DOCSLIB.ORG

Derek Lauta G Futaiasi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Derek Lauta G Futaiasi by A STUDY OF CUSTOMARY METHODS DEALING WITH CUSTOMARYDerek Lauta. G. LAND Futaiasi DISPUTES IN MALAITA, SOLOMON ISLANDS by Derek Lauta G Futaiasi A supervised research project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Law Copyright © 2011 by Derek L G Futaiasi School of Law Faculty of Arts and Law The University of the South Pacific December 2011 DEDICATION I dedicate this supervised research project to my late aunties; Rose Bufafi, Lisa Gwaena and Filustus Abuiri because they believed that education reveal pathways and bridges to self-fulfilment and advancement. 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research paper is a semester’s work and several people need to be acknowledged. First, my heartfelt gratitude extends to the University of the South Pacific (USP) which gave me an opportunity from July 2009 to December 2010, under the USP Graduate Assistant Scholarship to undergo the Master of Laws Programme as a full time student at USP Law School, Emalus Campus, Port Vila, Vanuatu. Deep-felt gratitude also extends to my supervisor and academic mentor – Emeritus Professor Donald Edgar Paterson of the USP School of Law, for his time and wonderful supervision. I have gained and learnt so much from his insights. Third, many thanks extend to the following people; Associate Professor David Akin of the University of Michigan, Joseph Foukona and Paul Mae – lecturers at the USP School of Law, David Lidimani and Professor Howard Van Trease for their assistance and encouragement. Much sincere gratitude extends to Felix Kabini Laumae for being a true wantok in Vanuatu. Without him, the revision of this supervised research project in 2011 (August to October) is impossible. Fourth, my thanks extend to those people who I had the chance to talk with them and learnt from their experience and knowledge about customary land disputes, chiefs and traditional leaders in Malaita, particularly, Robert Kofuria, Vincent Misitana, Duddley Fugui, Jackson Lea’afuna, Jeffery Ini, Rinaldo Talo and Leonard Maenu’u. Many thanks extend to David Alpheus – Senior Magistrate in Auki for allowing me to use the Auki Magistrate conference room to conduct my interviews. To those who helped me in one way or another but I am unable to mention their names, tagio baita asiana! ii Lastly, I owe my family, particularly my mum – Gwenneth Lauta-Tadoe, for believing in me that I can make it to this far. Without the kind help, support and encouragement of the above people, this paper would be much poorer. iii ABSTRACT In Malaita one of the provinces in Solomon Islands, during traditional times, the most important traditional decision making mechanisms that dealt with disputes were traditional priest, big-man, a warrior, and chiefs. In contemporary Malaita their roles in dispute settlement had been affected due to foreign influences such as Christianity and the protectorate government. However, chiefs and traditional leaders which are often referred to as chiefs’ settlement or houses of chiefs, are given recognition in 1985 by Parliament to deal with customary land disputes before such is referred to the formal courts. The legal recognition of chiefs or traditional leaders is timely against the increasing customary land disputes due to factors such as lack of clear records, migration, confusion over inheritance and ownership, lack of consultation about land transaction, population pressure and economic activities on customary land. The conduct of proceedings by chiefs and traditional leaders are not regulated by an Act of Parliament. The ways in which the houses of chiefs deal with customary land disputes are by way of negotiation and mediation or by way of using court like procedures to determine an outcome of a customary land dispute. The latter is the main method when houses of chiefs deal with customary land cases. However, in some instances, before customary land disputes go to the houses of chiefs, if that dispute is between people of the same clan their leaders assisted by religious leaders, usually settled the