*The People’s Alliance Party (PAP) has now doubled down on its legal challenge to the 2013 Constitution, urging the Supreme Court to declare the document illegitimate and “restore” the 1997 Constitution. Its submissions by PAP’s lawyer, Simione Valenitabua, were dramatic, emotional, and laced with symbolism. He quoted Fijian proverbs about sinking canoes and condemned the “hull” of the 2013 Constitution as unfit to keep the state afloat.
*But beneath the poetry lies a dangerous reality: this is not just a courtroom contest—it’s a constitutional gamble that risks destabilising the state itself.
The RFMF does not need an invitation to act when the state’s security and constitutional integrity are at stake.
 |  |
Simione Valenitabua. Sadly, he was addressing the i-Taukei voters and not addressing the court on the questions before them In a court drenched in political nostalgia and selective memory, People’s Alliance Party lawyer Simione Valenitabua stood before the Supreme Court demanding for the Judges to obliterate the 2013 Constitution and “restore” the 1997 Constitution, invoking ancient proverbs about sinking canoes and stormy seas.
“The canoe of our state is sinking,” Valenitabua declared dramatically, “and Your Lordships must act before we all drown under the weight of an illegitimate constitution.”
Powerful words. Poetic even. But perhaps Valenitabua and his client, the Prime Minister and self-anointed “King Rabuka,” should start polishing their paddles — because if the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) decide to “set sail” from the barracks in response to this constitutional brinkmanship, there may be no dry land left for the ethno-nationalists and their supporters to stand on.
For decades, Rabuka’s political fortunes have relied on rewriting Fiji’s constitutional history, yet this latest courtroom manoeuvre is nothing short of a gamble with the nation’s stability. PAP’s leadership is effectively challenging the very legal order under which it governs, while simultaneously insisting it doesn’t “really” accept the 2013 Constitution—a Constitution it swore oaths under, uses daily to exercise power, and now casually describes as a “sinking hull.”
One wonders if Valenitabua and PAP have considered what happens if their wish comes true and the Supreme Court throws Fiji into constitutional chaos. The RFMF, guardians of “the state” under Section 131 of the very same 2013 Constitution, are unlikely to stand by and watch the ship capsize without taking command of the wheel.
If that day comes, the “restorationists” might find themselves needing their own canoe, paddling not towards a reborn democracy but towards the nearest safe harbour—preferably outside Fiji’s exclusive economic zone.
Until then, PAP’s lawyers might want to remember one thing: shouting “abandon ship” while still standing on the bridge doesn’t make you the captain. It just makes you look like someone who forgot to bring a life jacket.
Ah, and lest they forget, they’ll need to take along their ceremonial figurehead and co-traveller on this legal odyssey: President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu. After all, what’s a royal canoe ride without the High Chief and his presidential entourage?
“The canoe of our state is sinking,” Valenitabua declared dramatically, “and Your Lordships must act before we all drown under the weight of an illegitimate constitution.”
Powerful words. Poetic even. But perhaps Valenitabua and his client, the Prime Minister and self-anointed “King Rabuka,” should start polishing their paddles — because if the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) decide to “set sail” from the barracks in response to this constitutional brinkmanship, there may be no dry land left for the ethno-nationalists and their supporters to stand on.
For decades, Rabuka’s political fortunes have relied on rewriting Fiji’s constitutional history, yet this latest courtroom manoeuvre is nothing short of a gamble with the nation’s stability. PAP’s leadership is effectively challenging the very legal order under which it governs, while simultaneously insisting it doesn’t “really” accept the 2013 Constitution—a Constitution it swore oaths under, uses daily to exercise power, and now casually describes as a “sinking hull.”
One wonders if Valenitabua and PAP have considered what happens if their wish comes true and the Supreme Court throws Fiji into constitutional chaos. The RFMF, guardians of “the state” under Section 131 of the very same 2013 Constitution, are unlikely to stand by and watch the ship capsize without taking command of the wheel.
If that day comes, the “restorationists” might find themselves needing their own canoe, paddling not towards a reborn democracy but towards the nearest safe harbour—preferably outside Fiji’s exclusive economic zone.
Until then, PAP’s lawyers might want to remember one thing: shouting “abandon ship” while still standing on the bridge doesn’t make you the captain. It just makes you look like someone who forgot to bring a life jacket.
Ah, and lest they forget, they’ll need to take along their ceremonial figurehead and co-traveller on this legal odyssey: President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu. After all, what’s a royal canoe ride without the High Chief and his presidential entourage?
PAP’s Constitutional Gamble Risks Inviting the RFMF Back Into the Political Arena
PAP can't ride freely on ethno-nationalist wave
PAP governs under the very framework it now seeks to destroy. Its leaders swore oaths of allegiance to the 2013 Constitution, they invoke it daily to make laws, and they depend on it to maintain executive authority.
