THE High Court in Suva has dismissed an application by independent MP Ketan Lal seeking an interim injunction to restrain the Speaker of Parliament from notifying the President under Section 160(3) of the Constitution to trigger a national referendum on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2026.
In a ruling delivered yesterday, Justice Dane Tuiqereqere held that while the legality of Parliament’s voting process presents a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience heavily favours allowing the legislative process to proceed.
Mr Lal challenged the October 2 second reading of the Bill, arguing that the Speaker erred in calculating the required two-thirds threshold based on 53 active members, following the deaths of two MPs, rather than the full 55 statutory seats, and in permitting virtual voting.
He claimed that proceeding to a third reading on November 2 and a referendum on December 9 would cause irreversible harm.
Solicitor-General Ropate Green, for the Government, and Seforan Fatiaki, for the Speaker of Parliament, argued that Section 28 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act barred judicial interference in ongoing parliamentary business and that enjoining the Speaker would breach the separation of powers.
Justice Tuiqereqere rejected the argument of Mr Lal’s lawyer, Mohammed Saneem, that referendum results would be inherently irreversible, concluding that the court retains jurisdiction to intervene post-enactment if mandatory legal procedures were breached.
He ruled that halting the process would cause widespread prejudice, disrupt ongoing governance, and undermine extensive public consultations.
The substantive constitutional challenge to the legal validity of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2026 (Bill No. 32 of 2026) and the second reading of the Bill is yet to be determined.
The last Parliament sitting will be from November 2 to November 6.
