The Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) has raised concerns that proposed constitutional amendments could give the Government a financial “chokehold” over the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV), or Great Council of Chiefs.
In a statement, the party questioned provisions under Chapter 8, Section 152 of the draft Constitution Amendment Bill 2026, warning that they could undermine the independence and traditional authority of the council.
SODELPA singled out Section 152(4), which requires the State to provide or facilitate adequate funding for the BLV upon request, subject to available resources.
“Does this clause mean the Ministry of Finance will hold a financial chokehold over the Great Council of Chiefs, deciding when and how much money the Council gets based on political favor?” the party questioned.
It also demanded to know why the BLV was not being granted a standing constitutional appropriation from the Consolidated Fund, similar to the judiciary.
The party further questioned Section 152(3), which requires Parliament to legislate for the membership of the council.
SODELPA warned that the provision could potentially allow a parliamentary majority to determine who qualifies for membership and how traditional leaders are selected.
“Does this provision mean that political majorities in Parliament now hold more legal power to define chiefly qualifications than the vanua and customary lineage itself?” the party asked.
It questioned why representation from Fiji’s 14 provinces, Rotuma and paramount chiefs had not been expressly protected in the proposed constitutional provisions.
SODELPA also raised concerns about the absence of an explicit veto mechanism for the BLV over legislative changes affecting iTaukei land, qoliqoli and sub-surface mineral rights.
The party criticised the proposed 30-day consultation period, questioning whether provincial councils, tikina and traditional leaders would have sufficient time to examine the amendments.
It called on the Parliamentary Special Select Committee reviewing Bill 32 to publicly explain the provisions before the legislation progresses.
SODELPA warned that failure to address its concerns could leave traditional chiefly authority vulnerable to political interference.
The party maintained that the roles of chiefs and traditional leaders must not be weakened or compromised under the proposed constitutional framework.
