Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection Lynda Tabuya’s call for the imposition of the death penalty for drug traffickers has sparked controversy. Ketan Lal, Shadow Minister for Justice representing the Group of 16 (G16), criticized this stance, arguing that Fiji should instead focus on life sentences for rapists and prioritize laws that seek justice for survivors.
Lal expressed his disappointment that Tabuya, who is responsible for advocating for vulnerable groups, is endorsing such a severe measure. He emphasized that rape is a deeply damaging crime that leaves lasting scars and deserves significant attention and appropriate legal responses.
He stated, “Our efforts should concentrate on establishing a legal framework that ensures timely justice for victims of sexual violence while protecting everyone’s rights.” He contended that resources should be allocated towards defending the lives and rights of survivors rather than reinstating the death penalty for drug offenses.
Lal also highlighted the importance of fighting drug trafficking vigorously but insisted that such efforts must align with constitutional values and human rights commitments. He cautioned against introducing unconstitutional and ineffective measures driven by fear, urging a focus on strengthening laws against serious crimes like rape to guarantee justice and uphold the rights of all citizens.
While acknowledging the seriousness of drug trafficking, Lal maintained that suggesting the death penalty contradicts Fiji’s constitutional principles and international obligations, particularly the right to life and protection against cruel treatment as enshrined in Article 8 of Fiji’s Constitution. He argued that reinstating the death penalty would violate fundamental rights and undermine the justice system’s foundation, which relies on maintaining human dignity and rule of law.
Finally, Lal stressed that Fiji’s adherence to international treaties opposing the death penalty demonstrates the nation’s commitment to human rights on an international level and warned that any move to reinstate such a severe measure would represent a backward step, compromising Fiji’s international standing and moral authority.