Six civil society organisations have questioned how they can independently scrutinise the Electoral Commission when they could first be required to seek permission from the very institution they are supposed to hold accountable.
In a strongly worded joint statement, the organisations condemned the Campaigns and Foreign Funding Rules 2026, warning that the new requirements could undermine freedom of expression and independent democratic participation.
They said even organisations proposing to fund activities entirely through domestic sources could be required to obtain approval if those activities were classified as election campaigning.
The organisations would also be required to disclose foreign funding received over the preceding three years.
“Democracy cannot operate on prior permission,” the organisations said.
They claimed the Supervisor of Elections could take up to seven days to decide on an application, while the rules purported to exclude judicial review of the Electoral Commission’s final decision.
“Public debates, media interviews and urgent responses to political developments cannot be scheduled around bureaucratic approval processes,” they said.
The organisations questioned how civil society could independently scrutinise the Electoral Commission when its own Supervisor of Elections could effectively determine whether such scrutiny was permitted.
“The very institution whose decisions, conduct and administration must be subjected to independent public scrutiny would effectively have the power to determine whether that scrutiny may proceed,” they said.
“This is a fundamental contradiction that should have no place in a democracy.”
The organisations blamed the situation on what they described as the Government’s rushed amendments to Section 115 of the Electoral Act 2014, claiming the changes were passed without adequate consultation or scrutiny.
They also questioned why the Government had expanded restrictions that international election observers had repeatedly recommended reviewing.
According to the organisations, the Multinational Observer Group raised concerns about Section 115 following the 2014, 2018 and 2022 General Elections.
They said the observer group described the provision as “unduly restrictive” in 2014 and subsequently recommended reviewing the restrictions and strengthening civil society participation.
“International observers repeatedly called for these restrictions to be reconsidered. Yet the Rabuka Government has moved in the opposite direction, potentially extending their application from approximately 45 days to more than eight months,” they said.
The organisations questioned the justification for requiring prior approval for independent interviews, research publications and public discussions on electoral matters.
“Why is the Government so determined to control who can speak about elections, what they can discuss and when?” they asked.
They called on the Electoral Commission to urgently withdraw and reconsider the rules, particularly the expanded definition of campaigning.
They also urged the Government to repeal or substantially amend Section 115 to protect independent, non-partisan democratic participation.
“Freedom of expression is not a privilege that the Supervisor of Elections may grant or withhold. It is a constitutional right,” they said.
“A democracy in which journalists, academics, civil society leaders and potentially even political parties must seek official permission before discussing election-related matters is a democracy in serious trouble.”
The statement was issued by the Centre for Democracy & Dialogue, femLINKpacific, Fiji Council of Social Services, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, Social Empowerment and Education Programme, and Transparency & Integrity Fiji.
