State Counsel in the Supreme Court reference on constitutional amendments, has told the court that the failed Constitution Amendment Bill 2025 path it took through Parliament was constitutionally valid.
Bret Walker said that the requirements of section 160 of the Constitution did not apply in the case of the amendment attempt, which had sought to alter the amendment provisions themselves.
“I simply want to point out that it is a fact that it received the support of the votes it did receive,” he said.
“If we are correct, 159(2)(c) never stood in the way and if we are correct, 160 was not required to be observed.”
Mr Walker emphasised that Parliament remains the master of its own procedures, and while public participation and committee consultation may be politically and socially desirable, they are not constitutional requirements.
“It would be wise to engage as much participation, including consultation, but a different question is whether that is constitutionally required to support the answer we propose.”
He firmly rejected the idea that any law passed by a simple majority is inherently undemocratic.
Mr Walker also warned the court against embracing an interpretation that would impose a two-thirds supermajority requirement unless clearly specified by the Constitution.
“This Court has no footing in any of the cases in Fiji for saying, for example, that there needs to be a two-thirds supermajority in Parliament.”
“As it happens, the government agrees with that and has tried to have it enacted in the face of Chapter 11.”
He cautioned that the Court must avoid stepping into policy-making territory, noting that any requirement beyond what the Constitution specifies could undermine the principle of parliamentary supremacy.
“That would be a sad day for the Court in terms of the criticism to which it would understandably be exposed.”
“We don’t have to speculate. We’ve actually seen the parliamentary conduct. Far from seeking to weaken the Constitution, the government has tried to strengthen it.”