Content uploaded by James Roffee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Roffee on Jul 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Child Sexual Abuse in Fiji:
Authority, Risk Factors and
Responses
John Whitehead* and James Roffee†
Abstract
While child sexual abuse is a problem worldwide, the risk factors for the perpetration of
child sexual abuse within Fiji are unique in their relation to the traditional and communal
nature of Fijian society. In this article, culturally relevant dynamic risk factors found within
contemporary Fijian society are identified and understood alongside static factors
contributing to abuse. Although there have been recent changes to sexual offence legislation
and traditional criminal justice system responses to victims of sexual abuse, state-
sanctioned responses continue to maintain victimising practices. Equally, the relative rural
isolation means many Indigenous Fijian (iTaukei) communities continue to use customary
restorative justice practices that may marginalise the rehabilitation of victims and offenders
for the communities’ benefit. However, a culturally specific amalgamation of traditional
criminal justice and customary restorative responses may help to create more holistic
protection for survivors of child sexual abuse in Fiji.
Keywords: sexual violence – child sexual abuse – trauma – Indigenous –
restorative justice –– customary justice – Fiji – South Pacific
Introduction
While there is an absence of data and large-scale studies of sexual violence in Fiji (Powell
and Percival 2010; UNICEF Pacific 2006), research suggests that up to 22 per cent of students
and 29 per cent of school leavers in Suva know survivors of child sexual abuse (‘CSA’) (Save
the Children Fiji 2005:25). Such abuse is often perpetrated by acquaintances of the victim,
authority figures, or people the victim trusts, including family members (Adinkrah 1995:84;
Save The Children Fiji 2005:25–6). Despite the prevalence of CSA within Fiji, only recently
has there been a significant change to its legislative standards to tackle this offence via the
implementation of the Crimes Decree 2009 (Fiji) (‘Crimes Decree’).
* Researcher, School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Clayton Vic 3800 Australia. Email:
john.whitehead@monash.edu.
† Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Clayton Vic 3800 Australia. Email:
james.roffee@monash.edu.
324 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3
International and non-governmental organisations (‘NGOs’) currently donate millions of
dollars to Fiji. For example, Australia’s total official development assistance in 2012–13 was
A$49.2 million (AusAID 2013:54). This funding is often targeted at police and courts to help
improve traditional criminal justice practices, including creating specific working groups
aimed at responding to CSA (AusAID 2013:191). Despite these programs, the number of
Offences against Public Morality (the category in which sexual offences fall) reported to the
Fijian Police Force steadily increased from 718 cases in 2005 to 2980 cases in 2012 (Fiji
Bureau of Statistics 2013). The total number of child sexual abuse cases as reported in Fiji
Police statistics rose from 162 in 2005 to 846 in 2011 (Fiji Bureau of Statistics 2012). Despite
the excellent work of gender empowerment activists in increasing awareness, this rising trend
in reporting of sexual offences seemingly reflects a growing number of incidents. CSA within
Fiji constitutes a growing concern both for the traditional criminal justice system and
organisations that respond to this abuse.
The failure to adequately address CSA in Fiji is partly due to successive governments’ use
of and reliance on Western legal doctrine in creating sexual offence statutes at the expense of
modifying and utilising existing forms of culturally reflexive justice. While attempts to align
new sexual offences legislation within South Pacific nations and Fiji with international treaties
have provided further protection to the survivors of CSA (Forster 2009), such legislation has
also marginalised the cultural causations of this offence (Schultz 1995). For example, new
legislative reforms have not recognised the role of culturally reflexive authority in the
commission of CSA.1 This is despite qualitative studies that suggest rural areas, or outposts
of iTaukei2 customary tradition, have higher rates of CSA due to culturally contextualised
risk factors of billeting children with extended families (UN Women 2011:15–16) and
reluctance to believe that it is anything other than a family matter (Schultz 1995:32–4). Other
factors include the belief that violence against children is ‘common and culturally acceptable
in many pacific countries’ and the low status of and disrespect for women (Griffen
2006:‘Violence against children’ [1]). Additionally, the consumption of kava (an intoxicating
beverage made from the crushed root of a pepper tree) is culturally significant, playing an
important role in social, political and religious functions, and acts as a dynamic risk factor
alongside the unique communal relationships within iTaukei society. To more effectively
address such cultural causes of CSA, Fijian legislation needs to be aligned with international
best practice, including human rights frameworks (Braithwaite 2014), while simultaneously
recognising and utilising methods of mediation reflecting local culture and traditions (Forster
2009:862–4) that may respond to, and counter, the customary causes of this offence.
