Home » Politics/Qarase/SDL/FLP » Land Use Decree plus Constitution equals land power grab by Bainimarama

Land Use Decree plus Constitution equals land power grab by Bainimarama

Understanding of the implications of the Bainimarama constitution’s abolition of all protection for Native land is slowly spreading.

A storm has blown up on the Fiji Democracy Now blogsite on the issue of whether the Qarase Government broke the law with the swap of Native Land for freehold land in the Momi Bay development. It seems two things are being confused here.

1. Was the law broken to effect a swap of native land for freehold?
2. Did the landowners get a fair deal?

On the first issue, it’s clear the law was NOT broken. For starters, if the law had been broken, Sayed-Khaiyum would have jumped at the opportunity to take the Qarase Government before his hand-picked court. Perhaps, the fact that Qarase relied on legal advice might have complicated matters, but make no mistake the opportunity to expose even an innocent mistake would not have been missed.

Without being privy to the details, it seems to me the process was to make an indirect swap. Freehold land was acquired by the State and, under Section 4 of the Crown Lands Act, it is Crown land, and hence capable of being swapped under Section 3. The proof of this comes from none other than Sayed-Khaiyum when he closed what he saw as a loop-hole with (DECREE NO. 7 OF 2013), the STATE LANDS (AMENDMENT) DECREE 2013.

This very specifically disallows the process of an indirect swap. It says “any i Taukei land which is exchanged for portions of State land under subsection (3) must not be exchanged for portions of private freehold land under subsection (4).”

If the indirect swap process was not permitted, why did Sayed-Khaiyum need to issue a decree to ban it?

But let’s not lose sight of what’s important here. Sayed-Khaiyum thought he could take advantage of the confusion and pose as a protector of Native land. And why did he want to do this? Because he knows that once everybody understands that he’s removed all past Constitutional protections of Fijian land he will be the focus of a lot of anger.

As to whether the landowners at Momi got a fair deal, I don’t know and it’s clear there’s a lot of guessing and gossip going on here.

What I do know is that the Bainimarama constitution removes ALL the past protections for Fijian land. Any law on land can be passed with a simple majority. But that’s really no surprise because the key laws covering land have already been swept away by the Land Use Decree, which over-rides the Native Lands Trust Act and ALTA. (The first was designed to protect landowners, the second to protect tenants.)

The Land Use Decree 2010 gives the Prime Minister complete discretion to issue leases of up to 99 years with whatever rents or other conditions he chooses. Under the Land Use Decree 2010 he is required to consider the best interests of the landowners but he must also give equal weight to “the overall wellbeing of the economy.”

It is crystal clear. “All leases issued or renewed under this Decree shall take into consideration at all times the best interest of the land owners and the overall wellbeing of the economy.”

The Land Use Decree also requires that “all land available are leased with the purpose of providing a livelihood for all parties concerned”. What does that mean? Tenant’s rights? Take this in conjunction with “socio-economic” rights in the constitution and it looks like the ASK plan is to create rights for landless people to claim unused Native land, or to have existing leases extended. And remember, the PM’s decisions under the decree cannot be challenged in court. All power to Bainimarama.

This is typical ASK – sneaky and too clever by half. It’s why the constitution had to be rushed through. It’s also why we haven’t heard any details about decisions made by Bainimarama under the Land Use Decree. But ASK is making a mistake if he assumes we are all too stupid to notice the sweeping powers of the Land Use Decree and the removal of all protection of Native land under the draft constitution.

Does Bainimarama have any understanding of what ASK has in mind? Who knows? We can be sure Bainimarama hasn’t read any of the legislation or the draft constitution, but ASK may have told Bainimarama it’s worth trying get these powers over Native land in his hands, as that will be his means of building power.

But this is a very high risk strategy. Once the grab for total power over land is understood by landowners and their family members in the military Bainimarama will be in trouble.

