By Thornley Hite,
Ranonga
Former Team Leader: CC/EPAC for WP
Allow me space to share my thoughts on said issue. The generation of thinkers (great minds) who desired change in governance system may have passed on but a few others still survive.
These were founding leaders of this nation. After the handing over of the Constitutional Congress – Eminent Persons Advisory Council (CC-EPAC) produced Draft Federal Constitution of Solomon Islands (DFCSI) in July 2019, most of these great minds have passed on.
Among these former governor generals, prime ministers, parliamentarians, premiers and senior citizens who poured their wisdom over a period of 12 years were two prominent sons of Solomon Islands: late Reginald Teutao (Constitutional Lawyer for the fundamental reforms under CRU/PMO&C) and late Jackson Piasi (CC member for Western Province and a learned lawyer and attorney for the Christian Fellowship Church).
All these wise leaders have spoken and what was written stays written in the DFCSI.
To begin with, it is not un-correct to say that independence for Solomon Islands was a peaceful transition to self-rule with inherited partial hegemonic legal system after 85 years under direct British hegemony counting from 1893 when Solomon Islands was declared a British Protectorate.
Our founding fathers saw that foreign hegemony spelled underdevelopment of this resource rich nation. They knew well what strength lies in this nation.
Most national political leaders knew that the nation of Solomon Islands is ‘floating’ on hydrocarbons. There are also localized mineralization including gold, silver, bauxite, copper and nickel and other precious metals still to be discovered perhaps (not to mention a blessed nation in the ‘Coral Triangle’).
But to develop these extractive resources, the industries also pose significant environmental side effects.
Mineralization is trans-boundary in nature and not at par with our traditional land tenure system as: “one man’s meat can be another man’s poison”.
Why is federalism fading? Part of the answer lies in the fading away of the federalism orientated mindsets as mentioned previously.
But the answer also lies in political motivations by the ruling government and governances of the day.
The current national government appears unmotivated to take on the national agenda for federalism.
The by-gone parliament sought to harmonize the national general elections with one single general elections for the governances: national and provincial.
Perhaps it fell short in achieving this goal by not amending the enabling provisions in the national constitution.
This was put to test by Western Province when the Speaker of Western Provincial Assembly took the matter to High Court.
The issue was carried by the High Court of Solomon Islands. Western and Choiseul provinces did not go to the polls like the rest in the last general elections.
If the case had sailed through, compensation claims by provincial members in Western and Choiseul provinces under the newly approved provincial assembly members’ entitlements package as approved by the parliamentary entitlement commission could dent the national budget and also be un-fundable because it stands in excess of two hundred thousand million dollars.
This leads to the next qualifying reason for a fading federalism mentality among current provincial political leaders.
Learned late Professor Ronald Watts advised CC/EPAC and cautioned this joint constitutional making body in 2018.
He said: ‘Those who benefitted from the system will resist change’. He was right. The previous national parliament approved the revised provincial assembly members’ entitlements package.
It was thrice much better than previous ones. Such enticement causes to flounder the provincial and national political trajectory for federalism in this nation.
The current provincial assembly members together with current parliamentarians are benefiting greatly from their entitlements as approved by parliament.
Under such entitlements or comfort zones the political environment is not conducive for change. The citizenry is denied its rights for better governances.
The Western Province leadership inaugural speech by the current premier sounded the siren for a fading federal agenda as “not ready for change” when the DFCSI was right in front of him.
He did not know what to do with the DFCSI document. The DFCSI bespeak the fact that the people of this nation have spoken.
The premier had lent a deaf ear to the political soundings of his predecessors. What a shame! Twice (in 2025 and recently) I have asked the Speaker of Western Provincial Assembly of what actions the WPA had taken since after the briefings by (us) the former CC/EPAC members of the province in March 2025.
The answer given was, ‘if those inside governance do not know what is going on, how much more you outside’. Such honest sentiment bespeaks a concerned servant of the province who had seen better days in provincial political governance.
The WPG had reviewed the PGA twice now. A national review of the provincial government system will not be a panacea for systems change. The review of governance system is the DFCSI.
Current political soundings for any review is a tactic to further hegemonic grip on this nation by outside forces colluding with the current political regimes and leaderships to water down decentralization motivations and innovations through federalism because the citizenry will benefit greatly out of federalism.
The forerunner national leaders of Solomon Islands plunged the nation into independence least prepared in 1978 after eight and half decades under British rule.
After four decades of unitary governance under parliamentary democracy post-independence, we now have a home-grown DFCSI coined within twelve solid years from around 2007 to 2019 triggered by the ethnic tension.
I have seen better days under Provincial Government Act 1981 than Provincial Government Act 1997 because I have served as a DPS/PS (in Guadalcanal and Western provinces) under these PGAs.
The PGA 1981 was quasi decentralization of powers under the unitary system of government and governances despite a ‘master–servant’ relationship kind, where, provinces are agents of the national government exercising devolved functions contained in the PGA. In 1997, all government functions in the provinces were recentralized under the guise of PGA 1997.
Perhaps the political leadership has now realized that the PGA 1997 was the legal tool for provincial underdevelopment and the spring-board for national mass unemployment.
Decentralization has two facets: one is functional decentralization and the other is fiscal decentralization.
