NFP sets conditions for constitutional reform
He also criticised the failure to publish or broadcast the Bill's provisions in English, Vosa Vakaviti and Hindi, arguing that this limited the public's ability to understand the proposals.
Sunday 25 October 2026 | 16:00
Mr Chand said there was no national emergency requiring Parliament to rush the proposed constitutional changes.
Fiji Government
The National Federation Party (NFP) has warned that its continued participation in and support for the constitutional reform process depend on extending public consultations until at least mid-December and making substantive changes to the proposed legislation.
NFP president Parmod Chand made this known during his submission to the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 32 of 2026 at the Labasa Civic Centre on Saturday.
Mr Chand accused the Government of rushing the process and denying Fijians sufficient time to understand and scrutinise the proposed changes to the country's supreme law.
Related stories
The NFP Management Board has resolved that public consultations must be extended until at least mid-December.
“Our Party's continued participation and support are conditional upon a meaningful extension and substantive changes to the Bill.”
Mr Chand questioned why the committee was working within such a tight timeframe when, in his interpretation, the Constitution did not require the process to be completed within 30 days.
He said the public had initially been given just 13 days to make submissions, while the committee had 20 days to complete its work, including consultations and preparation of its report.
According to Mr Chand, two days had been allocated for writing the report and one day for finalising it.
He also criticised the failure to publish or broadcast the Bill's provisions in English, Vosa Vakaviti and Hindi, arguing that this limited the public's ability to understand the proposals.
“We are supposedly consulting the people about the supreme law of their country, yet we cannot even afford them sufficient time to speak.”
He questioned whether the committee would genuinely consider changing the Bill based on public submissions or merely complete the consultation process within a predetermined timetable.
