Fiji Supreme Court Hears Submissions on 2013 Constitution and Potential Abrogation
Completely abrogating the 2013 Constitution would cause chaos across the country, the Supreme Court was told yesterday. Opposition Leader’s intervener, Kunal Singh, told the court that it would not be proper to strike down the 2013 Constitution, arguing that once accepted as the governing law it binds all citizens, state institutions and the courts. He highlighted that the Constitution’s Preamble makes clear that the people revise it as the supreme law, and that sections 2 and 3 reinforce its supremacy, leaving no room for partial compliance. Singh warned that treating any constitutional clause as invalid would be contrary to the oath to uphold the document in its entirety and would disrupt the legal system.
In a parallel line of argument, Jolame Uludole, an intervener for the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), echoed the concern that absolute abrogation of the 2013 Constitution would unleash mayhem. Yet Uludole also suggested that even if the Constitution were removed or altered, the actions and decisions taken under it so far should remain valid to ensure that government and the country can continue to function without throwing the system into confusion.
The proceedings occur amid broader debates about constitutional reform and the path forward for Fiji’s governance. Legal scholars and opposition voices have repeatedly stressed the importance of public engagement and transparent processes when considering changes to the core legal framework. Notably, commentators have cautioned about the practical and legal complexities of returning to earlier constitutional models, with some arguing that reforms should respect the advances made under the 2013 framework while addressing legitimate concerns about governance and rights.
Context from ongoing discussions suggests that the case is part of a wider constitutional reference process that examines the amendability of certain sections of the 2013 Constitution and the legal standing of earlier frameworks. Critics emphasize the need for careful, inclusive deliberation to avoid undermining stability, while supporters of reform point to opportunities to improve checks and balances and public participation.
What this could mean moving forward is that the court will weigh the arguments about preserving the 2013 structure against calls for potential reform, all within a framework that seeks to uphold the rule of law and protect democratic norms. The hearings and submissions reflect an environment where multiple political and legal actors are urging careful consideration of Fiji’s constitutional future, with an emphasis on safeguarding institutions and public trust.
Summary: The Fiji Supreme Court heard contending views on whether to abrogate the 2013 Constitution, with concerns about chaos if it were completely discarded and assurances from interveners that essential actions taken under it should remain valid. The discussions fit into a broader, ongoing dialogue about constitutional reform, public engagement, and the balance between legal continuity and the need for governance reforms.
Additional commentary and context: The arguments underscore the centrality of the 2013 Constitution in Fiji’s political and legal order, while acknowledging calls from various parties for more transparent processes and broader public input before any amendments. A constructive path forward would involve robust public consultation, expert legal analysis, and transparent timelines to build consensus around any amendments, with careful attention to protecting rights and maintaining institutional stability. If stakeholders engage productively, there is a hopeful trajectory toward reforms that strengthen democratic governance without destabilizing the rule of law.
Leave a comment