BY METUISELA GAUNA AND JONE SALUSALU
Currently, there are significant yet overlooked issues concerning the displaced and the imprudent priorities that the Coalition Government has placed above developmental interests.
While it is commendable that the Government appears to be concentrating on rectifying institutional failures, one might question whether it is equally dedicated to enhancing infrastructural requirements rather than merely engaging in political cleanup.
The Fijian people have undergone a new wave of political transformation, which has brought about a fresh set of freedoms alongside institutional mischief.
The Government is tackling numerous challenges simultaneously, the most controversial two being: the ongoing Commission of Inquiry (COI; and pursuing amendments to the 2013 Constitution; all while attempting to meet the needs of the people and tackle economic difficulties.
Despite the admirable intentions, the Government seems to be overly distracted from the pressing issues, particularly the need to address fundamental infrastructural requirements such as adequate rural roads, access to water for communities still dependent on borehole sources, and the plight of villages living in tents since the last natural disaster, among other concerns.
Reactive approach
Fiji’s political landscape remains embroiled in significant theatrics and controversy.
Despite the Coalition Governments promises of reform and accountability upon winning the 2022 Elections, they continue to face the formidable challenge of addressing a multitude of pressing national issues simultaneously.
From finding themselves in a web of constitutional debates, institutional inquiries, and power struggles that threaten to derail its mandates.
This mode of operation risks creating the appearance of competency while the reality is that government’s energies are dispersed across a wide field of competing priorities without clear focused strategy.
Among the most pressing issues are the contentions discussions of the legitimacy of the 1997 constitution, proposed amendments of the 2013 Constitution, and the infamous Commission of Inquiry report.
These developments have not only fuelled political discord, but have also raised serious concerns about governance priorities, transparency, and the Government’s commitment to serving the people.
Circus run around — institutional fragility and politicised governance and COI report recommendations
A central concern is the pervasive politicisation of key institutions and an apparent culture of impunity within the government.
This is exemplified by the FICAC scandal, in which high-ranking officials were alleged to have misled the COI under oath.
Despite the swift suspension of the FICAC Commissioner, the absence of subsequent criminal prosecutions or meaningful institutional accountability suggests a selective application of justice and a troubling tolerance for unethical conduct at high levels.
The release of the COI report into the appointment of Barbara Malimali has generated significant public speculation and controversy, creating a political drama that one analyst has likened to a “Hollywood Blockbuster”.
This saga, however, strikes at the very heart of democratic governance and public trust in Fiji.
The process itself has been marred by irregularities. Submitted to His Excellency the President on May 1, 2025, the report was prematurely leaked to the public, raising serious questions about the government’s capacity to safeguard sensitive documents.
Subsequently, after an investigation by the Fiji Police Force, the Prime Minister announced the release of a redacted version of the report, with an unredacted copy available only to witnesses upon request to the Director of Information.
This decision to withhold the full report from the public has sparked widespread debate.
Critics rightly argue that this action undermines the democratic principles of transparency and the right to information enshrined in the 2013 Constitution.
Given that the inquiry was funded by taxpayers at a considerable cost of $2 million, the public possesses a legitimate claim to its complete findings.
As Opposition leader Inia Seruiratu emphasised, such secrecy erodes trust and stifles genuine progress toward accountability. The substance of the report has proven equally contentious.
COI Judge Justice David Ashton-Lewis recently expressed grave concern that, more than fourteen weeks after submitting the report, the government has implemented only two of its seventeen recommendations.
He issued a powerful appeal to the nation’s leaders, stating that if they are “serious about fighting corruption,” they must “start by cleaning out those who have worked in the shadows to seize control of FICAC and hold to account those who have corrupted its very foundation.”
He concluded that anything less would be “a betrayal of the people of Fiji and a mockery of justice”.
In response, the Government has expressed disappointment with the commissioner’s public statements, asserting that the COI’s role was to inquire, not to prosecute.
They have called on the chair to uphold the dignity of his office by respecting the process and refraining from commentary that could undermine public confidence.
This exchange has drawn other political voices into the fray.
The Unity Fiji party, for instance, has voiced its disappointment at the lack of progress, suggesting that the government’s silence only adds to the “growing suspicion that something is cooked up”.
Annoyance
Ultimately, this ongoing political drama transcends the specifics of a single appointment. It reveals a deepening split between the pursuit of power and the imperative of public service.
While political figures debate and deflect, the fundamental needs of the people of Fiji risk being overshadowed.
The suffering of those who await justice and accountable governance continues in silence, a stark reminder that the true cost of this inquiry is measured not in dollars, but in the eroding faith of the citizens it was meant to serve.
Debate on the rule of law: 1997 validity and 2013 Constitution proposed amendments.
