In Fiji, nothing is more important than land. It is so important that conflict over proposed land
law reform has been the cause of four coup d’états in Fiji since 1970. First as a colony of
Britain, then as a fledgling democracy, Fiji has attempted to develop a land system that can
meet the conflicting needs of a population that is ethnically divided approximately evenly
between iTaukei and Indians. iTaukei hold 87% of the land in Fiji on inalienable customary
title: for them, ownership of land is the core of their cultural identity and a guarantee of
indigenous privilege. For Indians, the quest to obtain secure land rights is also a matter of
identity: it goes to the heart of whether they belong, whether they are “Fijians” or not. The
inability of successive Fijian administrations to fashion a sustainable compromise on land
policy has polarised the Fijian people, perpetuated a cycle of political instability and retarded
Fiji’s economic development. No one initiative would make more of a difference to the future
of Fiji than successful land reform.
Because iTaukei land cannot be sold, the solution to the problem of access to land for noniTaukei
has been leasing. Because control of iTaukei land is such a sensitive issue, the
process for leasing it is heavily regulated. At the centre of the statutory leasing regime is the
iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB), which, until 2010, held a monopoly on the power to lease
iTaukei land. Since the most recent 2006 coup, Commodore Bainimarama’s administration
has, refreshingly, made a real effort to tackle Fiji’s bête noire of land reform by
implementing substantial reforms to the TLTB and introducing a competing leasing regime
called the Land Use Unit. This dissertation will closely analyse the legal features of the two
regimes, evaluate their efficacy against objectives derived from customary law and forecast
what these changes might mean for the future of Fiji.
The methodology is simple. Chapter One sets the context. Chapter Two builds an evaluative
framework based on customary objectives for land. Chapters Three and Four describe
relevant features of each regime, apply the evaluative framework and draw conclusions as to
the compatibility of each regime with customary objectives. Chapter Five extrapolates the
implications of those conclusions and outlines some potential solutions to the problems
identified.