Former Attorney‑General Aiyaz Sayed‑Khaiyum warned lawmakers on Monday that the proposed Referendum Bill risks muzzling public discussion and preventing ordinary Fijians from freely debating issues ahead of a referendum. Appearing before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights, Sayed‑Khaiyum urged the committee to reconsider provisions he says are overly broad, punitive and out of step with modern communication methods.
Sayed‑Khaiyum told committee members that past national consultations demonstrate the value of open public dialogue, citing the widespread rejection of a same‑sex marriage proposal during earlier constitutional consultations as an example of how robust discussion lets citizens form and change views. He argued that a referendum process must allow for the exchange of ideas, challenges to opinion and the opportunity for people to persuade one another, rather than criminalise such interaction.
He singled out two sections of the bill for particular criticism. Section 23, which would make it illegal to persuade others how to vote, was described as “too broad and unrealistic”; Section 22, which bans the creation or distribution of campaign materials such as posters, symbols and publications, was said to risk choking off basic avenues for public awareness. Sayed‑Khaiyum warned that the combined effect of those clauses could prevent people from visiting homes, workplaces or community sites to discuss referendum issues — traditional modes of outreach that he said remain necessary for explaining complex proposals.
The former AG also raised alarms about the sanctions the bill proposes. He said some penalties would be disproportionate, exposing even minor participants in referendum activity to fines, imprisonment or disqualification from standing in future elections. He characterised those punishments as potentially chilling for civic participation and warned they could deter people from engaging in legitimate debate.
Sayed‑Khaiyum acknowledged that some regulation of campaign conduct is necessary, responding to a point made by Opposition MP Jone Usamate, but stressed that regulation must not strangle debate. He pointed to existing constitutional limits on speech — including laws against hate speech — as adequate guardrails that should apply to referendums, and said the bill’s explanatory notes fail to justify why additional, sweeping restrictions are needed.
He also criticised elements of the draft that govern loudspeakers and public announcements as outdated and likened them to laws from a previous era, noting the bill makes no meaningful accommodation for modern communication channels such as social media. Sayed‑Khaiyum urged committee members to provide clear, specific reasons for each restriction, warning that without transparent justification and room for open discussion a referendum cannot legitimately claim to reflect the true will of the Fijian people.
The bill remains under consideration by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights, where Sayed‑Khaiyum’s submissions form the latest intervention in an ongoing debate about how best to regulate referendum campaigning and protect both free expression and the integrity of the vote.
Leave a comment