54 thoughts on “Land Use Decree plus Constitution equals land power grab by Bainimarama

  1. Sorry Navosavakadua but I actually think there has been a breach of law in this swap deal.

    The fact that the iAG has not taken Qarase to task over the matter is not a clear indication at all that the law may not have been broken. Just on the face of what I’m reading on the blogs – I think that there are pressing concerns surrounding this entire transaction that will have to be dealt with if the iAG had taken Qarae to Court over the matter AND which he DOES NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH OR ADDRESS because they are NOT in his interests – perhaps his sunset clause thesis may offer a clue?

  2. All major political parties and the traditional leaders of the Province of Rewa have come together to declare their opposition to the Bainimarama draft constitution. Bainimarama’s attempts to give his regime credibility will end in complete tatters if he simply ignores this opposition.

    FIJI SUN AND FBCL CAN BULLSHIT PEOPLE OF FIJI THAT CHIEFS AND PEOPLE SUPPORT JUNTA AND DESPOT BUT THE 800000 PEOPLE OF FIJI ARE UNITED AGAINST THE DICTATOR OF FIJI AND FIGHT IS ON FOR DEMOCRACY

  3. why hasn’t Khaiyum pointed out this land-swap earlier? he issued the Land Use Decree in 2010 which basically gives away itaukei land for 99 years. so what type of sinister game is he playing now?

  4. Its perefctly acceptable for Aiyaz Khaiyum to swap his civilian role to become a treasonist A-G and then hide behind the cloth of immunity. Anyway, why is this man NOt disclosing his payslip and those of others including Bainimarama. Or do we have to wait for another army officer to overthrow this lot so that we can find out?

  5. Cause Bainimarama and Khaiyum:
    25% of adults in Fiji have high blood pressure

    One out of four adults in the country has high blood pressure.

    This was revealed in the recent Non-Communicable Diseases survey.

    Health Ministry spokesperson Shalvin Deo said today is World Health Day and the theme for 2013 is high blood pressure.

  6. That piece of land was useless anyway! Indians use to catch kuka, lahero and graze cows in the bush. At least Qarase tried to utilize that piece of land to create job,uplift that area by providing basic services like road,power,education,medical,employment etc. Qarase did all this in good faith unlike the chor khaiyum who makes a deal prior to approval of any project.
    Land owner are very happy of the project,then who the*******is PIG

  7. Sorry Navosavakadua but the land swap was illegal because no government can convert native land to state land or freehold. Once native land always native land. Not even the Fijians can do that and certainly no kaiindia can do that for sure.

  8. This sort of analysis should be discussed widely by Taukeis . Ask all reading this to print out and discuss around yaqona bowl in villages so our people get to know better what EyeArse and VB are scheming about controlling our land for others’ benefits.

    We are all for turning our land and all land for the country’s and land owners’ benefits but this be done in a transparent democratic way and in consultation with landowners who must consent.

    But as it is EyeArse is simply stipping our rights on our land in a most devious and fraudulent way. He deserves to be punished for this and for other things he is doing to our country such as the role of his relatives in siphoning public funds for their own benefits.

    More reason not to support Bainimarama in next election, rejection of their proposed constitution and abolishing the Fiji Army from existence…army free Fiji is insuarance against coups.

  9. Vanuatu got it right when they reverted ALL LAND back to native land when they became independent from the English/French condominium rule. However, their leaders/people lacked the vision, capacity and the “moral integrity” most of all! to get their fundamentals sorted out right from the beginning, for the benefit of their people.

    Greed and all sorts of vices that flows from having too much power got in the way. Sad to now see them changing govts every 5mins or so.

  10. agree with u pokie land.
    swap is illegal with respect to navosa.
    but LQ has not commited any criminal act. thats why Hairyass will not take him to court.
    the other thing u pointed out is that if this becomes a legal issue, he will find that he cannot do what LQ did, that is convert native land to state land – against his interests as u say.
    Hairyass will play the political propaganda to smoke screen his claim that he is protecting fijian land ownership more than ever before.
    Fijians are falling for it hook line and sinking.

  11. Navosavakasona.

    Were you a born natural idiot?

    Or in your demented mind trying to bastardise the truth?

    “Was the law broken to effect a swap of native land for freehold?”