Existing alongside traditional criminal justice paradigms are customary restorative
ceremonies that have been historically used by iTaukei communities in Fiji. The bulubulu
ceremony3 has been used for centuries and shares the core tenets of current Western
restorative justice paradigms. These include the victim’s ability to refuse mediation, symbolic
restitution and the requirement that a contrite offender should begin the ceremony
immediately after his or her actions (Arno 1976:52–5; see also Daly 2006). An additional
1 While this article primarily focuses on Indigenous Fijian responses to CSA, domestic and sexual violence also
occurs in the Indo-Fijian community (see Lateef 1990).
2 The iTaukei people are recognised as the Indigenous inhabitants of the Fijian isles. The terms ‘iTaukei’ and
‘Indigenous Fijians’ are used interchangeably.
3 The terminology used in this article may not apply to all iTaukei communities. Fiji is culturally heterogeneous,
even between close island neighbours. As such, names and minor aspects of th e mediation ceremonies may differ
between locations and restorative ceremonies are practised differently under different names in different
locations. For example, similar in form to bulubulu, i soro mediation is used for less severe offences (Cretton
2005:404). This article uses the term bulubulu to encompass these practices. Fijian restorative responses to
offending involve mediation and we use the terms ‘restorative practice’ and ‘mediation’ interchangeably.
MARCH 2016 CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN FIJI 325
benefit of this customary dispute mechanism is that it has both a formal and informal format.
For minor offences, an informal ceremony of direct discussion between the victim and
offender is used (Arno 1976:57–8) and, for more serious offences, a formal bulubulu
ceremony is required. This involves the offender selecting a mediator, placing the victim in a
position of power during conferences, and the exchange of kava and tabua (a ceremonial
whale tooth representing purity and symbolic virginity) as restitution (Abramson 1995:
202–3; Arno 1976:52–4). One example of this formal ceremony and a demonstration of the
importance of customary justice is the rumoured use of bulubulu as a peacemaking tool after
the Fijian coup of 2000 (Cretton 2005:403–4). Newspapers reported that, in the days
following the coup, George Speight provided kava to the representatives he held hostage in
the Fijian Parliament, and offered tabua to the then Prime Minister as a formal apology
(Cretton 2005:403).
Despite the potential success of culturally contextualised restorative justice for many
offences, its use in cases of sexual violence is controversial. Nonetheless, many conferencing
programs are based on the customs of Indigenous populations and have mediated other related
offences. The Navajo peace-making ceremonies currently operating in North America use
Indigenous custom to tackle gendered violence (Coker 2006; see also Zion and Yazzie 2006).
By using the traditional creation myths of the Navajo nation, offending behaviour and
violence towards women is placed in direct contrast to communal values (Coker 2006; Zion
1998; Winfree 2011:299–301). Additionally, the adjudication occurs completely separate to
the traditional criminal justice system and is entirely overseen by respected community
members (Coker 2006:70–1). By rejecting the discourse of Western legal practice, the
sustained use of peace-making has allowed the Navajo nation to retain its indigenous identity
while simultaneously responding to the challenges left by colonisation and political exclusion
(Zion and Yazzie 2006). However, its use has been limited to domestic violence and minor
crimes (Coker 2006), despite its potential to address any abuse-supportive belief structures
that motivate sexual offences. It also rejects one of the basic victim-empowerment tenets of
restorative justice: the apology by offenders to survivors. Daly (2006) has noted that while an
apology is an important element of conference proceedings that may ensure victim wellbeing,
issues with procedure and process may dilute its effect. In cases of CSA, the offender’s
delivery of an apology may not be suitable. Nonetheless, other restorative paradigms in the
Pacific region have successfully responded to this severe form of offending.
As the first nation to officially endorse restorative conferences, New Zealand has been at
the forefront of developing best practice in creating culturally appropriate responses,
including to issues involving youth (Maxwell and Hayes 2006; Shearar and Maxwell 2012).
Project Restore in New Zealand has had tremendous success in conferencing sexual offence
cases. Engaging a combination of rehabilitative and restorative techniques to ensure the
victim’s wellbeing, offenders and victims can confront the harmful behaviour in a safe and
productive manner (Centre for Innovative Justice 2014:33; Julich 2009:246–8). However,
while other conferencing programs in New Zealand focus on customary Māori dispute
resolution techniques, Project Restore is based on a Western theoretical framework that does
not place at its heart the different experiences of Māori and other minority offenders (see
Centre for Innovative Justice 2014:31–3). By assuming a universal archetype of offender and
victim, Project Restore may also not account for the unique needs of Indigenous survivors of
sexual assault or the risk factors within the wider community. Consequently, though achieving
positive results, this restorative practice may not recognise the challenges faced by Indigenous
populations, who may prefer culturally reflexive responses to sexual violence, which
acknowledge their history and independence. In the case of Fiji, bulubulu could be an effective
326 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3
method of responding to sexual violence, particularly that against children, and could help
promote offender desistance and rehabilitation.
