NFP SUBMISSION TO THE SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION

Honourable Prime Minister and Chair, Honourable Members of the Special Parliamentary Committee.

On behalf of the National Federation Party, I thank you for inviting us to appear before this Committee. I am accompanied by our General Secretary, Mr Kamal Iyer, and our Assistant General Secretary, Mr Apenisa Vatuniveivuke. We come before you conscious of the importance of this occasion, and mindful that what we say today will be heard not only by the members of this Committee, but by the people of Fiji, whose Constitution we are here to discuss.

At the outset, we wish to make our position absolutely clear. The National Federation Party has always opposed and consistently advocated for changes to the imposed the 2013 Constitution since its promulgation on 6th September, 2013. At the same time, we firmly and genuinely believe that replacing this imposed law with another one is totally unjust and inconceivable. This is the considered decision of our Party's Management Board, endorsed by our Working Committee that represents the rank and file of the party, and communicated to you, Chair, by our Party Leader, Professor Biman Prasad on the 12th of October. We have arrived at this position after careful consideration, not because we oppose constitutional reform, but because we believe that a country which has suffered so much from constitutional instability must exercise the greatest possible care in determining its constitutional future.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HISTORY

Honourable Prime Minister, there are moments in the life of a nation when those entrusted with political authority must consider not only what they have the power to do, but what history will eventually make of their decisions. We believe this is one of those moments. The question before us is not simply whether Parliament can secure the necessary votes to amend the Constitution. It is whether the process we have undertaken is capable of producing a constitutional settlement which the people will understand, accept and respect long after this Government has left office.

For the National Federation Party, this question carries particular significance. Our Party was founded before Fiji became an independent nation. We participated in the negotiations that led to independence in 1970. We stood for parliamentary democracy through the upheavals of 1987, and we were part of the negotiations that produced the 1997 Constitution. We opposed the overthrow of elected governments and the abrogation of our constitutional arrangements. We have endured political victories and defeats, periods in government and long years in opposition. Yet throughout those years, we have maintained our conviction that political authority must come from the people, and that no government, however powerful or popular, has an exclusive claim upon the constitutional future of the nation.

THE LESSONS OF THE 1997 CONSTITUTION

Honourable Prime Minister, you yourself were part of an important chapter in that history. You and the late Jai Ram Reddy, who led the National Federation Party, came from very different political traditions. There were profound disagreements between you, shaped by the painful events of our past. Yet you were able to work towards a constitutional accommodation which eventually found expression in the 1997 Constitution. That achievement required something which has too often been absent from our politics: the willingness to accept that the future of Fiji was more important than the complete political satisfaction of either side. Neither of you obtained everything you wanted. But you recognised that the country could not progress unless its political leaders were prepared to find common ground through genuine negotiation and consensus building in the national interest.

We recall that history today not to romanticise the past, nor to suggest that the 1997 Constitution was without weaknesses. It was not. But its making demonstrated that even those separated by the deepest political divisions could negotiate a common constitutional future. It demonstrated that reconciliation required more than speeches about unity. It required patience, compromise and the willingness to listen to people whose views were fundamentally different from one's own. That is the standard against which we believe the present constitutional exercise should be measured.

THE COST OF CONSTITUTIONAL INSTABILITY

We should remember, too, the people who lived through those turbulent years. Behind every constitutional crisis were ordinary families whose lives were disrupted, businesses whose futures became uncertain, young people who lost confidence in the country of their birth, and citizens who wondered whether the democratic rights promised to them would ever be secure. The consequences of our constitutional failures have never been confined to political leaders. They have been suffered by the people, often for years after those responsible for the decisions have departed from office.

Fiji has lived through the coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006, through the abrogation of constitutions and through repeated arguments about who possesses the authority to govern. We have seen what happens when constitutional legitimacy is weakened and political power is placed above the institutions intended to restrain it. Each time, the country has been left to rebuild confidence in its democracy. Each time, ordinary Fijians have been asked to believe that the next constitutional arrangement will finally provide the stability that previous arrangements failed to secure.

It is against this history that we must consider the present Bill. The 2013 Constitution was imposed by an unelected administration without the approval of the people in a referendum or enactment by a democratically elected Parliament. The NFP opposed its imposition, and we have consistently advocated its replacement. But we cannot now condemn the process of 2013 while accepting a process for replacing that Constitution which does not provide adequate public participation. We have a democratically elected Parliament today, and that is an important distinction. Nevertheless, the responsibility to consult the people meaningfully remains. Indeed, an elected Parliament should be especially conscious of that obligation, because its authority derives from the very people whose constitutional future it is considering.

