Supreme Court Judge Justice Isikeli Mataitoga has expressed concern over attempts by some parties in the constitutional reference hearing to broaden the scope of the case beyond what was lawfully submitted by Cabinet.
During a key moment in the hearing today, Justice Mataitoga questioned whether the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain wide-ranging constitutional issues that were not part of the original questions referred by the government.
“I’ve been worried about this suggestion, that this Court is to review everything,” Justice Mataitoga said.
He reiterated that the Cabinet’s reference was very specific, and that the Court’s advisory opinion must be limited to the questions lawfully posed.
“Unless you can point to somewhere we can put the weight on, we are going to be in some very interesting territory.”
Justice Mataitoga was cautious about this interpretation, warning that any extension beyond the Cabinet’s specific referral could overstep the judicial role.
He particularly questioned how broader constitutional doctrines, such as the “doctrine of recognition” for previous constitutions like that of 1997, could be applied within the narrow procedural bounds of the current case.
“You may want it that way,” Justice Mataitoga told a counsel.
“But whether the Court can do that according to the law is the real challenge.”