Former Fijian President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau died on Thursday, aged 84.

Ratu Epeli, a chief and former Fiji military commander, served as president from 2009 to 2015.

He also served as Speaker of Parliament from 2019 to 2022.

Local media reported Ratu Epeli died at the Suva Private Hospital after being admitted earlier on Thursday evening.

In Saturday’s frontpage story titled “Nailatikau is no longer with us”, The Fiji Times described the late president as “widely respected for his leadership and dedication to the people of Fiji”.

The Fiji Sun described him as a “respected chief, soldier, diplomat and statesman”.

A former opposition leader and high chief, Ro Teimumu Kepa, said Ratu Epeli’s death had left many people in shock.

“The flowing tributes on social media shows how his personality touched many lives that he came in contact with,” she wrote in a social media post.

The ‘people’s president’
Fiji’s former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum described Ratu Epeli as “the people’s president”.

“Ratu Epeli Nailatikau lived his life among his people, not above them. We see that in the countless stories coming in from across the country about his personal interactions with everyday people,” Sayed-Khaiyun said.

“He put his belief of the dignity of every Fijian into practice every day, including the day he promulgated our Fijian Constitution in 2013 which granted every citizen an equal voice in our democracy while concomitantly protecting everyone’s specific rights including the marginalised and the vulnerable.

“And as if God hadn’t given the man enough rare qualities — he had both a wonderful singing voice and the wits to know when to close out a long night in song and send us all home on a high note.”

The Fiji Labour Party said that as the great-great-grandson of Ratu Seru Cakobau — one of Fiji’s most significant figures — and the grandson of King George Tupou II of Tonga, “Ratu Epeli was undoubtedly a scion of royal lineage”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu has urged legislators not to sow seeds of “fear and division” as the country moves towards a general election later this year.

Speaking at the opening of the fourth and final session of Parliament before the polls, Ratu Naiqama called on political leaders and their supporters to engage constructively and respect the rule of law before, during and after the elections.

Fijians are expected to head to the polls anytime between August 7 (earliest) this year and 6 February 2027 (latest).

In an almost hour-long speech, which mentioned the word “unity” 17 times and covered a wide range of topics, Ratu Naiqama also confirmed the coalition government had commenced a review of the 2013 Constitution.

“The Constitution Amendment Bill, like all other Bills, will be made public and undergo an extensive consultation process with robust public debate and input before it is tabled to Cabinet and Parliament,” he said.

AI will have ‘detrimental effect on governance’
Other topics focused from unity in diversity to climate change and the threats posed by artificial intelligence.

Ratu Naiqama said he was at pains to underline factors which created division, noting the threat of false information.

On media and artificial intelligence, he said information was being disseminated at unprecedented speed but with little regard for accuracy.

“The misuse of artificial intelligence is an emerging threat that will have a detrimental effect on governance, national unity and peace,” he said.

“While freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of our democracy, it carries with it a grave responsibility.”

Fiji’s multicultural society is one of its greatest strengths, he said. However, unity did not arise automatically from diversity, he added.

“Unity must be consciously built through fair laws, inclusive policies, respectful leadership, and a shared commitment to the common good.”

Flagged Truth Commission
Ratu Naiqama flagged the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process as important to fostering unity, inclusivity and mutual understanding across all communities, saying its “findings and recommendations should be approached with maturity, guiding practical measures that strengthen reconciliation, institutional learning, and lasting social cohesion”.

The president described climate change as “the defining challenge of our time” and that Fiji would remain a global leader in climate advocacy, “while acting decisively at home”.

Looking at the region, Ratu Naiqama said Pacific nations were navigating complex geostrategic dynamics, while striving to preserve peace, cooperation and their sovereignty.

He reiterated the importance of the Ocean of Peace concept reinvigorated by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka at last year’s Pacific Forum leaders’ summit.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has hinted that the country may “hold its first-ever referendum” following a landmark Supreme Court opinion aimed at amending the 2013 Constitution.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court ruled that thresholds for constitutional amendments should be lowered — requiring only a two-thirds majority in parliament and a simple majority of voters in a referendum.

The ruling followed a three-day hearing in August, after Rabuka’s Cabinet, in June, had sought clarification on making changes to parts of the Constitution.

