Fiji’s constitutional reform debate moved into sharper relief as the hearings on the 2013 Constitution’s legitimacy wrapped up with State counsel Bret Walker arguing that applying the rules that govern amendments to Section 160 itself would be circular and illogical. Walker, who addressed the constitutional reference in the final stages of the proceedings, maintained that the amendment procedures laid out in Section 160 logically cannot and should not be used to govern changes to Section 160.
Section 160 sets out the amendment process, demanding a 75 percent majority in Parliament and a national referendum with at least 75 percent of registered voters in support. Walker pressed the point that insisting on Section 160 to regulate alterations to Section 160 creates an impossible standard, effectively tying the court’s hands in a way that Parliament should decide. “I simply want to point out that it is a fact that it received the support of the votes it did receive,” he stated, underscoring his view that the section’s own history should be read independently of its application to itself. “If we are correct, 159(2)(c) never stood in the way, and if we are correct, 160 was not required to be observed.”
Walker argued that Section 160 was never intended to apply to changes about itself and that such questions fall squarely within Parliament’s remit. While acknowledging that inclusive participation and committee engagement are politically desirable, he said they are not constitutionally mandatory. “It would be wise to engage as much participation, including by consultation, which would be a good thing. But this court has no footing in any of the cases in Fiji,” he said. He added that democracy would endure because “anything that is enacted by a simple majority in a Parliament is undemocratic” cannot be asserted, and he insisted that such changes “cannot be said that it doesn’t involve self-determination.”
Walker also warned that imposing judicial limits on parliamentary majority rule would be inappropriate and could undermine democratic processes. He warned that if the court allows constitutional changes to be made by a simple parliamentary majority—such as 48 or 55 votes—people will rightly criticize the court for weakening the Constitution.
The exchange comes amid a broader government push to seek judicial clarity on the amendment framework. Earlier, the Cabinet signaled its willingness to approach the Supreme Court for guidance under Section 91(5) of the 2013 Constitution, aiming to interpret sections 159 and 160 and potentially ease the path for reforms. The government has consistently argued that the current supermajority thresholds are overly burdensome and may hinder reforms that reflect the people’s will. Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has indicated that if the Supreme Court finds parts of the amendment framework unconstitutional, it could unlock significant changes, though with an emphasis on public consultation to ensure any revisions reflect broad public input.
This phase of the Fiji constitutional debate is part of a wider conversation about making governance more inclusive while preserving stability. Supporters argue that modern, participatory reforms are essential to aligning Fiji’s constitutional framework with contemporary needs, while opponents caution against rushed or ill-conceived changes that could undermine long-standing democratic structures. Overall, the proceedings highlight a pivotal moment in Fiji’s democratic evolution, with ongoing discussions that could reshape how constitutions are amended and how the people’s voice is incorporated into fundamental legal changes. The hearings signal a hopeful trajectory toward a more participatory governance model that seeks to balance stability with democratic legitimacy.
Leave a comment