Unity Fiji lawyer Naomi Raikaci told the Supreme Court today that it has the clear jurisdiction to determine whether the 1997 Constitution remains legally valid, as well as to interpret the amendment provisions of the current 2013 Constitution.
Making oral submissions in the ongoing constitutional reference hearing, Mrs Raikaci focused on Section 91(5) of the 2013 Constitution, which she said empowers the Cabinet to seek the Court’s opinion on either the interpretation or application of constitutional provisions.
“The Constitution says ‘interpretation or application’ not ‘and’,” Mrs Raikaci stressed.
“These are two alternatives. The Cabinet can refer a question about the meaning of the Constitution, or about how it is to be applied.”
Mrs Raikaci argued that the question of whether the 1997 Constitution was validly replaced by the 2013 Constitution falls squarely within the Court’s jurisdiction.
She said this issue is closely tied to both the interpretation and application of the current Constitution, especially its amendment provisions.
“When we interpret the amendment provisions of the 2013 Constitution, we are also inherently dealing with its application and the legal status of what came before it, namely the 1997 Constitution,” she submitted.
“So yes, this Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the validity of the 1997 Constitution.”