    “On the first issue, it’s clear the law was NOT broken. For starters, if the law had been broken, Sayed-Khaiyum would have jumped at the opportunity to take the Qarase Government before his hand-picked court”

    The fact is Qarase along with Naiqama, Kepa and the AG at the time was all complicit in the illegal land conversion.

    Section (5) Cap 134 Native lands Act states categorically:

    Native land alienable only to Crown

    5 (1) Native land shall not be alienated by Fijian owners whether by sale, grant, transfer or exchange except to the Crown, and shall not be charged or encumbered (property subject to an encumbrance may have a lien or mortgage imposed upon it) by native owners, and any native Fijian to whom any land has been transferred heretofore (statement to describe a situation that has existed up to this point or up to the present time) by virtue of a native grant shall not transfer such land or any estate or interest therein or charge or encumber the same without the consent of the Board.

    (2) All instruments purporting to transfer charge or encumber any native land or any estate or interest therein to which the consent of the Board has not been first given shall be null and void.

    Navosavakasona stop misleading the people and keep your idiocy in check.

    Farkwit.

  12. I concur with Ratu Sai regarding Navosavakadua’s rationalization of illegal behavior . There are existing tried and tested legal avenues of leasing native land to developers, under the statutes of NLTB.
    This land swap was riddled with irregularities.Instead, the developers in collusion with individuals from the Qarase Government, Lands dept, NLTB did an end run around these entrenched laws.

  13. While I believe that the law was broken in the Momi deal, what Khaiyum has in mind now has an entirely new dimension: Both the population of Fiji and the international community knows that Khaiyum is a very corrupt and extremely greedy individual. But taking bribes from dodgy deals with Chinese contractors can only get you so far in a small economy like Fiji. Khaiyum can only get filthy rich by getting his hands on native land. This is where the real money is. And I can assure you that he will try everything to do exactly that. It is difficult to understand why Bainimarama still keeps him at his side at the top. For such a liability to be entertained Khaiyum must have collected a copious amount of dirt that he can throw at Bainimarama in case he drops him.

  14. PRESS RELEASE

    The Attorney – General, Mr. Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum’s recent comments on the Momi Bay Land transaction do not reflect the full facts of the case. Now, the Prime Minister, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, has issued a statement on the same subject and other matters aimed at discrediting the elected Government which I led at the time of the transaction.

    This statement is issued in response to the comments made by both the Prime Minister and his Attorney General. It is important that the facts relating to the land transaction be stated clearly, so that people may be able to form their own informed opinions on the criticisms leveled against the SDL Government.

    The land transaction in question involved the swap or exchange of 68.7 hectares of native land owned by Tokatoka Nasau with freehold land of equivalent value owned by Matapo Limited, the developer of Momi Bay Resort Project.

    Upon exchange the native land was to be converted to freehold and the Matapo freehold was to be converted to native land and registered under Tokatoka Nasau. There was no “loss” of native land in the transaction because of the equivalent freehold land and other benefits in exchange.

    My information is that the conversion of native land to freehold was completed. But the conversion of freehold to native land has yet to be completed, due to interference by the present Government following the Military Coup on 5th December, 2006.

    The transaction was made with the voluntary agreement of the two parties involved, Matapo Limited and Tokatoka Nasau. The NLTB gave its approval to the deal and the Government of the day sanctioned the land swap under the Land Transfer Act. The terms and conditions of the land swap are recorded in an Agreement between the two parties dated 31st May, 2005.

    The landowners were obviously satisfied and happy with the benefits they received then, and the benefits they will receive in the future if the project is successful.

    Unfortunately for the landowners they have suffered because of the effects of the military coup of 5th December, 2006. The overthrow of a democratically elected Government has effectively “killed” the Momi Bay Resort Project. The Momi Bay Resort development would have been completed by now if there was no illegal take-over of the Government.

    Mr. Khaiyum’s reference to the provisions of the law relating to this transaction is also misleading. As Chief Legal Officer of the Government he should at least be completely honest with his explanation. The transaction was completed within the relevant laws with voluntary participation of all parties involved.

    The bottom line is that the landowners, as owners of the land agreed to exchange their asset with a similar asset of equivalent value. It was a voluntary act on their part, and they were satisfied and happy with what they received.

