Prominent lawyer Richard Naidu has criticised key provisions of the Referendum Bill, describing them as confusing, overly broad and potentially unconstitutional.
In a social media post, Mr Naidu said he reviewed the Bill to understand the public concern surrounding it and found that Section 22 “makes little sense”.
He warned the provision could be interpreted widely enough to allow someone to be prosecuted for publishing a newspaper advertisement stating: “I support the 2013 Constitution, please vote against changing it in the referendum.”
He also questioned Section 23(1), saying it appeared not to prohibit campaigning for or against the referendum itself, but rather to stop someone from persuading others to vote or not vote.
“That doesn’t make any sense either,” he said.
Mr Naidu expressed particular concern about Section 23(2), which he said could prevent someone from visiting another person’s home for “any purpose in connection” with the referendum, including urging them to vote to keep or change the 2013 Constitution.
“So these provisions are a mess,” Mr Naidu said, adding that they appeared to have been “cut and pasted from somewhere else without thinking.”
He said the sections breach basic free speech provisions in the Constitution and urgently need to be corrected.
He also criticised the Government’s response to concerns raised by Dialogue Fiji, saying it was “hardly encouraging”.
Mr Naidu noted the Government’s position that people should not engage in media or talkback discussions on the Bill without consulting the Attorney-General’s Office, allegedly to avoid miscommunication and public confusion.
“Their drafting seems to have created a lot of that already,” he said.
