The Reconciliation and Unity Commission was a proposed government body to be set up if the Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill, which was introduced into the Fijian Parliament on 4 May 2005 was passed. The legislation proposed to empower the commission to grant amnesty to perpetrators of the Fiji coup of 2000, and compensation to victims of it from 19 May 2000 through 15 March 2001. The Fijian President would retain a veto over the granting of amnesty.
The commission was to be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Its purported objectives were to promote reconciliation in a spirit of tolerance and unity.
Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale announced on 5 July that the bill was likely to be tabled in Parliament in September, but on 10 August, Manasa Tugia, the Chairman of Parliament's Justice, Law and Order Committee, announced that the date would be brought forward to mid-August.
On 17 August the House of Representatives voted to approve a request from Tugia to extend the time for the committee to hear submissions on the bill. Tugia said the extension was necessary because Hindi translations of the bill had not yet been legally vetted and distributed, and because the views of important stakeholders had not yet been received. Tugia said submissions received so far revealed diametrically opposed views on how to overcome Fiji's "coup culture." The differences appeared to be over means, not ends. "While both sides of the argument clearly want to see a better Fiji freed from the 'coup culture', the two sides have different views on how best this can be achieved," Tugia said.
On 18 August, Tugia said that the parliamentary committee needed more money to continue with public consultations on the bill, and said that an application had been lodged with the Ministry of Finance.
Commonwealth of Nations Secretary-General Don McKinnon revealed on 8 September 2005 that Prime Minister Qarase had assured him that significant changes would be made to the bill.
Section 5 of the Fijian translation of the bill states that in addition to the commission, a 22-member Reconciliation Council is to be set up. 20 members were to be chosen by the government, with one member to represent other races; an additional member would represent Fiji's churches. Its task would be to encourage people of all races to live harmoniously together, and to explore ways to promote forgiveness and unity.
Persons interfering with the commission would face a possible fine of five thousand dollars, or up to two years' imprisonment.
Controversial legislation The now-defunct 1990 Constitution imposed disabilities on the Indian population, who had until recently comprised over half the total population. This caused an exodus of the Indians.
A public opinion poll published in the Fiji Times on 21 June showed the bill had more opponents (44%) than supporters (35%). 13% had no opinion. There was a clear ethnic division: the bill was supported by 55% of indigenous Fijians but only 19% of Indo-Fijians, while 29% of indigenous Fijians and 60% of Indo-Fijians opposed it. 10% of indigenous Fijians and 14% of Indo-Fijians said they did not care one way or the other.
A Tebbutt Times poll published in the Fiji Times on 2 July revealed that only 4% of the population have read the bill fully, with a further 16% having read it partially.
Warnings to media, foreigners On 1 July, government spokesman Apisalome Tudreu angrily accused the media of bias. He blamed lack of objective reporting in the media for the negative public reception to the bill.
On 15 July, it was revealed that the government had issued a warning to foreign businessmen and investors not to meddle in Fiji's internal affairs. If they did not keep their political opinions to themselves, said the letter from Lesi Korovavala, chief executive officer of the Home Affairs Ministry, they would risk losing their work permits. The warning was sent to the Fiji Employers Federation, which has a powerful corporate membership.
Rumoured Presidential opposition The Fiji Times reported on 25 June that in a closed-door meeting with the Prime Minister, President Ratu Josefa Iloilo and Vice-President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi had called on him to withdraw the legislation, with the vice-president, a former Judge, saying that there were serious legal implications to it. The Prime Minister reportedly replied that he would "consider" the request. To date, the Times report, written by Winikiti Bogidrau, the wife of an army officer, has not been verified, and spokesmen for the President and Prime Minister would not confirm or deny it, but on 27 June, the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) claimed on its website to have known of the meeting before the article was published. The FLP further alleged that the Prime Minister had intended to ask the President to use his position as Commander-in-chief of the Military to curb Commodore Bainimarama's public criticism of the bill, and that he was taken aback by the President's request to withdraw the legislation. Former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka on 27 June that the President does not have the authority to force legislation to be withdrawn. In his traditional speech opening Parliament on 1 August, Iloilo said that the government had introduced it for the purpose of fostering unity and stability. He welcomed the public debate, saying that reconciliation was "a difficult but necessary process."
