Open Letter to Mr. Kris Prasad (Fiji)
On the Incident of Mr Amenoni Nasilasila, Former National Sevens Fiji Rugby Rep, Playing Rugby with the Warden’s Team 5 Days After Conviction and Imprisonment For The Crime of Rape (8 Years).
30 October 2019.
Dear Mr Kris Prasad,
Courage.
You have courage.
It’s currently in short supply and the vitriol on social media is evidence of our lack of courage, and of a society that has lost its moral compass.
I am writing to say Thank You for bringing this issue to our attention, and to bring clarity to a few issues that have been circulating social media.
Between 2008 and 2010, through the University of the South Pacific’s (USP’s) Pacific Writing Forum (PWF) I ran a life writing for offender rehabilitation programme in seven correctional facilities.
This was at the request of the Fiji Corrections Service (FCS) to USP. The programme was declared a flagship of the YRP in 2008. It was the brainchild of Mr Ioane Naivalurua who recently resigned as Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Several clarifications need to be made for those using the YRP label as the rationale for Mr Nasilasila’s engagement in Wardens’ Rugby and having the outing published by the Fiji Times (picture above).
The ‘releasing’ on an attachment, so to speak, of an offender within a mere five days into an eight-year sentence does not sit within the frame of the YRP.
The YRP has a well-intentioned objective — to successfully reintegrate offenders back into communities. Should it work well, it can reduce recidivism. Singapore, the ‘mother’ correctional service for YRP and trail-blazing rehabilitation and reintegration success was the inspiration for this duplication in Fiji. There is currently no comprehensive and independent research to demonstrate that it is working in Fiji; and if there are challenges, what these are and what may be improved.
The YRP has received criticism in the past. Criticism, which in my opinion, has been even-keeled — whether these have been incorporated into improving the YRP, I do not know.
In this case, it is an error for the public to be labeling Nasilasila’s rugby outing as part of the YRP. It is also important for the public to note that the Fiji Corrections Service itself has not said that it is part of the YRP.
Unless the FCS confirms it is, it only remains the ill-conceived opinion of part of Fiji’s public who obviously support Nasilasila, a significant portion of whom, also possess extreme toxicity toward the victim.
The YRP runs in tandem with the FCS Rehabilitation Framework and its associated Programme. Alignment to international standards means the mandate of FCS is offender rehabilitation — it takes precedence over everything else.
YRP is a complementary mechanism that becomes relevant toward the mid- to later stages of the rehabilitation process. It is not the beginning of rehabilitation, and by design, cannot be utilised for convenience to speed up a process.
The rehabilitation process, split into phases, begins with an assessment and diagnosis established by a qualified psychologist who then designs an appropriate counselling plan (which may include spiritual activities and Fiji is not deficient in providers in this regard). What Fiji lacks is secular counseling which is what most offenders need but the FCS, under tight budgets and lack of adequate providers, needs more funding and more innovative programmes targeting this phase. Empower Pacific and several other providers have filled this gap with mixed success.
The education and training component (skills-based) and the options for attachment and employment are toward the late stages of this process, and only given after an offender demonstrates steady progress through all the required stages. These stages cannot be achieved in 5 days. It takes several years, particularly for an offender who enters the system under an 8 year sentence.
Under this rigid system, a rugby attachment and outing would be part of the end phase.
Is the Nasilasila case of a rugby attachment and outing fair? No, it is not. And even under the FCS rehabilitation system which touches on restorative justice, the victim, if willing, does have a say (again, toward end phase). I doubt this occurred.
The entire criminal justice system rests on an outdated colonial legacy, largely dysfunctional in as far as victims are concerned. Much needs to be done to remedy this. Our taxes fund a model of community safety through incarceration of offenders.
The two enormous gaps are: (a) non-existence of a state-funded facility to assist victims of crimes; and (b) limited funding for FCS which translates to an over-emphasis on commercial activities in lieu of the mandated rehabilitation of offenders.
Personally, I find an element in ancient Fiji an innovative model to springboard reform with. It does not relate to rape but adultery which may be deemed a softer crime.
It was called the ‘Keteniyalewa’ (The Woman’s Womb) — the use of land to ensure protection of women in marriages. Used in the province of Rewa, Basil Thompson documented that this was ‘land seized in punishment for adultery.’
‘As soon as the offence became known, the friends of the injured person planted reeds (sau) on the land of the offender, or of his family as a token of forfeiture. Reeds so planted were called ‘ai-wau-tu-i-vuni-vudi’ (the club set in the banana patch). The family of the offender knew that they must either abandon the land or fight for it (which they seldom did). When by the lapse of time, the offence was forgotten, the land could be redeemed’ (p. 373) This could take several generations.
As mentioned, this was a practice that addressed victims. The temporary exile of the offender and his family was exercised, the victim’s position strengthened. More importantly, because communities knew the high cost of adultery, there was an increased chance of a collective community or clan approach to ensuring marriages were strong and mitigation measures injected as soon as weaknesses were identified.
I do not offer this as a measure we must resort to. I offer this as an example of how history and culture may be utilised to inform Western practices and assist in the design of innovative local solutions to improve the criminal justice system.
If this was the punishment for adultery, we can only imagine what the punishment for rape was. And contrary to popular opinion, there remain elements of prehistoric Fiji that celebrated and elevated women.
Indigenous Fijian communities, particularly men, could learn from this.
Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention. Keep your anger button on. We are richer for it.
M. Rokonadravu — 30 October 2019
Reference:
Thompson, B., (1908) The Fijians — A Study of the Decay of Custom, William Heinemann, London.
