Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. (René Descartes, mathematician and philosopher,1599-1650)

Tuesday 1 March 2011

Speight of Rumours

Photo: Janus, the Roman  god of gates, doors, doorways, beginnings, endings and time.

N0168  by Crosbie Walsh

February must be the rumour season in Fiji, such has been the spate of stories of arrests, detentions and manhandling that have hit the blog and international media airwaves in the past two to three weeks.

I'm not sure how complete my list is but Felix Chaudhary was the first journalist to be "taken to the barracks" this year.  He was released the same day and did not report ill-treatment. Then there were stories of the arrests of  Felix Anthony, Maika Namudu and 'two  (unnamed) politicians.' The blogs reported that Anthony and Namudu were beaten up and required hospital treatment. This was followed by the Sam Speight and  Apisai Tawake stories that were taken up in interviews by ABC's Pacific Beat interviewer Bruce Hill. Both admitted to what would be seen as anti-government activities and both claimed ill treatment.

More puzzling is last Wednesday's  story that three high ranking military officers who supported the 2006 coup — Ratu David Mara, Pita Driti and Mohammed Aziz — have been arrested on the strength of a story by conman Ben Padarath who claimed to have evidence that they had approached the President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau to replace Bainimarama. It appears that there is an investigation into an attempt to remove the government last year but it is not clear who is suspected. No one has been charged with anything so I assume the police  are still investigating.

No doubt the truth or otherwise of these stories will eventually  be revealed. I shall reserve fuller comment until more is known.  For the moment I'll restrict my comments to general remarks on the detentions, the Speight detention, and the reporting of the detentions, most especially by Amnesty International NZ.

On Detentions 

The Public Emergency Regulations (PER) give the police and military extra-ordinary powers  that include the arrest and detention of anyone suspected of threatening public security and anti-government activities.  I have previously argued that unless there is a genuine threat to public order, PER should be lifted, and other measures taken to maintain public order. There seems little doubt that a primary purpose of PER is intimidatory; a simple way to prevent the mobilisation of anti-government elements.

But there really could be very real threats to public order (if the anti-government bloggers are to be believed), and for this reason the continuation of PER may be necessary. No government anywhere would leave itself unprotected when its opponents have threatened violence and targeted assassinations.  But this does not mean that detentions should be unregulated, and the methods of interrogations left to the whims of individual officers.

The military seems to have assumed the role of political police, leaving the police force to deal with ordinary civil offences. From what one can gather, most of those detained have probably breached the emergency regulations. If this is so, their detention is understandable and acceptable. Several aspects of the detentions, however, are not acceptable because they breach minimal standards of justice for the persons interrogated and because they inevitably backfire on Government, making many doubt its sincerity of working towards a better Fiji.

To protect the individual and the state, standards similar to those listed below should be implemented:
1. Initial interrogations must take place at a police station and the detention, its cause and the names of all parties involved, must be recorded. Only in extreme cases should subsequent interrogations take place at a military barracks;
2. Those interrogated must be formally charged if they are detained for more than 24 hours, or if they are taken to a military barracks, and they must be able to inform their kin of their whereabouts;
3. All interrogations must be witnessed by an independent and respected observer who does not belong to the military or the police, such as a lawyer, religious official, senior teacher or NGO leader. The names of witnesses should be recorded;
4. Details of all detentions must be reported to the Chief Justice (or his nominee), and his advice taken on appropriate legal action;
5. No detainee should be physically manhandled;
6. The physical condition of released detainees  should be certified by a qualified medical practitioner;
7. Detainees must have the power of legal redress if any of these conditions are not observed;
8. The media or any other interested party has the right to enquire into and report on detainments if they have first sought the advice of the Chief Justice's office and if they comply in full with the conditions of the Media Decree.
Ardent government supporters may think these conditions overly favour detainees. I would argue that the absence of such conditions plays into the hands of those opposing government, and that adherence to these guidelines and greater transparency will win support for Government.

The Detention of Sam Speight

Sam Speight Junior, alias Samasoni Tikonisau, is the brother of George Speight who was the frontsman  for the 2000 coup that overthrew the elected FLP-led government of Mahendra Chaudhry. He was also a cabinet minister in Laisenia Qarase's SDL government, and a supporter if not a member of the extremist (and racist) CAMV party that dissolved to form part of that government.

