Fiji Supreme Court Clears Path for Constitutional Reform by Easing Amendment Thresholds and Upholding the 2013 Framework
The Supreme Court of Fiji has issued a landmark advisory opinion that reshapes the way constitutional amendments can be pursued. The court ruled that Parliament may initiate amendments with a two-thirds majority of MPs, while approval at a national referendum will require only a simple majority of those who actually vote. This replaces the former requirement for a “double supermajority” of 75% in both Parliament and the registered electorate, a threshold many saw as effectively blocking ordinary democratic change.
Key elements of the ruling
– The 2013 Constitution remains the legally effective constitution for Fiji, with the court also confirming that the 1997 Constitution is no longer applicable.
– Amendments to Sections 159 and 160 may proceed if second- and third-reading thresholds in Parliament reach two-thirds; for those amendments to take legal effect, they must then be approved by a majority of voters who participate in a referendum.
– The court’s interpretation preserves a high parliamentary hurdle (two-thirds for readings) but lowers the referendum barrier by requiring only a majority of those who vote, not an absolute majority of the entire electorate.
– This reform path is designed to balance legal stability with meaningful public participation, making constitutional change more feasible without discarding safeguards.
Context and implications
– The ruling responds to a Cabinet reference under Section 91(5) and clarifies how amendment provisions under Sections 159 and 160 should operate. It follows debates sparked by the Reeves Commission and ongoing discussions about Fiji’s constitutional order.
– Observers expect the decision to influence how future reforms are approached, with a clearer, more transparent pathway that still involves Parliament and the public through referenda.
– The court’s decision also reinforces the status of the 2013 Constitution as the working framework for lawmaking, elections, and governance, while acknowledging concerns about how the document was adopted and its democratic legitimacy.
– A broader conversation remains about the role of the 1997 Constitution, whether any elements might be revived, and how best to design amendment procedures that reflect the people’s will while preserving stability.
What this means for Fiji’s reform journey
– Expect renewed legislative activity as MPs consider proposed amendments under the clarified thresholds. Bills would need to secure two-thirds support in readings, followed by referendum campaigns that persuade a majority of participating voters.
– The government’s push for greater public involvement—such as a potential Constitution Review Commission—could gain fresh momentum as reforms are framed around public participation and transparency.
– The ruling offers a more achievable route for reform, potentially accelerating constructive changes while maintaining essential checks and balances.
Bottom line
The decision marks a pivotal moment in Fiji’s constitutional evolution. By replacing the previous “double supermajority” model with a two-thirds parliamentary threshold and a simple majority of referendum participants, the court provides a clearer, more workable path for constitutional change. Coupled with ongoing calls for public consultation and accountability, this development could bolster democratic legitimacy and public confidence in Fiji’s governance.
Key takeaways
– 2013 Constitution remains the valid framework; 1997 is no longer applicable.
– Amendments require two-thirds in Parliament and a simple majority of referendum voters.
– The reform pathway emphasizes transparency, public participation, and stability.
– Ongoing debates about public involvement and the status of earlier constitutions are likely to continue alongside this new interpretive framework.
Overall, the ruling is seen as a hopeful step toward a more accessible and participatory process for constitutional reform in Fiji, while preserving safeguards that support legal stability and the rule of law.
Leave a comment