 |  |
When Britain held the Brexit referendum in 2016, the country tore itself apart politically but not legally.
People argued, campaigned, knocked on doors, filled newspapers, flooded social media, and spent millions persuading voters. All of it was lawful. That is the point.
The British referendum was conducted under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The law did not tell people what they could say. It did not tell them where they could speak. It did not criminalise persuasion. It regulated money, transparency, and fairness but not opinion.
Under British law, campaigning was not a privilege granted by the state. It was a right. Citizens did not need permission to urge a “Leave” or “Remain” vote.
Newspapers did not clear headlines with the government. Civil society groups did not consult ministers before educating voters. Door-to-door canvassing was routine. Private homes were not off-limits to political discussion.
Contrast that with Fiji’s National Referendum Bill 2025
Under this Bill, publishing material “in connection with” the referendum may be a criminal offence unless authorised. Persuading someone how to vote may be unlawful. Visiting a private home “for any purpose” related to the referendum may be illegal.
And when civil society asked for clarity, the response from government was not reassurance, but advice to consult the Attorney-General to avoid “miscommunication”.
That is not how Britain ran Brexit. It is not how any serious democracy runs a referendum.
In the UK, the state did not act as gatekeeper of debate. The Electoral Commission was independent. Ministers campaigned openly. Citizens argued freely. The courts would never tolerate a law that banned persuasion or outlawed political discussion in private homes. Such a law would be struck down immediately.
The irony is obvious. Britain trusted its citizens with too much freedom and lived with the consequences. Fiji proposes to trust its citizens with so little freedom that the result risks being legally and morally tainted before the first vote is cast.
A referendum is not an administrative exercise. It is a collective act of political will. The legitimacy of the outcome depends on how freely people were allowed to think, speak, argue, and persuade before polling day.
Brexit showed what happens when debate is unrestrained. Fiji’s Bill shows something else entirely: fear of debate itself. And a referendum conducted in fear is not democratic consent. It is managed compliance.
That is the difference.
The Brexit referendum legislation was not drafted by a politician or a political party lawyer.
Who drafted the Brexit Referendum Legislation?
The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was drafted by the UK Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC).
Who sponsored it politically
Why this matters (especially for Fiji)
The OPC has:
Any UK drafter proposing provisions like Fiji’s sections 22 and 23 would have been stopped inside the drafting office, long before Parliament.
Brexit was legislated by:
That institutional difference, not culture, not politics, explains why Britain could hold a referendum like Brexit, and why Fiji’s Bill looks so alien by comparison.
People argued, campaigned, knocked on doors, filled newspapers, flooded social media, and spent millions persuading voters. All of it was lawful. That is the point.
The British referendum was conducted under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The law did not tell people what they could say. It did not tell them where they could speak. It did not criminalise persuasion. It regulated money, transparency, and fairness but not opinion.
Under British law, campaigning was not a privilege granted by the state. It was a right. Citizens did not need permission to urge a “Leave” or “Remain” vote.
Newspapers did not clear headlines with the government. Civil society groups did not consult ministers before educating voters. Door-to-door canvassing was routine. Private homes were not off-limits to political discussion.
Contrast that with Fiji’s National Referendum Bill 2025
Under this Bill, publishing material “in connection with” the referendum may be a criminal offence unless authorised. Persuading someone how to vote may be unlawful. Visiting a private home “for any purpose” related to the referendum may be illegal.
And when civil society asked for clarity, the response from government was not reassurance, but advice to consult the Attorney-General to avoid “miscommunication”.
That is not how Britain ran Brexit. It is not how any serious democracy runs a referendum.
In the UK, the state did not act as gatekeeper of debate. The Electoral Commission was independent. Ministers campaigned openly. Citizens argued freely. The courts would never tolerate a law that banned persuasion or outlawed political discussion in private homes. Such a law would be struck down immediately.
The irony is obvious. Britain trusted its citizens with too much freedom and lived with the consequences. Fiji proposes to trust its citizens with so little freedom that the result risks being legally and morally tainted before the first vote is cast.
A referendum is not an administrative exercise. It is a collective act of political will. The legitimacy of the outcome depends on how freely people were allowed to think, speak, argue, and persuade before polling day.
Brexit showed what happens when debate is unrestrained. Fiji’s Bill shows something else entirely: fear of debate itself. And a referendum conducted in fear is not democratic consent. It is managed compliance.
