Who Is Responsible? Glaring Lack Of Clarity Over Fiji Operation To Remove Street Dwellers

Coco Lance
RNZ Pacific digital journalist

Authorities in Fiji
are offering contradictory accounts of a nationwide effort
to remove beggars and street dwellers from public spaces,
with questions over warning notices and what support is
available for those affected.

The agencies involved
have been unable to clearly identify what those services are
and who is responsible for providing them, or what happens
to people after they are moved from their public
places.

The ongoing lack of clarity has raised
concerns among civil society organisations that the
enforcement effort may be getting ahead of the support
systems needed to make it work.

In August, The Fiji
Times reported
that city rangers were serving warning notices to
individuals soliciting alms in public areas. The notices
stated that behaviours such as persistent begging or
obstructioning footpaths were offences and could lead to
“enforcement actions”.

The operation has been
advertised as a joint effort between the Lautoka City
Council, Fiji Police, and the Women, Children and Social
Protection Ministry.

RNZ Pacific has repeatedly sought
clarification on how the operation works in practice, on
what would trigger a warning notice, what happens when
someone refuses to leave, what support programmes are
offered for street dwellers, and what role each agency
plays.

The office of the Minister for Women, Children
and Social Protection, Sashi Kiran, declined to comment on
the ministry’s role in supporting street dwellers or on what
programmes being offered to people being moved from public
spaces.

The office of Police Commissioner Rusiate
Tudravu would only say police were there to “ensure the
safety of all parties” and would “use necessary force” if
required.

When RNZ Pacific asked what that meant in
practice, and what powers police would use if people refused
to leave public spaces, no detailed explanations were
provided.

RNZ Pacific’s specific questions to both the
ministry and police remain unanswered.

‘No forced
relocation’

The Lautoka City Council chairman and
acting CEO Ratu Tevita Momoedonu, however, was more
forthcoming, and rejected suggestions people were being
forcibly removed from streets.

“There is no forced
relocation here. We can’t force anybody,” he said.

He
described the initiative as welfare-led, saying street
dwellers are being profiled and offered relocation to
shelters and rehabilitation services.

“We don’t warn
people. We profile them, and we call them in meetings, and
then we suggest to them the importance or the benefits of
being relocated,” he added.

When asked about the
support programmes being offered by the ministry, Momoedonu
said they could not help.

“I can’t help you either,
because the [Lautoka City] Council, we have our own
jurisdictions here. We only help social welfare in
profiling,” he said.

“The rehabilitation part, the
relocation part, it is their (ministry and police)
responsibility, not us. If they are not answering to you
people, then [they] neither do us,” he said.

While
Momoedonu denied that warning notices were being used as
part of the relocation effort, he did acknowledge that
council notices could be issued for breaches of bylaws, and
that people involved in criminal activity could be
removed.

“If there are bylaws that are violated, then
we can issue directives? When there are criminal elements –
drinking in public place, taking drugs in public place,
disturbing the peace. These are criminal elements.”

He
said police assist the Lautoka City Council and welfare
officers when street dwellers resist engagement, although he
commented that police do not “enforce relocations”.

In
Nadi, Fiji’s international gateway, there is a similar
operation underway.

A pamphlet from social worker
Mohenesh Singh describes “Operation Loloma” as an
effort to take beggars off the streets, profile and screen
them, and provide “alternative means of
livelihood”.

“Together, we can create lasting
solutions that address the root causes of begging,” the
pamphlet reads.

“The information collected will see an
an individual case plan drawn up for each beggar so that the
welfare of the disadvantaged individuals are taken care of
by the various networks we have in the country.”

RNZ
Pacific contacted Singh for comment, asking what street
profiling looked like, and what support was offered for
street dwellers. He declined to comment about their
operation.

FCOSS ‘caught by surprise’

Civil
society groups which are also involved in working on the
issue say they have been left in the dark about the Lautoka
initiative.

The Fiji Council of Social Services
(FCOSS) executive director Vani Catanasiga said she first
learnt about Lautoka City Council’s warning notice
enforcement when contacted by RNZ Pacific.

“We were
caught by surprise, so, I just heard that it was happening
in Lautoka,” Catanasiga said.

“I was aware about it in
Suva, sort of, efforts or clean up … but I wasn’t aware
about Lautoka.”

Catanasiga said Fiji’s civil sector
has repeatedly raised concerns around the lack of
co-ordination between Fijian agencies that are working with
vulnerable people.

The Lautoka operation, she said,
could serve as a “case study” in what happens when
co-ordination between involved parties breaks
down.

“Unfortunately, in this case, it has to do with
a vulnerable group. They’re already vulnerable, they’re
already confused, they’re already in need of support,
compassion,” Catanasiga said.

“When we don’t address
persistent coordination challenges, it really just does a
lot more harm. It exacerbates the harms that they already
face.”

In this case, Catanasiga said the issue is an
absence of communication, and clarity in roles between the
different agencies involved.

The additional lack of
publicly available detail is concerning for organisations
who are meant to be working with vulnerable people, she
added.

She described the operations as “optics-led”
and said while sympathised with the relevant authorities and
people in authority trying to make a difference, the lack of
transparency was concerning.

“It’s not to penalise
those who want to do something about it. It’s about
[asking], ‘okay, have we applied the right
processes?’

“Sometimes in our effort to to do this, we
miss the more essential work of doing the due diligence. And
sometimes we react … a lot of our approaches are
reactionary because it looks bad.

“It’s not an excuse
to miss the essential steps of safeguarding [and] due
diligence that we must apply to our work, particularly
around social protection [and] checking on the social safety
nets that are supposed to be
there.”

‘Unsustainable’

Catanasiga also
suggested authorities were relying on Fiji’s long-dormant
law on minor offences to justify moving beggars and street
dwellers from public places, targeting activities such as
begging, loitering and drunk or disorderly
behaviour.

“I understand there is a Minor Offences Act
that was never operationalised. It was never
applied.

“So, I think that they’re using that to
justify the removal of people from the streets. So begging,
all those sorts of activities, loitering, it’s covered under
that act.”

While Catanisaga said she fully supported
efforts to move homeless individuals into dignified work and
safe housing, the current operations will be
unsustainable.

“I’m just concerned about the back end
processes that are supposed to be in place, the support
system. If not, our efforts to get people off the streets is
not going to be sustainable,” she said.

Moving
forward, Catanasiga said the agencies involved to deal with
the issue need to come together to complete the programme
they have started.

“We always talk about
dignity-centred approaches [to deal with vulnerable people].
This [initiative] is not dignity-centred approaches,” she
said.

“We want to support our government, and more
importantly, we want to support people who are in vulnerable
positions.”

© Scoop Media