What unlimited rights?

Constitutional and human rights lawyer Professor Shaista Shameem says any review of the 2013 Constitution must consider the provisions on review of the Constitution since, by acquiescence, it dates back to 2014.

+Professor Shameem said a referendum involving the people should not be treated as though it did not matter as that would be dismissing the ordinary people’s view on governance.

The people’s view is not irrelevant and treating it as such will not be popular.

In her opinion, there were many good things in the 2013 Constitution as well as other provisions that required an assessment 10 years down the track. Those promoting constitutional review should not be frightened of a referendum.

If those in power did it well, and with respect for the people’s views, such consideration would remove fear that the large majority needed for change was insurmountable.

The point she makes is that constitutional amendment may require a significant majority to amend but it is not impossible. All one needs is persuasive powers.

However, it seemed that those wanting to throw the 2013 Constitution out were not convinced of their own powers of persuasion.

Hence, they wanted to push the change from outside of the provisions of the constitution, which would be unlawful, at least that is her argument.

Now, 10 years later, it’s a bit late.

Professor Shameem also said there was a misunderstanding that the Bill of Rights provisions in the constitution had too many limitations.

However, even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a limitation clause.

No one enjoys unlimited rights anywhere in international law.

Those who propose unlimited rights should look at the 1997 Constitution, which was approved by civil society to see how detailed some of the limitations were.

Professor Shameem said that before any amendment to the 2013 Constitution is proposed, those proposing amendments should think twice.

Feedback: frederica.elbourne@fijisun.com.fj