To be effective and efficient both elements must be devolved. It means all funds for government functions in the provinces are paid into the consolidated funds of the provinces. That was the practice under PGA 1981.
As a former provincial secretary and premier (W) I am familiar that, that was the system. In 1997 provincial governance functions were recentralized after the Appellate Court decision which struck off the High Court case by the provincial premiers of Malaita, Guadalcanal and Western.
The High Court case on the constitutionality of PGA 1996 was taken up by the premier of Guadalcanal province. The WPG funded the unconstitutional PGA 1996 case.
Under PGA 1997 all provinces are exercising some devolved functions as status quo maintenance but most fiscal elements were recentralized and paid to departmental accounts, for example, service grants from MHMS.
The services grant scheme to provinces are consumed by governance overheads. Limited devolved revenue sources to provinces are inadequate to meet development capital.
The Provincial Capacity Development Fund (PCDF) projects are said to be fraught with corrupt practices from within governances hence budget cuts soundings by the Ministry of Provincial Government and Institutional Strengthening (MPGIS).
The WPG was victimized in 2025 for not doing things right. The PCDF scheme is performance based.
It may be a good tool for capacity building, paving the way for downloading of federal functions or graduating into the federal system.
But provinces ought not be penalized for non-delivery of services. The culprits mismanaging the funds ought to be penalized.
To re-invent another PGA under revised considerations is a step going further backwards and further encouraging a fading federal mindset under the current generation of political leaders who fail to read and absorb the contents of the DFCSI, let alone deleterious to the way forward.
There were soundings for wake up calls recently in 2025 in trying to forge desired agriculture related developments in the provinces through agency agreements. The funds have not come in yet for WPG.
The last agency agreement I knew about in this nation was the Guadalcanal Shipping Service Agency Agreement in the late 1980s.
They were running the MV Vango and MV Bulava. They did well. I was DPS (GP) at that time. Then the SIG marine division was privatized. That was the end of the era of agency arrangements under PGA 1981.
It is also not un-correct to say that the aftermath of the 1999 ethnic tension had a deleterious effect on national consciousness for governance systems.
A faction of national political leaders continued to cherish the legacy of foreign hegemony under the guise of a unitary governance system.
Another faction strived to plot the national road map for change through federalism. Still others don’t wish to take sides because they are contented to be in their current comfort zones. Underdevelopment and rising unemployment persisted.
But our land tenure system sustained this resilient nation. Nobody starved in the rural areas.
What the public needs to know about the Solomon Islands home grown federal model is that it is a master – master relationship.
There are three master creatures created by the federal constitution: federal government, state government and community government.
Currently, the Provinces were created by an Act of Parliament under section 114 of the Independence Order 1978.
It means the parliament has the power to dissolve any province. Under the proposed federal order of governances, the said three creatures are created by the Federal Constitution not by an Act of Parliament.
They are autonomous in nature for self-rule but with shared powers under a co-operative federal model. Each sphere of governance exercises their legitimate listed shared powers within given legal frameworks and jurisdictions or boundaries.
This means the definition of land under the federal model also includes the sea areas as the Solomon Islands is an archipelagic state. And land ownership under the home-grown federal model is defined “from the center of the earth to the airspace above”.
That was how the federal reformers framed the DFCSI. Under the current unitary model of governance, customary landowners only have ‘surface rights’ – so to speak!
The bottom line is the current unitary governance system is not good for Solomon Islands. Simply put, the mineral wealth belongs to the state but not landowners.
The forests belong to the state under the control of the Commissioner of Forests. That is why we have the tedious timber rights process for customary land forests and the grant of profit scheme over registered perpetual estates under the mandate of the Commissioner of Lands.
It means land rights are not the same as timber rights. The thin line is, land rights and timber rights are two different things.
These legacies of hegemonic chains or choke points continue to undermine traditional landowner aspirations and exacerbate underdevelopment and unemployment.
We need to re-write our laws to better serve this nation and its people under a federal scheme of government and governances so as not to become beggars in our own country.
The agenda of federalism is a national shared responsibility. But it is not a devolved function.
What needs to be done, perhaps, is for each provinces to set up transitional offices under provincial government approved budgets for funding under OPM &C through the Constitutional Reform Unit or a Federal Transitional Unit under OPM&C.
The transitional Unit offices in each province (under the office of the premier) need office space, office equipment and personnel: say, a director, a lawyer, an admin/accounts officer and secretariat.
The transitional unit should have a clear mandate that ought to pave the way for peaceful transition from unitary governance to a federation of states governances under the home grown federal model.
The working tool or platform was completed in 2019 and is already 6 years old collecting dust in OPM&C. More than a hundred million dollars had been spent in coining the desired home grown federal system.
The DFCSI ought to be ratified by the Constituent Assembly. The sooner the better. No room for fading dreams and confused leader be allowed.
Decentralized we stand. Recentralized we fail. We have been labeled a failed nation state by outsiders following the ethnic tension. It’s time to share the burden of governance through cooperative federalism of self-rule and shared powers. The maxim should be: ‘By way of federalism thou shall rule’. Lest we forget: the most powerful nation on planet earth is a federation of 50 states under a federal constitution. Think big!
