‘Legalisation Of Dictatorship’: Why Fiji Government Wants To Change The Country’s 2013 Constitution?

Margot
Staunton, Senior Journalist

One of Fiji’s
deputy prime ministers says the country’s 2013 Constitution
effectively legalises dictatorship.

Manoa Kamikamica
hit out after the former Attorney-General Aiyaz
Sayed-Khaiyum, labelled by critics as the architect of the
document, accused Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government of
having “deeper” political motives for wanting to change the
constitution.

In a lengthy Facebook post last week,
Sayed-Khaiyum said that the country’s social and economic
problems were more urgent than constitutional
change.

He said Fijians were more concerned about the
rising cost of living, crime, and drug problems, among other
things.

“If Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka is
concerned about our economy and the welfare of ordinary
Fijians then he must direct all his own, that of his
ministers and the whole of government’s energy, effort and
resources to addressing the issues faced by all Fijians, our
businesses and investors,” he wrote.

“If he can do
that and not listen to the political opportunists and
extremists around him, then he will gain the political
ascendancy that he seeks.”

However, Kamikamica was
quick to defend the coalition government’s focus on
constitutional change.

“This clearly demonstrates how
out of touch he (Sayed-Khaiyum) is with the sentiment on the
ground,” he said.

“One of the main reasons why the
(Frank) Bainimarama regime is not in government now is the
imposition of a constitution that was foisted on the people,
with little consultation.

“I am told that only a
handful of people were involved in the drafting of it, then
it was brought in by decree,” the deputy PM
said.

“There are major concerns about it and if you
look at it closely enough, it really looks at the
legalisation of dictatorship.”

Sayed-Khaiyum disputed
comments that the 2013 Constitution was drafted by a handful
of people.

“…to say that the 2013 Constitution has
had no input from ordinary Fijians and was drafted by a
handful of people in some closed room in secrecy is a
complete lie.”

‘A document that everybody can
own’

But Kamikamica said Bainimarama and
Sayed-Khaiyum had a level of control unheard of ever before
in Fiji.

“We inherited the issues (social and
economic) that [Sayed-Khaiyum] talks about. But for Fiji to
develop as a truly united country, we need a document that
everybody can own and accept.”

Former PM Bainimarama
seized power in a military coup in 2006 however Fiji
returned to democracy in 2014.

Bainimarama’s – now
deregistered – FijiFirst Party swept to victory in 2014, the
first General Election in eight years, but the party was
viewed as being dictatorial due to the bullying and
intimidation of opponents, flouting of human rights and
suppression of the media.

Asked about one of the key
changes which has previously been mooted by Rabuka, the
removal of the word “Fijian” for everyone except iTaukei
(indigenous Fijians), Kamikamica replied: “I am not sure
where you are getting that information from.”

“Those
are historical contexts from before [Rabuka] was a member of
the People’s Alliance Party and he speaks for
himself.”

When asked if it would mean an end to dual
nationality, he said: “Not necessarily,” adding “the final
version will come from the people, we totally understand the
concerns about nationality.”

“There is a lot of
intermarriage in Fiji now, the younger generation look at
things a lot differently, that will have to be considered
when we come up with the final version,” he said.

“The
idea of one name for all of us is a key issue from my
perspective, and we will have those discussions to resolve
it.”

When asked whether the government wants to change
Fiji from being a secular to Christian country, he said:
“There’s been no statement on anything to do with core
changes to the constitution.”

“Any of those
discussions are scare-mongering. We are focussing on make
the constitution amendable, then we can deal with the
specifics.”

Sayed-Khaiyum had also suggested that the
government may be acting out of political self-interest
ahead of the next elections.

Kamikamica said the
government was “well within our mandate to discuss that
issue”.

“It is certainly not political opportunism; it
is a national imperative.

“Any responsible government
would have to look at constitutional amendments because it
is a major cause of disunity amongst the people of
Fiji.”

“We are dealing with the country’s economic and
social problems now. If you can juggle more than one
priority, which has to be the case because of the 16 years
of dictatorial rule that we’ve inherited, you need to do
remarkable things.”

The government
recently failed in its bid to win enough support in
parliament to amend the constitution and has now sought
advice from the Supreme Court.

Rabuka could not get
the 75 percent support needed to amend the 2013 Constitution
during the Constitutional Amendment Bill’s second
reading.

“The way the constitution is written, it is
virtually impossible to change. Legal and constitutional
experts have stated the same,” Kamikamica
explained.

“Recent debates in parliament have included
creating a pathway to enable practical, pragmatic changes to
occur.

“Once we are clear on what we can do with the
amendment of the amendment provision, we will then consult
widely.”

Govt following ‘letter of the
law’

Asked why the government wants to remove the
need for a referendum on key changes, he said: “Our argument
in the amendments was why create a referendum when it was
imposed through the 2013 constitution. Nobody in Fiji agreed
to it.”

“The 1997 Constitution was passed successfully
without the need for a referendum. It was a well-proven
process of changing it.”

He said the current
government is “absolutely nothing like” the previous
FijiFirst administration.

“During our term so far we
have listened.”

Kamikamica has previously floated the
idea of restoring the 1997 Constitution.

“Only so far
as its an option, but that will depend on what the courts
rule,” he told Pacific Waves.

“In 1997, there was no
need for a referendum, a duly elected government agreed to
have a constitutional commission go and canvas the
people.

“They tabled a fairly sizeable report that was
discussed with all the political parties.”

Prior to
the 2013 Constitution, no constitution in Fiji had a
referendum requirement.

“Until now, the coalition has
government has followed the letter of the law,” Kamikamica
said.

“Sayed-Khaiyum cannot, with a straight face, say
that to get to the 2013 Constitution he followed any
law.”

“To gain any form of political power, the
previous government had to remove the 1997 Constitution,
which is probably the best yardstick of how to bring in a
constitution to Fiji.

“There was thorough consultation
with the people, followed by the political parties getting
together, and agreeing unanimously what would be the final
outcome.

He said Fiji needs to reset in terms of the
supreme law of the land.

“Whether that means a
reversion to 1997 or significant amendments to the current
constitution, we are now in the hands of the
courts.

“We will be seeking written opinions from the
Supreme Court and, hopefully, it will provide some guidance
about what needs to be done.

“If you go by some of the
recently rulings, they have essentially said that the 2013
constitution was imposed on the people. You can probably get
a picture of what may be possible. I don’t want to preempt
their decision, whatever their ruling is we will be bound by
it.”

RNZ Pacific has reached out to Sayed-Khaiyum for
comment.

© Scoop Media