Solomons' Third Rail

J. Roughan 
28 October 2010
Honiara          

Solomon Islanders have rarely seen a subway train up close. This kind of train operates much like a public bus except it usually travels underground but doesn't use either petrol/diesel power. Subways are driven by electricity delivered along a special steel rail. This rail is highly charged, quite dangerous but effective in delivering power to move a train.
 
Although this third rail, as it is called, is great for powering trains, it is also highly dangerous, and can be lethal to anyone who touches it by accident. Some political commentators use this third rail picture to warn the general public as well as politicians that to discuss certain national issues can be really dangerous, must be carefully studied before going public and that all be put on notice of their potential danger.
 
We had a case of a Third Rail topic on Friday afternoon last week. Solomons Law Forum set up a public discussion on government's up coming Forgiveness Bill proposal. More than 100 participants from across Honiara turned up for SIBC's two-hour live broadcast which featured a number of leading Solomon Islanders. Fr. Sam Ata (chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission), Hon. Manasseh Maelanga (Deputy PM), Mr. Andrew Radclyffe (Legal practioner), Mrs. Ruth Lilogula (Commissioner of Lands) and Rev. Ellison Baku (Pastor) were panel members.  Mrs. Moodie Nanau, Supervisor of SIBC's Program Presentation led these Forum members in a lively discussion concerning this Third Rail subject: Government's Forgiveness Bill.
 
Although the exact wording of government's proposed Forgiveness Bill proposal has yet to be drafted, many Panel Member as well as those in the audience voiced out their disquiet on the merits of such a bill. It didn't take long during the discussion period for many to raise some basic questions both from the floor as well as from the dais. Forum participants zeroed in on the issue with such questions as:  'Forgiveness for whom?', 'Forgiveness for what?', 'Who has the basic right to forgive: the government, society in general or the victim?'
 
So even before a single sentence has been written about a possible Forgiveness Bill, people are lining up not only to study what Government might want to enact into national law, but, in this case, are questioning the very basis of such legislation. In past years, national leaders were ever so quick to reach for amnesty legislation when something terrible had been done. Before the courts could begin to operate, some politicians were calling for amnesty for those who had committed the crimes. The Townsville Agreement comes to mind. Heaven forbid that some Big Man face a court of law, be found guilty of committing a serious offense and then sent to Rove for years for his crime!
 
Although the Townsville Agreement was conditional--all arms had to be returned before any amnesty would begin to operate--few if any guns were returned. It made little difference to those who were demanding amnesty that high powered guns had been returned or not. Only when RAMSI came on the scene in 2003, were many of these arms finally surrendered. Even to this day, it's common knowledge that some high powered guns are still out there in villages and are yet to be returned. But that doesn't matter! The Amnesty part of the Townsville Agreement must be honored no matter what is said about the unreturned high powered guns.
 
This basic imbalance is one reason why last Friday's Forum surfaced people's distrust, disquiet and disgust which a Forgiveness Bill would create if it were made the law of the land any time soon. As many said during the Forum, who is it that can offer forgiveness? Isn't it first and foremost the victim, those who suffered major loss of loved ones killed, serious property damage and loss of livelihood? Is forgiveness simply a juridical thing? Is government thinking that there should be legislation dictating that certain crimes at certain times can never be tried in a court of law?
 
How such a mind set could bring lasting peace back into the hearts of people who have yet to be compensated but only a handful of the offenders have stepped forward and said from the heart: "I'm sorry for what I have done to you and your family! Please forgive me!" Once that giant step has been taken, then a Forgiveness Bill might have some meaning for society and a chance of being passed by Parliament.
 
During last week's public Forum one participant made the point that the proposed government legislation would best not be called a Forgiveness Bill but something else, e.g.  a Restoring Justice and Peace Bill with an emphasis on reconciliation, personal, communal and national. But mere word change is enough! There has to be national preparation geared to change minds and hearts. For years, now, SIDT has been running a Restorative Justice Program which police personnel, police trainees, Rove prisoners, village groups and women's organizations have participated in. The present Truth and Reconciliation Commissions' reach out program is another way of touching the hearts of our people and showing how important healing and reconciliation are to the national health.
 
For our political leadership to bank solely on a piece of legislation to heal a divided people who have been so terribly hurt is the wrong way to go. Before any legislation comes before Parliament, victims and offenders should be given a chance to reconcile. A few pigs, some shell money and a heap of yams on their own will never accomplish this task. It takes people meeting together, looking into each others eyes and saying from the heart: "I'm sorry for what I did!" Perhaps with that major step taken, legislation could be crafted which would seal the healing process.