Ritika Pratap 
Arthur Moses [Photo: Supplied]
The lawyer representing the Fiji Law Society in his submission argued that the Supreme Court should not accept the state’s request to interpret the 2013 Constitution’s amendment provisions.
Arthur Moses told the bench that the state’s case is based on a promise to propose a bill requiring a two-thirds majority vote, but there’s no guarantee this will happen.
Moses stated that the argument is that the Supreme Court cannot make a decision based on a “promise from the bar table” or in a political area.
He stressed that it would be an overreach of its judicial power to “rewrite” the constitution, which would remove the people’s right to vote in a referendum, weakening democracy.
“But in the case of a Constitution, what my learned friend is asking the Court to do is to excise from it the people. So in order to enhance democracy, we are going to minimise democracy by taking the people out of the vote. And then secondly, what my learned friend is inviting you to do is to reduce it to two-thirds. Now, one has got to take a step back and ask the question, what are we doing here in a court of law, grappling with such submissions? They are inherently nonsensical. And this Court’s being invited to go into an area that is political, not judicial.”
In his submission, Moses also stated that while the 2013 Constitution may have its flaws and could be improved, it is the country’s supreme law.
He added that the appropriate way to amend it is through parliamentary process and a referendum, not by having the court alter its provisions.
He stressed that it’s the people’s role to amend the constitution, not the court’s.
Stream the best of Fiji on VITI+. Anytime. Anywhere.
