Fiji’s 2013 Constitution sets out to secure political stability by imposing exceptionally high barriers to any amendment. Section 160 demands a three–quarters majority in both the second and third parliamentary readings – separated by at least thirty days – followed by “yes” votes from 75 per cent of all registered electors in a nationwide referendum. While this dual threshold guards against erratic change, it also risks stalling necessary reform and breeding public resignation.
Crucially, Section 160 remains silent on how that referendum is to be conducted — its timing, voting modalities, duration, voter notification, and ballot–counting rules are all left to ordinary legislation under Chapter 11. Far from a flaw, this delegation presents a unique opportunity for Fiji to design inclusive, context–sensitive procedures that balance integrity with accessibility.
What follows is an integrated roadmap that unpacks the constitutional design, explores Parliament’s law–making authority, outlines the need for genuine national consensus, details a six–month civic–education campaign, proposes a hybrid voting model, examines comparative judicial approaches, and offers a robust conclusion to guide Fiji toward a living, evolving charter.
Section 160: Entrenchment and Procedural Latitude
At its core, Section 160 imposes a formidable double lock on constitutional change. After a successful first reading, an amendment Bill must attract the support of three–quarters of all MPs at both the second and third readings obliging cross–party and cross–faction consensus and then pass a public referendum in which 75 per cent of every registered voter must affirm it.
In 2022, Fiji recorded 693,915 eligible voters, yet only 68.3 per cent cast ballots in the general election, underscoring the yawning gap between ordinary turnout and the super–threshold requirement. Similar safeguards exist elsewhere — Canada’s “7/50” entrenchment formula or Ireland’s simple majority in referenda, but they all accompany detailed procedural rules.
By contrast, Fiji’s framers intentionally omitted procedural guidance in Section 160, delegating those details to enabling legislation under Chapter 11. That omission allows Parliament to shape referendum mechanics to fit Fiji’s archipelagic geography, cultural diversity, and technological landscape.
Recognising this delegation as an invitation to innovate, rather than a barrier, is the crucial first step in unlocking constitutional renewal.
Parliament’s authority: Legislating referendum mechanics
Chapter 11 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to enact “laws necessary or expedient” to give effect to any provision including Section 160’s blank procedural canvas. A robust enabling Act should begin with a nationwide consultation lasting at least 60 days.
From Suva and Lautoka’s urban corridors to farming village areas in Labasa and the Taveuni, and coral atolls in the Lau Islands and all other localities, Fijians must be invited to discuss how best to cast and count their votes. Formal submissions should run alongside village–level forums, church–led workshops, farmers’ union meetings, and online town–halls, ensuring that logistical concerns – postal reliability, digital literacy, language translations, and transport challenges – inform every regulation.
A Joint Select Committee, with equal representation from government, opposition, and civil–society organisations, must vet draft procedures for fairness and feasibility. To prevent stagnation, the Act should include a five–year sunset clause and mandatory periodic reviews, compelling Parliament to adapt to demographic shifts and technological advances.
By publishing draft Bills, committee reports, and civic–education budgets online, Parliament will transform referendum law–making from a behind–closed–doors exercise into an open, shared national endeavour.
Building national consensus: Beyond partisan politics
Constitutional legitimacy cannot be achieved by one faction alone. When reform is perceived as a partisan project, turnout collapses, and long–term acceptance erodes. Fiji must forge a cross–party pact in which every major parliamentary grouping — government, opposition, and smaller parties — publicly endorses the principle of a legislated referendum framework before technical drafting begins.
Broadcasting this endorsement in a widely viewed “unity council” event sends a powerful signal: constitutional change is a shared national mission. But political leaders alone are not enough. True consensus demands inclusion of laypersons, traditional chiefs, women’s collectives, youth movements, business chambers, and diaspora organisations, just as an example.
Under the guidance of respected regional convenors — former judges, faith leaders, and NGO chairs — village forums and urban town–halls will gather grassroots insights on practicalities and values, surfacing concerns from remote reef villages to Suva’s townships.
Imbedding these commitments in a “consensus preamble” at the start of the enabling Act enshrines the shared principles in law, ensuring procedural design is the very foundation of Fiji’s democratic renewal rather than an afterthought.
Civic education: Empowering informed participation
No referendum process succeeds without an informed electorate. The 2012–13 Ghai Commission’s outreach faltered under tight decrees and scarce funding, leaving many Fijians half–aware of what was at stake. To avoid repeating those mistakes, Parliament must legislate a six–month civic education campaign with guaranteed budget allocations and independent oversight by civil–society bodies.
