SAVUA ENQUIRY - PART 3- SAVUA HAD PACKED TO SHIFT TO PM'S OFFICE

SAVUA ENQUIRY Part 3: Savua had packed to shift to PM’s office - and used police resources to commit treason.

Thakur Ranjit Singh

Summary of Part 2: Savua’s dereliction of duties and failure to use the riot bus.

In part 2, you read, how, despite all the police resources and Police Mobile Unit and the Riot (Red) Bus at his disposal, Savua rendered that useless, and he was missing-in-action to lead the police to control an unruly crowd, as he had predicted. Despite all this, he was found innocent of any wrong doing by Justice Timoci Tuivaga’s court, held in camera. 

Now read Part 3 to make up your own mind whether he was guilty. If you have not read two other previous parts, please go back to FIJI PUNDIT (www.fijipundit.blogspot.co.nz) and catch up on those stories that no Fiji papers or journalists have ever reported on.

 

Former Commissioner of Police Isikia Savua was rewarded by Qarase as Fiji's representative to United Nations. Qarase systematically rewarded all ethno-nationalists who helped in propping up a nationalist government, which abused the concept of democracy and denied equality, security and social justice to all its citizens.

Here is Part 3

CRITICAL SUPPORT UNITS AVAILABLE TO SAVUA TO CONTROL RIOTS AND PARLIAMENTARY TAKEOVER

(a) Recruitment of Ex-Soldiers

About 900 ex-military personnel were absorbed into the Police Mobile Unit to reinforce its strength. Why weren’t they fully utilized to cover the streets of Suva and the Parliament before the March of May 19, 2000?  Were they actually recruited to support the takeover of Government?

(b) Intelligence Services

Were other government intelligence agencies consulted and strategic action taken by Mr. Savua by drawing strategic plans to prevent possible disobedience and civil unrest?  If not, why not? Officers have reported that the Commissioner deliberately misinformed the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs by downplaying security threats and developments in official reports. He deliberately manipulated Police Reports, and indeed cut off the access the Police intelligence chiefs had with the Prime Minister.

A letter dated 16/04/00 was addressed to the Prime Minister which was handed over to the Police Special Branch Unit forewarning them of the possible plan to take over the Government.  The letter identified Mr. Savua as one of the architects of the planned takeover with another former army Colonel, Savenaca Draunidalo. It also named several senior public servants including a permanent secretary and several people who were appointed ministers in the Interim Administration.

In this letter, an extremely serious allegation had been made about the Police Commissioner and his involvement in planning a takeover of the Parliament. Why were these information not acted upon and a full inquiry not taken place at that time based on the information provided?  The Commissioner withheld this information from his Minister and the Prime Minister and thwarted attempts by senior intelligence and police officers to directly see their Minister to discuss this concern. Two of these officers were transferred out of Suva at this time.

(c) March Permit and Rioting

We are to understand that the permit for the proposed March of May 19th was only allowed within a designated area; i.e., from the Suva bus station to Government House and nowhere else as specified. 

Why didn’t the Police Mobile Unit erect roadblock at the Government House main gate to stop those taking part in the march heading to Parliament? Officers have told us that the Police Commissioner asked officers loyal to him to allow the marches to proceed beyond Sukuna Park.

 

A burnt-out Suva. Savua was missing in action, and prevented police from bringing law and order to rioting that burnt part of Suva.

The Police Commissioner and handpicked officers were in the thick of looting and the rioting. A number of officers and witnesses have informed us that the Commissioner was instructing the rioters to "complete their looting within two hours". During this period when he was in the thick of the rioting in Marks Street and Cumming Streets in Suva, he made sure that Police reinforcements were not deployed in these areas to bring the rioting under control.

His loyal police officers played an important role in ensuring that the Mobile Unit did not hinder the marches and that the pre-planned looting was allowed to run its planned course.

(d) Penal Code Offences

Some rebels were arrested by police on Ratu Sukuna Road outside the Nasese Shopping Centre for damaging property and shop lifting; both Penal Code offences.  We are informed that Mr. Savua released those arrested after consulting his rebel brother, Major Savua without being charged. Mr. Savua (PC) gave the directive to release all the rebels during a briefing at the Central Police Station.

 (e) Evidence of Vacating Office

A week before the attempted coup, Mr. Savua packed all his belongings in his office and told his staff officer, one ASP that he would be moving to the PM’s office as Prime Minister. Staff officers had packed his office materials and confidential reports and police papers were destroyed or left in a secure Shipping Container at his residence. Unfortunately, one of the senior staff has been sent away for overseas mission by the Commissioner of Police to avoid him giving testimony in the tribunal.

(f) Threatening Violence

Mr. Savua threatened a former Divisional Police Officer at gunpoint. This is not the first police officer to be threatened at gunpoint by Mr. Savua during this period. Such threats were aimed at warning officers that he could take action outside of law.

(g) Inward/Outward Calls

Mr. Savua has been regularly making and receiving phone calls from George Speight and his associates a couple of weeks before the attempted takeover.  His mobile phone was used extensively before, during and after the takeover of the previous government for such contacts.

