Fiji’s government received a clear legal path forward on constitutional amendments last night, after the Supreme Court ruled that changes to Chapters 11 and parts of Chapter 12 of the 2013 Constitution could proceed in Parliament under the court’s two-thirds voting threshold at the second and third readings, with any reform also needing the approval of a simple majority of voters in a national referendum. Chief Justice Salesi Temo delivered the decision, reiterating that amendments must meet Section 160(2) requirements.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka welcomed the ruling, saying the government does have the numbers in Parliament to advance the amendments. “We do,” Rabuka stated, adding that “it didn’t go all our way but it’s workable” and affirming the government’s parliamentary majority.
The ruling aligns with Cabinet’s earlier decision to seek the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Sections 159 and 160, which lay out the processes for amending the constitution in 2013. Rabuka emphasized the constitutional route and the government’s readiness to move forward within the legal framework.
Reaction to the decision was mixed among coalition partners and opposition-aligned voices. Peoples Alliance Party lawyer Simione Valenitabua described the judgment as fair and described the combination of a two-thirds parliamentary majority and a simple referendum majority as a “win-win” that preserves the 2013 Constitution while enabling necessary reforms. He added that the party would work with Cabinet to determine the best way forward and to align state actions with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Jolame Uludole, a counsel for the governing coalition partner SODELPA, voiced disappointment, arguing that the 1997 Constitution remains a legal document in effect and not fully abrogated. He urged recognition of acts and bills enacted under the 2013 Constitution while retaining the 1997 document’s standing, and he said the party’s recourse would be to press for reforms through Parliament to secure a majority.
Parliament’s current numbers are reported as 36 government MPs and 19 from the opposition, underscoring the ongoing arithmetic challenge in reaching the two-thirds threshold. Two-thirds of a 55-seat chamber would be about 37 votes, meaning the government would need cross-party support to meet the requirement, depending on how voting is counted and whether all members participate.
In the wake of this ruling, Cabinet is expected to decide on the next steps, including whether to formalize questions for the Supreme Court or to pursue a path through Parliament toward the 2013 amendments. Some observers note that earlier attempts to lower the threshold from three-quarters to two-thirds and to dispense with a referendum have faced setbacks, highlighting the delicate balance between legislative action and public approval that defines Fiji’s constitutional reform process.
As Fiji charts this complex path, the consensus among many leaders remains clear: reforms must reflect the nation’s diverse, multi-ethnic society and protect citizens’ fundamental rights, while fostering inclusive governance and meaningful national dialogue. The court’s ruling sets a formal framework, but the party dynamics in Parliament and public support in a referendum will ultimately determine how and when those changes take effect.
Summary: The Supreme Court has clarified that amendments to Chapters 11 and parts of Chapter 12 of Fiji’s 2013 Constitution can proceed in Parliament with a two-thirds second- and third-reading majority, plus a simple majority in a referendum. Prime Minister Rabuka says the government has the numbers to move forward, while opposition and coalition voices warn that the political math will require cross-party support and careful navigation of both Parliament and the referendum process. The ruling preserves a pathway for reform, but the practical path forward will depend on legislative math and continued broad engagement across Fiji’s political landscape.
Additional context and analysis:
– The two-thirds requirement and the referendum condition mean reform hinges on both legislative support and public backing, which can encourage broader cross-party negotiation.
– Some parties continue to raise questions about the status of the 1997 Constitution and how Acts under the 2013 framework should be treated during this transition, signaling ongoing constitutional complexity beyond a single amendment process.
– Observers note that prior attempts to lower thresholds or alter referendum rules faced parliamentary resistance, making the current moment a potential turning point only if sustained bipartisan cooperation emerges.
– If government and Coalition partners align, a carefully staged process—clarifying questions for the Supreme Court, building cross-party support in Parliament, and effectively communicating the referendum’s purpose to voters—could advance Fiji toward a more inclusive constitutional framework that reflects the diverse voices of its people.
Leave a comment