- The Mabo Case was a significant legal case in Australia that recognised the land rights of the Meriam people, traditional owners of the Murray Islands (which include the islands of Mer, Dauer and Waier) in the Torres Strait.
- The Mabo Case was successful in overturning the myth that at the time of colonisation Australia was ‘terra nullius’ or land belonging to no one.
- The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. Twelve months later the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was passed
- The five Meriam people who mounted the case were Eddie Koiki Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Sam Passi, James Rice and one Meriam women, Celuia Mapo Sale. Eddie Koiki Mabo was the first named plaintiff and the case became known as the Mabo Case.
Running the case
Legal proceedings for the case began on 20 May 1982, when a group of four Meriam men, Eddie Koiki Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Sam Passi, James Rice and one Meriam women, Celuia Mapo Sale, brought an action against the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia, in the High Court, claiming 'native title' to the Murray Islands.
The Mabo Case challenged the existing Australian legal system from two perspectives:
- On the assumption that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had no concept of land ownership before the arrival of British colonisers in 1788 (terra nullius).
- That sovereignty delivered complete ownership of all land in the new Colony to the Crown, abolishing any existing rights that may have existed previously.
On 27 February 1986, the Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, sent the case to the Supreme Court of Queensland to hear and determine the facts of the claim. The Supreme Court judge hearing the case was Justice Moynihan. The hearing was adjourned when Eddie Mabo and the people of Mer brought a second case to the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985.
The Queensland Parliament passed the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 in an attempt to pre-empt the Meriam peoples’ case. The aim of the legislation was to retrospectively extinguish the claimed rights of the Meriam people to the Murray Islands.
As a result, the High Court had to consider whether the Queensland legislation was valid and effective. The High Court found the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act to be invalid because it was in conflict with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This case became known as Mabo v. Queensland (No. 1) and the decision meant the original case could continue.
Justice Moynihan resumed the hearing of the facts in the case presented by Eddie Mabo and the people of Mer with sittings taking place on Murray Island as well as on the mainland.
‘After some argument Moynihan J accepted the plaintiffs’ request that the court should adjourn and reconvene on Murray Island for three days, to take evidence, particularly from 16 witnesses, mainly elderly and frail, and also to take a view of the claimed areas of garden plots and adjacent seas… When opening proceedings on the Island on 23 May 1989, Moynihan J ‘doubted [whether] the Court has ever sat further north or perhaps further east’, and certainly never before on Murray Island. On 26–27 May 1989 the Court also sat in the Magistrates’ Court of Thursday Island and heard five Islander witnesses. The visit, as Moynihan J noted in his opening statement, provided a better understanding of the evidence, and of island life. It also revealed the first opposition from some Islanders to the claims being made: two Islanders were called by Queensland during these sittings to oppose Eddie Mabo’s claims.’ – Brian Keon-Cohen, Barrister[i]
Justice Moynihan handed down his determination of facts on 16 November 1990, which meant the High Court could begin it’s hearing of the legal issues in the case.
The case presented by Eddie Mabo and the people of Mer successfully proved that Meriam custom and laws are fundamental to their traditional system of ownership and underpin their traditional rights and obligations in relation to land.
On 3 June 1992, six of the seven High Court judges upheld the claim and ruled that the lands of this continent were not terra nullius or ‘land belonging to no-one’ when European settlement occurred, and that the Meriam people were 'entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of (most of) the lands of the Murray Islands'.
In Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), judgments of the High Court inserted the legal doctrine of native title into Australian law. The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. They had been dispossessed of their lands piece by piece as the colony grew and that very dispossession underwrote the development of Australia as a nation.
The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished.
Brian Keon Cohen recalls:
'I rang Murray Island — that is to say, I rang the phone box located, as readers will recall, outside the general store. The conversation went something like this:
"Hello, Bryan Keon-Cohen here, who’s that?"
"Do you remember Eddie Mabo’s case, that court case about land?"
"Well, I’m ringing you from that Court in Canberra where those top judges are, you know, that High Court."
"Well, those judges, they told us their decision just now: Eddie won. You Murray Islanders have won that court case. You own the island under your laws and custom."
[Screams of what I took to be joy, laughter, yelling, much discussion in the background.]
"Hello! Hello! Is anyone there?" says I.
"Oh thank you, thank you, we are very happy, I have to go and tell my Mum. Goodbye."
"Bye. See ya."'
– Brian Keon-Cohen[ii]
The High Court decision in the Mabo v. Queensland (No.2) altered the foundation of land law in Australia and the following year the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), was passed through the Australian Parliament. This opened the way for claims by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to their traditional rights to land and compensation.