Dynamic risk factors for CSA in Fiji
Child sexual abuse creates multiple forms of trauma, including physical, psychological and
social harm that can persist throughout a survivor’s life. Immediate injuries and secondary
health complications may ensue, such as mental health concerns and transmission of sexual
infections, which may significantly reduce the quality and length of a survivor’s life (Griffin
2006; Gal, Levav and Gross 2011; Hillis et al 2000). Consequently, CSA impacts on many
aspects of the physical, psychological and social wellbeing of survivors, and survivors require
medical care, therapeutic intervention and a supportive environment to prevent continued
suffering or secondary victimisation. Survivors of CSA suffer differing forms of trauma,
impacted by factors including individual resilience and the nature and length of their
victimisation (Bal et al 2004:118–19; Crosson-Tower 2005:181). Engaging with the
traditional criminal justice process — including describing instances of abuse to the police or
a court — can revictimise survivors (Caprioli and Crenshaw 2015:8–11; Kunst, Popelier and
Varekamp 2014:337). Although state responses to instances of CSA can be effective, the
suitability of a method to address abuse depends on the resilience of each victim and the
circumstances of each offence. Responses to CSA should be victim oriented, allowing the
needs of the survivor to be prioritised over criminal justice processes. Thus, restorative
responses may be most beneficial as they allow a victim to contribute to the outcome for the
offender while empowering the victim through the intervention process. Any restorative
intervention should address the dynamic and culturally specific risk factors that may facilitate
sexual abuse and account for the unique relationships between victims and offenders.
Within iTaukei communities, extended family members adopt the titles and roles (such as
‘uncle’) of direct guardians. Unlike Western normative nuclear families, kinship within
iTaukei culture represents a child’s lineage to a spirit ancestor. This means that villages form
a clan based on customary ties rather than biological relationships (Spencer 1939:49–50).
In Fijian society, descent is patrilineal and status is derived from the father’s side (Spencer
1939:50) and each person is part of a matangali (clan) linked to a spirit ancestor. The larger
matangali comprises a number of mbito (smaller groups). These smaller groups, although not
genealogically linked to the larger group, are considered close family members due to their
connection to a son of the spirit ancestor. Culturally, all individuals within the clan are
considered relatives, and most marriages occur between individuals from different matangali,
and are therefore exogamous (Spencer 1939:50). Within these non-consanguinal family
groups, a chief provides the highest level of paternal and patriarchal authority as ‘an effective
warrior and provider’ (Toren 1994:203). Socioculturally, these biologically unrelated clan
members are considered family (Spencer 1939:50). Communal family encourages
cooperative communication strategies and provides greater resilience for individuals
(DeFrain, DeFrain and Lepard 1994). However, the larger communal family also provides a
number of biologically unrelated offenders greater access to children in a context where many
instances of CSA in iTaukei communities should be considered incestuous.
UNICEF Pacific reports that due to the ‘complexities and challenges of researching and
collecting quantitative information in [the Pacific], the data on the existence and prevalence
of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children are largely quantitative’ (2006:xi).
‘[O]f the 35 cases of child sexual abuse reported to the Police Sexual Offences Unit in 2000,
33 were committed by a trusted family member’ (Save the Children 2005:28–9). Empirical
MARCH 2016 CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN FIJI 327
research on CSA by the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre suggests that the largest group of
offenders responsible for 45.1 per cent of all incidents were male family members who were
not fathers or stepfathers (Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre 2013). CSA occurring within a
matangali and mbito is seen by the community and victims as commensurate with abuse
conducted by a consanguinal offender. The contemporary Western-based legal system in Fiji
does not recognise these offences as comparable to incest. Furthermore, as CSA has the
potential to disrupt familial bonds within the entire clan, there is an acute risk of secondary
victimisation and victim blaming within Indigenous Fijian communities. Both the statistics
and cultural practices suggest that pseudo-parental authority (not adequately addressed by
current criminal legislation) facilitates CSA.
