Prominent New Zealand constitutional lawyer Andrew Butler warned in court this morning that Fiji’s constitutional amendment process presents a conundrum. Appearing as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court proceedings, Butler acknowledged the complexity and rigidity of Fiji’s 2013 Constitution, describing the situation as a dilemma that parties and the court have been navigating.
Butler said the entrenched amendment provisions make Fiji’s constitution among the hardest to alter, but stressed that this fact alone should not be viewed as a problem. He pointed out that many democracies operate with similarly tough amendment rules, and this in itself is not a cause for concern.
The lawyer strongly opposed the State’s proposal to declare Chapter 11 of the 2013 Constitution inoperative, warning that such a move would undermine the entire constitutional order. He argued that invalidating the amendment provisions would have far-reaching macro and micro legal implications and would contradict the constitution’s supremacy clauses and Fiji’s long history of entrenchment and supermajority requirements for amendments. At the micro level, Butler cautioned that voiding Chapter 11 could leave Fiji without an explicit mechanism to amend the rest of the Constitution.
Butler challenged the State’s suggested path forward, describing it as unlikely for the court to adopt. He also dismissed the State’s claim that the failed 2025 Constitution Amendment Bill could offer a route to reform, stating that the bill is not in limbo but dead, having been defeated at its second reading. He noted the bill lacked any public consultation before or during parliamentary consideration, arguing that a momentous constitutional change should involve active public input.
The hearing continues.
Context and outlook:
– The broader debate around Fiji’s constitution has intensified in recent months, with the controversial 2025 Constitution Amendment Bill failing to reach the required three-quarters majority in Parliament. The defeat underscored the political and legal tensions surrounding how to amend the entrenched 2013 framework.
– Government and opposition figures have signaled openness to pursuing constitutional reform via other routes, including seeking advisory opinions from the Supreme Court and broadening public engagement to reflect diverse views.
– Observers note that while the path to reform remains contentious, the commitment among leaders to consult with citizens and pursue a more representative governance framework could keep the reform process alive, even as legal questions about the amendment provisions continue to be debated in court.
Summary:
The session highlights a critical moment in Fiji’s constitutional reform: ruling on the legality and feasibility of changing an entrenched framework without undermining the rule of law. Butler’s arguments emphasize preserving the core structure and legitimacy of Fiji’s Constitution while recognizing the need for careful, transparent reform through proper legal channels and public involvement.
Additional value and possible follow-ups:
– Explain to readers what Chapter 11, Sections 159 and 160 cover, and why their status is pivotal to any reform effort.
– Track developments on whether the government pursues Supreme Court advisory opinions or introduces new reform proposals with broader public consultation.
– Provide a brief explainer on the history of Fiji’s constitutional amendments and the role of entrenchment in maintaining or challenging constitutional stability.
– Consider a sidebar with key dates and votes related to the 2025 Amendment Bill for quick reference.
Leave a comment