Transcript
JONE DAKUVULA: The NGOs that I've spoken to, they are more cautious now and worried. They are asking - do we now have to apply for permits for every meeting, and all other organisations as well. I heard one of the church leaders that was asking ... he's going to be addressing a big meeting ... and whether that meeting needs a permit.
SALLY ROUND: But previously in the last few years since 2012 when you say that there was some clarification from the Attorney General over public meetings, since then people were more relaxed. Is that the case? People were just holding meetings in general?
JD: Yes especially the NGOs were holding workshops and meetings, like that in hotels and didn't apply for permits, like us, we invited people and suddenly we have this intervention and people are very cautious.
SR: What were the police asking you?
JD: Well first they were trying to find out who funded the organisation and therefore the meeting. They wanted to know the information that was circulated. They were asking whether we had minutes of the meeting and I said, no, we didn't have any minutes. The only thing that was circulated was the notice about the meeting which I gave them too.
SR: So tell us about Pacific Dialogue and why it was set up.
JD: We formed in 2009 and we have been working with the government closely. We've worked with the judiciary, with the Public Prosecutions office, we've worked with the police depending on the programmes we had. With the police recently we've been holding workshops in the many villages about human trafficking. We believe in engaging with the government. We'd been working very low profile until we had this panel.
SR: Do you think it was anything to do with the panellists you had and on the constitution.
JD: Yes very much so. We had this previous panel on problems with the sugar industry and we also invited the Prime Minister and (the Attorney-General) Mr (Sayed)-Khaiyum and their offices said they were not available, so we went ahead with that panel. I think that's when the (inaudible) complained because the media started reporting that and what was said there got back to the government and I think they became very concerned. Because they were very critical about the 2013 Constitution particularly people were saying it's hard to amend it, decrees that contradict the Bill of Rights are protected in the Constitution. Mr Rabuka (Stiveni Rabuka, one of the panellists) contrasted the Constitution with the constitution that was passed by his government in parliament of 1997 which Rabuka was asking what was the purpose of that coup in 2006 and he was asking also whether the military when they took over they were still committed to the 1997 Constitution and why that change into abrogation and imposing by decree their own constitution. And also Mr Biman Prasad who is the leader of the National Federation Party, he analysed the 1997 Constitution, in particular what's happening in Parliament. Parliament is very restricted now. They can't ask questions. He was saying that the last question he was able to ask was in July and the next question that he will be able to ask will be in February next year. That's how restricted this parliament has become.
SR: Was it a meeting that got of hand? Was there talk of inciting people to overturn the government for instance?
JD: No, nothing like that. It was very lively, very interesting, very warm discussions, very frank. At the end of that everybody went away happy.
SR: Did you ask the police why it took them several days to come and take the various men in for questioning because it was several days later wasn't it?
JD: Yes I only asked the policeman who was interviewing me and when at the end he said he was going to hold me up for the night and I said well I've already answered all the questions, there's no point in holding me here and I said this is wrong and you shouldn't do this and can you tell your boss that he should release me and he said no please don't make me do this because I might get sacked but he did say the direction came right from the top.