Compromise mooted On 4 October, Prime Minister Qarase said that significant amendments to the legislation were in the pipeline. Speaking on VitiFM radio and on Radio Sargam, which is affiliated to the Fiji Village news service, Qarase said that the bill would not be withdrawn, but that the amnesty clauses would be given a "makeover" to ensure that the Constitution was not violated and that the independence of law-enforcing agencies was not compromised. "There will be changes particularly in the Amnesty provision ... so that the Bill is constitutional and in accordance with the Bill of Rights," Qarase said. "Plus it does not interfere with the judiciary, police, and the Director of Public Prosecutions."
The Prime Minister's move to a more conciliatory position coincided with revelations from Manasa Tugia, a strong supporter of the legislation and the chairman of the parliamentary committee looking into it, that most public submissions received so far had raised concerns about the amnesty clauses in the bill. On 7 October, Tugia said after hearing submissions in five western towns that a large section of the community had expressed disappointment that they had not been consulted about the legislation. They, too, mostly supported the bill's objective of reconciliation, but opposed its amnesty provisions, he said.
Attorney-General Bale followed the Prime Minister's cue on 26 October, saying that any responsible government would listen to "sound logical reasoning" obtained from public consultations. He warned, however, that the government would not give in to Military opposition. It was the government, he said, that was the ultimate arbiter on the bill, and while the Military was entitled to its opinion, it was not the government. Bale's comments followed a statement by Military Commander Commodore Frank Bainimarama that whatever amendments the government might propose, the Military was still opposed to the legislation.
Tugia said on 10 November that the Justice Law and Order Committee had completed receiving public submissions on the bill, and were in the process of compiling a report. The presentation, due in two weeks, to parliament would take account of the views of all who made submissions, Tugia said. On 22 November, however, he announced another probable postponement of the tabling of the bill. He and Prime Minister Qarase said that the vast number of submissions might prevent the bill from being tabled for the December Parliamentary session, and that it might have to be postponed till February 2006.
Prime Minister Qarase announced on 1 December that the bill would be tabled in Parliament later that day, and that the Cabinet would prepare amendments that would be ready to be processed in Parliament's February 2006 sitting. The bill would not be withdrawn, he insisted on 16 December; to do so would be undemocratic, he considered. In his New Year message on 1 January 2006, he declared the bill to be the only way forward for Fiji. The legislation was vitally important for the harmonious and stable development of the country.
Changes recommended by the parliamentary committee Manasa Tugia, Chairman of Parliament's Justice, Law, and Order Committee, tabled the committee's report on the bill, on 1 December. He revealed that the parliamentary committee had received a total of 124 written and 148 oral submissions on the bill. The majority of organizations who presented submissions supported the legislation, he said, but the reverse was true of members of the public. He alleged that many people on both sides of the debate were supporting or opposing something they had not read. He expressed disappointment that few submissions had been received from the Indo-Fijian community. "We thought they would come forward to use this opportunity to air their views. But everyone was given a fair opportunity to air their views on the draft Bill," he said.
Tugia said that in attempting to reconcile the diametrically opposed views on the bill, the committee had studied similar legislation in countries like South Africa, Timor Leste, and the Solomon Islands, and had borrowed and synthesized elements from them in order to come up with a model for Fiji. A priority was that "necessary reconciliation" should take place between the perpetrators and the victims of the coup, he said. The bill's preamble, which emphasizes the rights of indigenous Fijians, should be deleted, the committee proposed.
The committee recommended retaining the most controversial part of the bill, the amnesty clauses, but proposed that they be reworded to clarify "that amnesty is to be granted in-line with the constitution and not the through the President as proposed by the Bill". It proposed replacing the word "offenders" with "wrongdoers" and felt that there should be no blanket amnesty, and that constitutional procedures should be followed scrupulously It called for the exclusion of murder, rape, and other sexual offences from amnesty under the bill. Grievous bodily harm and offences against public order should also be excluded, the committee said, but amnesty could be granted for non-violent crimes like unlawful assembly and illegal demonstrations, committed during the 2000 coup and its aftermath. Persons currently under investigation for coup-related offences could also apply for criminal immunity, on condition of their seeking forgiveness and reconciliation with their victims. In the event of their refusal to answer any question asked by the Reconciliation Commission, the case should be referred directly to the courts, the report proposed.
Prime Minister Qarase and Opposition Leader Chaudhry withheld comment pending a study of the proposed changes, but Fiji Law Society President Graeme Leung cautiously welcomed the committee's recommendations. The society had wanted the amnesty clauses deleted, he said, but the amendments went some way towards allaying their fears. "The recommendations make a very good effort at trying to ensure compliance with the Constitution," he said. He commended the committee for telling the government that if it wanted to pass the bill, it was very important to consult the public.