Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry has challenged the legality of the Government’s recent move to appoint a Constitution review commission, saying any such body must be authorised by Parliament and its terms of reference approved through a parliamentary resolution. Chaudhry told reporters that the executive cannot unilaterally create a commission to review the country’s supreme law and pointed to the 1997 constitutional review as the proper precedent for how the process should be undertaken.
“How can a committee to review the Constitution be appointed without first obtaining Parliamentary approval?” Chaudhry asked, noting that in 1997 Parliament explicitly authorised the review that produced the post-1990 Constitution changes. “A review of the Constitution must be properly authorised through a parliamentary resolution as it was done in 1997. Only then was a commission appointed to review the racist 1990 Constitution at the time,” he said, adding that Parliament must also approve the commission’s terms of reference.
Chaudhry urged Parliament to be the forum for setting the mandate and scope of any constitutional review rather than leaving those decisions to executive action. “This is a matter dealing with the Constitution. It must have proper mandate through Parliament which must also approve a terms of reference for the review commission,” he said. He insisted the Government should not proceed “without proper terms of reference and without it having parliamentary approval.”
The Labour leader also criticised both the Government and the parliamentary Opposition. He accused the Government of acting unilaterally on constitutional matters, including—he alleged—failing to secure parliamentary approval for lowering the voting threshold required for constitutional amendments. He warned such unilateral steps are creating fear and instability and are “undermining confidence in Fiji’s future.” Chaudhry also questioned why the parliamentary Opposition had not raised the issue in the House.
Chaudhry’s intervention is the latest development in an ongoing debate over constitutional change. He has previously argued for coordinated approaches to national reconciliation and reform, including a 2024 call to carry out a constitutional review alongside a Truth and Reconciliation Commission process. His current demand for parliamentary authorisation elevates the focus onto process and legal legitimacy rather than only substance.
The Government has not publicly detailed the timetable for the commission’s work in statements cited by Chaudhry, and there was no immediate response reported to his calls for Parliament to adopt a resolution and agree terms of reference. The dispute over who has authority to initiate constitutional review, and on what terms, signals potential parliamentary and legal contestation ahead if the executive proceeds without a clear parliamentary mandate.
Leave a comment