WHY THE NFP SUPPORTED THE SECOND READING

Honourable Prime Minister, on 2 October, our Members of Parliament supported the second reading of this Bill in good faith. We did so because we believed it should be subjected to intense public scrutiny and parliamentary deliberation without any restrictions whatsoever. We hoped that the process would allow differences to be examined and common ground to be found. Professor Biman Prasad agreed to serve on this Committee in that spirit. Our support was not an unconditional endorsement of the Bill, nor was it an undertaking to vote for it regardless of the outcome of consultations. It was an opportunity for Parliament and the people to examine what was proposed.

THE REFERENDUM ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

Unfortunately, the original timetable quickly gave us cause for concern. On 6 October, we objected to your announcement that the referendum would take place on 9 December, before this Committee had begun its substantive work. We considered the announcement premature in light of the requirements of section 160 of the Constitution. Parliament had not determined the final text of the proposed amendments, and the people had not yet been properly heard. The announcement raised a legitimate question about whether the outcome had already been anticipated before the consultations had even commenced.

Our concerns deepened when the Committee's timetable became clear. The public was initially given only thirteen days for consultations on a document that would determine the constitutional arrangements of our country for generations. People were expected to read, understand and respond to complex proposals without adequate translations, sufficient explanation or reasonable opportunity for discussion. Our Party President raised these concerns when he appeared before this Committee in Labasa on 24 October.

We were particularly troubled that citizens who had travelled considerable distances to make submissions were being afforded only a few minutes to explain matters of profound importance to them. Worse of all, there was simply no interaction between the committee and the submitters. This has resulted in misinformation being disseminated both on mainstream and social media where the views of the submitters was talked about rather than the provisions of the bill itself. Primarily because of the lack of time, understanding and appreciated of the provisions of the bill, this was allowed to happen. The perception created by this is now irreversible.

A vast majority of the people have genuine fears about the erosion of their rights and fundamental freedoms because these misconceptions have been allowed to prevail. No matter what is done this perception cannot and will not be reversed or eradicated. Because the people now believe that this is only a cosmetic exercise to impose government’s view. Our people’s immediate and rightful concern right now are other issues for their social and economic survival. Like housing, cost of living and the devastating effects of the prolonged droughts in most parts of the country. Against this backdrop, the government is being accused of deliberately neglecting their worsening plight. Again, this is a perception that cannot be reversed.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE HEARD

Honourable Prime Minister, I ask you and the members of this Committee to consider what that means for the ordinary citizen. A farmer who has spent his life working the land, a mother concerned about the rights of her children, a worker concerned about his livelihood or an elderly person who has lived through every constitutional upheaval since independence should not have to become a constitutional lawyer overnight merely to understand what Parliament proposes to do. They should not be expected to express considered views on the supreme law of their country within a few hurried minutes. These people are not an inconvenience to the constitutional process. They are the reason the process exists.

And to the people of Fiji who may be watching these proceedings, we wish to say that your interest in the Constitution is not limited to the occasions when you are invited to vote. You have a right to understand the laws that determine how your country is governed, a right to question those entrusted with making them, and a right to expect that your concerns will receive serious consideration. The Constitution will affect your lives long after the present political disagreements have been forgotten. It is therefore entirely reasonable that you should be given the time and information necessary to participate in its making.

THE UNRESOLVED SHORTCOMINGS

We acknowledge that Parliament has since extended the Committee's reporting deadline. But the additional time simply will not resolve the fundamental shortcomings of the exercise. The Government's Bill differs significantly from the draft prepared by the Constitution Review Commission. The people who participated in the Commission's consultations should be afforded adequate opportunity to examine those differences and understand why particular recommendations have been accepted or rejected. There remain substantial questions about constitutional institutions, representation, accountability and the distribution of power which deserve more careful examination than the present process has allowed.

THE NEED FOR NATIONAL CONSENSUS

We are also concerned that opposition parties were not adequately involved at the beginning of the constitutional review process. Professor Biman Prasad wrote to you in December 2025 requesting their inclusion. We believed then, as we believe now, that a constitutional settlement cannot be the exclusive undertaking of the parties which happen to form the Government. Those who disagree with us politically are still citizens of this Republic. Their rights are no less important, and their concerns are no less deserving of consideration. A Constitution which is intended to serve all Fijians must be developed through a process which takes those differences seriously.