Yet in the same breath, they tell the courts their participation has been “for convenience only,” as though Fiji’s legal order were some optional garment they can wear or discard at will.
This is more than political theatre. If PAP succeeds in persuading the Supreme Court that the 2013 Constitution is invalid, the decision would create a constitutional vacuum. Parliament, Cabinet, and even the presidency itself would have no lawful foundation. Governance would be paralysed overnight.
And in Fiji, we all know what happens when a power vacuum opens.
Section 131: The RFMF’s Mandate
Under Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution, the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) holds an explicit constitutional role as the “guardian of the State,” with the mandate to “ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians.”
PAP cannot simply pretend this clause doesn’t exist while inviting the judiciary to pull the rug out from under the legal framework that currently defines the RFMF’s powers, obligations, and limits. If the Supreme Court declares the 2013 Constitution invalid, it would force the RFMF to act--not out of political preference, but out of constitutional necessity.
The Political Recklessness of “Convenient Governance”
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and his allies have tried to frame this court action as a principled defence of democracy. But PAP’s posture reveals something else entirely: they want the power that comes with the 2013 Constitution while pretending their hands are clean of its birth.
By insisting their compliance with the current constitutional order has been “for convenience only,” PAP risks undermining public confidence in every law, every Cabinet decision, and every appointment made since 2013. If they don’t believe in the legitimacy of their own authority, why should the people?
A Warning, Not a Threat
This is not a call for military intervention. But history teaches us that Fiji’s stability cannot be taken for granted. Every significant constitutional rupture in the last 40 years—1987, 2000, 2006—has eventually drawn the RFMF into the political arena.
By pushing the Supreme Court to repudiate the 2013 Constitution without providing a clear roadmap for lawful continuity, PAP is flirting with the same destabilising forces it claims to oppose. The RFMF does not need an invitation to act when the state’s security and constitutional integrity are at stake.
If PAP truly seeks national unity and stability, it must abandon brinkmanship and engage in genuine dialogue about constitutional reform—through Parliament, public consultation, and democratic consensus—not by inviting the judiciary to detonate the foundation of the state.
Otherwise, if the “canoe” Valenitabua so passionately described really does start sinking, PAP’s leaders—and yes, even President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu—may find themselves scrambling for paddles in a storm they created.
PAP governs under the very framework it now seeks to destroy. Its leaders swore oaths of allegiance to the 2013 Constitution, they invoke it daily to make laws, and they depend on it to maintain executive authority.
Yet in the same breath, they tell the courts their participation has been “for convenience only,” as though Fiji’s legal order were some optional garment they can wear or discard at will.
This is more than political theatre. If PAP succeeds in persuading the Supreme Court that the 2013 Constitution is invalid, the decision would create a constitutional vacuum. Parliament, Cabinet, and even the presidency itself would have no lawful foundation. Governance would be paralysed overnight.
And in Fiji, we all know what happens when a power vacuum opens.
Section 131: The RFMF’s Mandate
Under Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution, the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) holds an explicit constitutional role as the “guardian of the State,” with the mandate to “ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians.”
PAP cannot simply pretend this clause doesn’t exist while inviting the judiciary to pull the rug out from under the legal framework that currently defines the RFMF’s powers, obligations, and limits. If the Supreme Court declares the 2013 Constitution invalid, it would force the RFMF to act--not out of political preference, but out of constitutional necessity.
The Political Recklessness of “Convenient Governance”
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and his allies have tried to frame this court action as a principled defence of democracy. But PAP’s posture reveals something else entirely: they want the power that comes with the 2013 Constitution while pretending their hands are clean of its birth.
By insisting their compliance with the current constitutional order has been “for convenience only,” PAP risks undermining public confidence in every law, every Cabinet decision, and every appointment made since 2013. If they don’t believe in the legitimacy of their own authority, why should the people?
A Warning, Not a Threat
This is not a call for military intervention. But history teaches us that Fiji’s stability cannot be taken for granted. Every significant constitutional rupture in the last 40 years—1987, 2000, 2006—has eventually drawn the RFMF into the political arena.
By pushing the Supreme Court to repudiate the 2013 Constitution without providing a clear roadmap for lawful continuity, PAP is flirting with the same destabilising forces it claims to oppose. The RFMF does not need an invitation to act when the state’s security and constitutional integrity are at stake.
If PAP truly seeks national unity and stability, it must abandon brinkmanship and engage in genuine dialogue about constitutional reform—through Parliament, public consultation, and democratic consensus—not by inviting the judiciary to detonate the foundation of the state.
Otherwise, if the “canoe” Valenitabua so passionately described really does start sinking, PAP’s leaders—and yes, even President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu—may find themselves scrambling for paddles in a storm they created.
