Key stakeholders and non-governmental organizations have raised concerns about the immunity provisions in the 2013 Constitution, arguing that they increase the likelihood of future coups and should be eliminated. Their worries are detailed in the Fiji National Security and Defence Review Report (NSDR), which indicates that the immunity clause fosters a coup culture and is detrimental to Fiji.
The report, publicly released by Independent Review Lead James Sanday and NSDR Editorial Board Chairperson Satish Chand, along with Shailendra Singh and Ana Rokomokoti, emphasizes that the leadership of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is aware of the low and fragile levels of community trust in them and understands the reasons behind this distrust.
“It is evident that the trust in the security forces, which once stemmed from their dedication to serving the people and safeguarding their statutory rights, has been diminished with each coup,” the report states.
Furthermore, the 2013 Constitution has failed to restore this trust, as it has expanded the mandate of the RFMF under Section 131 (2), which introduced a guardian role for the military. However, the report points out that confidence in the security agencies’ ability to fulfill this role has been compromised by past human rights violations.
The report also cites a notable incident where armed soldiers and police intruded on Bau Island to arrest the chief and his herald during a traditional chiefly installation ceremony. This instance was highlighted as an example of the security forces exceeding their authority and illustrates ongoing concerns about the RFMF, which are largely rooted in its involvement in the coups of 1987, 2000, and 2006.
Stakeholders within the civil service and civil society organizations quickly shared their accounts of abuses inflicted by the security forces. Many provided testimonies of the suppression and violations of their human and civil rights during the coups and their aftermath, highlighting the risks of potential future military interventions in politics as a persistent and latent threat that fuels their distrust.
Leave a comment