Intervening parties in the 2013 Constitution reference case have argued for a more flexible interpretation of the constitutional requirement that amendments be approved by 75 per cent of registered voters.
They contend that this threshold could reasonably be interpreted as referring instead to 75 per cent of votes actually cast in a referendum, a position they say would make constitutional reform more attainable and democratic.
Fiji Human Rights Commissioner Alefina Vuki cited this alternative interpretation, originally proposed by legal consultancy firm Abacus, during her submissions before the Supreme Court.
She described it as a “better meaning” of the contested provision.
“So the Commission, we continue to question the rigidity and legitimacy of this requirement as it is stated, because of a problem we have in terms of the 75 per cent concerning the registered voters in Fiji and 75 per cent of the registered voters which Abacus proposes as a better meaning,” Ms Vuki said.
“We went, as I’ve already said, along with that better meaning.”
Ms Vuki said the Commission ultimately supports any approach that protects and strengthens human rights and opposes any path that would threaten or suspend them.
“We cannot support any pathway where human rights would be endangered, threatened, violated or suspended.”