This campaign should deploy multi–platform messaging — ten–minute explainers on radio and TV in Fijian, Hindi, English, Rotuman, and other local languages; community theatre performances in remote villages; illustrated flyers at municipal markets; and engaging social–media animations for urban youth.
Train–the–trainer workshops, based on international standards, will equip teachers, faith–group leaders, and NGO volunteers to facilitate village–level discussions and mock referenda. Recognising the digital divide, mobile civic–education vans outfitted with solar–powered projectors and audio systems will bring short documentaries and live Q&A sessions to highland settlements and outer islands.
Schools and universities must integrate mock referenda into civics curricula, ensuring that direct democracy becomes part of the learning journey. For overseas Fijians, an official referendum portal, backed by SMS and email alerts, will deliver updates and solicit feedback.
An independent fact–checking unit, partnering with broadcasters and social–media platforms, will counter misinformation in real time. Finally, monthly performance metrics – survey results, website analytics, hotline logs, and workshop attendance – will be published in an accessible public dashboard, enabling continuous improvement and maintaining momentum.
Designing a hybrid referendum model
Achieving 75 per cent “yes” votes require a tri–modal voting system combining mobile teams, postal kits, and an online portal.
l Mobile “yes” registration teams will transcend ad hoc canvassing, operating as professional electoral units. Building on the 2012 EVR pilot that registered over 18,000 new voters in one week, these teams — comprising FEO officers, civil–society monitors, and community leaders — will use encrypted tablets with biometric verification to record affirmations on the spot. Real–time dashboards, displayed online and at civic centres, will show province–by–province tallies, enabling observers to flag anomalies instantly. A “stop–early” mechanism will conclude the mobile phase once 75 per cent of the roll is reached, conserving resources and averting perceptions of overreach.
l Postal “yes” kits draw from Switzerland’s success, where around 60 per cent of ballots are cast by mail. Fiji’s kits — dispatched 45 days before voting — will include bilingual instructions, prepaid return envelopes, and detachable affirmation cards for signature verification against the EVR database. Returned envelopes will be machine–scanned, and affirmation cards batch–audited by bipartisan panels. Hotlines and re–request processes for lost or damaged kits up to two weeks before polling will minimise disenfranchisement.
l Secure Online Portal serves urban and diaspora voters through two–factor authentication linked to EVR data, open–source software, and third–party security audits. Offline voters can download and print ballots for drop–off at designated centres, guaranteeing no Fijian is excluded.
An Electoral Complaints Tribunal, created by the enabling Act, must resolve procedural disputes within 48 hours, preventing local glitches from undermining national confidence. Six months before polling, the Electoral Commission will publish a logistics white paper detailing encryption standard, hardware specs, postal routes, staffing plans, and contingency measures — transforming technical protocols into a shared civic resource.
Comparative case law: Judicial deference and procedural review
Fiji’s courts have largely confined themselves to procedural fidelity, verifying whether Parliament followed constitutional steps without re–weighing Section 160’s thresholds. In the Republic of Fiji Islands v Prasad (2001), the Court of Appeal held that its role was strictly to confirm procedural compliance — readings, intervals, and referendum referral — leaving substantive amendment questions to democratic processes. Similarly, Yabaki v President of Fiji (2001) applied the doctrine of necessity narrowly, upholding executive actions without intruding on constitution–making.
By contrast, South Africa’s Constitutional Court in Doctors for Life International v Speaker (2006) invalidated amendments that bypassed mandatory public participation, affirming that procedural obligations are justiciable. Canada’s Supreme Court, in the Patriation Reference (1981), introduced the doctrine of unwritten constitutional principles, insisting on “substantial provincial consensus” even when the text was silent.
And the UK’s Jackson v Attorney–General (2005) suggested parliamentary sovereignty has limits when statutory processes threaten core constitutional values. These comparative precedents invite Fiji’s judiciary to adopt a more active guardianship, ensuring enabling legislation under Section 160 embodies genuine consultation, transparency, and inclusiveness, thereby reinforcing public trust in the entire reform process.
Pathway to the Future: Making a New People’s Fiji Constitution
Once Section 160’s referendum hurdle is cleared, Fiji must swiftly pivot from amendment to wholesale constitutional renewal. A Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) should be formally established within 30 days of the referendum result, mandated to convene a Constituent Assembly representing all ethnic, religious, and civic groups across Fiji’s islands
The CRC’s terms of reference must explicitly repudiate race–based provisions of previous charters — particularly the regressive communal constituencies championed by SODELPA’s manifesto for restoring iTaukei privileges — ensuring the new constitution enshrines equality under law, not ethnic entitlements.