    The conversion of native land to freehold land was never the policy of the SDL Government. The Momi Land transaction was an isolated case which all parties concerned approved and came away satisfied with the outcome. The transaction was carried out within the Land Transfer Act and completed in good faith.

    Both Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and Mr. Khaiyum appear confused about the entrenched legislation in the 1997 Constitution relating to native land. The entrenchment of the Native Land Trust Act means that any amendment of that Act would require a higher and more difficult Parliamentary votes for approval. This has protected native land from possible attempts to alienate such land.

    It is no secret that the SDL Government would like all native legislation remain entrenched in the Constitution. It is almost certain that the successor to the SDL would like to maintain this as a key policy issue.

    The present Government’s draft Constitution does not provide for entrenched native legislation. This means that any amendment to the Native Land Trust Act, for example, would require a simple majority in Parliament. Furthermore, without entrenchment in the Constitution, it will become much easier to alienate native land, the issue that both the Prime Minister and Attorney General appear confused.

    There are two precedents for similar land transactions. In the Hyatt Hotel and Denarau development projects there were similar land exchange transactions, both during the SVT Government. In those two cases and in the Momi Bay project the benefits to landowners have been substantial.

    L. QARASE

  15. PRESS RELEASE :L Qarase replies to lies by Bainimarama and Khaiyum about the land at Momi Bay Project.

    The Attorney – General, Mr. Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum’s recent comments on the Momi Bay Land transaction do not reflect the full facts of the case. Now, the Prime Minister, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, has issued a statement on the same subject and other matters aimed at discrediting the elected Government which I led at the time of the transaction.

    This statement is issued in response to the comments made by both the Prime Minister and his Attorney General. It is important that the facts relating to the land transaction be stated clearly, so that people may be able to form their own informed opinions on the criticisms leveled against the SDL Government.

    The land transaction in question involved the swap or exchange of 68.7 hectares of native land owned by Tokatoka Nasau with freehold land of equivalent value owned by Matapo Limited, the developer of Momi Bay Resort Project.

    Upon exchange the native land was to be converted to freehold and the Matapo freehold was to be converted to native land and registered under Tokatoka Nasau. There was no “loss” of native land in the transaction because of the equivalent freehold land and other benefits in exchange.

    My information is that the conversion of native land to freehold was completed. But the conversion of freehold to native land has yet to be completed, due to interference by the present Government following the Military Coup on 5th December, 2006.

    The transaction was made with the voluntary agreement of the two parties involved, Matapo Limited and Tokatoka Nasau. The NLTB gave its approval to the deal and the Government of the day sanctioned the land swap under the Land Transfer Act. The terms and conditions of the land swap are recorded in an Agreement between the two parties dated 31st May, 2005.

    The landowners were obviously satisfied and happy with the benefits they received then, and the benefits they will receive in the future if the project is successful.

    Unfortunately for the landowners they have suffered because of the effects of the military coup of 5th December, 2006. The overthrow of a democratically elected Government has effectively “killed” the Momi Bay Resort Project. The Momi Bay Resort development would have been completed by now if there was no illegal take-over of the Government.

    Mr. Khaiyum’s reference to the provisions of the law relating to this transaction is also misleading. As Chief Legal Officer of the Government he should at least be completely honest with his explanation. The transaction was completed within the relevant laws with voluntary participation of all parties involved.

    The bottom line is that the landowners, as owners of the land agreed to exchange their asset with a similar asset of equivalent value. It was a voluntary act on their part, and they were satisfied and happy with what they received.

    The conversion of native land to freehold land was never the policy of the SDL Government. The Momi Land transaction was an isolated case which all parties concerned approved and came away satisfied with the outcome. The transaction was carried out within the Land Transfer Act and completed in good faith.

    Both Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and Mr. Khaiyum appear confused about the entrenched legislation in the 1997 Constitution relating to native land. The entrenchment of the Native Land Trust Act means that any amendment of that Act would require a higher and more difficult Parliamentary votes for approval. This has protected native land from possible attempts to alienate such land.

    It is no secret that the SDL Government would like all native legislation remain entrenched in the Constitution. It is almost certain that the successor to the SDL would like to maintain this as a key policy issue.

