A year after the Supreme Court ruled that the 2013 Constitution is the valid supreme law in Fiji, that constitution is set to be dumped by Christmas.
How? The answer is contained in just three sentences in a government Facebook statement yesterday that much of the mainstream media hasn’t yet noticed but is already sending shock waves through the community – the Coalition’s plans to push through a new constitution formulated by the Constitutional Review Commission within the space of just 12 weeks.
So now we know, Fiji. Or at least we know the government’s timetable. And we will know soon enough what the new constitution contains when it is tabled at a special sitting in the parliament next Tuesday.
Prepare for some shocks. Because while we know, for instance, that the Great Council of Chiefs is being enshrined in the supreme law and will have a great deal of power, it is the rumours about what the new document contains to enshrine iTaukei supremacy that has the minorities on edge.
There are already reports that the secular state is to be abolished. There will be religious freedom as there is now but the state will be able, by law, to favour Christianity. The secular state provisions of the 2013 Constitution that require the state to be neutral on religious matters will be gone.
Among other things, there will be no legal impediment to the state making special provisions for the Christian faith and no legal impediment to the state giving preferential treatment to Christians in such things as the provision of government jobs.
But will the new constitution go even further? Will it abolish the common and equal citizenry in which the votes of all citizens have equal status and all citizens have the same opportunities irrespective of ethnicity? We didn’t have that before the 2013 Constitution. Is the clock to be wound back to again entrench the position of the iTaukei?
And what of the common identity, of everyone being entitled to call themselves “Fijian”? Leaked portions of the new draft suggest that it will be retained in the supreme law for now but there will be a national debate – some form of consultation – about whether it is appropriate . Which is no guarantee at all that “Fijian” will remain the common identity.
Does the government have the numbers in the parliament to railroad the new constitution through? We are about to find out. But let’s remind ourselves how the two-thirds majority the Supreme Court ruled is necessary to alter the 2013 Constitution has come about.
- The Coalition used public money to buy off a significant number of MPs who were elected in 2022 as FijiFirst members and were legally able to join the government – all of them with handsomely-paid cabinet positions – when FijiFirst imploded.
- These individuals are about to betray the principles on which they were elected – their support for the 2013 Constitution and its equal opportunity provisions – by voting for its abolition. It is a monumental breach of trust – a two-fingered salute to the voters who put them there – along with a travesty of democracy that they could do so without submitting themselves again to the electorate.
- As the 2013 Constitution is pulled apart and destroyed, the minorities also have cause to remember the betrayal of their interests by Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
- Why? Because they gave us equal opportunity in the first place, won more votes in 2022 than anyone else but walked away from the parliament in a massive hissy-fit because Sitiveni Rabuka was able to swing just one vote in his favour and take government in coalition with the NFP and SODELPA. It is Frank and Aiyaz who have left us without an effective opposition for the past four years and left us exposed to the tyranny of the majority. And that will not be forgotten.
What will the NFP do? They can hardly support anything that disadvantages the minorities. Yet they too have betrayed us with their continual appeasement of their Coalition partners, including their silence on the blatant workplace ethnic cleansing that continues to this day and failure to reject the use of the term “vulagi” to describe non-indigenous Fijians – visitors in their own country of birth.
With the NFP leader, Biman Prasad, before the courts on trial for corruption, Fiji’s oldest party is a shell of its former self. And any hope that it would act as a bulwark in the parliament to protect the interests of the minorities has been further eroded by the sudden death of Agni Deo Singh, who is not being replaced before the election, reducing the NFP to just four votes.
Assuming the remaining four stay true to their principles – which the former FijiFirst Rabuka recruits abandoned – are there enough votes in the parliament to deprive the government of the two-thirds majority it needs? That is now very doubtful. So we must assume that parliament passes the new constitution and it then goes to the people in the referendum of all voters.
The mechanics of running that referendum are still being assessed and assembled. Can it be done in the required time?
Given that the Elections Office has said it is ready for the scheduled election by the end of the first week in February, is it going to be able to deliver a national referendum before that? “Between November and mid-December”, as the government statement stipulates?
Seriously? In eight week’s time?
- What will be the questions? We don’t yet know. That all has to pass through the parliament. And then the referendum papers will need to be printed and distributed.
- A total of 723,771 Fijians are now registered for the actual election in Fiji and overseas, 29,856 more than were on the roll in 2022. They will all be eligible to vote in the referendum.
- How is the Elections Office going to have time to print the referendum papers when the questions won’t be finalised until into October and hold the vote in Fiji and the diaspora “between November and mid-December?”
- There are only two possible answers: With the greatest of difficulty or (much more likely) it can’t. Which is why this whole timetable is stretching credulity to the limit.
The Coalition has had four years to change the constitution and now wants to sandwich it into a period of three months.