He was detained at the SDL headquarters in downtown Suva by the military on the evening of Monday 21 February, taken to Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Nabua, interrogated at 3am Wednesday morning, when he was allegedly severely beaten up,  and released on Thursday at 10:30 pm when he walked to the CWM Hospital for treatment. On Friday he flew to Brisbane, received further medical treatment, and was interviewed by ABC's Pacific Beat radio journalist Bruce Hill at 5:34 pm EST the same day. Hill's interview (click here) would appear to be the most reliable source of events. Other reports include the anti-government blog Fiji Today, Radio New Zealand   and the Australian Network News  all of which report Amnesty International NZ's reaction to the Speight detention. There has been no mention of the detention  by the Fiji media and governnment has apparently refused comment.

Questions on the Speight Story and the role of Amnesty International NZ 

Two questions need to be asked about these events. First, how accurate are Speight's and his supporters' accounts of what happened? Secondly,what steps did Amnesty International NZ take to ensure their accuracy before condemning the military's alleged actions?

First, the Speight interview and other reports.  There would appear to be a number of inconsistencies in these reports.  Speight told Bruce Hill that he was detained because of a DVD found at the SDL office made by the "freedom community in Australia"" (Tui Savu's Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement.)  Speight said the  DVD was received in December last year, and it concerned "truths" leading up to and around the time of the Bainimarama coup in 2006.  Speight said he'd helped to distribute the DVD, which is in Fijian, to rural Fijian villages, but he claimed to be unclear of its contents, which seems strange, and he also said he was unclear how he had broken the PER regulations by distributing the DVD, which is stranger still.  Others say the DVD revealed far more recent "truths" about the Bainimarama government than the events of  2006. Given the difficulty in keeping any major happening a secret in Fiji, it is also strange that Government remained unaware of the widely-distributed DVD for nearly two months.

It would seem Speight was first interrogated on Wednesday at 3am, two days after his detention (although this is not altogether clear from what he told Hill) when he  said "they took me from the cell, got me to crawl and into the interrogating room and tactics were used to kind of extract information further regarding the disk." Asked about the extent of his injuries, he said, "Well, basically bruising to the face and all that and swelling on my head and on sprained fingers which they tried to sort of bend back to get information, use of the pain and overall body aches and all of that, yeah." I do not dispute the likelihood that he was assaulted but his account is surprisingly vague on the "tactics" used given that Amnesty International claims he was repeatedly "beaten until he lost consciousness" and others claim he was "kicked and beaten with rifle butts."  Why did Speight not provide these important details in the Hill interview, and where, if not from Speight,  did others obtain these stories?

Events following his release at 10.30pm on Wednesday also raise questions. Why did he walk to the CWM Hospital instead of taking a taxi home or to the hospital? How could a severely injured man (who later, we are told, needed urgent medical treatment in Australia) walk five kilometres at night time to the hospital?  Why did his relatives not have him inspected by a medical doctor to assess and record the extent of his injuries?  Was he whisked so quickly to Australia  for his personal safety and for medical treatment, as is claimed, or were there other reasons? What further treatment was needed in Brisbane? And why in Suva or Brisbane was he not photographed to provide evidence of his ill-treatment? In the absence of medical information from Suva or Brisbane, or photographs of his injuries, his story will be seen by many as politically motivated exaggeration.

This brings up an equally important question: the role of Amnesty international NZ in disseminating information and protesting his detention and treatment. Most people see AI as an independent  and outspoken critic of political torture and abuse by oppressive governments worldwide. With their endorsement, Speight's story will be taken by many as fact.

But where, and from whom, did they obtain their facts of  his "severe beatings amounting to torture"? Did they talk with Speight? Did they listen to his Hill interview? Did they check with their Fiji counterpart organization? Did they ask whether his story or, more likely, the story relayed to them by his family and SDL supporters,  could be politically motivated,  as Hill did? What measures did they take to ensure its accuracy? Did they consult several sources to cross-check for inconsistencies? Why did they report the story they were told without questioning its plausibility, imprecisions, inconsistencies and likely motivation?