Kesi ya Mabo ilikuwa kesi muhimu ya kisheria nchini Australia ambayo ilitambua haki za ardhi za watu wa Meriam, wamiliki wa jadi wa Visiwa vya Murray (ambayo ni pamoja na visiwa vya Mer, Dauer na Weyer) katika Torres Strait. - Kesi ya Mabo ilifanikiwa katika kuangusha hadithi kwamba wakati wa ukoloni Australia ilikuwa <unk>terra nullius<unk> au ardhi isiyo ya mtu yeyote. Mahakama ya juu ilitambua ukweli kwamba watu wa asili walikuwa wameishi Australia kwa maelfu ya miaka na kufurahia haki za ardhi yao kulingana na sheria zao na desturi. Mwaka 1993 sheria ya Native Title Act (NTA) ilianza kutumika na watu watano wa Meriam walioshiriki katika kesi hiyo: Eddie Koike Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Sam Passi, James Rice na mwanamke mmoja wa Meriam, Celuia Mapo Sale. Eddie Koiki Mabo alikuwa mwombaji wa kwanza aliyeitwa na kesi hiyo ilijulikana kama Kesi ya Mabo. Kesi hiyo ilianza Mei 20, 1982, wakati kikundi cha wanaume wanne wa Merriam, Eddie Koike Mabo, Mchungaji David Passi, Sam Passi, James Rice na mwanamke mmoja wa Merriam, Celia Mapo Sale, walipeleka kesi dhidi ya Jimbo la Queensland na Jumuiya ya Madola ya Australia, katika Mahakama Kuu, wakidai 'kichwa cha asili' kwa Visiwa vya Murray. Kesi ya Mabo ilishambulia mfumo wa kisheria wa Australia kutoka kwa mtazamo mbili: - Kwa dhana kwamba watu wa asili na Torres Strait Islander hawakuwa na dhana ya umiliki wa ardhi kabla ya kuwasili kwa wakoloni wa Uingereza mnamo 1788 (terra nullius). - Utawala huo ulitoa umiliki kamili wa ardhi yote katika Koloni mpya kwa Taji, ukiondoa haki zozote zilizopo ambazo zinaweza kuwa zilikuwepo hapo awali. Mnamo Februari 27, 1986, Jaji Mkuu Sir Harry Gibbs alimtuma kesi hiyo kwa Mahakama Kuu ya Queensland ili kusikiliza na kuamua ukweli wa madai. Hakimu wa Mahakama Kuu aliyesikiliza kesi hiyo alikuwa Hakimu Moynihan. "Kulingana na taarifa za mahakama, ""Eddie Mabo na watu wa Mer walileta kesi ya pili kwa Mahakama Kuu ya Queensland, wakipinga uhalali wa kikatiba wa Sheria ya Kutangaza Visiwa vya Pwani ya Queensland ya 1985.""" Bunge la Queensland lilipitisha Sheria ya Utangazaji wa Visiwa vya Pwani ya Queensland mnamo 1985 katika jaribio la kuzuia kesi ya watu wa Meriam. Lengo la sheria hiyo lilikuwa kufuta haki zilizodaiwa za watu wa Meriam kwenye Visiwa vya Murray. Matokeo yakawa kwamba Mahakama Kuu ililazimika kuchunguza ikiwa sheria ya Queensland ilikuwa halali na yenye matokeo. Mahakama ya Juu ya Queensland ilitangaza kuwa sheria hiyo haikuwa halali kwa sababu ilikuwa inapatana na sheria ya ubaguzi wa rangi ya 1975. Kesi hiyo ilikuja kujulikana kama Mabo v. Queensland (Nambari. 1) na uamuzi huo ulimaanisha kesi ya awali ingeweza kuendelea. Jaji Moynihan aliendelea na kusikilizwa kwa ukweli wa kesi iliyowasilishwa na Eddie Mabo na watu wa Mer na mikutano iliyofanyika katika Kisiwa cha Murray na pia kwenye bara. "Baada ya hoja fulani, Moynihan J alikubali ombi la walalamikaji kwamba mahakama ipumzike na kukutana tena katika kisiwa cha Murray kwa siku tatu, kuchukua ushahidi, hasa kutoka kwa mashahidi 16, hasa wazee na dhaifu, na pia kuchukua mtazamo wa maeneo ya mashamba ya bustani na bahari zilizo karibu... ""Alipoanzisha kesi kwenye kisiwa hicho mnamo Mei 23, 1989, Moynihan J alishuku ikiwa mahakama hiyo imewahi kukaa kaskazini zaidi au labda mashariki zaidi." Mnamo 26 Mei, Mahakama hiyo ilikutana pia katika