SIR JOSEFA LALABALAVU VANA’ALI’ALI SUKUNA

A GREAT LEADER AND STATESMAN

“If other communities are poor, we too remain poor. If they prosper, we also prosper”1

BY JIOJI KOTOBALAVUi

INTRODUCTION

Today, 30th May, marks the anniversary of the death in 1958 of Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna. Following ’s independence in 1970, this date was observed as a public holiday to commemorate his immense pioneering contribution to land management reform in Fiji. Sadly, this public remembrance was abolished by the current government. So, in this article, let me explain why he is widely respected and admired as an outstanding leader and statesman of great vision.

As a public administrator, he brought together two parallel and concurrent strands of development imperatives in our history, namely, consolidating the security of all native lands to their customary owners, and simultaneously enabling the on-leasing of surplus native land to all citizens of Fiji. He did this through the Native Land Trust Ordinance which the British colonial government brought before the Legislative Council in 1940. Through this ground-breaking legislation, he laid the framework for the management of native Fijian land for the benefit of all .

BOUNDARY SURVEYS

Ratu Sukuna carried out field surveys throughout Fiji to demarcate the boundaries of native customary land owned by every Mataqali. This is something unique to Fiji. As a direct outcome of his work, today every Mataqali knows exactly the boundaries of its customary land. In other Pacific Island countries, and especially in Melanesia, boundaries of tribally-owned lands have not been surveyed and demarcated. Consequently, land-ownership disputes are a major underlying cause of violent inter-tribal conflicts in these countries.

ADDRESSING WIDER NEED FOR LAND

As demand for agricultural and residential land in Fiji rapidly increased from the late 1920s and onward, Ratu Sukuna led the initiative by the British colonial government to facilitate the on- leasing of native land surplus to the needs of the Mataqali owners to other citizens in Fiji. He first ensured that sufficient native land was ‘’reserved’’ for the subsistence needs of the owning

1 Ratu Sukuna, in his address to the in 1936, seeking their support for his draft legislation to institutionalize the on-leasing of surplus native land to all citizens in Fiji in need of land

1

Mataqali and then sponsored the passage in 1940 by the Legislative Council of the Native Land Trust Ordinance. This legislation is the forerunner of today’s iTaukei Land Trust Act. It provided the necessary legal and institutional framework for the management of native lands, including the on-leasing of those not reserved for the landowning Mataqali.

What was so exceptional about Ratu Sukuna’s role in the enactment of this historic legislation was his diplomatic skill and tact in winning over the critical support of the Great Council of Chiefs. Without their support passage of the legislation would not have been possible.

THE NATIVE LAND TRUST ORDINANCE

The Native Land Trust Ordinance was enacted by the Legislative Council in February 1940 with the full support and endorsement of the Great Council of Chiefs, acting on behalf of all indigenous Fijian customary land and resource owners.

Its fundamental purpose was to establish a clear, streamlined and integrated administrative system for the management of native land. Control of all native land would henceforth be vested in a board of trustees, the Native Land Trust Board, presided over personally by the Governor, the resident head of the British colonial administration in Fiji. All native land is to be administered by the Board for the benefit of the native owners. The Board has power to set aside and proclaim native reserves, that is, areas of native land for the use of all iTaukei. These areas would be demarcated and kept for re-allocation in the event a Mataqali, for some reasons, needed additional land for its members. But the Board was also conferred with full powers to grant to any Fiji citizen in need of land, under certain conditions, leases or licences over native land not included in the native reserves. The native owners would benefit from the lease rent or licence fee income; the tenants would secure land for their farms, their houses, and their businesses; and Fiji as a whole would gain from the increased economic activities and the social security provided.

CHALLENGES FOR RATU SUKUNA

It was clear to Ratu Sukuna that there was an imperative need for an integrated native land management system with a two-pronged approach. Ensuring the best interests of every Mataqali, including their land maintenance needs, would continue to be the first consideration. At the same time, however, surplus land or land not included in the demarcated reserves was to be availed under controlled leasing and licensing arrangements for use by all Fiji citizens.

In order to fully comprehend and appreciate the magnitude of the challenges that Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna was confronted with as the senior-most adviser to the British colonial administration on native affairs, and as a paramount chief and the senior-most adviser to the Great Council of

2

Chiefs, the highest representative council of all indigenous Fijians, we need to look into what was happening in Fiji at the time.