matter between the clan members. In Malaita, though there are advantages of custom dispute settlement such as chiefs are knowledgeable in custom, people feel that they own the system, the system is cheap, the system entails a common understanding between parties which reflect the interest of parties and traditional leaders are independent, there are also challenges facing custom dispute settlement. Some of these challenges include chiefs adopt court like procedures, participation of chiefs from other areas, questions as to validity of chief’s position, conflicting decisions of chiefs, lack of government support, lack of independence of chiefs, lack of fair hearing and decisions are dominated by men. Therefore, much needs to be done to invigorate the work of the houses of chiefs or chiefs’ settlement as recognised by the 1985 amendment of the Local Court Act. Some iv of the most important proposals are the need for government support in terms of remuneration for those who settle customary land disputes at the house of chiefs and the need to introduce and devise a program to train chiefs on legal concepts such as natural justice and relevant human rights issues. The need for a clear constitutional recognition of chiefs and traditional leaders as an important body to deal with customary land disputes is very important to ensure proper legitimacy. Apart from these proposed reforms; the inclusion of the chiefs, traditional leaders and the use of custom to deal with disputes as envisaged by the Tribal Land Dispute Resolution Panel Bill 2008 is a step in the direction in the resolution of customary land dispute. However, there is a need to address the challenges and problems inherent in Tribal Land Dispute Resolution Panels Bill 2008 in order to ensure it is developed into a proper Act of Parliament. v LIST OF ABBREVIATION SRP – Supervised Research Project TLDRPB – Tribal Land Dispute Resolution Panels Bills 2008 TLDRPF - Tribal Lands Dispute Resolution Panels Fund TLDR Panel – Tribal Land Dispute Resolution Panel vi LIST OF FIGURES – MAPS and PHOTOS Figure 1: A girl from Sikaiana – a Polynesian outliers in Malaita Province 15 Figure 2: Photo of a girl from North Malaita, Malaita Province 15 Figure 3: Map of Malaita - Malaitan dialect areas 16 Figure 4: Picture of Andrew Nori 63 Figure 5: Provincial Wards’ boundaries in Malaita Province 64 Figure 6: Tai house of chiefs, Baefua, North Malaita 66 Figure 7: Robert Kofuria and Derek Futaiasi, Baefua, North Malaita 70 Figure 8: ’Are’are Wards and Traditional Chiefly systems 74 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgment ii Abstract iv List of Abbreviation vi List of Figures vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Definitions 1 1.2.1 Definition of Custom 1 1.2.2 Customary Land 2 1.2.3 Customary Land Disputes 3 1.3 Reasons For Topic 3 1.3.1 Lack of Comprehensive Research 3 1.3.2 Increase of Customary Land Disputes 4 1.4 Courts Dealing with Customary Land Disputes 4 1.5 Chiefs and Traditional Leaders 5 1.6 Scope of the SRP 6 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 8 2.1 Stage 1: Formulation of Framework and Structure of Topics to be Considered 8 2.2 Stage 2: Collection of Information 9 2.3 Stage 3: Analysis of Materials and Review of Information Needed 11 2.4 Stage 4: Writing Stage 12 CHAPTER 3 BRIEF OVERVEIW OF MALAITA 13 3.1 Overview 13 3.2 Malaita: Name, Land Size and Population 13 3.3 Classification and Dialects 14 3.4 Religious and Socio-political Organisation 17 viii 3.5 Subsistence Living 19 3.6 Marriage 20 3.7 Land Ownership 21 3.8 Conclusion 22 CHAPTER 4 TRADITIONAL DECISION-MAKING MECHANISMS 23 4.1 Overview 23 4.2 Traditional Priest 23 4.3 The Big-man 25 4.4 The Warrior 28 4.5 Hereditary Chiefs: Maramasike and ’Are’are 32 4.6 Concluding Remarks 33 CHAPTER 5 CAUSES OF CUSTOMARY LAND DISPUTES IN MALAITA 35 5.1 General Overview 35 5.2 Categories of Customary Land Disputes 35 5.3 Causes of Customary Land Disputes: Brief Overview 36 5.3.1 Lack of Clear Records 36 5.3.2 Migration 37 5.3.3 Confusion over Inheritance and Ownership 38 5.3.4 Lack of Consultation about Land Transaction 40 5.3.5 Population Pressure 41 5.3.6 