Who is responsible? Glaring lack of clarity over Fiji operation to remove street dwellers

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.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji homeless reports

Last month, The Fiji Times reported that city rangers were serving warning notices to individuals soliciting alms in public areas. The notices stated that behaviour such as persistent begging or obstructing of 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 were 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.”

Directives may be issued
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, a similar operation is 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.”

Absence of communication
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.”