Submissions came from the State, seven political parties, the Fiji Law Society, and the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission.

Rabuka said that the Supreme Court’s opinion established a “clear and democratic pathway” for his government’s constitutional reform efforts.

“This opinion provides clarity on matters of constitutional law and governance. It will now go before Cabinet for further deliberation, after which I, as Head of Government, will announce the way forward,” he said in a statement.

However, the Fiji Labour Party, while welcoming the Supreme Court’s opinion, expressed concerns over the lowering of the current “75 percent double super majority requirement” to amend the constitution.

Fijians of Indian descent make up just over 32 percent of Fiji’s total population.

Indo-Fijians ‘particularly vulnerable’
Labour leader and former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry said that the Indo-Fijian community felt “particularly vulnerable” due to the nation’s race-based political tensions, which have resulted in four coups.

He noted that the coalition’s “unwillingness to spell out the constitutional changes it was contemplating” had made Indo-Fijians “apprehensive”.

“It is for this reason that Labour had submitted that constitutional changes should be left to political negotiations with a view to achieving consensus, and stability,” he added.

But Rabuka dismissed Chaudhry’s concerns on Monday, saying that his “argument does not stand”.

“In a referendum, every community is part of the decision. Indo-Fijians, like all other minority groups, vote as equal citizens,” he said.

He said that any government wanting to change the constitution would need support from the whole nation.

“This forces proposals to be fair, broad, and inclusive. Discriminatory ideas would never survive such a test.”

‘Generalised statements’ criticised
Rabuka said Chaudhry should refrain from making “generalised statements”, adding that he does not have the mandate to speak for all Indo-Fijians.

“Chaudhry says change should only come through political negotiations and consensus. But that usually means a few leaders making deals in closed rooms. That gives a small group of politicians’ veto power over the entire country, blocking needed changes and leaving Fiji stuck,” he said.

“A referendum is the opposite of backroom politics. It is open, transparent, and gives the final say to the people themselves. That is real democracy. That is what the Coalition Government welcomes entirely.”

While Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party wanted the 2013 Constitution thrown out and replaced with the previous 1997 Constitution, he said the former Prime Minister should “move past the old style of politics and recognise that Fiji may now hold its first-ever referendum”.

“That would be a historic step, one that strengthens democracy for every community, not weakens it.

“As your Prime Minister, I give my assurance to all Fijians that this process belongs to you.”

When Voreqe Bainimarama walked out of Parliament after his government lost by a single vote on Christmas Eve in December 2022, he told reporters who swarmed around him in the capital, Suva: “This is democracy and this is my legacy [the] 2013 Constitution.”

Visibly shellshocked
His most trusted ally Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, looking visibly shellshocked at FijiFirst’s loss of power, said at the time: “We hope that the new government will adhere to the rule of law.”

Sayed-Khaiyum is widely viewed as the architect of the 2013 Constitution, although he disputes that claim.

Critics of the document, which is the country’s fourth constitution, argue that it was imposed by the Bainimarama administration

Meanwhile, the country’s chiefs want the 2013 Constitution gone. In May, the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) unanimously rejected the document as “restricting a lot of work for the iTaukei (indigenous Fijians)”.

Following the Supreme Court opinion, the head of of GCC told local media that the 2013 Constitution lacked cultural legitimacy and undermined Fiji’s democratic capacity.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Fijian academic believes Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s failed attempt to garner enough parliamentary support to change the country’s 2013 Constitution “is only the beginning”.

Last week, Rabuka fell short in his efforts to secure the support of three-quarters of the members of Parliament to amend sections 159 and 160 of the constitution.

The prime minister’s proposed amendments also sought to remove the need for a national referendum altogether. While the bill passed its first reading with support from several opposition MPs, it failed narrowly at the second reading.

Video: RNZ Pacific

While the bill passed its first reading with support from several opposition MPs, it failed narrowly at the second reading.

Jope Tarai, an indigenous Fijian PhD scholar and researcher at the Australian National University, told RNZ Pacific Waves that “it is quite obvious that it is not going to be the end” of Rabuka’s plans to amend the constitution.