Economic Activities on Customary Land 42 5.4 Concluding Remarks 43 CHAPTER 6 CUSTOMARY LAND DISPUTE DETERMINATION AND SETTLEMENT IN CUSTOM: AN OVERVEIW OF THE PROCESS 45 6.1 Overview 45 6.2 Background of Process in Custom 46 6.3 Negotiation and Mediation 46 6.4 Compensation and Reconciliation 48 6.5 Intra-Tribal: Tribal/Clan Elders, Big-men and Church Leaders 51 ix 6.6 Panel of Chiefs/Traditional Leaders: Inter-Tribal 55 6.6.1 Overview 55 6.6.2 Local Court Act: A Brief Description of its Evolution 55 6.6.3 Jurisdiction of Chiefs/Traditional Leaders 57 6.6.4 Composition of houses of chiefs/Panels 62 6.6.5 Houses of Chiefs in Malaita: An Overview 62 6.6.6 How are Chiefs or Traditional Leaders Chosen? 68 A Overview 68 B Small Malaita – Maramasike 71 C ’Are’are Chiefs 72 D Paramount Chiefs – Kwara’ae and Kwaio 74 6.6.7 How Are Customary Land Disputes Resolved By Chiefs and Traditional Leaders? 77 A Conduct of Proceedings 77 B Mediation 82 C Decision Making/Determination 84 6.7 Tribal and Individual Violence 86 6.7.1 Overview 86 6.7.2 Tribal Violence in Traditional Times 86 6.7.3 Tribal Violence in Contemporary Times 87 6.8 Concluding Remarks 88 CHAPTER 7 ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES FACING CUSTOM DISPUTE DETERMINATION AND SETTLEMENT: AN ASSESSMENT 91 7.1 Overview 91 7.2 Advantages of Contemporary Custom Settlement 91 7.2.1 Chiefs and Traditional Leaders are Knowledgeable in Custom 91 7.2.2 People Feel that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grassroots Governance?: Chiefs in Africa and the Afro-Caribbean
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository University of Calgary Press University of Calgary Press Open Access Books 2003 Grassroots governance?: chiefs in Africa and the Afro-Caribbean University of Calgary Press Grassroots governance?: chiefs in Africa and the Afro-Caribbean. Donald I. Ray, P.S. Reddy, eds. Series: Africa, missing voices series 1, University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta, 2003. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/48646 book http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca University of Calgary Press www.uofcpress.com GRASSROOTS GOVERNANCE? CHIEFS IN AFRICA AND THE AFRO-CARIBBEAN Edited by Donald I. Ray and P.S. Reddy ISBN 978-1-55238-565-4 THIS BOOK IS AN OPEN ACCESS E-BOOK. It is an electronic version of a book that can be purchased in physical form through any bookseller or on-line retailer, or from our distributors. Please support this open access publication by requesting that your university purchase a print copy of this book, or by purchasing a copy yourself. If you have any questions, please contact us at [email protected] Cover Art: The artwork on the cover of this book is not open access and falls under traditional copyright provisions; it cannot be reproduced in any way without written permission of the artists and their agents. The cover can be displayed as a complete cover image for the purposes of publicizing this work, but the artwork cannot be extracted from the context of the cover of this specific work without breaching the artist’s copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • New Year's Eve 1992 Brought Havoc to the Southeastern
    POLITICAL REVIEWS 457 SaHu, Yaw. 1993. A Current Example of tainty. The national general election Policy-Making on the Trot in Papua New took place on 26 May 1993. Seats in Guinea. Paper presented at Pacific Islands each of the 47 constituencies through­ Political Studies Association conference, out the country were contested by Rarotonga, 5 December. some 280 candidates. The state of Togarewa, Neville. 1993a. Lihir a "Goer." uncertainty lasted for some time after PC, 24 May, II. the results were announced over na­ tional radio. Solomon Mamaloni's --. 1993b. Government Sets Saturday party of National Unity won the most Deadline for Talks on Lihir. PC, 29 July, 3. seats, but with only 21 of the total of47 --. 