I am saddened to say that this is not the first time Amnesty International NZ  has jumped in to take a partisan stance on Fiji. We know some things in Fiji are not as we might hope but their accusations would be more believable if they were less dramatically expressed  and if they had provided some verifiable evidence to support their allegations.  They should at least have had the honesty to say their sources were anti-government bloggers and similar-minded "activists."

Amnesty International NZ has called on the Fiji government to:

• Immediately stop the arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment of critics and activists;
• Immediately initiate an independent impartial investigation into the arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment of Sam Speight and others, and ensure that those military officers suspected of involvement in these acts, irrespective of rank, are brought to justice;
• Immediately suspend the Public Emergency Regulations;
• End the censorship of the media;
• Ensure that freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly are respected.

Reasonable as these demands may be in ordinary circumstances, Amnesty International needs to recognize that Fiji's current circumstances are not ordinary. Most of the people they cast as villains seek a fairer Fiji stripped of its institutional racism and many of those they rush to protect have far less worthy intentions.  The Fiji situation is volatile. The people detained are few. They are political detentions. The beatings cannot be condoned but beatings have long been used in interrogations in Fiji, and they fall far short of what would usually be considered as torture.

Suva is not Naypyidaw, Yangon or Pyongyang but neither is it Wellington, Christchurch or Auckland.  A slower, more cautious and less hysterical response from this otherwise reputable organization is very much needed.

11 comments:

sara'ssista said...

An outstanding and reasoned response Croz,Thanks.

Liu Muri said...

Well said Croz. Prviously I had raised the credibility of Amnesty source in Fiji, Apolosi Bose. He is son of a former election campaign Manager for Ratu Mara's Alliance Party that was defeated by Bavadra's Labour Party in 1987 and which defeat had led to Rabuka's original coup in 1987. Then later Isimeli Bose, the father of Apolosi Bose was a Minister in Rabuka's nationalist government that was defeated by Chaudhry-led People's Coalition Party in 2000, which led to "Coup" by George Speight. Hence Apolosi's background is rooted in nationalist leadership more ethnocentric in line with Rabuka's and Speight's mission to see Fijiians ruling Fiji in perpetuity under the guise of democracy. Bose Senior and Bose Junior and their families, friends and relatives had been beneficiaries of the unfair and unjust affirmative action carrots thrown by successive Fijian governments to woo the support of ethno-nationalists. Hence the "analysis" of such Johny-come-late supporter of democracy and human rights is highly questionable and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Amnesty needs to be wary of this before swolling the hook, line and the sinker, because its credibility and reputation is on line here.

Frightening scenario said...

Croz
What you have outlined here is a frightening scenario. State sanctioned violence against individuals? You clearly state: "Only in extreme cases should subsequent interrogations take place at a military barracks". How is 'extreme' defined in a dictatorship? Has the rule of law totally collapsed in Fiji?
The Fiji regime (in place as the result of a coup by men with guns) needs to respond ASAP to what you have said. I would like to know very quickly:
1. Does the regime appointed unelected AG Khaiyum agree with you regarding military interrogations of Fijian civilians?
2. Does the regime appointed Chief Justice Gates agree with you?
3. Does the regime appointed SG Pryde agree with you?
4. Finally, the silence of MINFO on 'military interrogations' as you call them and the current arbitrary detention of persons by military personnel is very disconcerting. The silence of MINFO on this very serious matter says it all in my view.

Crosbie Walsh said...

@ Frighening ... How on earth can you read "state sanctioned violence" into anything in the article?Interrogations at the barracks do not necessarily involve violence, and where it has, I have opposed it.

Your own political position is made clear by your choice of words such as regime, dictatorship and unelected. You say nothing about the violence and misuses of power from 2000-2006 that affected thousands, many of whom fled their farms and others who left Fiji for good.

Radiolucas said...

Croz, are you sure that condoning political detention, beatings and torture sits well with you? Seriously?

Also, when you write: "beatings have long been used in interrogations in Fiji, and they fall far short of what would usually be considered as torture" - isn't this a bit rich being written in a democratic western country? Do not the same expectations for rights and freedoms from arbitrary imprisonment and abuse apply to Fijians (political or not)?

Have you or anyone you know and care about been subjected to this abuse? If not, how would you know that it isn't torture? Do you know what these goons say to you about your family, your loved ones and your death when they are doing it to you?