THE NFP'S FINAL POSITION

Honourable Prime Minister, on 29 October, Professor Prasad wrote to you advising that the NFP would not support the Bill at its third reading and urging the People's Alliance to consider withdrawing it until after the General Election. He did so out of respect for the coalition partnership which brought our parties together in 2022. We have worked together through difficult circumstances, and our Party has at times accepted considerable political costs in the interests of maintaining stable government. But cooperation in government cannot require us to abandon the principles which brought us into public life. Our Management Board, with the endorsement of the Working Committee, has directed our four Members of Parliament to vote against the Bill at its third reading. That decision remains unchanged.

THE WAY FORWARD

We recognise that this position may cause disappointment. We recognise the effort already invested in the review and the sincere desire of those who wish to see constitutional reform completed during this parliamentary term. But there is no constitutional emergency requiring this Bill to be enacted before the next General Election. The election can proceed under the existing constitutional arrangements, without extending the term of the present Government. The work of the Commission and this Committee need not be discarded. It can provide the foundation for a more deliberate, representative and comprehensive constitutional process after the election.

THE PRIME MINISTER'S HISTORICAL RESPONSIBILITY

Honourable Prime Minister, history has placed you in an unusual position. You have lived through and participated in some of the most consequential political events in Fiji's modern history. You have seen how profoundly a country's future can be altered by decisions taken at moments of political uncertainty. You have also experienced the difficult work of negotiation and reconciliation. As Prime Minister, you lead the Government which has brought this Bill before Parliament. As Chairman of this Committee, you are entrusted with considering the concerns of those who disagree with it. We respectfully ask you to weigh those concerns not according to their political inconvenience, but according to the responsibility which this moment places upon all of us.

There is no dishonour in acknowledging that constitutional reform requires more time. There is no weakness in listening again to the people, or in accepting that the work begun by this Parliament may have to be completed by the next. The greater risk would be to proceed in the knowledge that substantial concerns remain unresolved, and to leave future generations to confront another constitutional settlement whose legitimacy is contested from the outset.

One day, Honourable Prime Minister, none of us will occupy the offices we hold today. The arguments of this Parliament will have passed into the historical record. The political alliances of our time will have changed, and another generation will have assumed responsibility for governing the country. But the Constitution we leave behind may continue to determine the rights of those Fijians, the powers of their governments and the limits upon those powers. When that generation looks back upon this period, it should be able to say that its leaders understood the lessons of Fiji's past and were prepared to place the long-term interests of the country above the political pressures of the moment.

THE NFP'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE

The National Federation Party therefore respectfully asks this Committee to recommend that Bill No. 32 should not proceed to its third reading under the present arrangements, and that constitutional reform continue after the General Election through a more inclusive and deliberate process. We make that recommendation not because we have abandoned our commitment to constitutional change, but because we believe that commitment demands a process worthy of the Constitution we hope to create.

CONCLUSION: A CONSTITUTION THAT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE

Honourable Prime Minister and Members of the Committee, Fiji has waited a long time for a constitutional settlement that can bring lasting confidence to its people. We should not allow the desire to complete that work quickly to overcome our responsibility to complete it properly. Our country has endured too many constitutional disappointments, and too many generations have lived with the consequences of decisions in which they had little meaningful say. We must not repeat the mistake of 2013 in the name of correcting it.

The Constitution does not belong to the Prime Minister, to the Government, to Parliament or to the National Federation Party. It belongs to the people of Fiji: to those who support us, to those who oppose us, to those who have placed their confidence in this Government and to those who have not. It belongs to the families who have remained in this country through every political upheaval, to those who have worked to rebuild it and to the children who will inherit whatever constitutional arrangements we leave behind.

Let it therefore be said of this generation of political leaders that, when confronted with a choice between political convenience and constitutional responsibility, we understood the difference. Let it be said that we did not mistake the power to pass a Constitution for the wisdom to make one. And let it be said that, having inherited a nation so often divided by its constitutional history, we had the patience and the courage to give its people a proper opportunity to determine their constitutional future.

That, Honourable Prime Minister, is the responsibility history has placed upon us. It is the responsibility which the National Federation Party respectfully asks you and this Committee to uphold.

I thank you, Honourable Prime Minister and Chairman, and Honourable Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to present our views.

Vinaka vakalevu.