That is the difference.
The Brexit referendum legislation was not drafted by a politician or a political party lawyer.
Who drafted the Brexit Referendum Legislation?
The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was drafted by the UK Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC).
- The OPC is a permanent, non-political body of specialist legislative drafters
- Its lawyers are civil servants, independent of ministers
- Their job is to translate government policy into precise, legally coherent legislation that will withstand judicial scrutiny
Who sponsored it politically
- The Bill was introduced to Parliament by the Conservative government
- It was sponsored in the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary (Philip Hammond) and other ministers
- But ministers do not draft the law. They instruct the OPC on policy objectives
Why this matters (especially for Fiji)
The OPC has:
- centuries of drafting tradition
- strict internal standards on clarity, legality, and rights-compatibility
- a drafting culture that assumes political speech is free unless expressly and narrowly limited.
- did not criminalise persuasion
- did not restrict door-to-door campaigning
- did not regulate opinion or advocacy
- left speech regulation to general law, and spending to electoral law
Any UK drafter proposing provisions like Fiji’s sections 22 and 23 would have been stopped inside the drafting office, long before Parliament.
Brexit was legislated by:
- professional, independent parliamentary drafters
- operating in a system that treats free political debate as non-negotiable
That institutional difference, not culture, not politics, explains why Britain could hold a referendum like Brexit, and why Fiji’s Bill looks so alien by comparison.
Amendment Wanted: Fearless MP Required to table our Amendment Bill
NATIONAL REFERENDUM (AMENDMENT) BILL 2025
A Bill
to amend the National Referendum Act 2025 to safeguard freedom of expression and lawful civic participation in referendum processes.
ENACTED
by the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji
1. Short title and commencement
2. Replacement of section 22
The National Referendum Act 2025 is amended by repealing section 22 and substituting the following--
22. Referendum advocacy and publication
(b) is published or distributed using public funds otherwise than in accordance with this Act.
The Electoral Commission may issue non-binding guidelines relating to transparency and good practice in referendum advocacy.”
3. Replacement of section 23
The National Referendum Act 2025 is amended by repealing section 23 and substituting the following:
23. Lawful campaign activities
For the avoidance of doubt, the following activities are lawful for the purposes of a referendum--
(a) campaigning for or against a referendum proposal;
(b) persuading a person how to vote;
(c) distributing referendum-related materials;
(d) holding meetings, including in private premises with the consent of the occupier;
(e) peaceful door-to-door canvassing.
A person commits an offence only if that person, in connection with a referendum:
(a) uses force, threats, intimidation, or undue influence to influence how another person votes;
(b) knowingly provides false information relating to voting procedures or the casting or counting of votes; or
(c) falsely represents that the person is acting on behalf of the Electoral Commission.
Nothing in this section authorises entry onto private premises without the consent of the occupier.”
4. Consequential amendments
Any reference in the National Referendum Act 2025 to an offence under sections 22 or 23 is to be read as a reference to sections 22 or 23 as replaced by this Act.
Explanatory Note (not part of the Act)
This Bill amends sections 22 and 23 of the National Referendum Act 2025 to remove criminal liability for ordinary advocacy, persuasion, and civic participation in referendum processes, while retaining offences necessary to protect the integrity of the referendum. The amendments align the Act with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and political participation.
A Bill
to amend the National Referendum Act 2025 to safeguard freedom of expression and lawful civic participation in referendum processes.
ENACTED
by the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji
1. Short title and commencement
- This Act may be cited as the National Referendum (Amendment) Act 2025.
- This Act comes into force on the date of its assent.
2. Replacement of section 22
The National Referendum Act 2025 is amended by repealing section 22 and substituting the following--
22. Referendum advocacy and publication
- A person may publish, distribute, or otherwise communicate any material expressing support for or opposition to a referendum proposal.
- No offence is committed merely because such material is intended to persuade persons to vote in a particular manner.
- Subsection (1) does not apply to material that
(b) is published or distributed using public funds otherwise than in accordance with this Act.
The Electoral Commission may issue non-binding guidelines relating to transparency and good practice in referendum advocacy.”