For this, we have to start with the Deed of Cession of 10th October, 1874. In that historical event, Ratu Seru Cakobau and other high chiefs ceded over to the British Crown, totally and unreservedly, the sovereignty over all lands and territories in Fiji. But in return, the British Crown, or Great Britain, reciprocated by giving the Fijian chiefs two assurances for which, even today, we should always be grateful. First, Fijian possession of their tribal lands according to their custom and usage would remain with them in accordance with the English common law doctrine of native or aboriginal title. Second, Britain expressly recognized the position and authority of the high chiefs over their people, to be exercised in accordance with the laws of the British colony.

In addition to these assurances, there was another fortuitous factor for the iTaukei Fijians. Britain’s first resident Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, came to Fiji with clear instructions from the British Secretary of State for the Colonies to devise a system of land administration “with the view of disturbing as little as possible existing tenures”. (Peter France, The Charter of the Land, 1969, p. 110) Sir Arthur Gordon himself came imbued with a deep sense of mission to protect the “Fijian race” from “…the corrupting influences of the planter community”. (Peter France, p. 107)

Sir Arthur Gordon’s priority was to establish the institutional structure and the enabling regulations for native administration and welfare of the indigenous Fijians, and to get the chiefs to agree on a common and standardized system of customary tenure for all native land.

With his encouragement, the Great Council of Chiefs met in Bua in December 1879. This was their fourth meeting to try and reach agreement on the land issue. They finally succeeded. This was their momentous agreement:

• That there shall be one custom for all native lands in Fiji, • That the “true and real ownership” of all native lands would vest in the Mataqali alone, • That it was neither possible nor lawful for any Mataqali to alienate their land, • That all men shall be registered in their Mataqali together with their lands, • That the register should be approved by tikina and provincial councils, and • That the register shall be proof “for all time” as to the status and proof of the lands of each Mataqali in each province. (Peter France, p. 113)

To appreciate the significance of this agreement, consider this. First, in the population census of 1881, it was recorded that the Fijians had a population of 114,748 or 90.0 per cent of Fiji’s total population of 127,486. The Indians numbered 588, or 0.5 per cent. The rest were Europeans

3

and part Europeans. (Fiji Bureau of Statistics 2012, p.3) Second, the alienation of tribal lands was not uncommon in the period preceding Cession. This was as a result of inter-tribal wars and through chiefly gifts and exchanges. However, what was causing great concern was the increased loss of native land through the uncontrolled and unregulated land buying activities of European traders and planters. Many of the chiefs themselves were selling their communal land even without informing those of their tribes occupying the land. (Peter France p. 121) So, one can see that the challenge at the time was essentially to bring about uniformity and consistency in customary land tenure and to protect native land from the unscrupulous activities of land-hungry European planters and traders, and from the chiefs themselves from easily succumbing to underhand dealings by these newcomers to Fiji.

The colonial administration itself had taken the first protective step by stopping all sales of native land and a Land Claims Commission was established to review all earlier land sales. Most important of all, the Native Lands Ordinance of 1892 codified iTaukei ownership of their customary land as part of the laws of the colony by declaring under section 2 that:

“The tenure of the lands belonging to the native Fijians as derived from their ancestors and evidenced by tradition and usage shall be the legal tenure thereof.”2

SOCIAL CHANGES AND INCREASED DEMAND FOR LAND

Now, we fast-forward in time to the 1930s to see the revolutionary changes in the social, economic and political situation that confronted and challenged the British colonial administration.

Firstly, there was a dramatic change in Fiji’s population dynamics.

In the population census of 1936, out of a total population of 198,379, native Fijians had declined to 97,651 or 49.2 per cent. In stark contrast, within 55 years the Indian population had substantially increased from the 588 or 0.5 per cent in 1881 to 85,003 or 42.8 (Fiji Bureau of Statistics 2012, p.3).

The indenture system from 1879 to 1916 had brought to Fiji more than 60,000 people from India to work in the sugar plantations. The majority of these indentured workers decided to remain in Fiji at the end of their indenture. It was this that led to the substantive increase in demands for access to native land for agricultural use and settlement. Dr Brij Lal records that in 1936 some former 12,000 girmityas were working in sugarcane-related work as planters, cutters and general labourers, while others were engaged in cultivating cash crops like cotton, tobacco and rice. It was also at this time that free settlers arrived in Fiji from Punjab and

2 Section 3 of today’s iTaukei Lands Act can be traced back to this 1892 Native Lands Ordinance

4

Gujarat. The Punjabis, or Sikhs, were very successful commercial farmers (Brij Lal AD Patel, a vision for change…, 1997, pp. 7, 36).