1993c. 50 pct Equity Decision Is it did not have a clear majority. Of the Final. pc, 13 August, 5I. other parties, the People's Alliance Party led by Nathaniel Waena won 7 TPNG, Times ofPapua New Guinea. Weekly. Port Moresby. seats; the new National Action Party of Solomon Islands (Francis Saemala) and the United Party (Ezekiel Alebua) won 5 each; the Labour Party (loses Tuha­ SOLOMON ISLANDS nuku) won 4; the National Front for New Year's Eve 1992 brought havoc to Progress (Andrew Nori) and the new the southeastern parts of Solomon Solomon Islands Leaders Fellowship Islands as Cyclone Nina passed (Reverend Michael Maeliau) won 2 through. Parts ofMalaita, South each; and 1 was won by an indepen­ Guadalcanal, Makira, Temotu, and dent (Francis Billy Hilly). A coalition Rennell and Bellona were devastated. government had to be formed. For the people in these islands, a sea­ Uncertainty and political specula­ son of celebration and reflection tion were fueled by strong indications became overnight a time ofdisaster that veteran politician and incumbent and lost hopes.
    [Show full text]
  • CHIEFS and the STATE in INDEPENDENT ZAMBIA Exploring the Zambian National Press
    CHIEFS AND THE STATE IN INDEPENDENT ZAMBIA Exploring the Zambian National Press •J te /V/- /. 07 r s/ . j> Wim van Binsbergen Introduction In West African countries such as Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone, chiefs have successfully entered the modern age, characterized by the independent state and its bureaucratie institutions, peripheral capitalism and a world-wide electronic mass culture. There, chiefs are more or less conspicuous both in daily life, in post-Independence literary products and even in scholarly analysis. In the first analysis, the Zambian situation appears to be very different. After the späte of anthropological research on chiefs in the colonial era,1 post-Independence historical research has added précision and depth to the scholarly insight concerning colonial chiefs and the precolonial rulers whose royal or aristocratie titles the former had inherited, as well as those (few) cases where colonial chieftaincies had been downright invented for the sake of con- venience and of systemic consistence all over the territory of the then Northern Rhodesia. But precious little has been written on the rôle and performance of Zambian chiefs öfter Independence. A few recent regional studies offer useful glances at chiefly affairs in 1. The colonial anthropological contribution to the study of Zambian chieftainship centered on, the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute and the Manchester School, and included such classic studies of chieftainship as Barnes 1954; Cunnison 1959; Gluckman 1943, 1967; Richards 1935; Watson 1958. Cf. Werbner 1984 for a recent appraisal. e Copyright 1987 - Wim van Binsbergen - 139 - CHIEFS IN INDEPENDENT ZAMBIA Wim van Binsbergen selected rural districts,2 but by and large they fail to make the link with the national level they concentrât« on the limited number of chiefs of the région under study.
    [Show full text]
  • Tributes to Former Presidents of the Association
    INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION Aims The Inter-Parliamentary Union, whose international Statute is outlined in a Headquarters Agreement drawn up with the Swiss federal authorities, is the only world-wide organization of Parliaments. The aim of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is to promote personal contacts between mem- bers of all Parliaments and to unite them in common action to secure and maintain the full participation of their respective States in the firm establishment and development of repre- sentative institutions and in the advancement of the work of international peach and co- operation, particularly by supporting the objectives of the United Nations. In pursuance of this objective, the Union makes known its views on all international problems suitable for settlement by parliamentary action and puts forward suggestions for the development of parliamentary assemblies so as to improve the working of those institutions and increase their prestige. Membership off the Union (October 1993) Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea (Dem. P. R. of), Korea
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Chambers: Unicameral Or Bicameral?