Many static risk factors for CSA, such as alcohol, become dynamic when placed in an
iTaukei context. As outlined above, kava, although not alcoholic, causes intoxication, acts as
a sedative and limits mobility (Tomlinson 2004:657–8; Lester 1941:98). Culturally, kava
facilitates, justifies and excuses CSA through the creation of abuse-supportive myths.
Although the mythological origin of kava can differ between villages and South Pacific
nations, in many instances these stories emphasise violent sexual behaviour and aggressive
masculinity. One example of this is in a fable where men wanted kava (a woman) to join them
at the ceremonial grounds. Against her wishes she was forced to join them and the men then
had sex with kava who remained at ceremonial grounds indefinitely after being too ashamed
to return to the village (Kristiansen 2009:239–40). Anthropological studies report that men
excessively consume kava in Fiji to ‘heighten their experience of the wild’ (Abramson
1995:205). They also indicate that those who cannot find a sexual partner ‘will report to the
cows of Serea’ (Abramson 1995:205) — the term used for a promiscuous woman who is
perceived as having lost her soul and is considered an animal (Abramson 1995:201). These
stories amalgamate kava and its associated ceremonies with sexually aggressive belief
structures and violent acts of masculinity, which foster abuse-supportive mindsets that lead to
CSA. Additionally, intoxication by kava preserves its consumer’s cognitive abilities, and
offenders who commit CSA under the influence of kava maintain sufficient mens rea to be
held culpable for the offence.
This cultural mythos is also seen within other South Pacific practices. Sexual contact and
marriage between kin was historically a privilege given to authority figures, and may still be
perceived by some as a cultural right (Whitman Newell 1950:45). These privileges were
transposed into each household of the villagers. Although fathers were not allowed to engage
in intrafamilial sexual activity with daughters, this was not considered as serious as suvasora
(incest) with other family members (for example, sexual activity between siblings or between
mother and son). Father-daughter sexual activity carried no severe penalty if the victimisation
remained out of public knowledge (Malinowski 1957:447–8). This abuse was linked to the
masculine and patriarchal authority of village and household leaders, and sibling relationships
were considered a more serious violation of sexual taboos (Malinowski 1957:447–8).
Similarly, sexual activity between men was common during historical initiation rites.
These traditional ceremonies required young boys to fellate and consume the semen of older
clan members as they transitioned to manhood (McIntosh 1999:8). This was done to pass
along fertility and Allen (1998) notes these practices occurred across the South Pacific. This
is consistent with anthropological suggestions that the first descriptions of ritualised
homosexuality were reported from Fiji (McIntosh 1999:7). The practice of such customs is
today considered a form of CSA and may demonstrate that authority figures were modifying
customary beliefs to enable abuse. The perception of sexualisation as a method of attaining
manhood may also form a source of victimisation for the survivor and may prevent reporting
328 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3
of CSA offences.4 Additionally, same-sex CSA can impact the socialisation and identity
formation of the survivor (Lew 1990). Often it manifests in sexual confusion as the survivor
attempts to reconcile their victimisation and sexuality (Lew 1990:54–7). The resultant
negative self-image can often lead to socially unacceptable behaviour, including homophobic
attitudes utilised as a cognitive self-defence mechanism to separate the survivor from the
abuser (Lew 1990:54–9). While a number of these abusive practices were halted during the
British colonisation of Fiji and the subsequent spread of Christianity, some remain.
Historic and contemporary methods of addressing CSA in Fiji
Traditionally, iTaukei communities used culturally specific restorative justice practices, such
as bulubulu, to resolve disputes. These are adjudicated by village elders and negotiated by
senior male family members (Merry 2004). As described in one of the few anthropological
accounts of this ceremony by Arno (1976), the formal bulubulu ceremony begins with an
offender demonstrating maduȃ — or the restorative concept of shame — for their actions.
Ideally, genuine shame is demonstrated by the offender, which bulubulu automatically
absolves; however, bulubulu is often used a means to prevent further traditional criminal
justice repercussions for the offender’s behaviour (Arno 1976:51). The bulubulu ceremony is
not designed to normalise interactions between the offender and victim, but is used as tool to
ensure harmony within the vanua (land and its inhabitants) (Cretton 2005:404). During the
proceedings, the victim (or victim’s representative) is seated in a position of authority above
the offender and mediator (a person chosen by the offender and from the victim’s family), and
is given the symbolic status of a chief by being presented a tabua (Arno 1976:50). The
exchange of a tabua (whale tooth) represents a ritualised trade of purity. Although the
response to the offence via symbolic restitution may be seen to commodify the survivor’s
trauma and does not address the victim’s needs, it operates as a symbolic apology and restores
harmony within with community.
