Prominent lawyer Richard Naidu has voiced significant concerns regarding critical aspects of the Referendum Bill, labeling them as confusing, excessively broad, and potentially unconstitutional. In a recent social media post, Naidu outlined his findings after reviewing the Bill in light of public apprehensions.
He specifically pointed to Section 22, which he claims is vague enough to risk criminalizing individuals for publishing messages that simply express their support for the 2013 Constitution and advocate against changes in the upcoming referendum. According to Naidu, this provision raises serious questions about free speech and the rights of citizens to express their opinions publicly.
Additionally, Naidu scrutinized Section 23(1), arguing that it does not seem to debate the merits of the referendum itself, but rather aims to restrict individuals from persuading others regarding their voting choices. He stated, “That doesn’t make any sense either,” highlighting a lack of clarity in the intent and implications of the law.
Perhaps most alarmingly, Naidu’s criticism focused on Section 23(2), which he suggested could impede individuals from visiting others to discuss any matters related to the referendum, including promoting support for or opposition to the current Constitution. “So these provisions are a mess,” he asserted, indicating that they appear hastily assembled and lacking thoughtful consideration regarding their impact on civic engagement.
Naidu urged that these sections violate fundamental free speech rights outlined in the Constitution and called for immediate amendments to rectify the issues. Moreover, he expressed disappointment in the Government’s handling of concerns raised by Dialogue Fiji, stating it was “hardly encouraging.” The Government’s recommendation that individuals refrain from engaging in public discussions about the Bill without prior consultation with the Attorney-General’s Office has added to the public’s confusion, according to Naidu.
In a climate where clarity and freedom of expression are paramount, Naidu’s critique highlights the urgent need for the government to reconsider the provisions of the Referendum Bill to ensure they promote, rather than hinder, democratic dialogue.