I can assure you that it is torture Croz.

Amnesty NZ is right to be concerned.

Ouch! said...

Croz,
Thank you for this piece it will create debate which is always good though discouraged in Fiji.

I want to pick you up on a few of your statements.
“From what one can gather, most of those detained have probably breached the emergency regulations. If this is so, their detention is understandable and acceptable”

As far as we can gather, the only crime committed by Tawake is that he attended a march in another country, which I don’t think is a crime under PER. According to his statement he wanted to meet up with the PM with whom he had cordial relations with in the past. TAKING HIM UP TO THE CAMP IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE OR ACCEPTABLE.

You have a long list of what would make these interrogations acceptable. We all know that the military will carry on with what they have been doing without regard to your list. Do these military interrogations then become unacceptable and not understandable? And how will you respond?

You question about where Amnesty International is getting its information and how reliable is it? There may be a dispute over the severity of the beatings people have received, but there is no dispute that people have left QEB with marks on their person that they did not have when they arrived. I think even you would agree that any beating as part of an interrogation is wrong and unacceptable.

They are also limited in what information is available. The Government has made no comment and Sharon has been very noticeable of late by her absence and silence. They may also have made further enquiries but as Too Timid said people will not speak out because we know what may happen.

You also criticize Amnesty International for their “Hysterical Demands” which I have copied below.
Amnesty International NZ has called on the Fiji government to:

• Immediately stop the arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment of critics and activists;
• Immediately initiate an independent impartial investigation into the arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment of Sam Speight and others, and ensure that those military officers suspected of involvement in these acts, irrespective of rank, are brought to justice;
• Immediately suspend the Public Emergency Regulations;
• End the censorship of the media;
• Ensure that freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly are respected.

I do not understand why you feel they are hysterical.

Point 1 I am sure you agree with 100%

Point 2 is unrealistic but still a very valid demand

Points 3-5 are all things that you have asked for on this blog site

So where is their “hysterical Response”?

I understand that you feel you the need to keep the balance the media. But when something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong. There is no when you can justify it, you may be able to understand why it happens and perhaps try and mitigate it. But at the end of the day beating and possibly torturing people is just plain wrong.

Crosbie Walsh said...

@ Ouch! ... I was commenting on AI's description of the beatings (and their earlier statements on the Fiji situation), not their listed demands which are reasonable. AI NZ has had a change in leadership at its new CEO seems less careful of his sources and statements. As for the detentions, they are far from arbitrary. They are targeted against a very select group.

Since writing the article I hve learnt that Speight spent a day and a half in the Brisbane hospital, so he probably was not exaggerating. He also told my informant that he was not beaten with rifle butts.

time is running out said...

Agree with your standards. Do you think there is any chance such requirements would be implemented by the dictatorship?

Invictus said...

Radio Gaga.

“Have you or anyone you know and care about been subjected to this abuse?”

All these beatings are at this stage conjectural and therefore it would be imprudent to suggest otherwise.

“If not, how would you know that it isn't torture?”

Now my friend either you are naïve or walking around Suva with your blinkers on because Fiji is a military state and all laws are subject to change without notice but most importantly the PER remains in effect and all personal caught breaching such law are dealt too within the extent of that law.

Besides most who are caught are either SDL idiots or their supporters there is no such thing as torture in Fiji because it’s sort of forbidden by law.

Beating of Fijian citizens dates back to the first Fijian constabulary so nothing much has changed.

“Do you know what these goons say to you about your family, your loved ones and your death when they are doing it to you?”

I can only imagine they have nothing but good things to say about their families it’s the Fijian way so tell me what were they doing to you?

Invictus

Radiolucas said...

@ Invictus

"Fiji is a military state and all laws are subject to change without notice... there is no such thing as torture in Fiji because it’s sort of forbidden by law."

"Sort of" forbidden by law? This would be referring to the same law that the military junta changes at whim?

Right. Do you really NOT see the problem? You have articulated it very well - though I suspect that this is by accident and not by design...

Invictus said...

Radio GaGa.

What problems you speak of, there is no problems the law as it stands is designed to keep at bay wayward hounds.

There is no such thing as "by accident" everything is by design.

I was stating facts.

Invictus