Dear Editor, The recent court case that declared Tangaroa was the rightful Tamatoa Ariki in Aitutaki has implications for the people (Tangaroa declared rightful Tamatoa Ariki after three-year legal battle, August 7,2024).

I don’t think people realise what they have done by taking cultural issues to a western law court. They have set in place a precedent that now allows a white man’s law to dictate a cultural outcome. Instead of sorting it out inhouse no matter how long it takes. In summary, they have allowed a stranger from outside the people decide the fate of generations to come when choosing a leader and allowed this decision to be enshrined in white man’s law.

Also read: Tangaroa declared rightful Tamatoa Ariki after three-year legal battle

Using a legal system that is not rooted in the cultural traditions of our people will lead to outcomes that will not align with our values and practices. Western law has frameworks that do not fully capture the nuances of our people’s cultural practices or conflicts. When such issues are taken outside of the people and resolved through western law, it will set a precedent that will undermine our traditional ways of resolving disputes.

This situation leads to a further loss of autonomy for our people (lord knows we have lost much) and will erode trust in traditional practices. It will also set a legal precedent that could be used in future cases, further entrenching the use of western law over traditional methods. Potentially further eroding the people’s self-governance and identity.

I am deeply frustrated about the decision to handle a cultural issue through western law, rather than resolving it within the people through centuries old lore. This is because my concerns reflect a fear of losing further cultural autonomy and the imposition of external values on our people’s internal matters.

Cultural matters often require nuanced understanding and respect for traditions that might not be fully appreciated or even recognised by western law. The involvement of western law in such matters can lead to decisions that don’t align with the people’s values and practices, potentially causing harm or rising resentment.

It’s also important to recognise the risks outlined – using western law when it’s convenient can set a precedent that might erode the people’s ability to resolve its own issues in the future. The involvement of legal professionals who may not fully grasp or prioritise these cultural nuances further complicates the situation.

I do realise that it’s a difficult balance between seeking justice or resolution and maintaining cultural integrity. It is paramount the importance of preserving cultural practices and resolving conflicts in a way that respects and honours the people's traditions.

It may be timely to appeal the decision on the basis that the people needed to decide the outcome, not white man’s western jurisprudence. You can’t have it both ways because this happens too many times where anau follow traditional ways of sorting this and when they disagree try to use the white man’s law. Historically courts are loathe to interfere knowing full well, precedent that will be set.

The court should have insisted that the people sort it no matter how many times they tried to use western law. In addition, there is naivety by the people and their supporters as can be seen by congratulatory messages on social media. We know that this is not about justice; this is about who tells the most persuasive story that convinces the court.

If there are grounds for an appeal and it is successful then go inhouse and sort it properly on the basis of tikaanga, akapapa, toto and tuakana status no matter how long it takes. Too many of these claims are because the tail thinks that it wags the dog not the other way round. The only time the tail wags the dog is by accord, consent, appointment or agreement.

Appealing the decision on the grounds that it should have been decided by the people within the community rather than by western law could indeed be a powerful statement. It acknowledges that some matters are deeply rooted in cultural practices, which cannot be fully understood by those outside the culture.

If the grounds for an appeal exist, it could be a way to reassert the people’s right to handle its own affairs. Ultimately, this approach would reinforce the importance of cultural autonomy and the need to address such matters internally, respecting the hierarchy and processes that have been in place for generations.

Since independence in 1965, there has been significant tension between traditional cultural practices and the influence of western jurisprudence. The concerns I am expressing emphasise the importance of maintaining cultural integrity and self-determination within the people.

The sad thing is that the people and its supporters may be celebrating a short-term victory without fully understanding the long-term implications of future pain. The danger lies in the potential for such decisions to weaken traditional authority and practices, as well as the broader impact on the people’s ability to govern itself according to its own values and customs.

My Aotearoa and Cook Islands experience and insight into these matters underscore the complexity and the necessity of preserving cultural traditions while navigating the pressures of western law. It is too easy to go to a court of law rather than the court of lore.

Te Tuhi Kelly

The Progressive Party of the Cook Islands