 

Savua was in cahoots with George Speight, was in constant touch with him and provided police resources to loot Muaniweni Indo-Fijian farmers.

These calls increased in frequency in the days leading to the coup and on the day of the takeover of parliament. At least 5 telephone conversations took place between Speight and Savua on May 19th itself. Surely the Commissioner was not discussing insurance business with Speight on the day of the takeover.

(h) Police Recruitment

The recruitment of Special Constable in the Force is shocking - reeking of nepotism and gross abuse of office. A large number of Special Constables were recruited from his province - including over-age and under-age recruits and special constables with criminal convictions.

Most alarming was the fact that criminals who were involved in looting and terrorism in the Tailevu area and who were released on bail by the Magistrates courts were recruited, through Savua's approval as special constables. Some of these people were then put in charge of police security over the very people that they had terrorized. A total of 100 new recruits were recruited two to three weeks before the coup.  Out of the 100 recruited, there was only a single Indo-Fijian and 99 Fijian recruits.

In fact the Acting Commissioner had taken some steps to remedy this and had terminated the employment of 26 Special Constables recruited by Savua who had serious criminal records.  

The charge of recruiting Special constables with criminal records in itself must have been adequate for the Tribunal and the Public Service commission to terminate his employment. This was a gross violation of Public Service procedures and ethics. How did the Kangaroo court that tried him find him innocent?

 

Former Chief Justice, Sir Timoci Tuivaga, who found Savua innocent of any wrongdoings during Qarase's Interim Rule. He was son-in-law of former Peoples Coalition Minister, Dr. Tupeni Baba, who then headed Qarase's SDL Party and was collecting support to fight next elections in Fiji. (Photo Courtesy of Fiji Sun)

(i) Conspiracy

Some senior police officers were part of a conspiracy to overthrow the Peoples' Coalition Government. This conspiracy was hatched by Savua with the assistance of a senior official in the President's Office, several senior public servants who were formerly in the army and politicians from SVT and the FAP - several were made Ministers in Interim Government headed by Qarase.

Prior to the coup, 65 % of the Police Mobile Force Unit was taken off elite training to undergo work at stations around the country. Savua directed this work in spite of opposition from loyal police officers - who saw this as a most peculiar development especially as the security situation was worsening in the capital. Neither the Home Affairs Minister nor the Prime Minister were informed about this significant development.

Savua recruited handpicked territorial Force soldiers to replace Police Mobile personnel. This was a highly questionable development - and because it took place gradually over several months, such a large-scale deployment was hidden from the Police Services Commission and the Minister responsible.

One hour before the coup, a red police bus with Territorial officers was directed from Sukuna Park to go to parliament house. When they reached parliament house, the marching crowd arrived there. They simply went past the riot squad to the back gate of the parliament.  They were told by Mr. Savua to standby there and guard the front gates of parliament instead of being deployed in the city where looting had already begun.

(j) Savua for Prime Minister?

The looting in downtown Suva took almost 4 hours with only few police man manning the city area. Surprisingly, the police had no strategies to counter the looting, coupled with civil disobedience in the heart of the city.

We are reliably informed that Mr. Savua directed Jahir Khan to go to Parliament house and bring the leader of the house and the speaker to the command center where he was awaiting. He knew full well by the time that the armed men had taken control of the parliament. Even if they hadn't what protocol required the Speaker and the Head to be summoned to the office of the Police Commissioner? Savua, according to police informants was to declare himself the Prime Minister following this meeting. But his plans were foiled when others jumped onto the bandwagon of Speight's takeover and cut him off from Speight.

One Constable drove Jahir Khan to the parliament. Upon arrival at the Parliament gates, they asked to be let through the gates but Mr. Duvuloco arrived at the scene and objected to these officers going in to parliament house. It appears that a new group that was marginal to the planning of the conspiracy had now begun to control the shots inside the parliament.

(k) Actions at the Height of Crisis

Mr. Savua is renowned for his media conference on both minor and major issues.  At the height of crisis, he was nowhere to be seen. His absence was quite deliberate.

Mr. Savua was not available for advice and direction on the day of looting and he remained out of the office for most of the whole day.  It would be interesting to get a print out of his statement of account of mobile phone (mobile no 905269) on the day of the looting. Interestingly, he was seen on the streets of Suva while his senior officers had no knowledge of his whereabouts.

This pattern was to be repeated in the days ahead. He was again absent from office when the police stations around the nations were being taken over by rebels.  Serving members with their families were subject of abuse by the rebels and put through a living hell.

(l) Corporal Seavula

The night the TV station was stormed, Central Police Station (CPS) was also threatened by the same rebels. The same night, Corporal Seavula was shot to death. On that night, all police were on standby at CPS as the rebels going from parliament house to town.  The army was guarding CPS and all lights were off at the station. Police officers were waiting for the rebels to arrive at the CPS.

Officers at the CPS heard gunshots nearby (Selbourne St and also in town). At midnight the lights were turned on and Mr. Savua called all officers and started telling them about the events that night and asked the officers present to carry on the work (standby in their areas) and were debriefed and they were told them to go home. Why was this done when so serious security threats existed? What was discussed between Savua and the rebels on this night? Did it relate to the removal of the President, Ratu Mara?

