Opposition MP Ketan Lal has criticized the Minister for Women and Children, Lynda Tabuya, for calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty in Fiji. He views this proposal as a regressive step that jeopardizes the country’s human rights and justice framework.
Lal acknowledged the severity of drug trafficking but argued that proposing capital punishment conflicts with Fiji’s constitutional principles and international commitments. He pointed out that the Constitution safeguards the right to life and prohibits cruel and degrading treatment, specifically highlighting Sections 8 and 11.
Reinstating the death penalty, according to Lal, would infringe upon these essential rights and undermine the foundation of Fiji’s justice system, which is built on human dignity and the rule of law. He emphasized that Fiji’s adherence to international treaties opposing the death penalty signifies a commitment to human rights globally. Thus, he believes reinstating such measures would damage Fiji’s international reputation and moral standing.
Lal urged the nation to resist the temptation of swift solutions that do not guarantee genuine security. Instead, he advocates for bolstering the justice system, enhancing law enforcement efficiency, and investing in rehabilitation and prevention strategies to tackle the underlying issues of drug trafficking.
He expressed disappointment that a minister responsible for women’s issues would promote such extreme measures, especially given the devastating impact of crimes like rape, which leave long-lasting trauma. Lal asserted that these serious offenses call for life sentences and laws that ensure justice and support for victims.
He argued that resources and efforts should be channeled towards creating a legal system that delivers prompt and certain justice for survivors of sexual violence while protecting the rights of all individuals. Lal concluded that while the battle against drug trafficking is critical, it must respect constitutional boundaries and a commitment to human rights, warning against the dangers of adopting unconstitutional and ineffective measures fueled by fear.