Prominent lawyer Richard Naidu has raised significant concerns regarding the Recently proposed Referendum Bill, describing various sections as confusing, overly broad, and potentially unconstitutional. In a post shared on social media, Naidu detailed his findings after an extensive examination of the Bill against the backdrop of public unease.
He specifically criticized Section 22, arguing that its vague wording could lead to individuals being criminalized for merely expressing their support for the 2013 Constitution and opposing changes in the upcoming referendum. This provision, he claims, poses serious threats to free speech and the rights of citizens to articulate their views in public.
Naidu also examined Section 23(1), which he contended does not genuinely engage in the discussion of the referendum’s merits but instead appears designed to limit individuals from swaying others regarding their voting decisions. He expressed frustration, stating, “That doesn’t make any sense either,” underscoring the lack of clarity and direction in the law’s intent.
Perhaps most troubling is Naidu’s focus on Section 23(2), which he posited could restrict individuals from meeting to discuss any issues related to the referendum, including advocating for or against the existing Constitution. He criticized the provisions as chaotic, indicating that they seem hastily put together without adequate consideration of their effects on civic participation.
Naidu urged immediate amendments to rectify these provisions that he believes violate fundamental free speech rights enshrined in the Constitution. He also expressed disappointment regarding the government’s response to concerns raised by Dialogue Fiji, describing it as “hardly encouraging.” The government’s advice to avoid public discussions on the Bill without prior consultation with the Attorney-General’s Office has further complicated matters, leading to increased public confusion.
In a context where clarity and free expression are essential, Naidu’s critique emphasizes the pressing need for the government to reevaluate the Referendum Bill’s provisions to foster, rather than obstruct, democratic dialogue and participation. Addressing these concerns could pave the way for a more informed and engaged citizenry, strengthening the democratic process.