Many supporters of the Sitiveni Rabuka/Professor Biman Prasad Coalition during the December 2022 Elections campaigns are dismayed at the direction of current political events in Fiji being engineered by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka just a few months from the next General Elections.
It is clear that Mr Rabuka and his close advisers are shamelessly manipulating parliamentary processes and reports of all the commissions that he has sponsored, towards his own political objectives, totally undermining parliamentary and electoral democracy in the process.
Fiji should remember that following the 2022 Elections, Mr Rabuka just barely became PM on the basis of 1 vote on the floor of the House, with the critical support of Prof Biman Prasad’s 5 NFP MPs and SODELPA’s three MPs, in a pre-election agreement between PAP and NFP.
But Fiji should also remember that the FijiFirst Party led by Voreqe Bainimarama represented just under a half of all voters in the 2022 Elections and thirty thousand votes more than that received by Mr Rabuka’s PAP.
Fiji has still not understood that deregistration of the FFP, exclusion of Mr Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum from Parliament, and the extraordinary decision by the Rabuka-appointed Speaker Naiqama Lalabalavu to allow remaining FFP MPs to join any party, has struck at the heart of the Supreme Court Opinion on the minimum requirements for constitutional change.
Those who care for genuine parliamentary democracy in Fiji need to do all they can to ensure that the third hearing of the Bill is not passed in Parliament in early November.
Fiji should ensure that all constitutional changes are left to the next Government formed after the next general elections, when the majority of MPs in Parliament, with or without Mr Rabuka, will genuinely represent the majority of voters of Fiji.
That is not the case currently and Fiji must understand why.
The attacks on parliamentary democracy
IT is useful to understand the implications of the current political developments being engineered by Prime Minister Rabuka. Soon after the December 2022 Elections:
- Mr Rabuka set up a salaries and emoluments committee unethically comprising MPs themselves, to astronomically increase their own salaries and perks, a move opposed by NFP, but gladly and selfishly supported by PAP, SODELA and even FFP MPs;
- Mr Rabuka appointed the Ashton Lewis’ Commission of Inquiry which wasted millions of taxpayers’ money with no positive outcome for taxpayers while the negative fallout continues its destruction;
- Mr Rabuka appointed the Fiji Electoral Law Reform Commission (comprising Daniel Fatiaki, Professor Wadan Narsey, Dr Deidre Brookes and Seini Nabou) whose work consulting throughout Fiji cost millions of taxpayers’ money; yet the report presented to Government in July 2025 — in time for the next elections — was embargoed and not tabled or discussed in the Fiji Parliament. Mr Rabuka has offered no public justification for refusing to release the report.
- Rabuka appointed the 2026 Constitution Review Commission whose report was tabled in Parliament, but the Constitution Amendment Bills coming to Parliament for the First and Second hearings were substantially changed from key recommendations in 2026 CRC Report.
But the worst and little discussed blow to parliamentary democracy was yet to come.
Massacring voters’ choice
Perhaps the most astonishing and little discussed attack on voters’ democratic choices in the 2022 Elections was that following the deregistration of the FijiFirst Party and removal of its leaders Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz-Sayed Khaiyum from Parliament, the then Speaker Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu ruled that the FFP MPs “could join any party”.
Remember that Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu was a failed PAP candidate in the 2022 Elections with a miserable 652 votes, but he was Mr Rabuka’s traditional chief, and he was appointed Speaker of the House by Mr Rabuka.
Following that astonishing ruling by the Speaker, 11 of the former FijiFirst Party MPs then totally unethically and immorally joined PAP, the very party which FFP had campaigned against in all the three elections of 2014, 2018 and 2022.
Did these former FFP MPs ever ask their voters for their permission while blemishing their records forever?
But material self-interest — or bribery — could not have been far from their decision given that Mr Rabuka offered — and these former FFP MPs gladly accepted — ministerial or deputy ministerial positions earning massive salaries and perks.
Of course, the Rabuka Government did not care that Fiji taxpayers had to pay for this Parliament unnecessarily bloated with ministers and assistant ministers.
But the fortuitous — and no doubt planned for — result for Mr Rabuka was that he no longer had need of the NFP or SODELPA MPs to remain prime minister.
He soon promoted Ratu Lalabalavu to an even more powerful position of President with the previous president leaving prematurely.
Mr Rabuka recently had no difficulty approving a costly international jaunt by the President with a bloated entourage.