3. Replacement of section 23
The National Referendum Act 2025 is amended by repealing section 23 and substituting the following:
23. Lawful campaign activities
For the avoidance of doubt, the following activities are lawful for the purposes of a referendum--
(a) campaigning for or against a referendum proposal;
(b) persuading a person how to vote;
(c) distributing referendum-related materials;
(d) holding meetings, including in private premises with the consent of the occupier;
(e) peaceful door-to-door canvassing.
A person commits an offence only if that person, in connection with a referendum:
(a) uses force, threats, intimidation, or undue influence to influence how another person votes;
(b) knowingly provides false information relating to voting procedures or the casting or counting of votes; or
(c) falsely represents that the person is acting on behalf of the Electoral Commission.
Nothing in this section authorises entry onto private premises without the consent of the occupier.”
4. Consequential amendments
Any reference in the National Referendum Act 2025 to an offence under sections 22 or 23 is to be read as a reference to sections 22 or 23 as replaced by this Act.
Explanatory Note (not part of the Act)
This Bill amends sections 22 and 23 of the National Referendum Act 2025 to remove criminal liability for ordinary advocacy, persuasion, and civic participation in referendum processes, while retaining offences necessary to protect the integrity of the referendum. The amendments align the Act with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and political participation.
National Referendum (Amendment) Bill 2025
Mr Speaker, Sir
I rise to move that the National Referendum (Amendment) Bill 2025 be now read a second time.
This Bill is narrow, focused, and necessary. It does not seek to frustrate a referendum. It seeks to protect it.
At the heart of this amendment is a simple principle: a referendum on constitutional matters must be conducted in an environment of free, open, and lawful debate. If citizens fear prosecution for persuading others, distributing materials, or discussing the issue in private homes, then the referendum may be orderly but it will not be legitimate.
Mr Speaker, the existing sections 22 and 23 of the principal Act have raised serious and reasonable concern across civil society, the legal profession, and the public. Those concerns are not about policy outcomes. They are about process, clarity, and constitutional compatibility.
As currently drafted, those provisions risk criminalising ordinary civic activity, including persuasion, advocacy, and peaceful engagement through vague and overly broad language. They also vest excessive discretion in enforcement authorities, creating uncertainty about what conduct is lawful and what is not.
This Amendment Bill resolves that problem directly.
First, it affirms the right of citizens to campaign, persuade, and express opinions for or against a referendum proposal. It makes clear that persuasion, by itself, is not a crime.
Second, it draws a clear and lawful boundary around criminal conduct. Fraud, impersonation of the Electoral Commission, intimidation, coercion, and the misuse of public funds remain offences. These are the behaviours that genuinely undermine referendum integrity.
Third, it protects private homes and private association, making clear that meetings and discussions are lawful where there is consent, and that no provision authorises entry without consent.
Mr Speaker, this approach is consistent with our Constitution, particularly the guarantees of freedom of expression, thought, and political participation. It is also consistent with international democratic practice. Referendum laws in established democracies regulate money and deception not opinion.
Importantly, this Bill does not weaken the Electoral Commission. It strengthens public confidence in the process by removing ambiguity and fear. A referendum conducted under clear, fair, and rights-respecting rules is far more likely to command respect, whatever the outcome.
Mr Speaker, constitutional change demands the highest standard of democratic legitimacy. That legitimacy cannot be achieved through silence, restraint, or managed debate. It can only be achieved through trust in the people.
This Amendment Bill ensures that trust is reflected in law.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Anticipated Government Objections and Responses
Objection 1: The Bill is necessary to prevent misinformation and protect voters
Response:
No one disputes the need to protect voters from deception. That is precisely why this Amendment Bill preserves offences relating to fraud, impersonation of the Electoral Commission, and knowingly false information about voting procedures.
What the amendment removes is the criminalisation of opinion and persuasion. Misinformation is addressed through targeted offences. Broad bans on advocacy do not stop falsehoods; they suppress lawful speech and create confusion.
Objection 2: Restrictions are needed to ensure order and public safety
Response:
Existing laws already address public order, intimidation, harassment, and unlawful assembly. There is no evidence that ordinary referendum campaigning creates a unique public safety risk requiring special criminal restrictions on speech.
Order is best maintained through clear law and consistent enforcement, not through vague prohibitions that leave citizens unsure of what is permitted.
Objection 3: Allowing persuasion risks undue influence over vulnerable voters
Response:
Persuasion is not undue influence. Undue influence involves coercion, threats, or exploitation, all of which remain criminal offences under the amendment.
