“This press release pertains to a community member from Akwesasne, lakowi he’ne / Melissa L. Oakes, who has filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada, challenging the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne’s (MCA) decision to sign the final settlement agreement for the New York Land Claim without adequate community education consultation, or consent.
The application argues that the MCA acted beyond its legal authority and breached its fiduciary obligations to its members by making a unilateral decision on a matter affecting collective rights and interests.
Restrictions Imposed by the Agreement
From the outset of the development of the land claim settlement agreement, both New York State and the Umted States Federal Government required the Tri-Council Plaintiff parties (St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs) to enter into a non-disclosure agreement. This agreement explicitly prohibited the plaintiffs from discussing any details with their own constituents, the Akwesasió:non (the community members of Akwesasne), whose ancestral lands were the subject of the claim
On September 22, 2025, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne publicly announced that it had signed the updated, final settlement agreement resolving the New York Land Claim. The decision was authorized through Mohawk Council Resolution (MCR) 2025-2026 #201, passed on September 22, 2025.”
“No new community referendum or structured consultation was held prior to this decision. The last recorded referendum on the land claim took place in 2004, over twenty years ago, and was tied to an earlier, substantially different land claim settlement proposal.
The federal court application contends that the absence of a renewed vote or informed consultation constitutes a violation of procedural fairness and fiduciary responsibility.
Ground for Judicial Review
The recent court filing by Ms. Oakes requests that the Canadian Federal Court determine whether:
- The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne acted beyond its lawful authority under the Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1-5) by signing a final settlement agreement without renewed community consent.
- The MCA breached its fiduciary duty to the people of Akwesasne by failing to ensure full transparency, education, and opportunity for participation in the decision-making process; and
- The council’s decision-making process failed to meet the procedural fairness standard required by Canadian administrative law.
A History of Community Response and Discontent
This filing is not the first action to express discontent with the land claim. When the Akwesasró:non and Kanien’kehá ka (Mohawk) from neighboring communities realized that the Tri-Council Plaintiffs were entering into agreements encompassing all their ancestral lands, they responded with both physical and written protests as early as December 2024, voicing their opposition to the lack of transparency and the implications of the settlement.”
Photo Credit: Jackie Hall
“The People of the Longhouse took action by writing to the President of the United States. In their correspondence, they cited violations of treaties and peace promises made to the Rotinonhsón ni (Iroquois Confederacy) since the arrival of Europeans on the land of the Kanen’kehá ka People. The Rotinonhsón ni Grand Council initially supported the land claim action, but it never approved it, nor did it issue any directive authorizing parties to enter into a land claim settlement agreement involving a monetary settlement that would impact the integrity of Rotinonhson ni lands. During a session held in September 2023, the land claim agreement was formally placed in the Well of the Grand Council on September 16, 2023, and discussed by all Confederacy Nations on September 30, 2023. The Grand Council made it clear that:
- They had never granted the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs or the three parties of the Tri Council Plaintiffs in the Land Claim Settlement Agreement permission or sanction to proceed with decisions affecting all Mohawk Land claims.
- If the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Land Claim Settlement Agreement were to move forward, any resulting Act of Congress would be considered invalid by the Grand Council
As of December 2024, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs formally withdrew as a party in the land claim settlement.”
“On February 26th, 2024, outside the Federal Court House in Syracuse, New York, during a court mediation of the relevant land claim parties, Akwesasró non and other Kanen’keha ka gathered to voice dissent against the land claim settlement. At this protest meeting, the Federal Mediator, John Bickerman, approached the microphone and told all the protesters publicly to be patient – that when an agreement was reached by the parties in this land claim settlement agreement and that there is an approval or disapproval process where the community members would be given the right to approve or disapprove the settlement according to their own procedures.”
“A protester approached Mr. Bickerman and informed Akwesasó non that the MCA and SRMT were planning to use an outdated 2004 referendum to demonstrate approval from their constituents. Mr.Bickerman stated publicly, “We’ll see about that.” To this day, community members have not had an opportunity to voice their position in a referendum through either MCA or the SRMT.”
“Procedural Fairness and Duty to Consult Members
Despite this clear community dissent, the Land Claim Settlement Agreement was signed by the MCA on October 22, 2023, and the MCA announced on October 23, 2023, to the Mohawk Community that the Agreement had been signed. Neither MCA nor SRMT scheduled the approval or disapproval process and refused to hold a referendum. The majority of MCA band members are unfamiliar with the negotiations over the lands, and there has been a notable lack of community education regarding the provisions of the land claim settlement. Administrative fairess requires public decision-making bodies, including band councils, to operate with openness, clarity, and accountability — especially when decisions affect communal assets, rights, or long-term interests.
The court filing application claims that the MCA:
- Did not provide sufficient notice or explanation to members regarding the contents of the updated settlement;
- Did not facilitate any education sessions or consultation forums to gather informed community feedback; and
- Proceeded to authorize the agreement through interim resolution without demonstrating that members understood or supported the final terms.
These alleged procedural shortcomings form the basis of the judicial challenge. Under the Indian Act, a band council holds limited delegated authority from the federal government to administer local governance matters, such as housing, bylaws, and community programs. It does not possess sovereign powers to make binding decisions that permanently affect the collective land rights or interests of its members.
Canadian courts have repeatedly affirmed that band councils and the Crown have fiduciary obligations to act in the best interests of Indigenous communities. This includes the duty to ensure that community members are properly informed and consulted before major decisions are made. Relevant Supreme Court decisions-such as Guerin v. The Queen (1984) and Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada (2002) – emphasize that failure to obtain informed consent or to act with full transparency may amount to a breach of that duty.
The judicial review argues that by signing the 2025 settlement without a renewed referendum or proper education process, the MCA overstepped its statutory mandate and failed to uphold its fiduciary responsibilities.
Significance of the Federal Court Filing and Moving Forward
This recent court filing raises an important legal question: Can a band council, operating under the Indian Act, make major decisions affecting collective land rights and long-term interests without renewed, informed consent from its members?
What we are calling for as Alwesasró non and band council members is:
- Immediate suspension of any actions or communications related to the implementation of the 2025 settlement;
- Full disclosure of all records, resolutions, and communications surrounding the council’s decision;
- A transparent and independently facilitated education process to present the settlement’s terms and implications to community members; and
- A new, fair referendum conducted with complete information and participation”
“This is about accountability and respect for due process,” said one community member. “No council can claim to represent the will of the people without first giving them the information and opportunity to decide for themselves.” Community member Melissa L. Oakes (lakowi he ne) has retained legal counsel to bring a judicial review of the MCA’s actions, “The Federal Court of Canada has accepted the application. MCA has been served with a notice from the federal court, and we await their response.” Reads a press release by Melissa L. Oakes, dated October 30th, 2025.