However, he said that it was “something that might take a while” with less than a year before the 2026 elections.

“So, the repositioning towards the people’s priorities will be more important than constitutional review,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australian constitutional law expert Professor Anthony Regan believes Fiji’s Coalition government came into power “by the skin of its teeth”.

In the face of that, he believes it is not an option to leave the 2013 Constitution “as it is!”

Professor Regan spoke at the Fiji National University’s (FNU) Vice-Chancellor’s Leadership Seminar in Nasinu on Thursday, on “Constitutional Change in Fiji: Looking to the Future”.

He has voiced caution about the stability of the 2013 Constitution.

“Do you leave it as it is now and say it’s too difficult to change? That’s an option,” he said.

“And you might say that’s OK because the new regime is a fair and thoughtful regime and will act only fairly.

“That may be true, but every government is subject to temptations when there are pressures.”

He spoke about what he terms a pretty bad electoral system designed to keep people in power.

The Coalition government got in by the skin of its teeth in the face of that system.

The system, he argued, designed to favour certain parties, increased the risk of a less favourable government gaining power in the future.

And this, he warned, could cause problems in the future.

“There’s no guarantee that a good outcome will come in every future election and then, if a government that had far less good intent came to power, it’s got the authority to do all the things we have talked about.”

These included overriding human rights and stacking accountability institutions.

He believes the recent Parliamentary remuneration debacle has added a new layer of complexity to the challenges we face as a nation.

He believes, with the added majority in the House, it may be possible to get the 75 percent majority needed to amend the constitution.

He has also suggested possible ways to move on reforms.

He suggested amending electoral legislation, and factored in compulsory voting to raise voter turnout and possibly inch out support for constitutional reforms.

Change though, as the good professor notes, will definitely need support and a united front.

That will mean awareness campaigns designed to raise the level of understanding of any need for reforms and encourage participation.

That will mean taking the message out to the masses, and encouraging them to buy into any bid to make changes.

That isn’t going to be a walk in the park either.

Professor Regan’s opinions will no doubt stimulate discussions on this important topic and encourage people to consider whether it is important enough for them to participate.

So we have what he considers a constitution that is vulnerable to potential abuse by future governments if it is left like this.

And in the face of that sits the need for us all to carefully consider what we must do moving forward. We have layers of complexities as we mentioned above, and major challenges that will need careful consideration and discussions!

Republished from The Sunday Times on 4 August 2024 under the original headline “By the skin of its teeth” with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s 2000 coup leader George Speight, who has been serving time in prison for more than 20 years, has applied for a presidential pardon so he can be released.

When questioned by Fijivillage News, Attorney-General and Chair of the Mercy Commission, Siromi Turaga confirmed that Speight had made an application and the consideration process was underway.

According to the 2013 Constitution, on the petition of any convicted person, the commission may recommend that the President exercise a power of mercy by granting a free or conditional pardon to a person convicted of an offence; remitting all or a part of a punishment.

The commission may dismiss a petition that it reasonably considers to be frivolous, vexatious or entirely without merit, but otherwise

• must consider a report on the case prepared by the judge who presided at the trial; or the Chief Justice, if a report cannot be obtained from the presiding judge;
• must consider any other information derived from the record of the case or elsewhere that is available to the Commission; and
• may consider the views of the victims of the offence.

The Constitution states that the President must act in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.

Fijivillage News has received information that the process has gone through the Fiji Corrections Service, the case management process for George Speight has been done through the judiciary, the commission has had its meeting and a decision is expected from President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere.

Next batch release?
Based on the processes followed under the Constitution, Speight could be released in the next batch of people to be given mercy by the President.

Speight was arrested and taken into custody on 26 July 2000.

In February 2002, he was convicted of treason and sentenced to death — the sentence was later commuted to life in prison by the President.

George Speight led a small group of armed men to the Parliament complex in Veiuto on the morning of 19 May 2000, and seized then Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and his government hostage.

The hostage crisis lasted for 56 days.

In 2020, the then Leader of Opposition, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu urged the President and the then government to also consider the release of prisoners like 2000 coup leader George Speight and Naitasiri high chief, Ratu Inoke Takiveikata.

