Prominent lawyer Richard Naidu has voiced significant concerns regarding certain provisions of the Referendum Bill, labeling them as confusing, overly broad, and potentially unconstitutional. In a recent social media post, Naidu explained that he carefully reviewed the Bill to address rising public apprehensions and concluded that Section 22 “makes little sense.”
He cautioned that this provision could be interpreted broadly enough to lead to prosecution for activities as benign as publishing a newspaper advertisement saying, “I support the 2013 Constitution, please vote against changing it in the referendum.” Furthermore, he scrutinized Section 23(1), which he argued does not seem to prevent campaigning for or against the referendum itself but instead appears to restrict individuals from actively persuading others on how to vote.
Naidu’s criticisms extended to Section 23(2), expressing alarm that this section could inhibit individuals from visiting others’ homes for any purpose related to the referendum, including advocacy for maintaining or amending the 2013 Constitution. He described these provisions as a “mess,” suggesting they were poorly drafted and “cut and pasted from somewhere else without thinking.”
Highlighting the implications for free speech, Naidu asserted that these sections violate fundamental constitutional rights and require urgent revisions. His remarks extended to the Government’s response to concerns raised by Dialogue Fiji, which he found “hardly encouraging.” He pointed out that the government’s stance has suggested individuals should refrain from discussing the Bill publicly without first consulting the Attorney-General’s Office, a move that seems to be an attempt to prevent miscommunication yet, as Naidu noted, may have only compounded public confusion.
Naidu’s insights shed light on the need for clarity and accountability in the drafting of legislation, particularly when it relates to democratic processes such as referendums. His call for introspection and correction emphasizes the importance of protecting free speech and ensuring that democratic practices are upheld. The ongoing dialogue around the Referendum Bill indicates a growing awareness and engagement from the public, which is a positive sign for democratic health in the community.
Leave a comment