TWO senior lawyers yesterday urged the Supreme Court to declare Fiji’s 2013 Constitution invalid and reinstate the 1997 Constitution as the country’s true supreme law.
In contrast, National Federation Party legal counsel Jon Apted, who advised during the 1997 constitutional process, argued that Fiji had moved on since then.
“The arrangements and compromises made in the 1997 Constitution were based on a different Fiji,” Mr Apted said.
In submissions before the Court, Social Democratic Liberal Party legal counsel Jolame Uludole argued the 1997 Constitution was never legally abrogated. ‘
He said the court not only had the authority to rule on its validity but could also preserve State continuity by applying the Doctrine of Necessity.
“The court can rule that the government actions taken under the 2013 Constitution must remain valid to avoid upheaval,” Mr Uludole said.
He acknowledged the practical challenges of immediately restoring the 1997 order, such as reconvening the Parliament elected in 2006.
As a solution, he proposed designating the current Government as an interim administration, allowed to complete its term while preparations are made for fresh elections under the 1997 framework.
“We understand a lot of work will be necessary, which cannot be done overnight,” he said, adding the transition could be achieved within the current parliamentary term.
People’s Alliance party legal counsel Simione Valenitabua went further, telling the Court the 2013 Constitution was “illegitimate and invalid from the beginning”.
“Our position is very clear from the submissions we’ve filed,” he said.
“The 2013 Constitution is illegitimate and invalid from the beginning.”
Mr Valenitabua said the 1997 Constitution was the product of democratic legitimacy, unanimously approved by Parliament after public consultation.
To illustrate, he invoked the biblical tale of King Solomon, likening Fiji to a child torn between two constitutional claims.
“The 1997 Constitution is the ‘true mother’ born of legal legitimacy, while the 2013 Constitution is an ‘imposter’ imposed by decree,” he said.
Mr Apted emphasised that the compromises made back then were rooted in concerns that no longer apply in the same way today.
“The numbers have changed,” Mr Apted said.
“The same issues as in 1987 don’t exist to the same extent.
“The arrangements and compromises made in the 1997 Constitution were based on a different Fiji.
“The most important issues, especially the country’s demographics, have completely changed.”
The Supreme Court will continue hearing submissions throughout the week.