TO BE CONTINUED in DRAMATIC CONCLUDING PART: SAVUA ENQUIRY-PART 4 - Police Helped Transport Arms from Military to Rebels and Steal from Muaniweni Indo Fijian farmers.

E-mail: thakurjifj@gmail.com

[About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is a journalist and media commentator and runs his blog site, FIJI PUNDIT, that tells what others fail to tell. He is a former publisher of Fiji's Daily Post newspaper, and is based in Auckland, New Zealand. This article was originally  written and published in the Daily Post in May, 2001 under the column Liu Muri by Aage Picche. This is intended as a historical reminder of our dark past.]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SAVUA ENQUIRY - PART 2 : WHEN SAVUA FAILED IN DUTIES TO USE THE RIOT BUS TO CONTROL CROWD

Savua Enquiry: When Police were caught with their pants down.

Part 2: Savua’s dereliction of duties in not using the riot bus to control unruly crowd

Summary of Part 1- Ratu Mara had named Savua and Rabuka as key players in 2000 Coup. 

Fiji Police Commissioner Isikia Savua headed police during Fiji's Peoples Coalition Government of Mahendra Chaudhry in 2000, when an unruly march deposed his government. 

Savua was implicated in the conspiracy of the coup. An enquiry, called SAVUA ENQUIRY was held in camera, (private hearing) headed by a Lauan, Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaga which cleared Savua of any wrongdoings.  Parts of this article are from that enquiry leaked to the then publisher of the Daily Post by unnamed police officers concerned about fairness of the Kangaroo court. .

In the aftermath of Speight’s coup on 19 May, 2000, it was suspected that Savua was the real player to take over from Speight. But after military refused to side with the ethno-nationalists and the rebels, he got cold feet. 

I therefore present my Liu Muri published articles of Fiji Daily Post newspaper to expose dark history of Fiji to those who have not read it before, and to the new generation of Fijian youths who were either not born or were babies during these events. This is to provide an insight into Fiji’s turbulent history. 

Please go back and read Part 1 of the article in FIJI PUNDIT if you missed it.

The Police Mobile Unit had with it on the day the following riot equipment: 300 gas cartridge (tear gas), 100 hand grenades, 4 self loading rifles, 3 X .303 rifles with 300 rounds and 3 greener guns with 100 rounds. These items were on the bus which was misdirected by the Commissioner on the day of the riot.

Here is PART 2:

BACKGROUND TO POLICE COMMISSIONER’S INVOLVEMENT 

We highlight issues surrounding the involvement of the Police Commissioner, Isikia Savua in the events leading to the armed takeover of the Parliament on 19 May, 2000.

 Political Statements

Prior to May 19th, Mr. Savua had told the nation that the Police Force wasn’t in a position to contain the crowd who were intending to take to the streets in protest against Chaudhry's Peoples Coalition Government.  His comments had the effect of boosting the spirits of those involved in organising a march and deflect attention of the Government away from security concerns at the Parliament.

Mr. Savua cautioned through his public statements that the May 19 march would be bigger and less peaceful.  He expressed concern that the police might not be able to cope with more protesters. Reflecting one of his comments during this period, we quote, “I really do not believe that they will continue to have peaceful marches, they may do other things”.

 

The proud Police Force in Fiji were shamed by the defective leadership of Savua who failed to utilise the available resources to control the crowd and enforce law and order on 19 May, 2000.

The May 19th March was a crucial part of the plan to take over the Parliament and overthrow the elected Government. By the Commissioner's own admission, it was likely to be bigger and less peaceful. This should have triggered the full-scale deployment of emergency response measures, and measures to tighten security at the Parliamentary complex - because the marches were essentially against the People's Coalition Government. This did not take place.

At this stage the Commissioner should have:

(i) Formulated a strategic response to deal with a violent march and put in place a Police Operation Order. This did not take place.

(ii) Involved the Police Mobile Unit in planning about the police response to a violent march. This did not take place.

(iii) Informed the Home Affairs Minister and through that the Prime Minister about these developments. He did not do so.

(iv) And, through his minister, he should have informed the Military about the proposed march and asked that it stand by for possible support. This he did not do so as well.

(v) He failed in all the above - that is a clear case of dereliction of duties and negligence. How was he found innocent of any wrong-doing by this Kangaroo court, the Savua Enquiry, headed by Justice Timoci Tuivaga that heard his case in secret?

 THE “NEUTRALIZING” OF POLICE MOBILE UNIT

The Police Mobile Unit had well trained personnel with the latest equipment to counter violent protest marches and civil disturbance/disobedience. In fact the only reason why substantial resources of the state are used to support the Police Mobile Unit is to ensure that the Police have the rapid deployment capacity to deal with disturbances of the type that was predicted by the Police Commissioner, speedily and effectively.  Why weren't its services put to use on the day of the civilian takeover and immediately thereafter?

