The Supreme Court of Fiji has ruled that the 2013 Constitution remains the legally effective framework for the country, while also scrutinizing the amendment provisions that have long been described as highly restrictive. In a decision delivered this afternoon, Chief Justice Salesi Temo and a six-judge panel held that the 2013 Constitution continues to guide laws, elections, and daily governance, and that the previous 1997 Constitution is no longer applicable.
Crucially, the court found the amendment provisions in the 2013 document—long viewed as effectively blocking change—unworkable in their current form. The ruling directs that changes to the Constitution should be designed to strike a balance between stability and meaningful public participation. In practical terms, this means amendments could be pursued with a pathway that requires two-thirds support in Parliament and a simple majority of the votes cast in a national referendum, rather than the former “double supermajority” threshold of 75% in both Parliament and the electorate.
Background context: Fiji’s 1997 Constitution was abrogated in 2009 following political upheaval, and a review led by Yash Ghai was ultimately set aside as the Bainimarama government produced the 2013 document. While many observers note the 2013 Constitution was imposed during a military-era transition, the court emphasized that it has functioned as the country’s legal framework for lawmaking and governance, and that the 1997 Constitution no longer holds legal authority.
Implications and what to watch next: The ruling provides a clearer, more workable route for constitutional reform by placing amendment thresholds within a framework that involves both Parliament and the public. It could influence how and when amendments are proposed, debated, and validated, including the timing and conduct of referendums. The decision is likely to shape ongoing discussions about the proper balance between legal safeguards and democratic legitimacy, and it raises questions about whether further reforms or clarifications to the amendment process will be pursued through legislation, referenda, or potential future judicial guidance.
Public reaction and value: Advocates for reform see this as a step toward greater transparency, accountability, and citizen involvement in Fiji’s constitutional future. By anchoring changes in a two-step process that includes popular consent, the court aims to foster broader public confidence in governance while maintaining essential safeguards.
What comes next: Parliament will consider proposed amendments under the clarified thresholds, and discussions will continue about the potential role of referenda in ratifying changes. There is also ongoing debate about whether any elements of the 1997 Constitution could be revived or reconciled with the 2013 framework, as part of Fiji’s broader constitutional reform conversation.
Summary: The ruling confirms the 2013 Constitution as the valid framework, rejects the previous impossibly high “double entrenchment” for amendments, and establishes a more attainable path to change: two-thirds parliamentary approval plus a simple majority of referendum participants. It also reaffirms that the 1997 Constitution is no longer in force. The decision signals a move toward a more transparent and participatory approach to constitutional reform, while seeking to preserve legal stability and the rule of law. A hopeful takeaway is that clearer rules and inclusive processes can bolster democratic legitimacy and public trust in Fiji’s governance.
Leave a comment