Nilesh Lal, the executive director of Dialogue Fiji, expressed his belief that a complete revision of the 2013 Constitution may not be necessary. In an interview on The Fiji Times’ online platform, The Lens@177, he acknowledged that many provisions within the Constitution are generally effective.
Lal pointed out that the main issue he sees with the 2013 Constitution is the significant concentration of power within the executive branch, which enables it to effectively divide the powers of the State. He emphasized concerns over certain clauses in the Bill of Rights that prioritize the executive’s authority, allowing it to pass legislation that could restrict rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This situation, according to Lal, leads to inadequate protection of citizens’ rights, a notable flaw in the document.
Despite these issues, he highlighted several positive aspects of the Constitution, such as the promotion of equal citizenship. Lal believes this represents significant progress for Fijian society. He also mentioned the secular nature of the State, aligning with contemporary Liberal Democratic principles, as well as the establishment of a unicameral Parliament composed entirely of elected representatives.
Lal pointed out that the shift from a bicameral legislature under the 1997 Constitution to a unicameral system is a major enhancement. Other positive changes he noted include reducing the parliamentary term to four years and lowering the voting age to 18. He emphasized the significance of moving away from race-based electoral systems and adopting a proportional representation system, which he views as commendable advancements.
However, Lal acknowledged that certain aspects, particularly the disproportionate power held by the Prime Minister, may warrant reevaluation. He mentioned that the Prime Minister has the authority to make ambassadorial appointments, chairs the Constitutional Offices Commission, and noted that the Attorney-General possesses considerable power.
Additionally, he raised concerns about potential ambiguities regarding the military’s role in the 2013 Constitution, which could lead to issues concerning political interference. He suggested that these areas might require clarification and could be subject to change.