    The present Government’s draft Constitution does not provide for entrenched native legislation. This means that any amendment to the Native Land Trust Act, for example, would require a simple majority in Parliament. Furthermore, without entrenchment in the Constitution, it will become much easier to alienate native land, the issue that both the Prime Minister and Attorney General appear confused.

    There are two precedents for similar land transactions. In the Hyatt Hotel and Denarau development projects there were similar land exchange transactions, both during the SVT Government. In those two cases and in the Momi Bay project the benefits to landowners have been substantial.

    L. QARASE

  16. This is what we really need – a clearance from the falsely accused on a matter of high sensitivty. That’s the way Mr Qarase thank you for coming forward and clearing your name from the criminals who stole your government and now trying to smear your good name. Its easy to make false allegation when the accused is not there to answer for himself. Wasn’t it the regime who are accusing LQ of misdeed the ones who illegally trashed constitution under which they are making the allegation of improprietry. The 1997 constitution which was allegedly abrogated by the regime. They commit the biggest crimes and nit pick on small unsubstantiated allegations. This is Hypocricy at its highest form. Regime Propaganda is now rife in all media in Fiji. Now we’d love to see which media will be able to report on LQ’s response on all the BS claims by bai and iarse.

  17. Qarase and his cohorts can say whatever they want, the fact is the Native lands Act Cap 134 Section 5 is explicit and overrides all other statutes.

    The Native Fijians regardless of whatever situation must never be alienated from their Land except to the Crown in Fiji’s case the state..

  18. Sai

    Do you see how stupid you are? Your response to Navosavakadua actually confirmed that the transaction was legal. Note that the section you quoted basically stated that such transaction can only be carried out with the consent of the Board. This has actually been confirmed by Qarase’s response. So please shut your crap if you don’t know what you are talking about…you ulukau.

  19. So by that same measure, can the illegal and treasonous regime please make fully public to the taxpaying voters (ie their illegal ‘cabinet’ paper with coloured maps and survey findings) as to the nature of the 6,000 acres (2,428 hectares whereas Momi was 68.7 hectares) somewhere near Savusavu that was sold to the Government of Kiribati for ‘agricultural purposes’?

    We are told in Feb 2013 (http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=224285) that Kiribati was waiting for the illegal ‘Minister of Lands’ (Bainimarama) to approve the sale. By which one can then surmise that the land being sold is either Crown land or Native land.

  20. @ Anon, seems to me you’ve merely described the trunk of an elephant, not the whole animal yet. Very selective.

    Just argue the issues objectively and dispassionately if you truly have Fiji’s interests at heart instead of telling others to shut up. Sai raises a very valid point.

    Unfortunately for you, you may have to feel the entire animal to know that it’s really an elephant. Some of us can already smell it from a mile out ;) cheers big ears!

  21. @ Anon,

    “My information is that the conversion of native land to freehold was completed. But the conversion of freehold to native land has yet to be completed, due to interference by the present Government following the Military Coup on 5th December, 2006.” – Qarase

    Unbelievable that the landowners are currently without ownership to either parcels of land swapped. That cabinet memo published on FijiLeaks is dated July 2006, 5 clear months b4 the Dec coup. So what was the excuse with the delay?

  22. The only authority khaiyum has is standing behind the guns of the thug military like the little pissant he is. Once that is withdrawn (and eventually it will be) he and his clan of treasonous thieves will not last 24 hrs. Watch Ratu Sai (the pretend Fijian) shrink nit his stale roti then. Their incessant attacks on Christianity will be given the punishment they deserve.

  23. Vested interest

    Did you read how Sai belittled Navosavakadua? I am not selective, I merely raised the point that the section cited by Sai provides for the approval of the Board.

    Ask Bainimarama about the incomplete transaction or else ask Aiyarse …you are the one being selective aye.

  24. Vested interest

    You are calculating from the date on the Cabinet Memo when it was written…do you have any idea how long it takes a memo to make it to a Cabinet meeting? Thereafter, the cabinet decision once made will still have to be implemented and there are processes/procedures in place to be followed, more so for legal transactions.