An Inspector opened up on the deliberate failure to effectively deploy the Police Mobile Unit which should have come into action on the day at both the Parliament and in controlling those involved in the march after the conditions of the permit for the march had been breached. This is what he has to reveal:

The riot squad was fully equipped and capable of handling the situation on that day. The riot squad ought to have been deployed around the parliament complex in advance of the march given the likely threat to the parliament on that day.

Then later in the day they were instructed to sweep the city after the rioting had already commenced - and he says that the riot squad arrived too late for it to be effective. At a crucial time when the riot squad needed all its resources, the Police Commissioner directed the Squad's bus to go to Yat Sen school and pick up the Commissioner's son. This was the height of irresponsibility.

 

The fall guy, George Speight behind bars in the riot bus: Speight and his group of treasonous terrorists used to be transported to Suva Court house in the red Mobile Unit's Riot Bus that Savua neutralised, so it could not be used to control the riot and out-of-control marchers on 19 May, 2000.

This inspector concludes that:

The event could have been avoided if Police Mobile Unit retained its specific role with which it was first or originally established … Our Riot Unit did our best given the limited resource but bad and poor decisions made a lot of difference. 

The Commissioner incapacitated the unit by withdrawing its riot control gear and by ensuring that the senior officials were unable to give directives to the unit.

Another senior police officer similarly noted that the Police Commissioner gave instructions to his unit to take the Mobile Unit bus to pick up his son from the School and drop him at his residence and post 4 guards at his place. This is an extremely significant issue.

According to that Senior Police Officer:

The Police Mobile Unit had with it on the day the following riot equipment, 300 gas cartridge (tear gas), 100 hand grenades, 4 self loading rifles, 3 X .303 rifles with 300 rounds and 3 greener guns with 100 rounds.

All these riot gear, according to both these officers were more than adequate to control the crowd and bring the situation at the parliament under control. However, these equipment were held in the bus. By instructing that the bus be routed to pick up his son, the Police Commissioner would have made sure that riot equipment were removed from the parliament at a crucial time when the rebels were still trying to secure their control over the parliamentary complex and the reinforcement provided through those participating in the march not reached the parliamentary complex.

Also alarming was the fact, according to one officer that:

There was no gazetted officer to give instructions to disperse the crowd. So the squad was left with the earlier instructions to let the marches pass - and thus actually enter the parliament to bolster the numbers of the hostage takers. This was deliberately done to cripple the effectiveness of the unit.

 

Suva was burnt and looted by unruly crowd of marchers who were not controlled by police who had the resources, but lacked leadership on the day of riot.

The riot unit of the Police was rendered ineffective in the critical early hours after the armed takeover of parliament. It was submitted that this was a deliberate action on the part of the Commissioner to ensure that the takeover the Parliament was not derailed by the actions of a professional police force. 

The lack of instructions and the lack of orders to deal with the problem on that day puzzled senior offices. This was most telling and has hurt the morale of those professional Police Officers who felt that they could effectively have dealt with the entire situation on May 19th had proper instructions been issued, and the chain of command operated as it ought to have. (Some of those concerned officers had leaked these documents for publication by Liu Muri-Aage Picche of the Daily Post.)

The failure of this unit is not only traced to the incompetence of the Police Commissioner, but also his deliberate decisions (as revealed later) to ensure that the Police did not undermine the objectives of the terrorists on that day - to take over the  Parliament.

TO BE CONTINUED in PART 3: Savua had packed to shift to PM’s office: He used police resources to commit treason

E-mail: thakurjifj@gmail.com

[About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is a journalist and media commentator and runs his blog site, FIJI PUNDIT, that tells what others fail to tell. He is a former publisher of Fiji's Daily Post newspaper, and is based in Auckland, New Zealand. This article was originally  written and published in the Daily Post in May, 2001 under the column Liu Muri by Aage Picche. This is intended as a historical reminder of our dark past.]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SAVUA ENQUIRY - PART 1:WHEN TUI NAYAU, RATU MARA WAS STABBED IN THE BACK

Ghosts of Speight Coup: Savua Enquiry should be made public?

PART 1: 

When Ratu Mara named Savua and Rabuka as key players in 2000 Coup when he was betrayed by his trusted men -and stabbed in back.

A  FOREWORD

Fiji Police Commissioner Isikia Savua headed police during Fiji's Peoples Coalition Government of Mahendra Chaudhry in 2000, when an unruly march deposed his government. 

Savua was implicated in the conspiracy of coup. An enquiry, called SAVUA ENQUIRY was held in camera, (private hearing) headed by a Lauan, Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaga which cleared Savua of any wrongdoings. Many, like me, likened Savua enquiry to a sham, a kangaroo court and a fraud on the nation. I lost my job for saying this. 

I therefore present my articles by Liu Muri, first published under pseudo name of Aage Picche in Fiji's Daily Post newspaper in May, 2001, and later republished in FIJI PUNDIT blog in 2013.

I republish for people to get an insight and appreciation into Fiji’s turbulent, in fact dark history, and why we need to have a true semblance of democracy from the lessons we learn from our self-inflicted adversity.

  

This is PART 1, to be presented in 4 PARTS.