But far more pertinent today is that the incredible ruling by Speaker Lalabalavu has not only destroyed accountability to FFP voters — who were far more than the total of PAP votes, — but profoundly undermined the legitimacy of constitutional changes allowed by the 2025 Supreme Court Opinion and the Constitution Amendment Bill being brought by the Rabuka Government before Parliament.
Two thirds of Parliament not two thirds of voters
When the Panel of Supreme Court Judges gave their August 29 2025 opinion on the two requirements for constitutional change — namely two thirds of Parliament and a simple majority in a referendum — they no doubt were thinking of the basic principle of parliamentary democracy- that the two thirds majority of MPs in parliament would definitely represent the majority of voters in Fiji.
What all the public commentators have not fully understood is that the two thirds parliamentary majority required for the Constitution Amendment Bill to be passed in its three readings is already a hollow mechanism of democracy, because of the deregistration of the FijiFirst Party and Speaker Ratu Lalabalavu’s ruling on remaining FFP MPs “freedom” to choose parties regardless of the votes that put them into Parliament..
The Panel of Supreme Court Judges did not allow for the astonishing perverse political reality that the MP with the highest number of votes in the 2022 Elections — Voreqe Bainimarama with 136,829) would be excluded from Parliament.
I doubt if the Panel of Supreme Court judges realised that two thirds of the votes of the remaining MPs in Parliament would represent a mere 47 per cent of total voters in the 2022 Elections, or less than a half.
I doubt if the panel of Supreme Court judges would even comprehend that the votes for a large number of former FFP MPs could be deviously transferred without their voters’ permission, by a Speaker — a losing PAP candidate — appointed by PM Rabuka, to the FFP’s political opponents, PAP, led by Mr Rabuka himself?
The Fiji public should now be prepared for decisions made by that losing PAP candidate, the same former Speaker, who is now ruling as Fiji’s President, also appointed by Mr Rabuka and leader of PAP.
Criticism by Rabuka’s partners NFP and SODELPA
It is most telling that Professor Biman Prasad, Leader of NFP which enabled Sitiveni Rabuka to become Prime Minister by a margin of one vote on the floor of Parliament, is strenuously contesting the order in which Prime Minister Rabuka is ramming the Bill and Referendum through Parliament.
Prof Prasad correctly points out that the public must first understand what changes are being proposed to the Constitution and why, before they can vote in the referendum on the two questions announced by Rabuka.
These criticisms have also been voiced by the leaders of SODELPA.
Prof Prasad should also point out that the MPs in Parliament should listen to the views of the public who extensively made their views known to the 2025 Fiji Electoral Law Reform Commission — chaired by former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki — and the 2026 Constitution Review Commission chaired by Sevuloni Valenitabua.
Why is Mr Rabuka ignoring the views of his strongest partner in his Government, Prof Biman Prasad, in this crucial issue?
Indeed one can ask why Mr Rabuka is also ignoring the critical views of two popular political leaders (Chaudhry and Narube) who are not in Parliament though receiving thousands more votes than that received by all of Mr Rabuka’s ministers.
Criticisms by Leader of Opposition and CSOs
It is surely pertinent and positive that the Leader of Opposition Inia Seruiratu has blasted Mr Rabuka for putting the cart before the horse:
- Why announce a Referendum date when the Constitution Amendment Bill had not been passed after its Third Reading (due on November 2)?;
- When the Select Committee for the Bill was only just starting to discuss the Bill’s implications;
- Why should Mr Rabuka request the Electoral Commission to suspend general election campaigning when public discussions were so vital for MPs to involve the voters in the issues concerned;
- Why was MrRabuka trying to suppress political campaigning?
Also opposing Mr Rabuka’s attempt to suspend campaigning were a number of very responsible civil society organisations:
- Centre for Democracy and Dialogue
- Fiji Women’s Rights Movement
- Fiji Council of Social Services
- Social Empowerment and Education Programme
- femLINKPacific
- Transparency Fiji
These groups have all warned that continued uncertainty over the election date, constitutional framework and electoral processes were creating an unfairdisadvantages for non-government political parties.
Criticisms by centre for democracy and dialogue
Centre for Democracy and Dialogue CEO Nilesh Lal correctly points out — and Opposition MPs should note — that the Rabuka Government’s changes to the recommendations of the 2026 CRC Report amount to:
- significant weakening of democracy and accountability standards, and excessive concentration of power in the Executive:
- the original Bill had limited the tenure of the Prime Minister to two terms — removed by Rabuka Cabinet;
- Original Bill had limited the number of ministers to 14 (in the revised Bill, the PM would determine the number of ministers);
- the original Bill had proposed a five-member Constitutional Offices Commission appointed through an independent appointments committee, while the Government draft makes the Prime Minister the chair of the commission alongside his Attorney-General, with the Government appointing a majority of the members;
- This COC would be responsible for appointments to many key constitutional offices: Electoral Commission, Supervisor of Elections, Public Service Commission, Police Commissioner, Corrections Commissioner, RFMF Commander, Auditor-General, Reserve Bank Governor and Ombudsman.