  25. No @ Anon, I really don’t know much about cabinet memos, could you please enlighten me on how the entire transaction was carried out? And explain to me how only one part of the transaction fell through in favour of Matapo while the landowner’s swap land gets lost in the lengthy procedures/processes involved.

    On Sai, yes, have just seen the earlier exchange. Still u’re holding a limb – that’s not the animal.

  26. The Momi land swap involved three or four steps depending on how you interpret the law.

    The swapping of native land with state land is allowed under s 6(3) of the State Lands Act. Thats quite legal and Navosa is right there.

    The next step in having that native land “converted” to state land is the doubtful one. Section 6(3) clearly says that the state land that was swapped becomes native land by registration in the Register of Native Lands. What the section does not say is what becomes of the native land that was swapped/given to the State?? Does it remain native land or does it automatically become state land?? Thats where the lawyers and others will argue that because the section does not specifically say that the native land becomes state land then it remains native land. If that is correct then the landowners remain the owner (through NLTB) and the State becomes the tenant/lessee. It also means that the State (in the Momi case, LQ and his cabinet) cannot “convert” this native land to freehold and give it to the developer. This last step, “converting” native land to freehold, is not allowed by law.

    Thats why the transaction was done in an indirect way to get around this prohibited step.

    I interpret s 6(3) in the way that I have explained above that is why I say the land swap transaction is illegal because one of the steps is not permitted under the section.

    Navosa interprets it differently, and he might be right. No court has decided on the interpretation of s6(3) on this point as far as I know so the point remains unresolved. No one knows for sure who is correct. Obviously, LQs cabinet would have been advised as Navosa believes so the action taken was all quite legit.

    So Ratu Sai I think your attack on Navosa is very unfair and unwarranted.

  27. vested interest

    Go and find out and while on it check out the date of the Cabinet decision before you start calculating how long it took before the as ole Voeqe took over the government.

    I am not supporting the view of Navosa but I merely pointed out a point overlooked by Sai. The same also goes for you when using the date of the memo rather than checking the date of the cabinet decision.

  28. Sorry Anon but I asked the question hoping that you’d enlighten me since I really don’t know much about the processes involving cabinet memos.

    So let me try and understand: are you trying to say that nothing was done until after the Dec06 coup? That the only conversion made then was from native to crown to freehold – for the benefit of Matapo, while the landowner was left holding his balls?

  29. Read LQ’s statement again…my guess is that there were two different transactions that had to be undertaken. The two parcels of land had to be processed individually so the firs conversion was completed but the second was overtaken by events in 2006. The whole point is trying to understand the process rather jumping into a bandwagon for or against.

  30. vested interest

    Its good to know that the landowners are still holding their balls which means they haven’t lost them.

  31. Yes of course, I’m merely trying to understand the process Anonymous if that didn’t come across clearly to you earlier. There is no need for people to get defensive unless they have a vested interest in the matter.

    OK, so what u’re saying after the NLTB approval/Qarase Govt sanction (see para.6 of Qarase’s press statement), only the first “conversion” of the transaction was completed during their term? And in Matapo’s favour? You wouldn’t know when (dates) that the transaction was actually executed? And the second conversion as you say, was overtaken by the Dec06 coup – did that involve a very long, complicated process which was why the freehold > state land was not converted to native land?

    The landowners better be holding on to their balls given the manner in which everyone played fast & loose around them with them fraudster investors.

  32. vested interest

    I am merely making observations based on what has been discussed and posted on this blog. No one will have the whole facts but those who have the records. Generally speaking legal points can be argued either way and until it is decided by the court they remain as legal arguments. Cabinet decisions are normally based on legal advise from the government legal machinery which unless decided otherwise by the court remains legit. Throwing accusation around like the current government is doing is political grandstanding as they gunner support for the proposed election.

    The transaction would have been handled by one individual but I am not privy to the specifics. Assuming one person was handling it (apart from other work on his/her desk) would probably give you some idea but let us not jump to conclusions. Cabinet makes the decision, civil servants implement it.

    Anyway you are true in that the landowners better hold on to their balls for they are worth.

