The threat of criminal prosecution under Fiji’s electoral laws could discourage civil society organisations from conducting legitimate voter education, public discussions and electoral analysis, Fiji Law Society president Graham Leung has warned.
Mr Leung said the broad restrictions under section 115 of the Electoral Act 2014 raised serious concerns about constitutional freedoms and the ability of independent organisations to participate in democratic processes.
“A law that could lead to fear [of] criminal prosecutions for organising a public discussion, publishing electoral analysis or undertaking non-partisan voter education could have a chilling effect and raise serious questions about constitutional freedoms,” he said.
The Fiji Law Society (FLS) acknowledged that Parliament had the authority to introduce legislation preventing improper foreign interference in elections.
However, it argued that foreign funding of partisan political campaigns must be distinguished from international development assistance supporting independent voter education, research, public-interest advocacy and democratic dialogue.
“An organisation does not become an instrument of foreign political influence simply because it receives assistance from an international development partner,” the Society stated.
The FLS expressed concern that section 115 failed to adequately distinguish between improper electoral interference and legitimate independent civic engagement.
It said this was particularly troubling because breaches of the provision could attract criminal liability.
The Society warned that organisations could be discouraged from carrying out lawful activities, not because they intended to improperly influence an election, but because they were uncertain whether their activities would be classified as prohibited campaigning.
It stressed that Fiji’s Constitution guaranteed freedom of expression under section 17, freedom of assembly under section 18, freedom of association under section 19 and political rights under section 23.
The Society said any restrictions on these rights must satisfy constitutional requirements, including legitimacy, necessity and proportionality.
It maintained that legislation restricting fundamental freedoms must be clearly defined, proportionate to its intended purpose and supported by appropriate legal safeguards.
The FLS warned that measures intended to prevent foreign interference should not result in indiscriminate restrictions on legitimate civic participation.