A constitution serves as the foundational legal framework of a nation, establishing the fundamental principles, structures of government, and the rights and duties of its citizens.
As the supreme law of the land, it ensures stability, order, and a clear delineation of power, making it indispensable for a country’s long-term functionality and survival.
Fiji’s constitutional history has been marked by periods of significant change, having adopted four separate constitutions in 1970, 1990, 1997, and 2013.
The nation currently finds itself in a profound legal and democratic debate concerning the validity of the 1997 Constitution and proposed amendments to the 2013 Constitution.
This issue gained considerable momentum in 2022 when several political parties, now forming the current Coalition Government, campaigned on a promise to amend the 2013 constitution.
However, when the amendment bill was brought before Parliament earlier this March, it was defeated.
The Government failed to meet the stringent requirement of a 75 per cent majority, with the vote concluding at 40 in favour, 14 opposed, and one abstention.
Following this legislative setback, the Government has turned to the Supreme Court for advisory opinion on the interpretation of Sections 159 and 160, which govern the constitutional amendment process.
Former attorney-general Graham Leung noted the unprecedented nature of this request, suggesting it is a significant undertaking to ask a court, whose members were appointed under the 2013 Constitution, to potentially declare that very document illegal.
Last week, various political parties and institutions presented submissions to the court as intervenors, offering diverse perspectives on the two constitutions.
This process has sparked intense political argumentation, which often appears more focused on securing partisan advantage than on upholding foundational democratic principles.
A critical concern that has emerged is the notable absence of the public’s voice in this pivotal process.
As highlighted by Andrew Butler in his capacity as amicus curiae, there has been a profound lack of public consultation on the failed amendment bill.
Constitutional amendment is a matter of such gravity that it demands inclusive and widespread public engagement to be considered legitimate (Fiji Labour Party, 2025).
The exclusion of the popular will in this process does not strengthen but rather weakens the very foundations of Fijian democracy.
Where do people stand under this reactive approach?
The implications of opacity extend beyond political squabbles.
Government political controversy (COI and Constitution amendments) risks overshadowing critical governance functions. Instead of addressing urgent public needs, the government appears to be preoccupied with bureaucratic restructuring and internal power dynamics.
This centralised, reactive approach stands in stark contrast to the promised ‘people-centered’ governance model, leaving citizens to grapple with deteriorating infrastructure, rising cost of living, and inadequate public services.
Roads remain in disrepair, healthcare systems are strained, and access to clean water is inconsistent, issues that demand immediate attention but are being sidelined by political theatrics.
Reformist
The Government has positioned itself as a reformist administration but its credibility hinges on its willingness to confront uncomfortable truths within its own house.
It must move beyond symbolism and adopt a governance model that enforces the rule of law with consistency, prioritises fiscal responsibility and economic reform over political expediency, safeguards civil liberties through substantive legislative overhaul.
This also include building inclusive policies that heal longstanding ethnic and social divisions, delivers on climate promises not just in global forums, but in vulnerable villages across Fiji.
No change
Without decisive action, Fiji risks backsliding into the very patterns of authoritarianism, elite-driven governance, and reactive policymaking it sought to overcome.
The Government’s credibility is eroding, not because of what it promised, but because of how poorly it’s delivered.
Mr Rabuka rose to power on promises of “rebuilding democracy” after the Bainimarama era. However, many of the same authoritarian traits — executive overreach, selective enforcement of laws, and politicisation of public appointments have resurfaced under his leadership.
There is a widening gap between public expectations and governmental action, exacerbating political cynicism.
Repeated slogans about transparency, unity, and accountability now sound hollow to many Fijians.
In effect, the Rabuka-led Government has shown itself to be “new faces, old politics”.
What next?
To address Fiji’s most pressing challenges and rebuild public trust, the Government must prioritise deep structural reform over surface-level change.
Public trust, the bedrock of any functioning democracy, is eroding at an alarming rate.
Trust is not a given, it must be earned through consistent transparency, accountability, and tangible improvements in citizens’ lives through active citizen participation.
The Coalition Government initially have public trust following its 2022 election victory, with high expectation for reform.
However, its focus bureaucratic reshuffling, coupled with controversies such as amending of the 2013 Constitution and the suppression of the COI report, has disillusioned many.
This decline in confidence is not merely symbolic, it has real world consequences.
When trust wanes, civic engagement diminishes, compliance with laws weakens, and social cohesion frays.
If this trajectory continues, the Government risks not only its credibility but also its electoral prospects in 2026.
METUISELA GAUNA is a Research and Policy Officer and JONE SALUSALU is the Communications and Media Officer at the Social Empowerment and Education Program. The views expressed in this commentary are solely of the writers and does not express the view of SEEP or this newspaper.