When questioned by Fijivillage News, Ratu Naiqama said there were more than 3000 people that were charged and incarcerated in relation to the events of 2000, and all including George Speight should be released.

While speaking in Parliament at the time, Ratu Naiqama said this was not to create another coup but to take a step forward.

Vijay Narayan is news director of Fijivillage News. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended police chief Sitiveni Qiliho have been granted bail.

Both men have pleaded not guilty to one count each of abuse of office.

Magistrate Seini Puamau has set bail at FJ$10,000 (NZ$7,000), according to local news media reports.

Bainimarama and Qiliho have also been ordered not to leave the country and to reside at a permanent address.

Magistrate Puamau also ordered them not to interfere with witnesses.

They are next expected in court on May 11.

On Thursday, the country’s top prosecutor sanctioned charges against the two men for obstructing a police investigation in 2019.

Questioned by pollce
Bainimarama and Qiliho were questioned by the Fiji police investigations unit before being held in remand overnight at the Totogo Police Station in in the capital Suva.

It was the first time for a former PM and a police chief to be kept in a police cell facing such allegations.

The two men were greeted by their family members and friends who gathered outside the courthouse.

The pair were photographed by local reporters smiling as they walked into the Magistrates Court Room 3.

‘I served as PM with integrity’
After being granted bail, Bainimarama told local journalists outside the court that he would defend the charges laid against him.

“Look, I want to tell you that I have served as Fiji’s PM with integrity and with the best interest of all Fijians at heart,” he said.

“I have been served this charge against my legacy so I am going to fight this charge. Not only for my reputation but for democracy, for all Fijians, and of course for the Constitution,” he added.

Bainimarama: “I am going to fight this charge. Not only for my reputation, for democracy, for all Fijians, and of course for the Constitution.” pic.twitter.com/5ExBntYTbL

— Stanley Ian Simpson (@stansimpsonfj) March 10, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A New Zealand-based professor in comparative politics says the Fiji constitution needs to clear up the role of the military.

Dr Jon Fraenkel of Victoria University, formerly of the University of the South Pacific, says the 2013 constitution revived the provision that existed in the 1990 constitution which gave the military responsibility for looking after the well-being of the Fiji people.

But he told Pacific Waves this needed clarifying.

“Of course, when that was first introduced in 1990, it was as part of an ethno-nationalist constitution that was seeking to codify indigenous paramountcy in the states. At that point, I think the Fiji military [Republic of Fiji Military Forces] contemplated briefly assuming power in an unconstitutional way for 16 years.

“But it didn’t do that. And by the early 1990s, things had calmed down there was a desire to read for civilian government, for the military to keep out of politics. It’s only really in the wake of the [George] Speight coup that Mohammed Aziz rehabilitated this provision in the 1990 constitution, and suggested that it was still applied under the 1997 constitution, and then they put it in the 2013 constitution.

“And what does this mean? Well, it could mean just about anything. What does it mean to look after the welfare of the Fiji people? You could interpret that to mean anything at all?

“I noticed that before the final result, when [Sitiveni] Rabuka, perhaps misguidedly, complained to the military commander about the glitch about the counting of the election ballots, the military commander said that that wasn’t within his remit.

Protecting ‘well-being’
“In other words, he thought that it didn’t fall under section 131 of the Constitution that gives the military right to intervene to protect the well-being of the Fiji people.

“But after the formation of the new government in early January, the military commander, Major-General Jone Kalouniwai did make a peculiar statement where he expressed concern about the ambition of the government and about the speed at which things were moving.

“And he also suggested that the military might have some responsibility for making sure that the separation of powers is guaranteed.

“Now, that’s usually a role for the courts, not for the military. So one has to be careful about this kind of expansive understanding of the role of the military and the new Fiji. I think there needs to be further discussions about what that actually means.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Constitution does not require everything related to the government to be called Fijian, says Attorney-General Siromi Turaga.

Speaking during a media conference, he said there was no right or wrong way to describe a title or name a government.

He said FijiFirst party general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was trying to mislead the people when he said that the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had not called everybody a Fijian.

“On the term of Fijian as common name, again Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is playing with half-truths to mislead the people when it comes to his petty complaints that the Ministry of Information Facebook page is now called Fiji Government,” Turaga said.