PROLOGUE

Subsequent to failed George Speight coup on 19 May, 2000, there have been great deal of speculations as to who was that mysterious person who was supposed to take over from George Speight once he had completed the takeover of the Parliament.

Speight was a last minute fall guy or substitute recruit in this whole equation. But it appears, this supposed leader had misread the mood of Fijian military which refused to support Fijian nationalism unleashed by Speight and his rebels in 2000. Upon failure to get support of Military, this mysterious person got cold feet and failed to surface. 

There are speculations as to who this purported “actual” 2000 coup leader was.

From information that surfaced later, fingers point to the then Police Commissioner, Isikia Savua, when the Police force was seen as a spent force and were caught with its pants down. 

The four former Prime Ministers of Fiji - Clockwise- LAISENIA QARASE, RATU SIR KAMISESE MARA, SITIVENI RABUKA and MAHENDRA SINGH. Their coming to power, and subsequent removal, either through legal or illegal means, form part of Fiji's history. All four are part of the series of articles on Savua Enquiry. 

An enquiry, called SAVUA ENQUIRY was held in camera, (private hearing) headed by a Lauan, Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaga which cleared Savua of any wrongdoings.

Many, like me likened Savua enquiry to a sham, a kangaroo court and fraud on the nation. I lost my job as Publisher of the  Daily Post for saying this. I therefore present my four part articles by Liu Muri -Aage Picche, under pseudo-name, first published in Fiji's Daily Post newspaper in May, 2001, and republished in FIJI PUNDIT blog in 2013. 

Many Fijians expressed interest in my last article on Military Mutiny, and expressed desire to know about Savua Enquiry. Hence I republish for people to get an insight and appreciation into Fiji’s turbulent, in fact dark  history, and why we need to have a true semblance of democracy from the lessons we learn from our self-inflicted adversity.

  

Former Commissioner of Police, Isikia Savua and Rabuka were named by Tui Nayau and deposed President of Fiji, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, as the key players and instigators of Speight coup of 19 May, 2000 that deposed Chaudhry's Peoples Coalition Government. Savua passed away on 30 May, 2011, but many controversies he created still live and have become a part of dark history of Fiji.

TUI NAYAU STABBED IN THE BACK

Subsequent to Speight coup and his removal and escape to Lakeba, a TV interview he gave has been very revealing. If you heard the Tui Nayau correctly, Fijians have surpassed the Indians in skills of stabbing in the back. He implied that he was stabbed in the back by the very people he relied upon to give him advice and protection.

Sir Vijay Singh articulated this very well in an article he wrote about removal of Ratu Mara as Fiji’s President subsequent to Speight coup:  

Fijian leaders cannot evade a legitimate question that non-Fijians are entitled to ask: ‘If, despite all your proclaimed piety, you can conspire to do one of your most illustrious sons and high chief what you did to Ratu Mara, how we can trust you to be any kinder and gentler to any of us?

This indeed is very pertinent and concerning issues. 

ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN BETRAYED THEIR CHIEF

Fiji’s name has been tarnished as far as reverence and respect for Chiefly and Westminster system is concerned. All the President’s men stabbed in the back of not only the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Fiji Military Forces of the Republic of Fiji Islands, but also the most revered and highest living Chief in Fiji at that moment. And who did this? The very people who should advise and protect the President and their Chief?

ATTEMPTED COUP HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE

And what a convenient scapegoat – the Fiji Indians. Successive ethno-nationalist and so-called saviors of Fijian race and coup-makers have used Fiji Indians as scapegoats for their treasonous acts. And we have so many fools and gullible people who believed this charade, but within and without our community.

And as Sir Vijay had said, Ratu Mara’s interview cleared the red herring of inter race relations and established the fact that all this had to do with internal rivalries and animosities within the Fijian society.

What it also did is to raise doubt about the findings of the kangaroo court that cleared Commissioner of Police from any wrong- doings. Late Tui Nayau had named Commissioner of Police, Isikia Savua as one of the major suspects in plotting, aiding, and abetting in the Speight coup.

For those who do not know, Fiji Police under Savua lost all credibility after Speight coup in 2000 when rebels and criminals started taking over police posts and humiliated law-enforcers until the military took charge. During that time, my then paper Daily Post drew a cartoon depicting the sad situation of police. 

When a farmer in Dreketi, Vanua Levu was asked about helplessness of police, he pointed towards his freshly castrated bull and said  ...”my castrated bullock has more balls than the police force..”. The person who contributed to degeneration and shaming of the once proud police force to comparison with bulumakau sele, badhia bail or castrated bullock, is none other than the then Commissioner of Police, Mr Isikia Savua who has been cleared by a tribunal held in camera and headed by the former Chief Justice, Sir Timoci Tuivaga, son-in law of Dr Tupeni Baba.

In light of so much interest generated by Ratu Mara’s revelation that cast a black slur on the Savua inquiry, for sake of public interest, we will revisit Savua inquiry and some of the questions and issues raised that remain as mysterious today as the day Savua was cleared.

WAS SAVUA INQUIRY A CHARADE?