    Legislative Chambers: Unicameral or Bicameral? Legislative Chambers: Unicameral or Bicameral? How many chambers a parliament should have is a controversial question in constitutional law. Having two legislative chambers grew out of the monarchy system in the UK and other European countries, where there was a need to represent both the aristocracy and the common man, and out of the federal system in the US. where individual states required representation. In recent years, unicameral systems, or those with one legislative chamber, were associated with authoritarian states. Although that perception does not currently hold true, there appears to be a general trend toward two chambers in emerging democracies, particularly in larger countries. Given historical, cultural and political factors, governments must decide whether one-chamber or two chambers better serve the needs of the country. Bicameral Chambers A bicameral legislature is composed of two-chambers, usually termed the lower house and upper house. The lower house is usually based proportionally on population with each member representing the same number of citizens in each district or region. The upper house varies more broadly in the way in which members are selected, including inheritance, appointment by various bodies and direct and indirect elections. Representation in the upper house can reflect political subdivisions, as is the case for the US Senate, German Bundesrat and Indian Rajya Sabha. Bicameral systems tend to occur in federal states, because of that system’s two-tiered power structure. Where subdivisions are drawn to coincide with other important societal units, the upper house can serve to represent ethnic, religious or tribal groupings, as in India or Ethiopia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kwaio Struggle for Cultural Autonomy Roger M. Keesing November, 1990
    CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CIS Archive # 2586 C/90-7 Resistance: The Kwaio Struggle for Cultural Autonomy Roger M. Keesing November, 1990 A WORKING PAPER From THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Myron Weiner, Director MIT E38-648 292 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Presented at a Center for International Studies seminar "Peoples and States: Ethnic Identity and Struggle," November 8, 1990. RESISTANG: THE KWAIO STRUGGLE FOR CULTURAL AUTONOMY Roger M. Keesing The Australian National University/ McGill University INTRODUCTION- In the mountains above the eastern coast of Malaita, Solomon Islands, some two thousand Kwaio tribespeople still sacrifice pigs to their ancestors, still carry bows and arrows and clubs, still give mortuary feasts using strung shell valuables, still subsist on food they grow in rain forest swiddens (Keesing 1978b, 1982b). Yet only 75 miles away, where the Guadalcanal campaign was fought almost half a century ago, jet planes now bring businessmen, development experts, and tourists to Honiara, the small but bustling capital of the UNs 150th member nation. The Kwaio traditionalists follow their ancestral religion and customs not out of isolation -- they have been part of the world system for 120 years -- but out of struggle. This struggle locks them in conflict with the postcolonial state: they refuse to pay taxes, reject development schemes and logging; they demand massive compensation for past grievances of the colonial period; they reject as best they can an alien legal system, threatening violence against police now afraid to enter their mountains; they demand that they be allowed to live according to "custom" on the land of their ancestors, not Western ways and laws; and they battle the invasive forces of evangelistic Christianity, as represented both by missionaries and by their own Kwaio cousins now living as Christians in coastal villages.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonialism, Maasina Rule, and the Origins of Malaitan Kastom
    Colonialism, Maasina Rule, and the Origins of Malaitan Kastom Pacific Islands Monograph Series 26 Colonialism, Maasina Rule, and the Origins of Malaitan Kastom David W. Akin Center for Pacific Islands Studies School of Pacific and Asian Studies University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa University of Hawai‘i Press • Honolulu © 2013 University of Hawai‘i Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 18 17 16 15 14 13 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Akin, David, [date–] author. Colonialism, Maasina rule, and the origins of Malaitan kastom / David Akin. pages cm. — (Pacific islands monograph series ; 26) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8248-3814-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Malaita Province (Solomon Islands)—Politics and government. 2. Malaita Province (Solomon Islands)—Social life and customs. 3. Self-determination, National—Solomon Islands. I. Title. II. Series: Pacific islands monograph series ; no. 26. DU850.A684 2013 995.93’7—dc23 2013008708 Maps by Manoa Mapworks, Inc. University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources. Design by University of Hawai‘i Press Design & Production Department Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc. To Ma‘aanamae, Sulafanamae, and Saetana ‘Ola moru siria lo‘oo, fu‘u wane. and Kisini CENTER FOR PACIFIC ISLANDS STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I Terence Wesley-Smith, Director PACIFIC ISLANDS MONOGRAPH SERIES Tarcisius Kabutaulaka, General Editor Jan Rensel, Managing Editor EDITORIAL BOARD Hokulani Aikau Alex Golub David Hanlon Robert C Kiste Jane Freeman Moulin Puakea Nogelmeier Lola Quan Bautista Ty Kāwika Tengan The Pacific Islands Monograph Series is a joint effort of the University of Hawai‘i Press and the Center for Pacific Islands Studies, University of Hawai‘i.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing a Lebanese Senate: Bicameralism and the Third Republic