Often an offender’s mediator will attempt to force mediation by contextualising ‘the
offender … not only as an individual but as the member of a descent group and that the
relations are at stake’ (Arno 1976:54). When coupled with the presence of the victim’s family,
this immediately places pressure on the victim to contextualise his or her suffering from the
offender’s perspective, and not the victim’s own traumatic experience. Bulubulu is formulated
through a dialogue dominated by the offender, and which uses the discourse of community to
compel a survivor’s forgiveness. In the event that the offender and the offender’s speaker are
barred from conducting the ceremony as a result of the victim refusing to acknowledge their
presence by saying ‘sa vinaka’, the offender is expected to return multiple times with village
elders to force forgiveness (Arno 1976:54). Although it employs a culturally restorative
paradigm, bulubulu requires no apology to the victim but directly to his or her family or kin
group (Jalal 2009:11–15; Merry 2004). As male family members act as negotiators during the
bulubulu ceremony, it is unclear how bulubulu may operate in cases of consanguinal abuse.
Thus it is possible that certain cultural responses to CSA may further victimise the survivor,
much like the traditional criminal justice system (Elliott, Thomas and Ogloff 2014).
Based upon common law, the Fijian criminal code was inherited through British
colonisation and included provisions preventing the achievement of justice for all survivors
of CSA. The Penal Code 1970 (Fiji) (‘Penal Code’) included provisions prohibiting sexual
offences in ch 17 (‘Offences against morality’). The Criminal Procedure Code 1944 (Fiji)
4 For further details on semen rituals and their importance in traditional South Pacific society see Godelier (2003).
MARCH 2016 CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN FIJI 329
contained a corroboration rule requiring that a witness’s testimony corroborated the
involvement of the defendant, including in instances of sexual violence. While the
requirement for corroboration was present in the case of Mark Mutch v The State, this was
found to have been dispensed with and was not followed in Balelala v State. The s 178 (‘Incest
by males’) and s 179 (‘Incest by females’) provisions criminalised only heterosexual penile-
vaginal sexual activity between proscribed family members. The maximum severity of the
penalty was determined by the offender’s gender. Female offenders had a maximum sentence
of seven years, and male offenders life imprisonment where the victim was under 13 (Penal
Code ss 178–179). The legislation provided that no prosecution could be commenced without
the sanction of the Director of Public Prosecutions and thus created a hurdle in the process
responding to such offending (Penal Code s 181). These requirements severely limited the
prosecution of CSA offenders. Additionally, the legislation was framed from a perspective
that excluded men from being seen as victims of sexual offences, including rape (Penal Code
s 149). The incest provisions mirrored British legal standards of the early 20th century and did
not apply to those in positions of trust, including step-parents or communal guardians.
In 2009, the Fijian legislature updated the Penal Code to reflect a number of contemporary
Western standards regarding sexual offences, although many aspects of this reworked
legislation remain victimising. The new Crimes Decree addresses many deficits of the Penal
Code, including removing some of the gendered limitations on victims and offenders. It
expands the term ‘carnal knowledge’ in the new Crimes Decree s 206(5) beyond penile-
vaginal penetration to include penile-anal penetration, although it uses the discriminatory term
‘sodomy’. Also, the Crimes Decree provides greater legal protection to non-gender binary
individuals and those who have surgically constructed genitalia (Crimes Decree s 206(6)).5
New s 223 (‘Incest by any relative’) applies to male and female offenders and has a maximum
penalty of life imprisonment where the victim is under 13. Where the victim is over 13, the
maximum is 20 years’ imprisonment. This new provision omits to provide protection from
non-consanguinal individuals within the communal family. The Crimes Decree does
recognise positions of control and trust in relation to ‘Indecent assault’ (s 212), although it
does not extend to other members of the same community or apply to other sections of the
Crimes Decree. Replicating the deficiencies of the Penal Code s 181, the Crimes Decree
requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to approve any charges under the incest provision
(Crimes Decree s 223(7)).
Unsurprisingly, legislation has done little to improve the situation in rural Fiji, and some
families and victims of CSA attempt reconciliation through bulubulu. The improved statutes
are likely to have limited impact in such settings. Therefore, both individually and when
combined, the contemporary legal and customary responses to CSA within Fiji remain
limited, and have the potential to revictimise survivors. Thus further reforms are required.
