The stark lesson from Papua New Guinea (PNG) is undeniable: meaningful sovereignty for indigenous landowners begins not with administrative tweaks, but with constitutional bedrock. PNG’s explicit recognition that “all customary land is the property of the customary owners” (Constitution, Section 53) stands in radical contrast to Fiji’s Native Land Trust Act, which vests “control” in a state-appointed Board (TLTB). This comparison shatters any illusion that the TLTB’s colonial structure can be reformed, while remaining subordinate to the Fijian state. The path forward for the iTaukei, demands a revolutionary constitutional settlement, placing the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV), at the helm of a profoundly restructured system, learning from both PNG’s empowerment and its challenges.
PNG’s Beacon: Constitutional Recognition as Non-Negotiable Foundation
PNG’s framework offers the BLV a powerful blueprint for its core demand:
1. Sovereignty Anchored in Law: PNG’s constitution places customary ownership beyond state whim. This is the essential first step Fiji must take. A new Fijian constitution, must explicitly state that customary resources are vested in the iTaukei Resource Owning Units (ROUs), recognizing their inherent, inalienable rights. This eradicates the legal fiction of state “trusteeship” embedded in the TLTB Act.
2. Decentralized Power, BLV as Guardian: PNG has no TLTB. Management rests directly with clans/tribes. Fiji can adapt this by constitutionally mandating the BLV as the supreme traditional body responsible for safeguarding iTaukei customary law, land rights, and resource sovereignty. The BLV becomes the constitutional guardian of Vanua principles, ensuring ROU autonomy while providing overarching guidance and dispute resolution based on custom, not state policy.
3. Rejecting State “Control”: PNG proves a centralized state board controlling indigenous land is not inevitable. Fiji’s constitution must prohibit any state entity from assuming “control” or “administration” of customary land and resources, in the manner of the current TLTB. The state’s role shifts to registration support, legal protection, and facilitating negotiations requested by ROUs, not dictating terms.
Beyond PNG: The Imperative of BLV-Led Institutional Restructuring
Constitutional recognition alone, however, is insufficient. PNG’s struggles with implementation offer crucial warnings and necessitate a robust BLV-led institutional framework:
* The Hybrid Solution: A BLV-Subordinate Resources Authority: Abolishing TLTB overnight risks chaos. Instead, transform it into a technical Resources Authority directly accountable to the BLV, not the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs. Its mandate shifts fundamentally:
* From Controller to Facilitative Servant: It serves ROUs at their direction, providing technical expertise (surveying, valuation, lease drafting), financial management, dispute resolution facilitation, and maintaining registries – not making leasing decisions.
* BLV Oversight & Policy: The BLV sets the policy framework for this Authority, ensuring its operations align with Vanua principles and prioritize ROU empowerment. The BLV appoints its leadership and audits its performance.
* Building ROU Capacity: A core function becomes intensive training for ROUs in negotiation, financial and digital literacy, sustainable development, and legal rights – addressing the capacity gap that plagues PNG and leaves landowners vulnerable.
* Learning from PNG’s Pitfalls: Safeguarding Against Exploitation:
* FPIC as Constitutional Right: Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), must be constitutionally enshrined for all land and resource dealings, surpassing PNG’s weaker implementation. The BLV Resources Authority acts as an independent verifier of FPIC, protecting ROUs from coercion.
* Transparent & Accountable ROUs: To combat “elite capture” seen in PNG, the BLV must champion robust, transparent governance structures within ROUs (e.g., strengthened Mataqali/Vanua councils). The BLV Resources Authority can provide governance training and support audits.
* Rigorous Lease-Leaseback Scrutiny: If a mechanism similar to PNG’s SPABL (state lease-back) is considered for large-scale projects, the BLV Resources Authority must act as a fiercely independent watchdog, ensuring genuine ROU consent, fair terms, and preventing land grabs. Ideally, ROUs should deal directly with developers where capacity allows, bypassing the state middleman.
* Minerals: The Unfinished Business: The constitution must explicitly challenge the state’s theft of subsurface rights. The BLV must lead the fight for iTaukei ownership or co-ownership of minerals, ensuring communities share equitably in the wealth extracted from their Vanua.
Why Constitutional Change is the Only Viable Starting Point
Attempting to “reform” TLTB within the current constitutional framework is doomed:
1. Legitimizing the Lie: It perpetuates the state’s illegitimate claim to “control” iTaukei land. Real change requires dismantling the legal basis of this control.
2. Vulnerability to Politics: State-controlled institutions (even renamed or “restructured”) remain subject to shifting political winds, budgets, and the “national interest” defined by non-iTaukei priorities. Constitutional entrenchment provides stability.
3. Empowering the BLV Meaningfully: Restoring the BLV without constitutional authority over its core institutions (land, qoliqoli, affairs) renders it a ceremonial body. True leadership requires sovereign jurisdiction.
The Call: A Constitutional Mandate for BLV Sovereignty
The BLV must seize the momentum generated by Dr. Ponipate Rokolekutu’s recent analysis, Rabuka’s 2022 campaign promises, and the powerful example of PNG. Its demand must be unequivocal:
“It must call for a new constitutional order that:
1. Explicitly vests ownership and management authority of iTaukei customary resources in the Resource Owning Units.
2. Recognizes the Bose Levu Vakaturaga, as the supreme traditional guardian of iTaukei custom, land rights, and resource sovereignty, empowered to oversee and guide the implementation of these rights.
3. Mandates the creation of a BLV-accountable Resource Authority, replacing TLTB, to serve ROUs with technical expertise, transparency, and unwavering loyalty to Vanua interests.
4. Enshrines Free, Prior, and Informed Consent as a non-derogable right for all land and resource dealings.
5. Initiates the process to restore iTaukei rights over subsurface minerals.”
Conclusion: From Colonial Shackles to Constitutional Sovereignty
Papua New Guinea illuminates the path: customary resources sovereignty is achievable when constitutionally enshrined and fiercely guarded. Fiji’s iTaukei are not asking for a privilege; they demand the restoration of a fundamental right stolen by colonial law and perpetuated by the neo-colonial state. The hybrid model – a constitutionally empowered BLV overseeing a restructured, service-oriented Resources Authority – offers a pragmatic yet revolutionary path. It learns from PNG’s empowerment while proactively addressing its implementation challenges. This is not mere administrative change; it is a constitutional revolution. The BLV must lead this fight, not just for resources, but for the very soul and future of the Vanua. The time for tinkering with TLTB is over. The time for constitutional recognition of BLV-led iTaukei sovereignty is now.
Pasifika Talanoa by a traveled ITaukei Fijian 