[File Photo]
Academic Mosmi Bhim warns that extending immunity for the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other state institutions until 2028 could undermine Fiji’s democratic transition.
She argues that a government cannot be considered democratic if those in power are shielded from accountability.
Bhim raised the concern during the constitutional review committee’s public consultation in Nausori, calling for the removal of the proposed immunity provisions and questioning why they should continue under the new Constitution.
She argued that democracy depends on transparency, accountability and the equal application of the law, warning that protecting political leaders and public institutions from liability could place them beyond public scrutiny.
Article continues after advertisement
Bhim told the committee that extending immunity until the first sitting of Parliament under the proposed Constitution, expected in 2028, could change how the current government is classified.
She said the government would no longer be considered to be in a transition to democracy, but could instead be classified as authoritarian for the remainder of its term.
Bhim based her argument on her research into Fiji’s political history, including the governments that followed the 1987 coups and the political system established under the 1990 Constitution.
She said Fiji remained in a transition to democracy because the risk of democratic institutions being overthrown had not been eliminated.
Bhim argued that immunity would weaken this transition by preventing public office holders from being held accountable for their actions.
She also questioned why immunity was necessary when the proposed Constitution already provided for a Mercy Commission, which could consider requests for pardons.
Bhim called on the Prime Minister and any Cabinet members seeking immunity to identify the specific actions for which they wanted protection and apply for a pardon through the established process.
She said this would allow the public to know what conduct had been pardoned, making the process more transparent.
Bhim warned that extending immunity could also damage public confidence in institutions that had not engaged in wrongdoing by creating the impression that all were seeking protection from past actions.
The proposed immunity provisions cover the President’s Office, Prime Minister’s Office, Cabinet, Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Fiji Police Force, Corrections Service, judiciary, public service and other public office holders.
Bhim also drew on Fiji’s history of political upheaval to question whether restoring the Great Council of Chiefs and allocating 14 of the proposed 23 Senate seats to nominees of the iTaukei Affairs Board would provide sufficient safeguards against the abuse of power.
While acknowledging the importance of recognising iTaukei culture, tradition and identity, she said chiefs and political leaders had supported previous coups and warned that constitutional arrangements must ensure accountability.
She referred to the 1987 coups and the 2000 takeover, arguing that political and chiefly support had contributed to the success of those events.
Bhim said constitutional mechanisms already existed to change a government without resorting to an illegal takeover, pointing to the motion of no confidence retained in the proposed Constitution.
She urged political leaders to use lawful parliamentary processes rather than allow future disputes to threaten democratic institutions.
Her submission also raised concerns about proposed emergency powers that could allow the House of Representatives to extend its term by up to 12 months if its term expired during a state of emergency.
Bhim warned that the provision could be misused to delay elections and called for stronger safeguards to ensure a caretaker arrangement could operate instead of allowing a full Parliament to extend its term.
She further called for a longer consultation period, saying broad public participation was essential to the legitimacy of the proposed Constitution.
Bhim argued that people were more likely to respect laws when they had a meaningful role in shaping them, rather than being forced to comply out of fear of law enforcement.
She also questioned the removal of a proposed provision that would have allowed the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission to seek the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, saying the change could affect perceptions of the commission’s independence.
On land rights, Bhim said constitutional protections for iTaukei land must also recognise the needs of landless iTaukei communities, including those living on outer islands who lacked access to land for their use.
Bhim said the proposed Constitution must strengthen democratic accountability, not create further uncertainty over whether political leaders and public institutions could be held responsible for their actions.