The Fiji Supreme Court is set to issue a landmark advisory ruling on the interpretation of the 2013 Constitution’s amendment provisions, as the Cabinet seeks clarity on Sections 159 and 160 and the legal status of the abrogated 1997 Constitution. A six-judge bench led by Chief Justice Salesi Temo is delivering today’s decision, with international jurists such as Justice Robert French among those who have contributed to the deliberations.
The reference was brought under Section 91(5) of the 2013 Constitution, enabling the Cabinet to obtain an advisory opinion on constitutional matters. The central questions focus on whether the amendment provisions—described as highly restrictive and often labeled unamendable—can be legally challenged or altered, and whether the 1997 Constitution retains any legal authority in light of past upheavals and subsequent reforms. State counsel Bret Walker SC outlined the view that some provisions may be unamendable, while the Fiji Law Society, represented by Arthur Moses SC, urged upholding the 2013 framework and cautioned against overreach by the judiciary. The People’s Alliance and Unity Fiji advocated for restoring the 1997 Constitution, arguing that the 2013 document was imposed under a military regime. The Fiji Human Rights Commission joined calls for reform, emphasizing the need for public consent and broader participation in constitutional change.
As the ruling approaches, observers say it could redefine how Fiji approaches constitutional amendments, balancing the need for legal stability with the demand for inclusive governance. The court’s advisory opinion is expected to address the proper scope of interpretation for Sections 159 and 160, the validity of the 1997 Constitution, and how future reforms might proceed with greater clarity and public confidence. Public-awareness messaging remains a priority, with Chief Justice Temo stressing the importance of media coverage to keep the proceedings accessible for scrutiny. The judgment is anticipated at 2:30 pm today, though past hearings have shown the court’s willingness to move promptly when possible.
What to watch for next includes: the precise questions the court answers in its advisory opinion, whether the 1997 Constitution was validly abrogated or retains any legal force, and how the amendment framework might influence future reform efforts, including thresholds and referenda requirements. The decision could shape not only constitutional practice but also the political reform agenda and how reforms are pursued in the years ahead.
Value-added context: A clear, well-reasoned ruling could restore public trust in Fiji’s constitutional mechanisms by clarifying amendment pathways and safeguarding democratic principles, while avoiding abrupt or destabilizing changes. Conversely, the ruling may prompt renewed debates about the balance between stability and reform, and how best to involve citizens in constitutional decision-making. As Fiji charts its constitutional future, the decision could offer a blueprint for more transparent, participatory governance that reflects the diverse will of the Fijian people.
Summary: The ruling marks a pivotal moment in Fiji’s ongoing constitutional reform debate, focusing on whether stringent amendment thresholds and the status of the 1997 Constitution should guide future changes under the 2013 framework. The court’s interpretation is expected to influence how amendments are pursued and how the country balances legal safeguards with democratic legitimacy.
Editorial note: Coverage of this decision should highlight the range of viewpoints presented during the hearings, the potential practical implications for lawmakers and civil society, and the broader impact on Fiji’s governance landscape. Readers may benefit from follow-up analyses explaining how the ruling interacts with proposed reforms and what it could mean for upcoming political timelines.
Leave a comment