Fiji’s Supreme Court has been urged to avoid treating conflicting provisions in the 2013 Constitution as if one could be prioritized over another. During recent submissions, the Fiji Law Society, represented by Australian barrister Arthur Moses, warned the court that it does not have—and must not seize—the power to rewrite the Constitution, even when two provisions sit side by side in the same document.
Moses argued that while the court may interpret constitutional text, it cannot ignore or override provisions simply because they appear to clash. He warned that inviting the judiciary to “rewrite the Constitution” would place the court in a politically charged position and undermine its authority. He stressed that the Constitution’s strict amendment rules—requiring 75 percent parliamentary support and a three-quarters referendum—are not the court’s business to change. In his view, any change should be pursued through the clear constitutional mechanism of a referendum, not through judicial amendment.
The exchange underlines a broader debate in Fiji about how the constitution should be reformed. Supporters of reform point to the need for a more accessible amendment process, while opponents caution against blurring the lines of judicial power and constitutional procedure. The current discussion is taking place against a backdrop of ongoing moves to seek clarifications from the Supreme Court on the amendment process and to explore whether the thresholds for constitutional change should be adjusted.
Context from related developments shows the government is actively pursuing advisory opinions from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality and interpretation of amendment provisions. Cabinet has signaled its intention to refine the amendment framework, with attention focused on sections that govern how changes can be made and the potential to lower the threshold for reform, all while emphasizing public participation and transparency in any constitutional update.
In a broader sense, Fiji’s constitutional reform debate continues to unfold with courts, government, and civil society engaging in careful dialogue about how best to balance stability with the evolving needs of the nation. The emphasis remains on constitutional integrity, democratic legitimacy, and ensuring that any reform reflects the will of the people within proper legal channels.
Summary: The Fiji Law Society cautioned the judiciary against rewriting the Constitution when two provisions conflict, arguing that interpretative duties do not extend to altering constitutional text. The discussion sits within a larger push for constitutional reform, including government moves to obtain judicial guidance on amendment rules and consideration of changing the thresholds for reform, all through established legal processes and referendums, to keep democratic processes legitimate and participatory.
A hopeful note: the ongoing dialogue demonstrates a commitment to lawful reform and constructive engagement among the judiciary, government, and the public, with the aim of a more adaptable and representative constitutional framework for Fiji.
Leave a comment