 Senior police officers and concerned citizens are appalled that the Commission of Inquiry has cleared Commissioner of Police, Isikia Savua of his involvement in the takeover of parliament and subsequent events.

The Commission of Inquiry, headed by the then Chief Justice Tuivaga had been asked to carry out full investigations by concerned groups - but it had obviously failed to do so.

 

Judges: from left-Justice Dan Fatiaki, Justice Sir Moti Tikaram and Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaga. Sir Timoci headed Savua Enquiry which was held in camera and subsequently cleared Savua of any wrong-doing. The string of articles and revelations presented by FIJI PUNDIT would let public decide for themselves whether Savua Enquiry was fair or just a charade, a sham and a fraud on the nation.

From the first day of the inquiry we had warned that the inquiry was merely to cover up his actions, rather than expose them. The inquiry was aimed at presenting to the international community the view that the interim administration, then led by Laisenia Qarase, was committed to bringing those involved in the destabilization and overthrow of the government to justice. As Qarase and his interim administration got recognition from many countries, the perpetrators of the May takeover were beginning to be let free.

Some confidential information is released in public interest to show a clearer picture in the mucky waters. We have known from day one that the Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate the Commissioner of Police was a fraud. It was headed by Justice Tuivaga - a person who had come under attack from legal sources in Fiji and internationally for facilitating the abrogation of the constitution and for continuing to frustrate legal challenges to the abrogation of the constitution. His sympathies with Speight and his group were well known. He was one of the few people who welcomed Speight to the Suva golf club before his arrest with a great big public bear hug!

WAS THE INQUIRY NEUTRAL AND IMPARTIAL?

The Tribunal included close relatives of Savua. The report of the Tribunal was submitted to the Public Service Commission - a commission that was hand-picked after purported abrogation of the constitution. At all stages of the inquiry, sympathetic and supportive elements had assisted the Commissioner of Police to walk away from his crime scot-free.

Police officers who wanted to make submissions were therefore rightly concerned about their own safety had they gone ahead and made direct submissions. Indeed, we fear for safety of those few that did have the courage to make submissions.

 

Savua Enquiry was seen as a set-up of the Lauan Mafia which was then heading the Interim Government and the Judiciary, among others. Laisenia Qarase, the clean banker was not so clean after all,  as he sided with the coup perpetrators to set them free, and when he tasted power and headed SDL, his government arranged to have the criminals freed and recruited in his nationalist government. Bainimarama warned him of this and gave some 18 months advance notice to improve his governance. Qarase ignored the warning at his peril. It is such abuse of democracy that forced Bainimarama to remove Qarase to deliver social justice to all citizens of Fiji in December 2006.

All in all, the inquiry was part of a deliberate and orchestrated campaign by the Interim Administration to hoodwink the international community about its commitment to bring those involved in the armed takeover of parliament on 19^th May to justice.  The Savua Act - featuring one of the key actors in the May 19th takeover ended with expected results-favouring the criminal elements. However, nobody predicted Ratu Mara’s interview in April 2001 in which he named Rabuka and Savua as key players in the whole mayhem.

SAVUA’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PARLIAMENT TAKEOVER

Citizens of Fiji were deeply concerned and indeed shocked by the events that unfolded after the terrorist take-over of Fiji's Parliament on May 19th. In my view, it is clear that the Police Force and its commander failed to discharge their constitutional obligations to uphold the rule of law and the constitution during the period leading to the takeover of parliament on May 19th, 2000 and subsequently.

From the information made available to the Inquiry it was clear that:

(I). The Police Commissioner Isikia Savua was directly involved in the destabilization campaign leading to the march that occurred on 19 May, 2000 and in supporting subsequent events.

 

The march that ended in deposing the government was allowed to get out of hand through negligence of police management. Savua had warned Chaudhry of the nationalist march, but was missing in action on the day and failed to prepare for a very serious breach of security. It is a clear case of dereliction of duties in aiding and abetting the rebels and those behind the removal and destabilisation of Peoples Coalition Government.

(II). The Police Commissioner was a key player in the grab for political power that commenced with the armed takeover of the Parliament on 19 May, 2000.

(III). The Police Commissioner authorised and provided the support of the Police Force through selected police officers, by providing Police Force resources (in raiding Muaniweni farms) including arms to the terrorists who held the People's Coalition Government hostage since May 19th until their release 56 days later.

TO BE CONTINUED in PART 2: 

Savua’s dereliction of duties, neutralizing the riot bus and failure to use it when needed.

E-mail: thakurjifj@gmail.com

[About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is a journalist and media commentator and runs his blog site, FIJI PUNDIT, that tells what others fail to tell. He is a former publisher of Fiji's Daily Post newspaper, and is based in Auckland, New Zealand. This article was originally  written and published in the Daily Post in May, 2001 under the column Liu Muri by Aage Picche. This is intended as a historical reminder of our dark past.]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

REVISITING SPEIGHT COUP VIOLENCE: WHEN FIJI INDIANS LIVES DID NOT MATTER TO FIJIAN THUGS

THE SPEIGHT COUP VIOLENCE: WHEN FIJI INDIANS WERE VICTIMS OF ITAUKEI THUGS

Thakur Ranjit Singh

PROLOGUE:

This article was initially written in 2000 in the aftermath of violence brought about by George Speight’s attempted coup in 2000 . Then, and even after that, Frank Bainimarama and Fiji Military had taken a tough stance against lawless thugs in Fiji.