- It is a recipe for chaos because these timelines aren’t enough for most Fijians to be able to successively organise a village veiqaravi or church bazaar, let alone introduce a new supreme law.
- It is a recipe for conflict because we know – having wanted the 1997 Constitution restored – that the agenda of the People’s Alliance and SODELPA – the principal members of the Coalition – is to entrench indigenous supremacy.
- And on top of all the nation’s other challenges – the HIV crisis, the drugs crisis, the collapse of the health system, the brain drain of our best and brightest, including 1000 school teachers etc, etc – it is madness of the first order.
And are the rumours true that one of the referendum questions will be: “Do you agree that the coming election should be postponed so the changes to the electoral system contained in the new constitution can be implemented?“
Fasten your seat belts, Fiji. We are in for one hell of a ride.
____________________________
The government statement in full:
So out of the blue that most mainstream media outlets haven’t yet covered it.
This is the front page of today’s Fiji Times:
Seven missing cocaine bars from the High Court is sensational enough. But is it more important than a new constitution by Christmas?
This morning, at least the Internet edition of the Fiji Times is giving the story the attention it deserves.
_____________________
As for analysis, like so often, you’ve got it here first.
On another subject, once again the former prime minister and Fiji Labour Party leader, Mahendra Chaudhry, fills the role of opposition leader from outside the parliament with a stinging condemnation of Sitiveni Rabuka’s decision to defy all wisdom and re-appoint the lamentable Pita Wise.
Arreh Wah, Prime Minister, indeed.
A moral pygmy leading a government of moral pygmies.
(AI created from original photo)
And the rushing it through is what’s most concerning.
The importance of a Constitution should reflect the time spent in genuine public consultation, reviewing, drafting, re-drafting, getting the details correct etc. It’s not a High School essay like the Coalition are treating it.
They haven’t even finalised or passed the Referendum Bill yet. Another rush job.
The way the Coalition go about most things makes them look very childish, impulsive and un-evolved. This reflects very negatively on Fiji from an international stance.
Rolex Rambo’s resounding slap on Baiman’s face was heard across entire Fiji. When Rambo bluntly media that no, the vacant ministry of employment portfolio would not go back to NFP. That’s the payment gets for being an immoral coward who never backed his people.
Baiman was so deep inside Rabuka’s arse that at every time he came on TV he was praising Rabuka. He continuously said I trust Rsbuka and NFP trust Rabuka. He continued with the same behavior in government, praising Rambo every opportunity. Even when Rabuka farted Baiman his chamcha would praise the smell and sound of his fart. It became so embarrassing and demeaning. It was a measure of the pathetic individual that he was.
This nincompoop was too busy eyeing the wife of one of his own NFP provisional candidates . A dumb bastard and immoral to boot. I don’t support Rabuka but he did the right thing because NFP has lost the mandate because of its weak and rubbish leader.
As a military man Rabuka knows a coward when he sees one. Anything Baiman touched turns to shit and he would’ve brought the whole government down with him at the next election.
What we are seeing happening in Fiji today is to a large extent due to the failure of one man, the Bastard from Babasiga, Baiman Prasad.
Now we see the true position of the Rabuka Government, which is to return Fiji to the past and finish the 1987 Coup agenda.
Having been in Government for almost 4 years they now wait to the last minute to do it all in less that 4 months. So as to ensure there is little scrutiny or chance to challenge what is being proposed. You will now see an indecent haste by the Government to pass legislation to conduct a referendum as the earlier Referendum Bill was withdrawn as it was poorly drafted, lacked detail on the process and was designed to exclude any opposition to a referendum question or questions. No doubt the new bill will be as lacking in detail and be designed to prevent opposition or campaigning for a no vote.
The Government is also assuming that a referendum will pass the Parliament and be approved by the people of Fiji. We therefore assume the Government is already drafting the referendum question(s) and is not even waiting for the report of the Constitutional Review Commission to be tabled in Parliament, to meet the timetable they have outlined. There may only be ONE QUESTION – Do you approve the new Constitution designed by Constitutional Commission?
They then propose the new Constitution coming into effect on 24 December with most believing that an election could be called on 24 December for 7 February. Not so!Once the new Constitution is in place then the new electoral system may apply. With proposed individual constituencies, a proportional component and the reintroduction of a Senate. That will not be in place for months not weeks!
It would require the boundaries of each electorate to be defined, including the tolerance allowed between electorates in terms of number of electors. That will see the lobbing of political parties, potential candidates and other actors and the need for an independent body to conduct such a process.
In essence the Referendum if passed will result in the Government in power staying in power until an election can be held under the new electoral system. The question whether the people of Fiji will accept a Referendum and no election.
Rabuka knows how to use greedy Fiji Indians. The two CRC Fiji Indians have sold their souls to him, just like the former DPM. Shaking hands with the devil at the expense of their own communities, which they then tick-box in the name of “diversity and inclusion”.