“We are the Republic of Fiji not the republic of Fijians constitutionally, Fiji is home to all Fijians.

“In China, the official government website is the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.

“In Australia and Britain it is the Australian government and the British government. He said the Constitution never said that when someone spoke they must call every citizen Fijian.

“Frankly, there is nothing grammatically incorrect about that and the fact is, no law was broken by the renaming.

“A Constitution does not say everything related to the government must be called Fijian, neither does it require all officials to call citizens Fijian when they speak.

“It is the prerogative of government and the transition from FFP (government) to the coalition government, a decision has been made to call the government page Fiji Government.”

Turaga said the 2013 Constitution also enshrined freedom of speech.

Meri Radinibaravi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Politicians can respond to the political rhetoric but claims that the new Fiji government has broken the law are a more serious matter, says prominent Suva lawyer Richard Naidu.

Reacting to FijiFirst general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s claims that there have been a number of incursions into the separation of powers since the government came in, Naidu said Sayed-Khaiyum had made no specific allegations that the People’s Alliance-led coalition had breached the “separation of powers”.

“In layman’s terms, ‘the separation of powers’ means only that the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Cabinet and civil servants) and the judiciary (judges and magistrates) should each ‘stay in their lanes’,” he said.

“They should not interfere in each other’s functions.

“Aiyaz has made no specific allegations that the new government has breached this concept. What law does he say has been broken?”

Naidu also questioned the procedures that were taken to set up the 2013 Constitution.

“Aiyaz’s FijiFirst party government applied the constitution as it suited them.

“It never set up the Accountability and Transparency Commission that the Constitution required (s.121); it never set up a Ministerial Code of Conduct as the Constitution required (s.149); it never set up a Freedom of Information Act as the Constitution required (s.150).

“This was, after all, his own government’s constitution.”

Rakesh Kumar is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Who’s broken the law? “Separation of powers” and all that stuff.

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s hour-long news conference on Saturday, January 21, seems mostly to have followed the usual FijiFirst party format.

He pontificated at length while his party’s MPs stood silently behind him.

From what I could tell, Sayed-Khaiyum’s speech was a mixture of political criticism and claims about the law. The politicians can respond to the political rhetoric. But claims that the government has broken the law are a more serious matter.

Sayed-Khaiyum has raised a number of complaints suggesting that the new government has broken the law. He has not been very clear about why this is so. However, for the record, let’s go over these complaints (or at least what he seems to be suggesting):

that former Constitutional Offices Commission members were unlawfully removed from office

Wrong. The Commissioners were asked to resign. They did so. No law prevents them from resigning. If they had refused to resign, they would have remained in place (as others have done).

Sayed-Khaiyum says that the PM had “no authority” to ask them to resign. Wrong. Nobody needs “authority” to ask anyone else to commit a voluntary act. The former Constitutional Offices Commissioners are not the property of the FijiFirst party. No law has been broken.

that the Minister for Home Affairs should not have asked the Commissioner of Police to resign

Wrong. It is a free country. The minister may make any request he wants — and the commissioner may accept or refuse that request.

The commissioner refused the minister’s request, saying he wanted the Constitutional Office Commission process be followed. The commissioner remains in place.

No law has been broken.

that prayers at government functions breach the Constitution

Sayed-Khaiyum read out s.4 of the Constitution (“Secular state”) and claimed that at government functions prayers were now only offered in one religion (presumably the Christian one).

To suggest that this is something new — that this did not happen under the FijiFirst party government — is fantasy. And I too wish that those who offer prayers were sometimes a little more sensitive to other religions.

But that is not the point. The Constitution does not tell any of us how to pray.

No law has been broken.

“not referring to all citizens as Fijians”

The Constitution may refer to all citizens as “Fijians”. But the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech. There is no law that says we must all call each other “Fijians”. We may call each other what we want.

No law has been broken.

replacing boards of statutory authorities before expiry of their terms

Sayed-Khaiyum should be specific. Which boards is he referring to? If board members have resigned and been replaced, then what I have already said about resignations also applies.

For a number of statutory bodies the minister has, under the relevant law, the power to appoint board members. This power generally includes the power to dismiss them.