New ways to respond to CSA in Fiji
Despite the problems noted with the Fijian sexual offence statutes, a United Nations report in
2008, before the changes in the Crimes Decree, stated that Fiji was the only country in the
region whose provisions were not inadequate (UNICEF 2008:10). However, the reframed and
improved statutes of the Crimes Decree fall short of providing a suitable response to all forms
of CSA. This is in a context where child sexual abuse remains the most common form of
sexual violence (Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre 2013:67). In addition, Fiji’s legislative
5 An important element to incorporate the recognition of non-heterosexual sexual activity into sexual offence
legislation and provide greater protection.
330 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3
frameworks do not reflect the unique culture of the Fijian people. The Crimes Decree does
not use an authority clause for certain offences and omits roles of coercive power, such as
traditional leaders (Crimes Decree s 206(2)). It fails to recognise the communal nature of
many Fijian families and that it may cause the same level of trauma for a victim, regardless
of whether there is a biological relationship between victim and offender. To appropriately
respond to these concerns, CSA by an offender within the community should be considered
as incest and command similar criminal justice system responses. Additionally, traditional
roles such as chiefs still present within iTaukei society should be directly referenced within
the legislation as positions of power. Community responses, such as bulubulu, should also be
acknowledged as dispute resolution mechanisms within the legislative provisions.
The focus on Western and traditional criminal justice responses to CSA since colonisation
has also marginalised communal methods that address offending. Customary methods of
mediation, such as bulubulu, contain victimising practices, but, with modification and when
utilised appropriately, may be both culturally sensitive and suitable for responding to some
incidents of CSA in Fijian communities. This is important, as iTaukei conceptualisations of
justice do not follow the individualistic Western model; they are concerned with communal
wellbeing and preservation of group harmony. While bulubulu may be effective in mediating
many offences, more research is needed into its use and impacts in cases of CSA. Merry
(2004:8–9) notes that modification of community restorative processes is occurring within
developed areas of Fiji, where women are beginning to mediate their disputes and set their own
terms of forgiveness. These developments require stakeholders such as the government and
victims’ rights advocates to engage with traditional leaders to ensure their practice both
empowers the victims of CSA and reflects the unique customs and culture of the iTaukei people.
A communal approach to viewing rights and responsibilities within Fiji may allow for the
creation of a holistic framework to address all forms of sexual offending in iTaukei
communities. For example, there is little distinction in many instances between the trauma
and impact of consanguinal and non-familial CSA within the Fijian context. As such, a
combination of legal and restorative responses to these offences could be created that would
both protect and empower the survivors of sexual abuse. This new framework could provide
a flexible method of sentencing, which scales the punitive outcome of mediation or traditional
criminal justice systems to the trauma suffered by a victim. Additionally, such responses may
be effective within these communal groups, as they ultimately promote the accountability of
communal leaders that may transition into more balanced bulubulu mediation outcomes.
While there are elements of bulubulu that may be beneficial to the victim, ensuring that
these ceremonies are conducted in a consistent and empowering manner is difficult in Fiji.
Aspects such as the victim’s ability to refuse mediation are valuable in a restorative justice
response. However, the offender’s family should not be allowed to try to force the acceptance
of an apology against the victim’s wishes (see Singh, Singh and Fields 2013:20). In Western
culture, offenders committing crimes against children are often ostracised. The bulubulu
process places community harmony at its core, and while we do not advocate placing the
community at risk, the role of the community is important in furthering rehabilitation and
preventing reoffending. The role of kava could be reimagined to a purely symbolic function
and not consumed during the ceremony. Its place in iTaukei dispute resolution needs to be
reconsidered in contemporary Fiji by key Indigenous stakeholders. Recording the ceremony
could provide the opportunity for oversight of mediation processes conducted by traditional
leaders. It might also provide an opportunity to challenge the outcome through the criminal
justice system. In this dispersed island population, with its many diverse cultures and
practices, focus should be on improving access to justice, rather than implementing a
homogenised approach.
MARCH 2016 CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN FIJI 331
Cases
Balelala v State [2004] FJCA 49
Mark Mutch v The State Cr App AAU0060.1999
Statutes
Crimes Decree 2009 (Fiji) (No 44 of 2009)
Criminal Procedure Code 1944 (Fiji)
Penal Code 1970 (Fiji) c 17
References
Abramson A (1995) ‘Beyond the Samoan Controversy in Anthropology: A History of Sexuality in the
Eastern Interior of Fiji’ in P Caplan (ed), The Cultural Construction of Sexuality, Routledge, 193–216
Adinkrah M (1995) Crime, Deviance & Delinquency in Fiji, Star Printery Limited
Allen M (1998) ‘Male Cults Revisited: The Politics of Blood Versus Semen’, Oceania 68(3), 189–99
Arno A (1976) ‘Ritual Reconciliation and Village Conflict Management in Fiji’, Oceania 47(1), 49–65
AusAID (2013) AusAID Annual Report <http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/
ausaid-annual-report-2012-13.pdf>
Bal S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Crombez G and Van Oost P (2004) ‘Differences in Trauma Symptoms and
Family Functioning in Intra- and Extrafamilial Sexually Abused Adolescents’, Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 19(1), 108–23
Braithwaite J (2014) ‘Traditional Justice’ in JJ Llewellyn and D Philpott (eds), Restorative Justice,
Reconciliation, and Peacebuilding, Oxford University Press, 214–39
Caprioli S and Crenshaw DA (2015) ‘The Culture of Silencing Child Victims of Sexual Abuse:
Implications for Child Witnesses in Court’, Journal of Humanistic Psychology (online) (14 September
2015) 1–20
Centre for Innovative Justice (2014) Innovative Justice Responses to Sexual Offending — Pathways to
Better Outcomes for Victims, Offenders and the Community (May 2014) <http://mams.rmit.
edu.au/qt1g6twlv0q3.pdf>
Coker D (2006) ‘Restorative Justice, Navajo Peacemaking and Domestic Violence’, Theoretical
Criminology 10(1), 67–85
Cretton V (2005) ‘Traditional Fijian Apology as a Political Strategy’, Oceania 75(4), 403–17
Crosson-Tower C (2005) Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect, Pearson Education
Daly K (2006) ‘Justice for Victims of Sexual Assault: Court or Conference?’ in K Heimer and
C Kruttschnitt (eds), Gender and Crime: Patterns of Victimisation and Offending, New York University
Press, 230–65
332 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3
DeFrain J, DeFrain N and Lepard J (1994) ‘Family Strengths and Challenges in the South Pacific:
An Exploratory Study in Fiji’, International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 24(2), 25–47
Elliott I, Thomas S and Ogloff J (2014) ‘Procedural Justice in Victim-police Interactions and Victims’
Recovery from Victimisation Experiences’, Policing and Society, 24(4), 588–601
Fiji Bureau of Statistics (2012) Key Statistics: December 2012, Miscellaneous, 12.5A Child Sexual
Abuse (December 2012) <http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/index.php/document-library/doc_download/633-
child-abuse>
Fiji Bureau of Statistics (2013) Key Statistics: December 2013, Miscellaneous, 12.3 Crime Cases
Recorded (December 2013) <http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/index.php/document-library/doc_download/
1012-crime-cases-recorded>
Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (2013) Somebody’s Life, Everybody’s Business! National Research on
Women’s Health and Life and Life Experiences in Fiji (2010/2012): A Survey Exploring the Prevalence,
Incidence, and Attitudes towards Intimate Partner Violence in Fiji (2013) <http://fijiwomen.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/1.pdf>
Forster C (2009) ‘Sexual Offence Law Reform In Pacific Island Countries: Replacing Colonial Norms
With International Good Practice Standards’, Melbourne University Law Review 33(3), 833–64
Gal G, Levav I and Gross R (2011) ‘Psychopathology among Adults Abused During Childhood or
Adolescence: Results from the Israel-Based World Mental Health Survey’, The Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease 199(4), 222–9
Godelier M (2003) ‘What is a Sexual Act?’, Anthropological Theory 3(2), 179–98
Griffen V (2006), ‘Gender Relations in Pacific Cultures’, Paper presented at Children’s Rights and
Culture in the Pacific, Suva, Fiji, 30 October 2006 <http://www.unicef.org/eapro/Gender_
Relations_in_Pacific_cultures.pdf>
Hillis SD, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Nordenberg D and Marchbanks PA (2000) ‘Adverse Childhood
Experiences and Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men and Women: A Retrospective Study’, Pediatrics
106(1), 11–17
Jalal I (2009) ‘Harmful Practices Against Women in Pacific Island Countries: Customary and
Conventional Laws’, Paper presentation at Expert Group Meeting on Good Practices in Legislation to
Address Harmful Practices against Women, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 28–29 May 2009
