Court to rule in April on constitutionality of electoral law amendment challenged by 7 women

The High Court will rule whether the amendments in the Electoral Registration of Voters Amendment Act and the Interpretation Act in 2021 that required women to change their name on the birth certificate to their married name was constitutional or not on the 14th of April next year.

The matter was heard before High Court Judge, Justice Dane Tuiqereqere where 7 women had challenged the amendments and had filed the matter against the Attorney General, the Supervisor of Elections and the State.

The lawyer of the 7 women, Jon Apted says they seek the declaration that the amendment from when it was passed to when it was repealed had breached their Bill of Rights under the Constitution.

He says although the amendments have been repealed, the challenge before the court is not moot.

He says the Attorney General, the State and the Supervisor of Elections do not concede that it was not constitutional and therefore it is a possibility that they may reintroduce it.

The lawyer says the fact that it has been repealed does not prevent the court from declaring that it was inconsistent with the Constitution.

He also says that the birth certificate does not prove eligibility to vote as it shows that a person was born on a particular date in Fiji and it also does not show citizenship.

Apted further says there is a public need to define and remind the legislature about the Bill of Rights.

He says the defendants do not acknowledge any form of accountability so the court needs to make a declaration that the legislature is subject to the court.

The lawyer also says that no evidence was provided that there was a problem with the previous law and that anyone was registered multiple times in the voter list.

Lawyer for the State and the Attorney General, Cynthia Mangru is calling for the dismissal of the claim as moot as provisions have been repealed.

She says since it is repealed, it is no longer a live controversy.

Mangru says that without Parliament as a party to these proceedings, the declaration sought lacks a proper nexus to the body that is constitutionally responsible for the amendment.

She says it is not a role the court to pass a judgment on a law the Parliament, as appropriate authority, has already recognized as requiring the amended and to do so, approaches upon the legislative domain.

The lawyer further says the law did not breach the rights of the women as they had a choice, ample time was given and there is no evidence that they were restrained from voting.

She adds it is also wrong to say that it only applied to women because it does not say so in the Act.

The lawyer for the Supervisor of Elections, Nilesh Prasad says the Parliament has done what the court is being asked.

He says the matter has now become academic in nature and is hypothetical and they do not venture court make declaration that waste time.

Lal adds the documents and Parliament Hansard speak for itself.

The 7 women supported by the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement and the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre had filed the constitutional challenge on the grounds of sex, gender and marital status discrimination and also on the basis that it violates the privacy and social and cultural identity of 100,000 Fijian women.

The 7 women are Lavinia Rose Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, Shiromani Priscilla Singh, Adi Davila Toganivalu, Elizabeth Reade Fong, Leba Seni Nabou, Yasmin Nisha Khan and Salote Raikolo Qalo.