The Status of Customary Law in Fiji Islands After the Constitutional Amendment Act 1997
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Status of Customary Law in Fiji Islands After the Constitutional Amendment Act 1997 Jennifer Corrin Care, Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of the South Pacific[1] 1. INTRODUCTION In 1987 Fiji was declared a republic, following a military coup. In 1990 a new constitution was brought into force. Whilst based on the independence constitution of 1970, it ensured the political dominance of the indigenous community. Customary law was recognised by this constitution as part of the law of Fiji. Section 100(3) of the Constitution of Fiji 1990 stated: Until such time as an Act of Parliament otherwise provides, Fijian customary law shall have effect as part of the laws of Fiji: Provided that this subsection shall not apply in respect of any custom, tradition, usage or values [sic] that is, and to the extent that it is, inconsistent with a provision of this constitution or a statute, or repugnant to the general principles of humanity. On 27 July 1998, the Constitution Amendment Act 1997, came into force, repealing the 1990 Constitution, and establishing the Constitution of the Republic of the Fiji Islands 1997 in its place.[2] The Constitution Amendment Act 1997 omits section 100(3) from the new constitution. Accordingly, since the 1997 Act came into force, customary law is no longer formally recognised as a general source of law in the constitution. However, this does not mean that it is no longer part of the law. Section 195(2)(e) of the 1997 constitution preserves not only all written laws, which are not expressly repealed,[3] but also ‘all other law’. Customary law is also referred to in s 186, which provides: (1) The Parliament must make provision for the application of customary laws and for dispute resolution in accordance with Fijian processes. (2) In doing so, the Parliament must have regard to the customs, traditions, usages, values and aspirations of the Fijian and Rotuman people. The current position of customary law can therefore be summarised as follows: It is no longer a formally recognised source of law in the constitution. To the extent that it existed prior to the Constitutional Amendment Act 1997 coming into force, customary law is still law. Parliament must make provision for its application. This paper compares the recognition given to customary law in the constitutions of the member countries of the University of the South Pacific and of Papua New Guinea.[4] It then examines the problems involved in formal recognition, and discusses whether those problems explain the motivation behind the withdrawal of recognition of customary law by the 1997 Act. The paper also considers the consequences that the repeal of this important part of the constitution will have and the significance of section 186. 2. STATUS OF CUSTOMARY LAW IN PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES The recognition of customary law as a source of law within the formal system serves two main purposes. It shows respect for customary law and confirms its importance at national level. Many constitutional preambles within the region stress traditional values and declare them as a foundation of national government. The second purpose is to attempt to integrate customary law into the formal system. Many regional constitutions and constituent documents contain provisions giving recognition to customary law within the formal legal system. The following table summarises the relevant provisions. Provisions For the Recognition of Customary Law COUNTRY PROVISION Cook Islands Cook Islands Act 1915(NZ), s 422 (land only): ‘Every title to and interest in customary land shall be determined according to the ancient custom and usage of the natives of the Cook Islands’. Fiji Islands Constitution of Fiji 1990, s 100(3) (until 27 July 1998): Set out above. Kiribati The Constitution of Kiribati 1979, Preamble; Laws of Kiribati Act 1989, s 4(2): ‘In addition to the Constitution, the Laws of Kiribati comprise - ...(b) customary law ...’. Laws of Kiribati Act 1989, sch 1, para 2: ‘ ... customary law shall be recognised and enforced by , and may be pleaded in, all courts except so far as in a particular case or in a particular context its recognition or enforcement would result, in the opinion of the court, in injustice or would not be in the public interest.’ Marshall Islands Constitution of Marshall Islands 1978, art X, ss 1 and 2: ‘Nothing in Article II shall be construed to invalidate the customary law or any traditional practice concerning land tenure or any related matter...’. ‘...it shall be the responsibility of the Nitijela...to declare , by Act, the customary law in the Marshall Islands’. Nauru Constitution of Nauru 1968, s 81; Custom and Adopted Laws Act 1971, s 3: ‘the institutions, customs and usages of the Nauruans...shall be accorded recognition by every court, and have full force and effect of law’ to regulate [the matters specified in the Act].’ Niue Niue Act 1966, as amended by the Niue Amendment Act 1968 (No2), s23 (Niuean land only): ‘Every title to and estate or interest in Niuean land shall be determined according to Niuean custom and any Ordinance or other enactment affecting Niuean custom.’ Papua New Guinea Constitution of Papua New Guinea 1975, sch 2.1(1): ‘...custom is adopted, and shall be applied and enforced, as part of the underlying law’. Samoa Constitution of Samoa 1962, Art III(1): ‘"Law" ... includes ... any custom or usage which has acquired the force of law in Samoa ... under the provisions of any Act or under a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.’ Solomon Islands Constitution of Solomon Islands 1978, s76 and sch 3, para 3: ‘Subject to this paragraph, customary law shall have effect as part of the law of Solomon Islands’. Tokelau Tokelau Amendment Act 1996(NZ), Preamble, para 4: Traditional authority in Tokelau is vested in its villages, and the needs of Tokelau at a local level are generally met through the administration of customary practices by elders.’ Tokelau Amendment Act 1967(NZ), s20: ‘the beneficial ownership of Tokelauan land shall be determined in accordance with the customs and usages of the Tokelauan inhabitants of Tokelau’. Tuvalu The Constitution of Tuvalu 1986, Preamble; Laws of Tuvalu Act 1987, s 4(2) ‘In addition to the Constitution, the Laws of Tuvalu comprise - ...(b) customary law...’ Laws of Tuvalu Act 1987, sch 1, para 2: ‘ ... customary law shall be recognised and enforced by , and may be pleaded in, all courts except so far as in a particular case or in a particular context its recognition or enforcement would result, in the opinion of the court, in injustice or would not be in the public interest.’ Vanuatu Constitution of Vanuatu 1980, Art 47(1): ‘...If there is no rule of law applicable to a matter before it, a court shall determine the matter according to substantial justice and whenever possible in conformity with custom.’; Art 95(3): ‘Customary law shall continue to have effect as a part of the law of the Republic.’ There is no express mention of custom in the Tongan Constitution of 1875. 3. THE REASONS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION IN FIJI ISLANDS Prior to 1990, there was no constitutional provision for customary laws to be part of the laws of Fiji, except as a basis for determining the tenure of native land by indigenous Fijians.[5] The purpose of s100(3) was to give customary law status in the formal legal system. The Reeves Commission’s Report, on which the 1997 Act is based, acknowledged that the purpose of s 100(3) was ‘to give a higher status to the customs and values of Fijians in the country’s legal system’ but concluded that its actual effect was ‘problematic’. Although the Report does not elaborate on those problems it does proceed to note that the application of Fijian custom concerning the holding and use of land, fishing rights and chiefly titles was clearly established by entrenched legislation. The Commission considered that that approach should be followed if it was desired to apply customary law in other areas.[6] In addition to the application of custom through Acts applying only to Fijians, the Commission considered that there might be room to incorporate customary values in to the general law applying to all citizens. Precedent for that was already to be found in s 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which encourages traditional settlement of cases involving certain offences, and ‘substantially of a personal or private nature’, and not aggravated in any way.[7] The Commission concluded by recommending the repeal of s 100(3). Whether the motive behind this was to avoid the problematic effect of s 100(3) or to leave the way a clear for specific and well researched legislation is not clear. What is apparent is that the opportunity to reaffirm the importance of customary law was not exploited[8] Whilst they are not spelt out in the Report, the problems surrounding integration of customary law into the formal system include: Defining and identifying customary law • Proving customary law • Conflict between human rights and customary law • Conflict between customary law and formal law 3.1 Defining and identifying customary law One of the biggest hurdles in recognising customary law as part of the formal system is the absence of a universally accepted definition. Confusion has arisen from failure to distinguish between ‘custom’ and ‘customary law’. ‘Custom’ might be said to refer to all normal behaviour within a group, whereas ‘customary law’; is usually taken to refer to rules governing that behaviour. However, it is often difficult to draw the line between the two. There is the related problem of deciding whether all customary rules qualify as customary law and deciding between conflicting rules.