No, you do not represent us. To these male Fiji Indians, whether in politics, academia or business: from where I’m sitting, all you seem to be doing is filling your own bloody pockets while your own kids are safe overseas, making sure you extract enough from the system to fund your own future generations overseas while you stay in Fiji enjoying the local fame and kava.
In another 40 years, I think Fijians will regard Rabuka the way the world regards Hitler. There’s a reason why world history needs to be taught properly in our schools. Heck- no world history let alone proper Fiji history is taught in schools!!
Fijians need to know about these things and what evil people have done throughout history. From the outside, many can see what is happening here.
Rabuka is nothing less than Hitler to me. His followers remind me of Nazis, and we will suffer. The Fiji population as it is today will suffer for the next four or five years at least, if not a decade.
And then what? If huge numbers of people leave Fiji, nobody wants to come here anymore, Fiji is no longer what it should be, and hardly anybody of other ethnicities is left, what will we have become? Just another poor third-world country. Eventually the donations will stop pouring in as well. Australia will forget its “vuvale”. And yep, perhaps even the Christianity being pushed so heavily today will eventually lose its hold.
That is my grim forecast. I hope I am wrong.
I humbly appeal to NFP and to Honourable Sanjay Kirpal, Shalen Kumar, Virendra Lal, Sachida Nand and Vijay Nath to stand with the Opposition and vote against the proposed new Constitution.
You hold a critical responsibility at this moment. Your decision could have lasting consequences for equality, representation and the future governance of Fiji
Whatever our differences and whatever may have happened in the past, I believe there comes a time when we must put those things aside and look beyond ourselves. The 2013 Constitution’s non-recognition of the Great Council of Chiefs ultimately benefited ordinary iTaukei citizens by ensuring that political authority rests with elected representatives rather than unelected traditional leaders.
There should be no place for unelected chiefs to have constitutional authority over the governance of our country. Fiji belongs equally to all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity, and our constitutional system should reflect that principle.
As representatives of our community (Indo-Fiiians), I sincerely ask you to do what is right for Fiji and for all its citizens—not merely what may bring political mileage. Please put the long-term interests of our country above political advantage and make the decision that will best serve Fiji’s future.
The hour of reckoning is upon us, and history will remember the choices made at this moment.
Please choose the future of Fiji.
The timetable that the Government has put out is all based on everything falling into place for the Referendum and nothing stopping or slowly their course of actions.
If a political party or group who participate in the Referendum believe and have evidence that the process for the people to vote on the question(s) or the processes for counting the ballots (like people denied votes, postal votes not being received by electors, postal votes not counted, etc) was not done according to the legislation they could lodge a petition with the Court of Disputed Returns. If the court has jurisdiction over a Referendum, which should be the case as there must be a procedure to challenge how a Referendum is done.
If that happened, then the next steps on the Constitution would be delayed until the Court of Disputed Returns made a decision on the petition.
That would delay any election timed to follow the Referendum.
The other point I make is the procedure for Parliament to pass a bill to amend the Constitution. The time in the section for amendment is not the same as the Government proposes. The Parliament is supposed to have 30 days between the two debate points and the second debate can only take place after the Standing Committee report. The supreme court advised that a bill could pass with a 2/3 majority of members. But that advice did not change the Constitution.
The existing Constitution at s.160 says the following:
Procedure for amendment
160.—(1) A Bill for the amendment of this Constitution must be expressed as a Bill for an Act to amend this Constitution.
(2) A Bill for the amendment of this Constitution must be passed by Parliament in accordance with the following procedure—
(a) the Bill is read 3 times in Parliament;
(b) at the second and third readings, it is supported by the votes of at least three-quarters of the members of Parliament;
(c) an interval of at least 30 days elapses between the second and third readings and each of those readings is preceded by full opportunity for debate; and
(d) the third reading of the Bill in Parliament does not take place until after the relevant standing committee has reported on the Bill to Parliament.
(3) If a Bill for the amendment of this Constitution is passed by Parliament in accordance with subsection (2), then the Speaker shall notify the President accordingly, who shall then refer the Bill to the Electoral Commission,
for the Electoral Commission to conduct a referendum for all registered voters in Fiji to vote on the Bill.
(4) The referendum for the purposes of subsection (3) shall be conducted by the Electoral Commission in such manner as prescribed by written law.
(5) The Electoral Commission shall, immediately after the referendum, notify the President of the outcome and shall publish the outcome of the referendum in the media.
(6) If the outcome of the referendum is that three-quarters of the total number of the registered voters have voted in favour of the Bill, then the President must assent to the Bill, which shall come into force on the date of the Presidential assent or on such other date as prescribed in the Bill.
(7) In this section, the use of the word “amend” or “amendment” is intended to be understood broadly, so that the section applies to any proposal to repeal, replace, revise, or alter any provision or provisions of this Constitution