Concerns have emerged regarding the proposed Referendum Bill, as three specific clauses have been criticized for undermining democratic principles and infringing upon citizens’ political freedoms. Prominent Suva lawyer Richard Naidu voiced these concerns during his presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights.
Naidu highlighted that Clauses 22, 23, and 27 of the bill conflict with sections 17 and 23 of the Fijian Constitution. Specifically, Clause 22 imposes restrictions on the printing, publishing, and distribution of referendum materials, which could hinder citizens’ ability to engage in discussions or express criticisms following a referendum. Clause 23 would prohibit individuals from canvassing voters in their homes, further limiting the avenues for political engagement. Additionally, Clause 27 would prevent those under 18 from attending political meetings, raising questions about youth participation in the democratic process.
Naidu argued that these clauses could be effectively removed from the legislation without compromising its overall functionality. He suggested that the bill could be enhanced by focusing on safeguarding free political expression and drawing on the unique context of Fiji rather than relying on examples from countries like Singapore and Australia, which may not translate well to the local circumstances.
In removing the contentious clauses, Naidu believes a more inclusive and democratic Referendum Bill could be achieved, fostering an environment where political discourse is encouraged, and citizens can freely express their views. This perspective reflects a broader commitment to maintaining and strengthening civil liberties in Fiji’s political landscape.
Leave a comment