    CDDRL Number 125 August 2012 WORKING PAPERS Establishing a Lebanese Senate: Bicameralism and the Third Republic Elias I. Muhanna Brown University Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies Additional working papers appear on CDDRL’s website: http://cddrl.stanford.edu. Working Paper of the Program on Arab Reform and Democracy at CDDRL. About the Program on Arab Reform and Democracy: The Program on Arab Reform and Democracy examines the different social and political dynamics within Arab countries and the evolution of their political systems, focusing on the prospects, conditions, and possible pathways for political reform in the region. This multidisciplinary program brings together both scholars and practitioners - from the policy making, civil society, NGO (non-government organization), media, and political communities - as well as other actors of diverse backgrounds from the Arab world, to consider how democratization and more responsive and accountable governance might be achieved, as a general challenge for the region and within specific Arab countries. The program aims to be a hub for intellectual capital about issues related to good governance and political reform in the Arab world and allowing diverse opinions and voices to be heard. It benefits from the rich input of the academic community at Stanford, from faculty to researchers to graduate students, as well as its partners in the Arab world and Europe. Visit our website: arabreform.stanford.edu Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies Stanford University Encina Hall Stanford, CA 94305 Phone: 650-724-7197 Fax: 650-724-2996 http://cddrl.stanford.edu/ About the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) CDDRL was founded by a generous grant from the Bill and Flora Hewlett Foundation in October in 2002 as part of the Stanford Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicameralism
    Bicameralism International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer 2 Bicameralism International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer 2 Elliot Bulmer © 2017 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) Second edition First published in 2014 by International IDEA International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. The electronic version of this publication is available under a Creative Commons Attribute-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence. You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the publication as well as to remix and adapt it, provided it is only for non-commercial purposes, that you appropriately attribute the publication, and that you distribute it under an identical licence. For more information on this licence visit the Creative Commons website: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/> International IDEA Strömsborg SE–103 34 Stockholm Sweden Telephone: +46 8 698 37 00 Email: [email protected] Website: <http://www.idea.int> Cover design: International IDEA Cover illustration: © 123RF, <http://www.123rf.com> Produced using Booktype: <https://booktype.pro> ISBN: 978-91-7671-107-1 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 Advantages of bicameralism.....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attacks on Justice 2002 – Solomon Islands
    SOLOMON ISLANDS The human rights situation in the Solomon Islands deteriorated significantly following the eruption of ethnic conflict in 1998. After the 5 June 2000 coup, the Townsville Peace Agreement was signed. The accord was intended to end the conflict between the Malaitan and Guadacanalese ethnic groups. The courts have confronted difficulties in carrying out their functions, as many police officers have sided with armed groups and the government seems unable or unwilling to prosecute perpetrators of human rights violations. The 20 December 2000 Amnesty Law has contributed to an atmosphere of impunity. BACKGROUND The Solomon Islands, a twin chain of islands located in the South Pacific Ocean, became a British Protectorate in the late 1880s and an independent member of the British Commonwealth in 1978. This tropical archipelago with a population of 408,000 ranks amongst the poorest and least developed nations, according to United Nations statistics. The present form of government is parliamentary democracy, with the British monarch serving as Head of State. Legislative power is vested in a single chamber National Parliament composed of 50 members elected by popular vote for a four-year period. The Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, effectively holds executive authority. Since independence in July 1978, the country’s parliamentary democracy has been weakened by traditional loyalties of politicians to their home islands and by unresolved social and legal differences, particularly those concerning customary and other forms of land use and ownership. The last democratic elections were held in August 1997. The island’s communities are grouped into nine provinces, including the main island of Guadalcanal, location of the national capital Honiara, and Malaita, the most populous island.