There was as frenzy amongst Australia, New Zealand and Fiji media and NGOs, and protest against Fiji were organised by NGOs. Many of those who were shouting democracy and human rights, had taken a blind eye when Fiji Indians were victims of these lawless Itaukei (Fijian native) thugs. 

They had no idea about Fiji and its transition into democratic stability by arresting problems that had plagued Fiji’s discredited young democracy, and search of a home-grown solution.

While we do not condone violence, many appreciate the dilemma security personnel in Fiji faced then in kicking butts (read asses) to bring stability. Considering Fiji’s turbulent trial with (Western) democracy and human rights, balancing human rights against fragile security situation does create dilemma for security personnel-and Bainimarama had done well then. (Not sure about now in  2021)

Muaniweni Fiji Indian victims of racially-inspired violence in May 2000, crying to see their house looted and burnt by the rebels and criminal Fijian thugs.

The people rallying for action against Fiji Military for kicking asses of Itaukei thugs were quite when my people, Fiji Indians, got beaten, raped, and pillaged. The fears for the thugs were the same they had created for the Indo-Fijians, with strict security situation brought in by a military government when democratic system failed to provide security. This was coupled with, as my previous articles on Commissioner Savua showed, police were caught with their pants down and rendered impotent (read poofter) by a poor and wanting leadership.

Some Chiefs and the British-made divide and rule institution, the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) have been the greatest threat to democracy in Fiji.  A salute to Bainimarama for disbanding this parallel government where Chiefs retained and held on to power by sowing seeds of racial discord and projecting Fiji Indians as a threat to Itaukei whose situation was created by draconian divide-and rule policies of the British, ably abused by the Chiefly powers and the GCC.

We need to revisit violence and lawlessness caused by George Speight’s attempted coup and revisiting an area which became the face of turmoil and thuggery -Muaniweni.

The purpose in reminding this history is for the new generation in Fiji to realise how the poster-boys Itaukei on tourism postcards became racial thugs in the 21st century.

George Speight, the attempted coup leader, misled people and caused a spate of racial violence targeting Fiji Indians. People need to be educated about democracy and constitution to avoid other false prophets like Speight.

In 2000, when George Speight and his army of racist Fijian thugs assaulted democracy, many Fiji Indians were the victims. Many self-appointed and foreign-funded NGOs jumping up and down for strong arm tactics of army on the thugs had then remained quite.

I witnessed that violence when I was the Publisher of the now-discontinued Daily Post newspaper. I visited violence-struck community in Muaniweni near Suva and reported on the harrowing and shameful criminal incidents by Itaukei who were once the friends of these people.

I reproduce one such article to inform those who criticize Bainimarama for his strong arm tactics against lawless thugs who had also tried to murder him in November, 2000 (See another FIJI PUNDIT story).

People need to see in their rear-vision mirror to see where Fiji has come from.

Fiji Indians for ever will be thankful to Bainimarama for delivering Fiji Indians a common name, social justice, dignity - and security. No previous leader of Fiji could deliver these.

Lets now look in the rear vision mirror...................

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A COMMUNITY IN FEAR AT MUANIWENI

The attacks have stopped - - but the fear lingers on

You drive up the once dusty (but now tar sealed) Sawani Road from Suva, Fiji for some 30 minutes and you will come to a junction road to the right hand side, reading “Savu Road.” The rich farming area there is known as Muaniweni, which is home to some 110 Indo-Fijian (co-jointly referred to as Fiji Indians) households comprising some 700 people in total. They are farmers on Crown land (what Crown? you may ask) and provide a unique landscape to this area with lush dalo plantations and other cash crops. They also raise cattle and grow rice, ginger and other types of vegetable.

Speight -behind bars now, serving his term for treason

You drive further into this dusty, narrow, winding and repair-starved Savu Road for some 10 minutes; you will come to a twin school complex at the riverbank. This is called Muaniweni Indian School and Vunicibicibi Secondary School, which were established some three decades ago by the Fiji Indian community for the benefit of all the residents.

In the aftermath of Speight coup on 19 May, 2000, that place had gone through devastation and racial hatred erupted by some misplaced, greedy, opportunist and power-hungry people. It could be described as a war zone. We were greeted by fear and grief-gripped Indo-Fijian farmers and their families, depicting a picture of despair and helplessness. We were shocked and saddened by the stories of inhumane and criminal acts committed on this peace loving, hardworking and religious Indo-Fijian farming community.

Muaniweni Indo Fijian victims of racially-inspired violence in May 2000, crying to see their house looted and burnt by rebels and criminal Fijian thugs.

After cries of help, Muaniweni and Nasi residents in Baulevu, Naitasiri were happy for the setting up of Muaniweni Police Post next to the local school.

