The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law, and Human Rights will start taking public submissions on the National Referendum Bill from 9am to 4pm today and tomorrow at the parliament complex.
Acting Attorney General, Siromi Turaga has already encouraged that submissions be made to the Parliamentary Committee dealing with the National Referendum Bill as the appropriate forum so that the views of concerned persons and ordinary Fijians may be taken into consideration as they strive to enact a law to regulate the conduct of national referendums in a way that is responsive, effective and suitable to the context of Fiji.
Turaga had had earlier said that there are some recent posts on social media that are generating unnecessary alarm with respect to the Referendum Bill by alluding that its provisions breach free speech pursuant to the Constitution or that it is a product borne of ulterior motives or is dissimilar to laws on referendums that can be found elsewhere.
Turaga says Clauses 22 and 23 of the Bill impose certain prohibitions on the use of badges, symbols or other emblems, as well as canvassing, respectively, in connection with a referendum that are in line with international best practices to avoid undue influencing of votes or interference with political autonomy.
He adds equivalent or similar provisions exist under section 145 of the Electoral Act 2014.
Prominent Suva lawyer, Richard Naidu has said that some of the provisions in the National Referendum Bill are a mess, and they seem to have been “cut and pasted” from somewhere else without thinking.
Naidu says in a post that Section 22 makes little sense, and it’s wide enough to allow someone to be prosecuted for publishing a newspaper ad saying “I support the 2013 Constitution, please vote against changing it in the referendum.”
He says Section 23(1) does not seem to stop you from campaigning for one side or other in the referendum.
Naidu says it seems to stop you from persuading someone to vote or not vote in the referendum.
He says that does not make any sense either.
The lawyer says Section 23(2), however, seems to stop you from visiting someone’s home for “any purpose in connection” with the referendum, which could include saying “vote to keep the 2013 Constitution” (or not to).
Naidu says they breach basic free speech provisions in the Constitution, and they need to be fixed.
Naidu says they do not want anyone to do media or talkback on the Bill without consulting the Attorney General’s Office.
He says this is to “avoid miscommunication and public confusion”, and their drafting seems to have created a lot of that already.