To prohibit persuasion because some persuasion may be unethical is to prohibit democracy itself. The proper response to bad arguments is better arguments, not criminal law.
Objection 4: The amendments weaken the authority of the Electoral Commission
Response:
On the contrary, the amendments strengthen the Commission by clearly defining its role. The Commission remains protected against impersonation and misuse of public funds and retains the power to issue guidance.
What the amendments remove is any perception that the Commission or the executive licenses political speech. That perception undermines, rather than enhances, institutional credibility.
Objection 5: The Bill is already constitutional and will withstand challenge
Response:
Constitutionality is not determined by confidence alone. Laws affecting political speech are subject to the highest level of scrutiny.
The breadth and ambiguity of the current sections create unnecessary litigation risk. These amendments reduce that risk and protect the referendum from post-vote legal challenges that could undermine its outcome.
Objection 6: This amendment will allow well-funded groups to dominate the debate
Response:
That concern relates to campaign finance, not speech. If spending dominance is the issue, the solution lies in spending caps, disclosure, and transparency and not in criminalising speech by everyone.
Silencing all to restrain a few is neither fair nor effective.
Objection 7: This is an attempt to delay or derail the referendum
Response:
This amendment does not delay the referendum. It ensures that when it occurs, it is conducted lawfully and credibly.
A referendum vulnerable to legal challenge is far more likely to be delayed after the fact. Preventing that risk now is prudent governance.
The choice before the House is not between control and chaos. It is between clear, constitutional law and avoidable legal risk.
These amendments protect voters, protect institutions, and protect the legitimacy of the referendum itself.
Objection 1: The Bill is necessary to prevent misinformation and protect voters
Response:
No one disputes the need to protect voters from deception. That is precisely why this Amendment Bill preserves offences relating to fraud, impersonation of the Electoral Commission, and knowingly false information about voting procedures.
What the amendment removes is the criminalisation of opinion and persuasion. Misinformation is addressed through targeted offences. Broad bans on advocacy do not stop falsehoods; they suppress lawful speech and create confusion.
Objection 2: Restrictions are needed to ensure order and public safety
Response:
Existing laws already address public order, intimidation, harassment, and unlawful assembly. There is no evidence that ordinary referendum campaigning creates a unique public safety risk requiring special criminal restrictions on speech.
Order is best maintained through clear law and consistent enforcement, not through vague prohibitions that leave citizens unsure of what is permitted.
Objection 3: Allowing persuasion risks undue influence over vulnerable voters
Response:
Persuasion is not undue influence. Undue influence involves coercion, threats, or exploitation, all of which remain criminal offences under the amendment.
To prohibit persuasion because some persuasion may be unethical is to prohibit democracy itself. The proper response to bad arguments is better arguments, not criminal law.
Objection 4: The amendments weaken the authority of the Electoral Commission
Response:
On the contrary, the amendments strengthen the Commission by clearly defining its role. The Commission remains protected against impersonation and misuse of public funds and retains the power to issue guidance.
What the amendments remove is any perception that the Commission or the executive licenses political speech. That perception undermines, rather than enhances, institutional credibility.
Objection 5: The Bill is already constitutional and will withstand challenge
Response:
Constitutionality is not determined by confidence alone. Laws affecting political speech are subject to the highest level of scrutiny.
The breadth and ambiguity of the current sections create unnecessary litigation risk. These amendments reduce that risk and protect the referendum from post-vote legal challenges that could undermine its outcome.
Objection 6: This amendment will allow well-funded groups to dominate the debate
Response:
That concern relates to campaign finance, not speech. If spending dominance is the issue, the solution lies in spending caps, disclosure, and transparency and not in criminalising speech by everyone.
Silencing all to restrain a few is neither fair nor effective.
Objection 7: This is an attempt to delay or derail the referendum
Response:
This amendment does not delay the referendum. It ensures that when it occurs, it is conducted lawfully and credibly.
A referendum vulnerable to legal challenge is far more likely to be delayed after the fact. Preventing that risk now is prudent governance.
The choice before the House is not between control and chaos. It is between clear, constitutional law and avoidable legal risk.
These amendments protect voters, protect institutions, and protect the legitimacy of the referendum itself.
 |  |