    [Show full text]
  • Unbounded Politics in the Solomon Islands: Leadership and Party Alignments
    UNBOUNDED POLITICS IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS: LEADERSHIP AND PARTY ALIGNMENTS Jeffrey S. Steeves University of Saskatchewan The Melanesian countries of the Southwest Pacific--Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and the Republic of Vanuatu--have remained committed to an open, competitive democratic political process since achieving indepen- dence. Unlike former colonies in Africa that preceded them in decolonization, these states have held regular national elections that have seen the defeat of governments and the turnover of national leaders. In addition, the use of no- confidence motions has added another dynamic element to the political pro- cess. However, the Melanesian cultural setting has modified the inherited Westminster model of government. The political process has featured a weak party system, a central role for independent MPs, and shifting coalitions to con- struct new governments. This Melanesian variant can be termed an “un- bounded model” of politics. The Solomon Islands is utilized here as an example of this important Melanesian adaptation. AN INTENSE DEBATE HAS EMERGED among scholars over the potential for democratic transition among Third World countries. The movement for democracy that began in the Philippines with “people power” has become a second revolution. In Asia, Latin America, and Africa, regime change is under way in the wake of external and popular pressures for reform. The transition to democracy has in some cases been complete, with the introduc- tion of a fully competitive political process, while in other countries only partial success has been achieved. Within the scholarly literature, attention has been directed to the preconditions for democracy, the requisites for a successful transition, the configurations of competing societal interests and forces, and the processes of resolving conflict between pro- and antidemoc- Pacific Studies, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Solomon Islands-Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final
    SOLOMON ISLANDS TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION Confronting the Truth for a better Solomon Islands FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2012 Honiara, Solomon Islands 1 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is the Final Report of the Solomon Islands Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), mandated by an Act of the Solomon Islands Parliament in 2008. The Commission of five members worked from 2009 through 2011 to discover the causes, details and effects of the country’s “ethnic tension” crisis of 1998-2003, which nearly destroyed the country, killed at least 200 persons, and adversely affected many thousands more. The TRC did its work through conducting public and closed hearings; collecting statements from victims, perpetrators, and other involved parties; facilitating focus group interviews with all sectors involved in the conflict; and organizing research on issues related to the conflict. The first volume contains chapters discussing the mandate of the TRC, the historical background of the Solomon Islands conflict, the timeline and details of the conflict, the various militant groups (especially, the Guadalcanal Revolutionary Army/Isatabu Freedom Movement, the Malaita Eagle Force, the Black Sharks, and the Guadalcanal Liberation Front), and the response of the Solomon Islands Government. The second volume discusses human rights violations committed by all parties during the conflict, including the state, non-state militant groups and state-authorized Special Operations conducted by police and former militants. After an initial chapter discussing the domestic and international legal framework for the TRC’s human rights work, there are separate chapters on the six human rights violations identified by the TRC as most prevalent during the conflict: killings, abductions/illegal detentions, torture/ill-treatment, sexual violence, property violations and forced displacements.
    [Show full text]