulating the country's Provincial Councils and using them as rubber stamps to gather support for the legislation, and that it was presumptuous for the councils to speak on behalf of all people in their respective provinces. Qarase said that indigenous Fijians were capable of making up their own minds. "It is an insult for him to think Fijians cannot think and make decisions on their own," he said. Chaudhry should learn not to brush aside the remarks of Fijians, the Prime Minister said. He also rejected claims by Lauan Senator Adi Koila Nailatikau, the daughter of former Prime Minister, President, and Paramount Chief of Lau that most Provincial Council members who endorsed the bill had not understood it properly. Qarase said that on the contrary, most people were well informed about the legislation, and supported it because they did understand it and agreed with it.

The Prime Minister reiterated on 27 July that there would be no referendum. He claimed that he personally favoured one, but said the Constitution did not allow for it. "It's a pity, a serious oversight but I personally am in favour of carrying out a referendum," he said.

Qarase said it would not be possible to investigate and charge all the individuals, estimated at over 30,000, who had converged at the parliamentary complex during the crisis of May 2000. He considered reconciliation to be the only way forward. He admitted, however, that the bill would be no guarantee against future coups. It would, however, create an atmosphere conducive to reconciliation, tolerance, and unity, he considered. "However, with a resounding yes I say we can reconcile and that it really is a matter of the heart," he said.

Qarase also said that the government was fine-tuning the bill to ensure its compliance with the Constitution.

On 28 July, Qarase hailed the decision of the powerful Great Council of Chiefs and the Methodist Church to endorse the legislation. "The decision was made in the best interest of the country and a significant milestone in the process of consultation," he said. Earlier, in an address to the Great Council, Qarase had reiterated a previous assertion that to withdraw the bill would be a denial of democracy. The government would not withdraw it, he said, but would adjust the details of it to accommodate the views of all sections of the community. He also said that a National Council of Reconciliation and Unity would soon be established, which would explore ways to foster reconciliation and cooperation among Fiji's diverse ethnic groups.

Faced with continuing opposition to the bill, Qarase pleaded with opponents such as Opposition Leader Mahendra Chaudhry and United Peoples Party leader Mick Beddoes to give the bill a chance, saying they had "a rare opportunity to help bridge the obvious gulf between our people." Speaking on Fiji TV on 30 July, he insisted that the bill was not about the Fijian people as an ethnic group, but about the country as a whole. "I think the overwhelming Fijian support for the Bill is saying we are offering a hand of reconciliation, a hand of forgiveness, a hand of friendship, a hand of repentance and unity. I were in Chaudhry's shoes I would grab the opportunity to try and establish dialogue through this Bill with the Fijian people to promote reconciliation and unity and I will do the same with Mr Beddoes as well," Qarase said.

In a statement on 4 August, the Prime Minister insisted that the bill was not just for the benefit of indigenous Fijians, but for all the country's citizens. It was his personal push for national reconciliation, he said, and it would be up to members of the public as to how to respond.

On 16 August, Prime Minister Qarase rebuffed an offer to negotiate the legislation, provided that it was withdrawn pending the reaching of a consensus and that it be referred to the Tanaloa talks, a University of Hawaii-mediated forum for government-opposition negotiations that took place during 2004. The Tanaloa talks had been a failure, Qarase said, and it was unacceptable for the opposition to set preconditions for negotiations. "I welcome his willingness to discuss the Reconciliation and Unity Bill with the Government but he has put forward two ... quite impossible pre-conditions. One of those conditions is that the Reconciliation Bill must be referred to the Talanoa Dialogue and secondly we must withdraw the bill even before we discuss it. He wants to start afresh. Now this is not a trade union. We are running a government, and if he wants to come in engage the Government in discussion on this very important issue, he must come in without any pre-conditions", the Prime Minister declared.