The Police post came late for about 100 residents who had abandoned their homes to take refuge at Sanatan Primary School in Lautoka, and later at Fiji Girmit Centre in a refugee camp. It is a pitiful sight to see their battened houses with lush green farms and neat well-kept compounds abandoned by the residents.

Other Fiji Indians in the area who did not want to move had transferred all womenfolk to their relatives' places away from Muaniweni for their security. However with life getting more secure because of the new police post and armed soldiers, most are coming back to the place they call home – and the only home they know.

They have been subjected to thuggery and fear by the nearby village youths who appear to be under nobody’s control. One helpless farmer commented that it appeared that the whole village condones this pillaging and assault on hard – working helpless Fiji Indian community. And they are supposed to be Christians!

Rebel soldiers causing mayhem and violence, seeking supremacy and Fiji for Fijians. It is such culture of violence and separation that Bainimarama then wanted removed from the new Fiji

Our team was pleasantly surprised by the philosophical comments of one Indigenous Fijian(Itaukei) Police officer at the police post:

I am a Christian and my heart cries out for these (Fiji) Indian farmers and what the so called Christians did to them. We need to break the cultural barriers between the races. Fijians should be taught Hindi while Indians should be taught Fijian language and culture. Our education system is to blame for this mess. Our schools are too exam oriented and we teach very little human values. We should concentrate more on extra curricular activities.

One perhaps need to ask why did not the supposedly visionary leader, Ratu Mara, who ruled Fiji for 17 years after independence in 1970, did that. Did he, like Ratu Sukuna also was very British and believed in ruling over a divided Fiji, where through fear could divide and rule, and they derived their support from driving Indian fear of takeover of Fiji? You be the judge. 

Another thuggery–scarred Indo-Fijian farmer commented that teaching of the Constitution should be included in the school curriculum:

Everybody should know about their rights, especially the new generation of Indigenous Fijians so that no George Speight in future can mislead them about their Constitutional protection.

Another neighboring Indian farmer had his radio, two workhorses, one calf and five chickens stolen.

We, with our family, including young children, spent the night in the open fields for fear of attack. Our stolen horses are used to cart stolen items from other farms. The most disappointing scene is that the elder thugs use young school - age children of ten to twelve years as apprentice in this looting. They send these youngsters to steal, if we say anything then they come out to threaten us. We are just wondering, what will happen when these kids grow up?

 

Where are all the moral and religious teachings? Church and their talatalas (preachers) should take some blame for these lawless people. The greater blame should go to the parents who cannot and do not manage the moral teachings of their young ones. If my son brings anybody’s stolen items home, I will whip him. Most Indian children know this.”

Muaniweni Community post which brough some law and order to the area.  Bainimarama Government wishes to prevent a repeat of such violence through policies removing racial segregation and promoting racial integration where all have a common name of "Fijians" .

One farmer whose brother left his nearby home for the refugee center said he could not make himself to leave the place he calls home. He added:

One thug came with a gun that was new and still packed in its box with its wrappers intact. He shot my cows, gutted them and took them to the Parliament. Anybody could walk in your farm and take whatever they wanted.

The residents however agreed that Fijians (Itaukei) by nature are very nice people, but they appear to have been misled. Once the political problems are sorted out at the top level, then they are confident that things could return to normal, and they could go back to farming.

If things do not improve and they are not allowed to live with dignity then they would like to join the others in the refugee camp and plead other countries to grant them refugee status.

In all this, the philosophical pleadings of the police office should be considered. The community leaders should get together to build a bridge of cultural understanding, and perhaps both the communities need to work more closely to appreciate each other well. This will ensure that in future political differences, they do not become mere pawns in the hands of the politicians who have their own personal agenda.

[Hope our media in Fiji, the Fiji Times and the Fiji Sun could revisit the area in 2021 and report on it after two decades  and see what has changed and improved. Go ahead, Fred Wesley and Peter Lomas-make my day]

Footnote:

Therefore the strong-arm tactics that we see in Fiji now (after May, 2000) to address the culture of violence among Fijians against others and those trying to destabilize peaceful multi-racial setting and provide security to all is to address such political instability created by those with vested interests. 

Many measures introduced by Bainimarama Government were to address exactly the situation that in the past promoted racial segregation and animosity.

These were the issues spoken by Muaniweni residents some 13 years ago and now being addressed with policies which try to make Fiji a home for all Fijians, with common name and destiny.

It is hoped Australia, New Zealand and NGOs financed by them can appreciate what Fiji has been through and what it needs- a home-grown solution without foreign influence and meddling.

THAKUR RANJIT SINGH

E-Mail: thakurjifj@gmail.com

Blogsite: FIJI PUNDIT: www.fijipundit.blogspot.co.nz

Additional Reading:

 http://epress.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ch165.pdf

[About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is a journalist and media commentator and runs his blog site, FIJI PUNDIT, that tells what others fail to tell. He is a former publisher of Fiji's Daily Post newspaper, and is based in Auckland, New Zealand. This article was originally  written and published in the Daily Post in May, 2001 under the column Liu Muri by Aage Picche. This is intended as a historical reminder of our dark past.]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx