COVID-19 vaccinations are not mandatory and everyone is given a choice whether they want to get vaccinated or not.

This statement was made by lawyer Devanesh Sharma before Chief Justice Kamal Kumar during the hearing of the Fijian Teacher’s Association’s Constitutional Redress case against the State, Minister for Employment, Productivity and Industrial Relations, and the Attorney-General.

The association was challenging the Government policy, arguing that there was no evidence to prove that unvaccinated employees make the workplace unsafe and claims that more than 200 teachers had lost their jobs after refusing the COVID-19 vaccination.

Mr Sharma, while responding to the plaintiff’s submissions, told the court that the vaccinations were not forced.

He said when people went to get their vaccinations, people were given a consent form, which they were supposed to read and sign before they were vaccinated.

He said the vaccinations were a choice, but they came with consequences as well.

He further said that the primary focus of the vaccination was to make the workplaces and the workers safe.

He further said there was nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about the vaccination regulation.

Mr Sharma also told the court that the objective of the regulation was to provide COVID-19 response measures as the pandemic was a reality in Fiji.

He further told the court that the vaccinations were developed and administrated in all developed countries and not just in Fiji.

He said if one made a voluntary choice to not be vaccinated, then unvaccinated workers could not go to workplaces under Fiji’s Health and Safety at Work Act 1996.

He said the law sought to protect the workplace and workers.

Mr Sharma said the vaccination regulation was justified and sought from the court for the Constitutional Redress application to be dismissed.

The association’s lawyer Simione Valenitabua said the vaccinations were forced.

He submitted that when the Health and Safety at Work Act 1996 was enacted, there was no COVID-19.

He said the objective of the Act was to be inconsistent with the enactment or vaccination regulation made by the Minister for Employment pursuant to his powers.

He further said that as per Section 62 (2) (a) (b) of the ACT 1996, which gave the Minister power to make the vaccination regulation, there were no specific references to power by the State given to the Minister to make the vaccine regulation which was he did.

Mr Valenitabua also said that there was no evidence submitted by the Minister that he had carried out his duties that he complied with Section 51 and 2 of the Constitution, therefore it was unconstitutional.

He said without the vaccination cards, people were not allowed to travel to the outer islands, enter places and not have a job as well.

He said the association’s members, workers, and itself as employers were discriminated against because of their health status.

He said vaccination regulations kicked in and the association’s members and workers were penalised as they did not have a job.

The ruling would be delivered by the Chief Justice on notice.

Feedback:  ashna.kumar@fijisun.com.fj