Letters To The Editor
Letters
Speight¹s pardon
I read with interest your article, “We Say”, in the Islands Business December, 2002 issue, referring to the pardon granted to Barak Sope of Vanuatu. The article saw it fit to also ponder and express a view on efforts to secure a pardon for George Speight (a.k.a. Ilikini Naitini) of Fiji.
For the information of our fellow brothers and sisters throughout the Pacific Islands and readers of Islands Business in general, I comment as follows concerning George Speight:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Our efforts to secure a pardon and release for Speight is being done within the ambits of the laws and constitution of Fiji as it stands. This right and privilege is to be respected by one and all and for Islands Business to insinuate that should Speight be granted a pardon it will attract the wrath of certain countries who will in turn hold Fiji to ransom by restricting aid and the likes, is in our view irresponsible, inaccurate and debatable.
 |
|
|
These efforts to pardon and release Speight is supported by the majority of indigenous Fijians and the proof of this is beyond question given the thousands who flocked to the Parliamentary complex in 2000 and for Speight himself getting a parliamentary seat in the 2001 general election.
On Speight’s so called new found relations with the Living God that you alluded to, he is no different to most of our Pacific Islands people in that he was raised in a God-fearing home.
I am sure that each one of us if upon being exiled like the Prophet John on the island of Patmos will seek solace in God rather than man, and this must not be belittled in any way.
On the issue of reconciliation, we feel that it must involve the self-willed participation of all those involved in the events of 2000, and it might be of great interest to you that Speight is ready and willing to be part of any reconciliation efforts in Fiji.
In the same vein Islands Business has boldly put in print that it would be in Speight’s best interest physically to continue to be held on Nukulau and I quote for “he would certainly be a target for those Fiji citizens like clansmen loyal to the former President, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, another victim of Speight’s treason”.
We detest in the strongest possible manner this most unwarranted, incorrect and inflammatory statement. To set the record straight, we declare here that Speight was in no way responsible for the removal of the former president of Fiji, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara.
The Speight group had accepted and supported a resolution from the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) for Mara to continue as president to preside over the nation under a new administration acceptable to the indigenous Fijians.
The Speight group wholeheartedly supported this very important resolution by the GCC for the more important reason of giving Mara an opportunity to retiring eventually in a dignified and honourable manner befitting his status as a leader, statesman and chief.
Speight was in no way involved with the group led by Commander Frank Bainimarama who isolated President Mara at sea on the guise of safekeeping, but in turn executed a coup and assumed the position of executive authority in Fiji. The proof of this is as clear as day with decrees signed to this effect.
Mara himself is on record publicly declaring this illegal and a treasonable act: Mara therefore is a victim of BAINIMARAMA’s TREASON. Bainimarama is liable for prosecution for overthrowing the President and Commander in Chief of the Fiji Islands, a position that the army commander should have defended with his life.
The above statement should therefore appease those clansmen of the Turaga na Tui Nayau (Mara). Further to this, Speight has nothing to fear given that traditional protocols of reconciliation were presented during 2000 to bury the hurt and differences amongst the Fijians and others.
And if you took the time to understand these protocols you will realise that Speight’s welfare is a non-issue and despite all efforts to criminalise him his status amongst the indigenous Fijian community is secure.
We are serious about Speight’s release and vindication and given the opposing pressures from certain quarters, both locally and abroad, this task will certainly be no “picnic”. However, the avenues are there legally and we are pursuing them.
To question if it is proper to release Sope or Speight, we say that this is an internal matter for the sovereign states of Vanuatu and Fiji. But please respect the rights of these Pacific nations to make their own decisions without fear or favour.
— Samisoni Tikoinasau
Member of Parliament,
Fiji