This would concentrate extraordinary powers in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Mr Lal legitimately asks why other reforms proposed by the CRC were removed such as:
- a National Planning Commission;
- a National Infrastructure Council;
- a constitutionally mandated Opposition chair of the Public Accounts Committee;
- an independent Constitution Implementation Commission; and
- a pluralistic Presidential Appointment Commission.
Mr Lal legitimately asks: Who wrote the Government’s Constitution Amendment Bill; what was the basis for the changes from the Amendment Bill based on the Report of the 2026 CRC; and how the substantially different constitutional text was produced within such a short period.
The public can also ask why did the Rabuka Government refuse to remove the immunity provisions as recommended by the 2026 CRC?
Any accountability from the 2026 CRC members
The 2026 Constitution Review Commission comprised a number of Fiji citizens of undoubted integrity: Sevuloni Valenitabua, Conway Begg, John Charles Fatiaki, Dr Neelesh Gounder, Ami Kohli, Salanieta Bakalevu, Merewalesi Nailatikau.
These honourable persons, like the members of the 2025 FELRC, also have a profound duty of responsibility to the thousands of people who spoke to them with their views, and the taxpayers who funded their work.
Given that virtually all civil society organisations and independent commentators are concerned that the Rabuka Government’s Constitution Amendment Bill has significant departures from the 2026 CRC Report, it is surely incumbent on the individual Members of the 2026 CRC to ask the Rabuka Government to explain why it is departing from the 2026 CRC Report’s recommendations.
I might point out that when the Rabuka Government embargoed the 2025 FELRC Report, I raised the issues publicly (The Fiji Times 9 April 2026 “Can the 2026 CRC Save Taxpayers’ Funds”) although I was reprimanded by a government minister for doing so, with virtually no public support for my article.
The 2026 CRC may be obligated to the Rabuka Government which appointed them, but they surely have a higher duty of responsibility to the Fiji taxpayers who have funded the whole exercise and they need to be told the whole truth.
Rabuka has not changed his colours
Four years ago in the run-up to the 2022 Elections, many of us who were critics and victims of the 1987coup, still supported the Rabuka/Prof Prasad partnership in the belief that Mr Rabuka was a changed man.
Sadly, he has shown in the last four years as Prime Minister that he has not changed from his self-serving anti-democratic character, despite all his grand speeches to the contrary.
Of course Rabuka is not doing all this on his own.
He no doubt has a group of close advisers most of whom were not to be seen or heard during the dictatorship years of the Bainimarama/Sayed-Khaiyum governments while the rest of us in civil society were mounting the opposition, fighting the censorship of the media, and paying the dues.
It is sad therefore that this secret cabal of advisers of Mr Rabuka, clearly not including the NFP and SODELPA leaders, are bringing back all the antidemocratic features of the old dictatorship.
Sadly there is no great evidence that the Rabuka Government of the last four years has been good for the welfare of the people of Fiji, despite all of Mr Rabuka’ grand speeches.
Fiji’s economic growth rate has been coming down for the last three years, public debt has kept rising and real incomes of the workers keep falling.
Were it not for the huge and growing remittance earnings from abroad, and continued aid from our traditional donors like Australia, Fiji would be in a massive economic crisis, adding to that due to drugs, the HIV epidemic and the endemic corruption of which the missing cocaine bars are just the tip of the iceberg.
I remind that the economic cost of the coup culture that Rabuka unleashed on Fiji in 1987 is currently more than $6 billion and still mounting.
With all the widespread opposition to Mr Rabuka’s political manipulations, will he press on regardless with the support of his co-operating President? Or will he pay heed to the criticisms of his partners in NFP and SODELPA?
It remains to be seen whether the voters of Fiji will change their views of Mr Rabuka in time for the next general elections.
I sincerely hope that all candidates in the next election will ask their voters to vote for the candidate personally and not for some great leader.
This will not only help the candidates go higher on the list and increase their chances of being elected by the D’Hondt method, but also avoid giving the great leader excessive votes and inflated powers to be misused after the election.
WADAN NARSEY is a well-known economist and The Fiji Times columnist and author. He is a former Professor of Economics at the University of the South Pacific. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not reflect the views of this newspaper.
