A-G Explains Constitutional Delay
“We’ve tried it. It didn’t work. It’s possibly unworkable.”
Saturday 22 March 2025 | 12:09
Attorney-General Graham Leung has clarified that the Government chose not to rush to court over the 2013 Constitution. He stressed that all constitutional avenues needed to be explored first before involving the Supreme Court.
“We wanted to go to the Supreme Court, having exhausted the constitutional pathway,” Mr Leung explained.
“Because if we had gone to the Supreme Court two months ago, or early on in the term of the government, the Supreme Court could well have said, ‘Ah, but there’s a path mandated in the law, in the Constitution, you haven’t even tried it. How do you know it won’t work? How do you know the bar is so high?’”
Related stories
He said that, now armed with evidence and experience, the Government was able to inform the Supreme Court, stating, “We’ve tried it. It didn’t work. It’s possibly unworkable.”
Mr Leung acknowledged the disappointment over the failure of the Constitution Amendment Bill to pass.
However, he pointed out that the difficulty in passing the Bill, particularly the need for a three-quarters majority to approve its second reading, highlighted the challenge of amending the Constitution.
“Objectively speaking, when you look at the threshold, and by threshold, I mean the requirement of three quarters to have the bill pass a second reading, that is quite exceptionally difficult,” he said.
“And, if anything, what the defeat of the Amendment Bill demonstrated was exactly the point the government’s been making. It is exceedingly difficult to amend the Constitution, given the formula that exists in Section 159 and 160.”
He further emphasised that the Government’s intention was never to undermine the foundational values of the Constitution.
“The Constitution Amendment Bill in Parliament was about process. It was never about content,” he explained.
“The content discussions, going out to the people, that will come later, where everybody in this country who has a view on the Constitution is able to come forward to the Constitutional Officers’ Commission and say...”
Feedback: inoke.rabonu@fijisun.com.fj