The second factor was that whilst the end of the indenture system and the arrival of free settlers from India were immediately followed by a quantum leap in need for land, the administrative system for the leasing out of native land at the time was extremely complicated and cumbersome. The aspirant lessee had to apply to the Commissioner of Lands in Suva or the nearest Commissioner of Division in the British colonial administration. The Commissioner would notify the Buli, who in turn consulted the Tikina Council at which the landowners expressed their views about the proposed lease. The Buli would then inform the Commissioner of the Tikina Council’s decision. The application and the recommendations would be considered jointly by the Commissioner for Lands and the Secretary of Native Affairs, and if they approved, the lease was then sold at a public auction to the highest bidder. One can imagine the many underhand dealings to influence the outcome of these land auctions (Brij Lal, p. 46).

There was a third factor in the situation confronting Ratu Sukuna and the colonial administration in the 1930s.

In addition to their frustration with the lack of ready access to land, Indian leaders at the time, led among others by A D Patel, began from 1929 to agitate for increased Indian political representation in the Legislative Council. The Indian community had three seats in the Council, the native Fijians five and the Europeans six. The Indian leaders also demanded the abolition of communal representation and its replacement by a common roll franchise system of one person one vote. (Brij Lal, pp.38-39) In addition, they continued their call on the British Government to honour what was promised in the “Lord Salisbury’s Dispatch” of March 1875. The undertaking was reportedly that those who had completed their indenture were to be given rights and privileges as free settlers no less inferior to those of British subjects resident in the colony. (Brij Lal 1997, pp.5-6) Furthermore, in 1935 the Government of India itself intervened and reminded the British colonial administration in Fiji that the colony’s well-being “must largely depend upon a satisfactory adjustment of [Indians’] rights and opportunities in relation to agricultural land” (Brij Lal, p. 47).

So all these developments, the dramatic decline in the iTaukei population both in total number and as a percentage of the total population, the rapid increase in Indian population, the substantial increase in Indian community need for access to land, the incessant and increasingly vociferous demands by Indian political leaders for increased political representation in the colony’s Legislative Council, and external pressure from India, were bound to arouse iTaukei fears about the security of their land and their future. Their fears and anxieties were politically and conveniently exploited and stoked by the minority community of local European settlers

5 and business owners for their own security. This was led by the elected European members of the Legislative Council.

THE VISION AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF RATU SIR LALA SUKUNA

It was against this background and environment that Ratu Sukuna convened a meeting of the Great Council of Chiefs in 1936 and very tactfully told the gathered chiefs:

“We cannot in these days adopt an attitude that will conflict with the welfare of those who like ourselves live peacefully and increase the wealth of the Colony. We are doing our part here and so are they. We want to live; they do the same. You should realize that money causes a close inter-relation of interests. If other communities are poor, we too remain poor. If they prosper, we also prosper. But if we obstruct other people without reason from using our lands, following the laggards there will be no prosperity. Strife will overtake us, and before we realize the position, we shall be faced with a situation beyond our control, and certainly not to our liking…You must remember that Fiji today is not what it used to be. We are not the sole inhabitants; there are now Indians and Europeans”. (Deryck Scarr Ratu Sukuna,…man of two worlds 1983, p. 219)

Ratu Sukuna made this statement four years before his Native Land Trust Board Bill was presented in the Legislative Council. The proposed legislation, drafted in 1937, encapsulated his vision of what he thought would be the best arrangements for native Fijians and for Fiji. And he allowed enough time in order to build up support for his new native land management policies among the chiefs and the indigenous Fijian community as a whole.

Today as we reflect on Ratu Sukuna’s pioneering contribution to native land management reform, we can say that his greatness as a leader and statesman is that his vision as he articulated then remains true today as the foundation of public policy on native land. Native lands are to be managed for the benefit of the customary owners, the tenants and the entire country. And further, his approach in assiduously taking meticulous care to consult the Great Council of Chiefs and to secure their support for his two-pronged management regime for native land, as contained in the Native Land Trust Ordinance, sets the example of what our present government and political leaders ought to be doing collectively and regularly with all iTaukei land and resource owners. This is especially pertinent today as the landowners themselves are demanding a greater and more direct role in the management of their land.

[2736 words]

6

i Jioji Kotobalavu, a graduate in modern history and law, is a former long-serving permanent secretary in Fiji’s public service and is currently a lecturer in the University of Fiji School of Law’s post-graduate programmes in public law and international relations and diplomacy. Opinions expressed in this article are solely his own and he takes full responsibility for them Mr Alipate Qetaki, who served as the general manager of the Native Land Trust Board, peer-reviewed this article and his contribution is duly acknowledged

7