"... if it fails to follow custom".

In early June, 2025, local news outlets covered the investiture of Susan Love de Miguel as Makea Nui Takau Susan Ariki; and just days ago, the same outlets covered the inaugural investiture of Tangianau Kokaua as Makea Arera Ariki. In both cases, genealogy or more specifically tracing a pedigree of blood-relationships is a significant element. This type of tracing might seem logical, but in context of things like taonga and ngati—terms with specific meanings distinct from contemporary understanding—it is damningly illogical and perpetuates a mutilated "native custom". Ironically, in spite of the obvious and protracted predicament which has fouled the history, society, and polity of the entire island since the early 1820’s, it is an appeal to "custom" which Rarotonga ultimately makes in matters of land tenure and title succession.

On Monday 2 June, 2025, CITV News cited part of the 19 February 2016 Court of Appeal ruling on the Makea Nui succession:

"(a) The primogeniture rule, by custom, applies to the appointment of the Makea Nui Ariki

(b) The primogeniture rule is that 'the eldest surviving child of the deceased Ariki, or in default of issue, the eldest of the next branch succeeds'.

(c) The exceptions to the primogeniture rule are:

(i) There exists an arrangement requested by the deceased Ariki and approved by the Kopu Ariki before the Ariki's death;

(ii) The person is unsuitable to be the Ariki;

(iii) The person otherwise entitled has left the tribe and/or is living abroad.

(d) The Kopu Ariki appoints the Makea Nui Ariki but its selection, including a decision on suitability or unsuitability, is reviewable by the High Court if it fails to follow custom"

In this portion alone, there are several significant flaws:

1. Peu Maori, or Native Custom, has never been formally investigated or established by the court or the legislative body;

2. Therefore, primogeniture has never been established, legally or lawfully, as the customary succession rule to chiefly titles;

3. Consequently, the High Court cannot review or rule on decisions or selections pertaining to Titles (or Land for that matter) which "fails to follow" custom that has never been investigated—what exactly would be reviewed?

4. Perhaps the most egregious is exception (iii) which includes a limit on a person’s customary rights based on geography.

It is precedent and folk-doctrines that determine matters of Land and Title in the collective Rarotongan mind, not Peu Maori. You can argue that traditions are living and evolving but Peu Maori isn’t liable to evolution, only it’s execution. The proof is in the pudding: every investiture which has sought legitimacy relies on a tri-fold appeal to land (tapere), sacred edifice (marae/koutu), and social recognition of the title (ngati + matakeinanga).

This is Peu Maori and it is Peu Maori which underpins even the most egregious of claims, explaining the phenomena which is the existence of myriad so-called mataiapo, as many as there are sections of land (this type of surveying is also a serious transgression). Yet, the old and true rule persists unconsciously in our minds: one tapere, one mataiapo tutara.

Even then, the terms themselves become twisted to serve narcissistic goals. Today, “ngati” is synonymous with kopu tangata and family, but are they really? Per the Appellate Court’s decision, they are not or should not be: “(iii) The person otherwise entitled has left the tribe…” [emphasis added]. How does one “leave” their blood-relationship status? In terms of tamariki angai, the door is left wide open for land succession and is to be determined, according to the House of Ariki, on a case-by-case basis by affected registered landowners. In practice, land succession is determined from the outset by blood-enumeration almost exclusively, as opposed to determination of tribal status. There are the cases of “title land” but that is topic worthy of its own discussion.

So in what way does an otherwise entitled person leave the tribe? “Living abroad” is precluded as that criterion is already made explicit. Under the current land tenure, the phrase “has left the tribe” is vain, meaningless. It’s an attempt to appear customary but having no foundation, kept aloft only by the hot air of akamea scientists and their folk-doctrines. In short, the customary "ngati" are presently non-existent—blood or familial bonds have superseded kinship based and tested boundaries which inform not only the definition of "ngati" but the entire system of Peu Maori. Ironically, for the phrase “has left the tribe” to have any real meaning or measurable effect, "ngati" must be based on that custom which has never been formally investigated but which continues to be ruled upon!

A "ngati" is a patrilocal corporatus, a kinship based and tested social body of united interests and assets, administered by a titular head. Composition is determined by relationships to fathers, preeminently the presiding father or patriarch being the titular head. In most cases, this is the founding chief or mataiapo tutara and kinship is traced (ideally) via an unbroken line of sons to their fathers all the way back to the founder. There are exceptions, including men being grafted (marrying or otherwise) from other tribes or unwed tribal daughters with children. In these cases, as long as she has not married out or "left the tribe", she remains a member of the ngati as well as her children. Properly, marriage was the way a daughter “left”, leaving to reside with her husband. Thus her children inherit via the husband. Even this old and true rule persists in the unconscious mind but in very loose sense.

And if these definitions are unacceptable, what is the alternative? I suggest it is as we see it: a corrupt, sick, and convoluted land tenure, conflicting registers of land titles, greedy, prideful, and ambitious land and title-grubbers.

By all means, let us continue to uphold these, our most sacred customs.