A plain-language breakdown of Bill No. 46 of 2025 — the legislation that will govern how Fijians vote on constitutional change, and why civil society, lawyers and opposition parties say it threatens to make that process hollow.
By Lanieta Tukana, Founding Editor, Fiji Political Review
The short version
Fiji’s government tabled the National Referendum Bill 2025 on 4 December 2025 — the final sitting day of parliament for the year. The bill establishes the legal rules for conducting a constitutional referendum. It has since been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights for review.
On the surface, the bill fills a genuine gap: Fiji has never held a constitutional referendum, and no legal framework existed to govern one. The government’s stated intention is to ensure any future referendum is conducted with integrity and impartiality.
But the bill’s specific provisions have drawn sharp criticism from civil society organisations, legal experts, opposition parties, and Fiji’s own former chief legal advisor, all of whom argue that the restrictions go far beyond ensuring orderly conduct, and risk producing a referendum in which the government controls the flow of information while ordinary Fijians are prohibited from campaigning.
Why this matters now: With a general election due between August 2026 and February 2027, and the government committed to constitutional reform before going to the polls, the rules established by this bill will directly shape whether any resulting constitutional changes carry democratic legitimacy — or simply the appearance of it.
How Fiji got here: the constitutional backdrop
The 2013 Constitution, introduced by then-Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama following the 2006 coup, was designed to be nearly impossible to change. Section 160 required a three-quarters majority vote in parliament, followed by a referendum passed by three-quarters of all registered voters. Not three-quarters of those who turned out: three-quarters of every registered voter in Fiji.
To understand how high that bar was: in the 2022 election, there were 693,915 registered voters, but voter turnout was 68.3 percent. Mathematically, even if every person who voted in 2022 had voted yes in a referendum, it would not have been enough to pass a constitutional amendment.
The Rabuka government, which came to power in December 2022 on a platform that included constitutional reform, attempted to change this in March 2025, proposing a bill that would have made amendment meaningfully achievable: reducing the parliamentary bar from three-quarters to two-thirds, and replacing a referendum threshold that demanded approval from three-quarters of every registered voter — whether they voted or not, with a standard majority of valid votes cast. That bill failed: it received 40 votes, short of the three-quarters supermajority required under Section 160 of the 2013 Constitution.
In August 2025, the Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion that narrowed the amendment threshold. Rather than the near-impossible original requirements, the Court ruled that an amendment could proceed with a two-thirds parliamentary majority followed by a simple majority in a referendum. That opinion cleared the path for constitutional change, and the National Referendum Bill is the government’s attempt to lay the foundations.
What the bill actually says: the key provisions
High concern:
*Section 22 — Bans creation or distribution of any campaign materials during the referendum period
*Section 23 — Bans doorstep canvassing — the primary method of grassroots organising in rural and maritime Fiji
* Clause 11 — Referendum question published only five days before polling
Significant concern:
*Clause 24 — Parliamentary parties permitted near polling stations; civil society excluded
*Clause 25 — Gatherings of five or more people are unlawful if they cause “intimidation, alarm or annoyance” — penalties up to one year in prison
Constructive:
*Overall framework — Establishes Fiji’s first legal framework for conducting a referendum
What critics are saying — and who is saying it
The criticism of this bill is not coming from a single partisan source. It spans Fiji’s legal profession, civil society sector, and opposition parties.
The Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS) told the Standing Committee that the bill was “significantly weak” on core democratic principles and may contravene international standards for free suffrage. FCOSS executive director Vani Catanasiga described the near-total ban on political campaigning in Clauses 22 and 23 as a “major concern” that “directly contradicts the international principle of freedom of expression.”
She also compared the bill’s five-day notice period for the referendum question to the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice Referendum, where voters had seven months for public discussion before polling day.
The Fiji Labour Party’s representative before the committee, Dr Sunil Kumar, called the bill “unconstitutional and undemocratic” arguing that it criminalises normal campaigning and violates freedom of speech, expression, assembly, and association.
He noted that democracies, including Australia, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, and New Zealand, actively encourage campaigning during referendums and do not criminalise it.
The Fiji Women’s Rights Movement described the measures as “draconian and capable of silencing large groups of under-represented people,” specifically flagging the impact on women, youth, and marginalised communities who rely on grassroots organising and community discussion to participate in political life.
Perhaps most significantly, Fiji’s former chief legal advisor, appearing before the Standing Committee, told parliament that the bill, as drafted, is antithetical to its stated objective of giving the Fijian people a voice.
The government’s position: Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga told parliament the clauses “are intended solely to ensure the orderly, transparent, and impartial conduct of referendums.”
The government argues the bill fills a genuine legal gap and that its provisions mirror the blackout periods used in democratic elections around the world. The government has not publicly responded in detail to the specific criticisms of Clause 25’s “annoyance” standard or the five-day notice period.
The democratic legitimacy question
At the heart of this debate is a question that goes beyond the specific clauses: if constitutional change is achieved through a process in which ordinary Fijians were legally prevented from campaigning, discussing, or organising around the question, and in which only the government had an unrestricted platform, would the result carry genuine democratic legitimacy?
Comparative experience suggests that referendum legitimacy depends heavily on the quality of public deliberation before the vote, not just the procedural conduct of voting day itself. A referendum conducted in silence is not the same as a referendum conducted with informed consent.
The Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights concluded its public hearings in early 2026, receiving submissions from across the political and civil society spectrum. The Fiji Labour Party called the Bill unconstitutional. The Fiji Women’s Rights Movement warned that Section 23 could criminalise ordinary advocacy. FCOSS argued that the five-day notice period for publishing referendum questions fell well short of international best practice. The University of Fiji raised concerns about the Bill’s constitutional foundations. Even former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, appearing before the committee in late March 2026, told members the Bill was antithetical to its stated objective of giving the Fijian people a voice. The committee’s report is expected before parliament debates the Bill. Whether its recommendations require substantive amendments, particularly to Clauses 22, 23, and 25, will be one of the most important indicators of whether the Rabuka government’s commitment to constitutional reform extends to the process, not just the outcome.
Lanieta Tukana is the founding editor of the Fiji Political Review. She writes on Fijian politics, constitutional reform and democratic governance. Website: https://www.fijipoliticalreview.com/author/lanieta
