Constitutional lawyer Jon Apted has expressed significant concerns regarding the state of human rights and the separation of powers under the 2013 Constitution, calling them misleading. During the Attorney-General’s Conference, Apted highlighted key aspects of the Constitution that he believes limit human rights and endow excessive powers to the government.
Apted pointed to Section 73, which safeguards the 400 decrees and regulations established before the Constitution came into effect. He stated that these decrees are exempt from the Bill of Rights provisions, meaning individuals have no recourse under the Bill of Rights if agencies like the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission act in violation of their rights.
Furthermore, he drew attention to the elimination of a crucial safeguard that previously required any infringement on rights to be “reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society.” Under the current Constitution, Section 656(5) permits limitations on rights if they are deemed “necessary” and prescribed by law, potentially allowing the government wide latitude to restrict rights without stringent checks.
While Apted recognized that courts have recently used a proportionality test to ensure rights are limited only as absolutely necessary, he warned that interpretations may shift over time, leaving citizens vulnerable to broader infringements on their rights. He concluded that the human rights framework requires reassessment to ensure effective protection of individual rights.
This discussion signals a need for renewed focus on constitutional rights and the importance of safeguarding human dignity within governance.
In a broader context, Apted’s remarks shed light on the vital relationship between legislation and the protection of human rights. His call for a review presents an opportunity for lawmakers and civil society to engage in meaningful dialogue about enhancing rights protections, ultimately fostering a society where individual freedoms are safeguarded robustly.
Leave a comment