Calls to revisit Fiji’s constitutional immunity provisions sparked a heated exchange at a public dialogue on Friday, with former deputy prime minister Manoa Kamikamica warning that reopening the debate could “risk national stability” while former attorney-general Graham Leung said questions of fairness and accountability cannot be ignored.
The discussion, held at Fiji National University’s Nasinu Campus as part of the ‘Amending Fiji’s Constitution’ forum, highlighted deep divisions over whether immunity clauses that followed past coups remain necessary compromises or entrenched obstacles to justice. Mr Kamikamica argued that the legal protections built into the constitution after earlier political upheavals were instrumental in allowing the country to move forward and should be left intact.
“If you look at from the first coup, we only were able to progress because of the immunity provision,” Mr Kamikamica said, warning that to “dare and open it up, you are setting yourself up for much instability.” He urged focus on securing opportunities for younger generations rather than reopening old wounds, framing immunity as part of a pragmatic settlement that preserved peace and continuity.
Mr Leung countered that the protection afforded to some has created an uneven record of accountability. “It is controversial and sensitive. But I respectfully disagree with honourable Kamikamica,” he said, questioning why those who attempted coups faced different fates. He pointed to the 2000 coup leader George Speight — who served a prison term — as an example used to highlight perceived inconsistencies in how the law has been applied and what lessons those outcomes send to future generations. “Where is the fairness in that? So what lesson are you teaching the children of Fiji?” Mr Leung asked.
At the same time, Leung acknowledged the legal and political complexity of revisiting immunity clauses. “So how do you rewind 30 years? How do you turn the clock back 30 years? To be honest, I don’t know what the answer is,” he said, signalling the practical challenges of undoing or recalibrating constitutional exemptions that have underpinned political settlements.
Leung suggested that the matter may ultimately be for the Constitutional Review Committee to consider, foreshadowing a possible route for the issue to enter broader national consultations. His remarks framed immunity not just as a legal technicality but as a question that intersects with reconciliation, the rule of law and civic education — a balance between delivering justice and maintaining social cohesion.
The dialogue at FNU comes amid renewed public debate over how Fiji’s constitution addresses past political violence and how the nation should remember and redress it while preserving stability. The exchange underscores the central dilemma confronting reformers and lawmakers: whether formal accountability can be pursued without reopening conflicts and whether the existing framework continues to serve the public interest. As the debate moves from academic and legal forums into the political arena, the Constitutional Review Committee appears likely to be the focal point for any future deliberations on immunity provisions.
Leave a comment