The Constituent Assembly should operate on transparency and inclusivity, with all sessions livestreamed and minutes published online. Provincial and village forums, already activated during the referendum, must reconvene to feed grassroots perspectives into the drafting process.
An independent Human Rights Advisory Panel, including representatives from civil society, the Fiji Human Rights Commission, and international experts, should review draft articles to safeguard fundamental freedoms and non–discrimination clauses. Within six months, the CRC must produce a draft constitution, structured around core principles: the separation of powers, judicial independence, electoral fairness, and protection of individual rights. Crucially, it should eliminate any explicit race–based provisions for example, communal electorates and transfer of Schedule A and B crown land to the TLTB as these issues and risk reigniting nationalist tensions.
Following public release, a three–month nationwide consultation period — with town halls, youth debates, and digital surveys — will gather feedback on each article. Feedback mechanisms must be accessible in all major languages and account for digital divides via mobile consultation vans. The CRC will then revise the draft based on submissions, producing a final constitution within one year of the referendum.
Ratification should not rest solely on parliamentary passage. Instead, a confirmatory plebiscite with a simple majority threshold will legitimise the new charter in the eyes of all Fijians. This two–step approach balances political endorsement with direct democracy, avoiding backsliding into undemocratic imposition.
Post–adoption, Fiji’s Parliament must enact an Implementation Act detailing the transition timeline for new institutions, including a reformed electoral commission, constitutional court, and ombudsman office. A five–year review clause with built–in triggers for amendments will prevent stagnation and ensure the constitution evolves with society, rather than ossifying into another rigid framework.
By charting this clear path – anchored in inclusivity, transparency, and non–discrimination – Fiji can move beyond mere reform, achieving a modern constitution that reflects its plural identity and democratic aspirations.
Navigating towards the final reward: A living people’s document
Fiji stands at a pivotal crossroads. The daunting super–thresholds of Section 160 need not be viewed as an insurmountable barrier, but rather as a crucible through which true national consensus and democratic maturity are forged.
The procedural silence of Section 160 is not a defect, but an open invitation to innovate offering Parliament, civil society, the judiciary, and every Fijian a shared canvas to craft referendum rules that reflect both our unique cultural mosaic and our collective aspirations.
The roadmap outlined above is rigorous yet practical. It begins with Parliament exercising its Chapter 11 authority to legislate referendum mechanics through an inclusive, transparent process underpinned by a five–year review cycle. It demands a cross–party pact and broad stakeholder endorsement, cemented by a consensus preamble that breathes life into the enabling Act. It mandates a six–month, multi–platform civic–education campaign – blending mass media, community workshops, mobile outreach, school curricula, and digital engagement – to ensure every voter understands not only the “how” but the “why” of constitutional reform.
It prescribes a hybrid voting model – mobile teams with encrypted, biometric tablets; Swiss–style postal kits; and a secure online portal – complemented by real–time dashboards, a swift complaints tribunal, and a publicly available Logistics White Paper. It encourages Fiji’s judiciary to move beyond mere procedural checklists, drawing on global precedents to safeguard core democratic values and demand genuine public participation in drafting referendum rules.
Yet even the most sophisticated design depends on collective will. That will must be forged in a national constitutional forum bringing together lawmakers, traditional chiefs, civil–society coalitions, women’s and youth groups, business chambers, and diaspora representatives in a binding declaration of procedural principles. This shared charter will serve as the moral compass guiding subsequent legislation, civic education, and logistics, ensuring that referendum rules carry the imprimatur of a truly national project.
When Fijians from every corner of our islands unite behind this common cause acknowledging that constitutional change is not a party’s triumph, but the people’s victory we will have done more than amend a document. We will have reaffirmed the democratic covenant that binds us all, charting a living, evolving constitution that stands resilient in the face of future challenges. In forging this path together, Fiji will emerge not only with a renewed charter, but with the confidence and cohesion befitting a modern, participatory democracy.
DR SUSHIL K SHARMA BA MA MEng (IT)(RMIT) PhD (Meteorology)is a former employee of the British Aerospace, the Royal Saudi Airforce, Bahrain Meteorological Service and the Fiji Meteorological Service, and a former Associate Professor of Meteorology and Head of Department of the Fiji National University. The views belong to the author and not necessarily shared by this newspaper.