<http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2009/Expert%20Paper%20EGMGPLHP
%20_Imrana%20Jalal_.pdf>
Julich S (2009) ‘Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence in New Zealand’ in J Ptacek (ed),
Restorative Justice and Violence against Women, Oxford University Press, 218–39
Kristiansen I (2009) ‘Managing Sexual Advances in Vanuatu’ in H Donnan and F Magowan (eds),
Transgressive Sex: Subversion and Control in Erotic Encounters, Berghahn Books, 235–52
Kunst M, Popelier L and Varekamp E (2014) ‘Victim Satisfaction With the Criminal Justice System and
Emotional Recovery: A Systematic and Critical Review of the Literature’, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
16(3), 336–58
Lateef S (1990) ‘Rule by the Danda: Domestic Violence among Indo-Fijians’, Pacific Studies 13(3),
43–62
Lester RH (1941) ‘Kava Drinking in Vitilevu, Fiji’, Oceania 12(2), 97–121
MARCH 2016 CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN FIJI 333
Lew M (1990) Victims No Longer, Cedar
McIntosh T (1999) Worlds of Difference: Homosexuals in the Pacific, University of the South Pacific
Malinowski B (1957) The Sexual Life of Savages, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd
Maxwell G and Hayes H (2006) ‘Restorative Justice Developments in the Pacific Region:
A Comprehensive Survey’, Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative
Justice 9(2), 127–54
Merry S E (2004) Tensions between Global Law and Local Social Justice: CEDAW and the Problem of
Rape in Fiji, Paper presented at Justice across Cultures, Brandeis University March 2004
<https://www.brandeis.edu/ethics/pdfs/internationaljustice/otheractivities/JAC_Merry.pdf>
Powell E and Percival T (2010) Na noda sala Vaka Viti ni Tarova na wei kucumi: Fijian Pathways to
the Prevention of Sexual Violence, University of Auckland
Save the Children Fiji (2005) The Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse of Children in
Fiji: A Situational Analysis (2005) <http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/commercial-
sexual-exploitation-and-abuse-children-fiji-situational-analysis>
Schultz R (1995) ‘Child Abuse in Fiji: A Hidden Problem’, Pacific Health Dialog 2(2), 31–6
Shearar A and Maxwell G (2012) ‘Revolution, Decline, and Renewal: Restorative Justice in New
Zealand’ in E Zinsstag and I Vanfraechem (eds), Conferencing and Restorative Justice: International
Practices and Perspectives, Oxford University Press, 101–15
Singh H, Singh J and Fields M (2013) Fiji: Violence Against Women, Identifying and Combatting
Structural Discrimination that Furthers Sexual and Gender Based Violence (2013)
<https://www.icaadglobal.org/files/files/Fiji_White_Paper_IGI_7_18_13__Published_.pdf>
Spencer D (1939) ‘The Composition of the Family as a Factor in the Behaviour of Children in Fijian
Society’, Sociometry 2(2), 47–55
Tomlinson M (2004) ‘Perpetual Lament: Kava-Drinking, Christianity and Sensations of Historical
Decline in Fiji’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10(3), 653–73
Toren C (1994) ‘All Things Go in Pairs, or the Sharks Will Bite: The Antithetical Nature of Fijian
Chiefship’, Oceania, 64(3), 197–216
UN Women (2011) Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Evidence, Data and Knowledge in
Pacific Island Countries (July 2011) <http://asiapacific.unwomen.org/~/media/field%
20office%20eseasia/docs/ap/evidencedataknowledge_literaturereview2011_2nd%20edition%20pdf>
UNICEF (2008) A Regional Summary of the Fiji, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu Child
Protection Baseline Reports 2008 <http://www.unicef.org/pacificislands/Regional_summary.pdf>
UNICEF Pacific (2006) Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) and Child Sexual Abuse
(CSA) in the Pacific: A Regional Report <http://www.unicef.org/eapro/Pacific_CSEC_report.pdf>
Whitman Newell H (1950) ‘Interpretation of Early Fiji Customs’, Journal of Social Psychology 31(1),
39–67
Winfree LT (2011) ‘Peacemaking and Community Harmony: Lessons (and Admonitions) from the
Navajo Peacemaking Courts’ in EGM Weitekamp and H-J Kerner (eds), Restorative Justice:
Theoretical Foundations, 285–307
334 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3
Zion JW (1998) ‘The Dynamics of Navajo Peacemaking’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
14(1), 58–74
Zion JW and Yazzie R (2006) ‘Navajo Peacemaking: Original Dispute Resolution and a Life Way’ in
D Sullivan and L Tifft (eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective, Routledge,
151–6
CopyrightofCurrentIssuesinCriminalJusticeisthepropertyofInstituteofCriminologyand
itscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthe
copyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremail
articlesforindividualuse.