Mahakama ya Magistrates ya Kisiwa cha Alhamisi na kusikiliza mashahidi watano wa Kisiwa hicho. Ziara hiyo, kama Moynihan J alivyosema katika taarifa yake ya ufunguzi, ilitoa uelewa bora wa ushahidi, na wa maisha ya kisiwa. "Kama ilivyotangazwa na mahakama ya Queensland, kesi hiyo ilifanyika kwa mara ya kwanza mnamo Novemba 16, 1990 na ilisababisha mahakama ya juu kuanza kusikiliza kesi hiyo kwa ""kutoa uamuzi wa ukweli"" mnamo Novemba 16, 1990." Kesi iliyotolewa na Eddie Mabo na watu wa Mer ilithibitisha kwa mafanikio kwamba desturi na sheria za Meriam ni msingi wa mfumo wao wa jadi wa umiliki na kuimarisha haki zao za jadi na wajibu kuhusiana na ardhi. "Kutokana na uamuzi huo, mahakimu sita kati ya saba wa Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani waliamua kwamba ""nchi ya bara hili haikuwa terra nullius au ""nchi ya mtu yeyote"" wakati makazi ya Ulaya yalipoanza, na kwamba watu wa Meriam walikuwa na haki dhidi ya ulimwengu wote wa kumiliki, kumiliki, kutumia na kufurahia (sehemu kubwa) ya ardhi ya Visiwa vya Murray." Katika Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), hukumu za Mahakama Kuu ziliingiza fundisho la kisheria la haki ya asili katika sheria ya Australia. Mahakama ya Juu ilitambua ukweli kwamba watu wa asili walikuwa wameishi Australia kwa maelfu ya miaka na kufurahia haki za ardhi yao kulingana na sheria zao na desturi. Walikuwa wameachiliwa ardhi yao kipande kwa kipande kadiri koloni lilivyokua na kwamba kuachiliwa kwao kulisaidia maendeleo ya Australia kama taifa. "Doktrina mpya ya ""native title"" ilibadilisha mafundisho ya karne ya kumi na saba ya ""terra nullius"" ambayo madai ya Uingereza ya kumiliki Australia yalihalalishwa kwa dhana isiyo ya haki ya kisheria kwamba watu wa asili hawakuwa na sheria iliyowekwa inayosimamia kazi na matumizi ya ardhi." Kwa kutambua kwamba watu wa asili nchini Australia walikuwa na haki za awali za ardhi, Mahakama ilisema kwamba haki hizi, ambapo zipo leo, zitakuwa na ulinzi wa sheria ya Australia hadi haki hizo zikatoweka kisheria. Brian Keon Cohen anakumbuka: 'Nilipiga simu ya Kisiwa cha Murray <unk> yaani, nilipiga simu ya sanduku lililoko, kama wasomaji watakavyokumbuka, nje ya duka la jumla. Mazungumzo yalienda hivi: "Halo, Bryan Keon-Cohen hapa, ni nani huyo?" "Je, unakumbuka kesi ya Eddie Mabo, kesi hiyo ya mahakama kuhusu ardhi?" "Naam, mimi nina kupiga simu wewe kutoka mahakama hiyo katika Canberra ambapo wale majaji juu ni, unajua, kwamba Mahakama Kuu". "Naam, mahakimu hao, walituambia uamuzi wao hivi karibuni: Eddie alishinda. Wewe Murray Islanders umeshinda kesi hiyo ya mahakamani. Wewe ni mmiliki wa kisiwa hicho chini ya sheria na desturi zako". [Kupiga kelele kwa kile nilichokiona kuwa furaha, kicheko, kelele, majadiliano mengi nyuma ya nyuma.] "Hello! Halo! How are you? Je, kuna mtu yeyote?" Ninasema hivyo. """Asante sana, tunafurahi sana, na lazima niende kumwambia mama yangu." Kuaga". "Salamu. Tutaonana baadaye. " "Brian Keon-Cohen, mwanasheria wa sheria ya ardhi ya Australia, alisema: ""Hukumu ya Mahakama Kuu katika kesi ya Mabo v. Queensland (Number 2) ilibadilisha msingi wa sheria ya ardhi nchini Australia na mwaka uliofuata Sheria ya Native Title 1993 (Cth) ilipitishwa kupitia Bunge la Australia." Hii ilifungua njia kwa madai ya Wenyeji wa Asili na Torres Strait Islander watu kwa haki zao za jadi kwa ardhi na fidia.