Editing Banaba (section)

==== Legal challenges ====
In 1947, the [[British Phosphate Commission]]ers negotiated with the Banabans of Rabi Island for the acquisition of the remaining economically workable land on Ocean Island. The High Commissioner refrained from participating in the negotiations, leaving the Banabans without needed knowledge and advice. The Banabans agreed to sell their land for £82,000 and a fixed royalty rate, unaware that the British Phosphate Commissioners operated as a [[Nonprofit organization|non-profit entity]], aimed at allowing Australian and New Zealand farmers to gain advantages from acquiring phosphates at prices below the market rate.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=July 1979 |title=Decolonization |url=https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/sites/www.un.org.dppa.decolonization/files/decon_num_15-1.pdf |journal=United Nations Department of Political Affairs, Trusteeship and Decolonization |issue=15 |page=15}}</ref>

Sir [[Robert Megarry]] described the 1947 transaction as a "major disaster" for the Banabans. Despite later increases in royalty rates, resentment among the Banabans persisted, mostly due to the fact that royalties paid to the government of the Gilbert and Ellice Colony were higher than what they received. This general dissatisfaction along with the example of recently-independent [[Island country|island-nation]] [[Nauru]] led them demand independence for Ocean Island, however, these were not granted by the British, with concerns about revenue loss cited.

In 1968, the Banabans brought their case to the [[Special Committee on Decolonization|United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation]]. Here, they garnered sympathy from committee members who urged the United Kingdom to take measures to improve the Banabans' situation, but refrained from supporting their plea for secession.

Simultaneously, the Banabans [[Tito v Waddell (No 2)|pursued legal action]]. In proceedings before the [[High Court of Justice|High Court in London]], the Council of Leaders in Rabi Island, along with several Banaban landowners, alleged that the Crown held a [[Fiduciary|fiduciary relationship]] with the Banabans. They claimed that in the 1931 and 1947 transactions, the Crown had breached this relationship due to a conflict of duty and interest.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Conaglen |first=Matthew |date=2006 |title=A Re-Appraisal of the Fiduciary Self-Dealing and Fair-Dealing Rules |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4509206. |journal=The Cambridge Law Journal |volume=65 |issue=2 |page=366 |JSTOR=4509206}}</ref>  The claim of fiduciary relationship was dismissed by the Court, because the term "trust" in the Mining Ordinance 1927 was not used in the technical sense, but rather in the sense of an unenforceable government obligation. The claim for the beach to be restored, from the 1948 agreement, was according to the Court, time barred.

Sir Robert, however, who was highly reproachful of the British colonial administration, took the sides of the Banabans during the case, "Ocean Island no. 1", which claimed that the British Phosphate Commissioners did not fulfil obligations under the 1913 agreement. The Commissioners were found liable for damages, but the plaintiffs were required to cover legal costs, which likely exceeded the awarded damages.

In 1977, a senior official, [[Richard Posnett|Mr. R.N. Posnett]], was tasked with investigating financial and constitutional issues affecting the Banaban community's future. After visiting the Gilbert and Rabi Island, Posnett recommended a $A 10 million ''[[Ex gratia|ex-gratia]]'' payment from the British, Australian, and New Zealand governments to the Banabans.<ref>{{Cite web |date=31 July 1978 |title=Banabans |url=https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1978-07-31/debates/ae73ff0b-1cf0-4b93-9501-769677ffc6b5/Banabans |website=UK Parliament}}</ref>

Simultaneously, discussions about Banaba's constitutional status within the Gilbert Islands occurred in London in July 1977 between the British Government and a Gilbert Islands delegation. The delegation aimed to maintain the territorial integrity of the Gilbert Islands while seeking agreement with the Banaban community. Although talks in London and later in [[Tarawa]] in October 1977, known as the Bairiki Resolutions, appeared promising, including the proposal for a UN-supervised referendum on the separation of Banaba from the Gilberts, the resolutions were never implemented.<ref name=":1" />