  33. Well of course, competing interpretations of the law would have to be a matter for the Courts to adjudicate upon. But that’s not what I’m doing – making a legal argument. I was merely trying to understand the facts – what happened and when – with respect of those ‘two’ conversions.

  34. vested interests.

    Anon doesn’t know the difference between his mouth from his arse, because he like his fellow travellers are nothing more than inbred fark-wits.

    The NLTB Act s(5) is explicit, and the only time the natives can alienate their land is through a negotiated process with the State and this done strictly for the public good, for example the nations infrastructure among other things that would benefit the nation, however the State are prohibited to to convert Native Land to Fee Simple.

    That said the Native land Act over-rides all Land Legislations.

    What occurred at Momi was and still is illegal.

    For Qarase to say he used the Land Transfer Act to convert Native Land to Fee Simple tantamount to larceny by Serveant.

  35. Sai the problem with you is that you are too fond of arses because that is all you see in your farm every day. Who are you to declare anything illegal you nit wit? That is for the court luveni boci.

  36. sorry ratu sai but u are wrong in that this has nothing to do with the native lands trust act or native lands act. and they do not deal with land swap so does not over ride the State Lands Act pursuant to which the swap was done. The State Lands Act is the applicable law. Dont sidetrack like a bush lawyer.

  37. Anon.

    Whats the problem boy, I can declare all things illegal including you because you are at the behest of NZ taxpayers fark-wit.

    Luveni macawa o iko.

  38. Ratu Sai,

    You seem to have gone astray!! Have you missed your tablet? Go along and take one now and have some sleep too if you can. That might help you regain some normalcy!!

  39. the poor ratu sounds like his grand master kranky franky…resorts to abuse when cant get his way.
    how unratu like…hes no ratu just pretending to be one and to be intelligent like his two grand master liars.

  40. has bainimarama or khaiyum every explained the details of that land transaction between the Kiribati government and the itaukei owners of that 6000 acres of land near savusavu?.

  41. Predictably, the biggest and longest lived fish were being landed for the most regulated web-site (Kenyatta), as well as smallest while in the least regulated. More, spears and gill nets caught the biggest fish while in the examine, whilst the smallest were being caught in seines and lines. Also, fish physique lengths while in the web sites exactly where seine net bans were being applied and enforced during the examine were being escalating to the exact lengths as fish on the most regulated web-site with the finish of your examine.
    http://www.ecotomy.com/news.asp?p=65 http://www.ecotomy.com/news.asp?p=65
    [url=http://www.ecotomy.com/news.asp?p=65]http://www.ecotomy.com/news.asp?p=65[/url]

  42. But it is actually also a sobering reminder that even feelgood systems like Kickstarter come with serious pitfalls, even further than straightup frauds such as this one particular. Past yr, a CNNMoney investigation uncovered that 84 p.c of Kickstarter projects never ship by the due date. In other cases, products have unsuccessful to materialize once creators promised alot more than they might supply.
    http://www.politiekescholing.nl/defauit.asp?p=17 http://www.politiekescholing.nl/defauit.asp?p=17

  43. Hi I am sso thrilled I fund your website, I really found youu
    by error, while I was looking oon Google for somethinmg else,
    Noneheless I amm here now and would just lke to say chjeers foor a fantastic pst aand a all round exciting blog (I also loce the theme/design), I don’t hazve time to
    goo throuugh it alll att tthe moment butt I hwve saved it annd
    aalso adeded inn your RSS feeds, sso when I hhave time I
    wll be bac to read a loot more, Pleease ddo krep up thee excellent job.

  44. Thank you for another great post. Where else may anyone get that
    type of information in such an ideal approach of writing?
    I’ve a presentation next week, and I’m on the search for such information.

  45. Just want to say your article is as surprising. The clarity for
    your post is just cool and i can assume you’re a professional
    in this subject. Well with your permission allow me to snatch your feed to stay up to date with forthcoming post.
    Thank you one million and please carry on the enjoyable work.

  46. Excellent blog you have here.. It’s difficult to find high quality writing like yours these days.
    I honestly appreciate people like you! Take care!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s