Fiji's "witchcraft" legislation

Is the famous firewalking ritual practised by the Beqa Island tribesmen an example of Fijian witchcraft? Does some supernatural power guide Hindu devotees as they tread, impervious to pain, upon white-hot stones? Is the traditional and widely-used Pacific Islands practice of administering herbs and spells to cure ills an offence against the law?

On the face of a controversial new witchcraft clause contained in Fiji’s Penal Code, it might seem that both Fijian and Indian fire walkers and self-styled folk doctors including those from among Fiji’s Ellice, Gilbert and Solomon Island communities — could qualify for stiff prison terms.

If firewalking and herb-healing were to be considered as being “any kind of supernatural power, witchcraft, sorcery or enchant ment” and as involving some kind of evil intent, they would.

But although these two customs appear strange and inexplicable by Western standards, there seems nothing evil or harmful about their practice. So they at least are not likely to be affected by Fiji’s new “witchcraft” legislation. And the evil-doers, against whom the legislation is directed, are likely to go underground.

Strong criticisms

The controversial clause—which aroused strong criticism from Opposition members was con tained in a bill to amend the Penal Code, approved in the Legislative Council in May.

The amendment makes it an offence for anyone in Fiji to exercise or practise “any kind of supernatural power, witchcraft, etc”, or for anyone to present himself as being able to cause “fear, annoyance or injury to another person in mind, person or property”.

Previously, the code contained a provision which applied only to Fijians.

This made it an offence for any Fijian to practise or assist in the practice of “the rites known in the Fijian language as draunikau, or kalourere, or sorosoro of luve niwai”. Conviction could bring up to six months’ imprisonment and, in the case of a male, a whipping not exceeding 10 lashes.

In the LegCo debate on the

new amendment applying to all races (conviction can bring up to five years’ imprisonment), Opposition members were con cerned over the proper definition of witchcraft. Who was going to determine the difference between “good” witchcraft and “bad” witchcraft?

Mr. K. C. Ramrakha thought there was a danger that the pro vision could be used politically.

Opposition leader, Mr. A. D.

Patel, warned of the possibility of “witchhunts”, involving innocent people. The Deputy Speaker, Mr.

S. M. Koya, said that if practices defined as witchcraft formed part and parcel of a person’s religion, the bill would contravene the constitution of Fiji, which guaranteed freedom and right of worship. (Hindu firewalking stems from religious belief. It is intended as a kind of “spiritual cleansing”.) Several members, both Govern ment and Opposition, contended that all races—including Euro peans—believed in or practised some form of witchcraft and sorcery. Ratu William Toganivalu (Alliance) referred to freemasonry and said its practices included some form of witchcraft.

In general, it was agreed that with witchcraft rife among Indians, Fijians and other South Pacific races living in Fiji, it was essential to legislate against practices which caused fear or harm to selected victims.

Mr. R. H. Yarrow (Alliance) recounted two instances of witch craft being used against people.

In one case the victim died. In the other, the curse was lifted on an appeal by a Fijian doctor and the victim recovered. However the spell was reimposed later and this person also died.

The new bill made several other important amendments to the Penal Code. Among them was the introduction of suspended sentences, provision for absolute and conditional discharge, and the abolition of the crime of suicide.