Replacing boards or board members mid-term is certainly nothing new. Sayed-Khaiyum may recall a recent example while he was Minister for Housing. He requested the entire Housing Authority board to resign before the expiry of their terms (and they complied).

No law has been broken.

taking back ATS [Air Terminal Services] workers. Sayed-Khaiyum seems to think that because a court decided that ATS is not required to take the workers back, ATS cannot do so.

Wrong. Any parties to litigation — including employers and employees — can decide to settle their differences at any time — including after a court ruling. The new government has requested ATS to take its former employees back. If ATS has a legal problem with this, no doubt it will tell government.

No law has been broken.

that using vernacular languages in Parliament breaches Standing Orders

Other than for the formal process of electing the Speaker and the Prime Minister, Parliament has not yet even sat yet.

The new government wants to allow the use of vernacular languages in Parliament. The current Standing Orders do not permit this.

So, to allow the use of vernacular languages in Parliament, the government will have to propose changes to the Standing Orders and parliamentarians will have to vote for them. That is normal procedure (Standing Order 128).

No law has been broken.

“separation of powers”

Under the FijiFirst party government, this phrase seemed to be thrown around to justify anything. For example, the Parliament Secretariat would frequently refuse to allow opposition MPs to ask questions of government ministers because of “the separation of powers”.

This justification made no sense. Section 91 of the Constitution requires ministers to be accountable to Parliament.

In layman’s terms, “the separation of powers” means only that the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Cabinet and civil servants) and the judiciary (judges and magistrates) should each “stay in their lanes”.

They should not interfere in each other’s functions. Sayed-Khaiyum has made no specific allegations that the new government has breached this concept. What law does he say has been broken?

FijiFirst and the Constitution

Sayed-Khaiyum’s FijiFirst party government applied the Constitution as it suited them.

It never set up the Accountability and Transparency Commission that the Constitution required (s.121) It never set up a Ministerial Code of Conduct as the Constitution required (s.149).

It never set up a Freedom of Information Act as the Constitution required (s.150). This was, after all, his own government’s constitution.

His government treated Parliament — the elected representatives of Fiji’s people — with contempt. Almost all of its laws were passed under urgency (Standing Order 51).

Typically, parliamentarians got two days’ notice of what new laws the government was proposing, sometimes less. That meant no one had time to review the laws
or consult the people on them.

The FFP government treated the people’s laws as its own property. Sayed-Khaiyum complains about board members being removed and public service appointment rules not being followed. He says nothing about the numerous arbitrary terminations of many public servants under the FijiFirst party government, including the Solicitor-General and the Government Statistician.

It was no less than the Fiji Law Society president who this week described rule of law under the FijiFirst government as “sometimes hanging by a thread”.

Against this background, not many lawyers are prepared to listen to Sayed-Khaiyum lecture us on the law.

#LOCALNEWS Who’s broken the law? “Separation of powers” and all that stuff. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s hour-long news conference on Saturday, January 21, seems mostly to have followed the usual FijiFirst party format. #TimesNews #FijiNews #FijiPol https://t.co/sblh8koJBs

— The Fiji Times (@fijitimes) January 22, 2023

If you’ve got a problem, go to court

The “separation of powers” doctrine is also clear that if you have a problem with the lawfulness of any government action, the courts are there to solve that problem. It is the
courts who decide if anyone has breached the Constitution. It is not the secretary of the opposition political party.

So, if Sayed-Khaiyum has a complaint that the law has been broken, he should do what the rest of us do — take it to court. That is what he frequently told the Opposition to do when it complained about what his government did.

Sayed-Khaiyum has a little more time on his hands now. He is a qualified lawyer with a practising certificate. So — get on with it. Bring your complaints to court, because
that is where they belong. Should Sayed-Khaiyum really be lecturing us about the law?

Finally, Sayed-Khaiyum has still not explained to anyone how, in the space of three days in January, he got himself kicked out of Parliament by accepting a position on the Constitutional Offices Commission — and then had to resign from the Constitutional Offices Commission when asked how he could continue as general secretary of the Fiji First Party.

Should we really be taking legal advice from him?

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer and a columnist. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz