 *GCC chairman Ratu Viliame Seruvakula said they respected the Court’s conclusion under the rule of law, and at the same time, the GCC stood for the voice of the iTaukei vanua and the broader Fijian sense of identity. He said a constitution that endures must arise not just from legal machinery, but from lived values and communal consensus. |  GCC chairman Seruvakula |
Fijileaks: The Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), long absent from Fiji’s constitutional debates, has finally broken its silence and, in doing so, reminded us why constitutional progress in this country often resembles a game of rugby played in slow motion.
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s advisory ruling, which upheld the continued legal validity of the 2013 Constitution while acknowledging its “democratic deficit”, GCC Chairman Ratu Viliame Seruvakula delivered a statement that was part acceptance, part lament, and part year-2025 revelation. Apparently, the GCC has just realised what the rest of Fiji has known since 2013:
Twelve years late to the party, the GCC has now declared the obvious: Fiji has a “supreme law” it didn’t choose, and that’s a problem.
The GCC’s Selective Amnesia
The GCC’s newfound concern for “inclusive dialogue” would be more compelling if it weren’t for its own historical complicity in Fiji’s constitutional mess:
After more than a decade of silence under the 2013 Bainimarama–Khaiyum Constitution, the GCC now resurfaces, proclaiming its intent to lead Fiji into a “participatory constitutional review.” Fine-sounding words but where was this so-called “voice of the vanua” in 2013, when Fijians were stripped of their democratic choice? Back then, the GCC vanished into hiding, cowed by RFMF guns, biding its time in silence. Now, sensing an opportunity, it re-emerges, eager to reclaim influence and once again masquerade as the true representatives of the common people.
Entrenchment and Hypocrisy
Ratu Viliame Seruvakula complains that the 2013 Constitution’s “unamendable” provisions “hamper our capacity to adapt and renew our constitutional framework.” He’s right but let’s be honest:
If the GCC now finds entrenchment undemocratic, will it publicly call for repealing Section 157 and reopening Fiji’s dark coup history to full judicial scrutiny? Or will it prefer customary amnesia?
The Culture Card
The GCC invokes “customary dialogue” and “communal consensus” as the gold standard for constitutional legitimacy. That sounds poetic but in practice, it risks entrenching elite decision-making disguised as cultural representation.
Fiji’s history shows us that constitutional consultations too often became political theatre where chiefs, politicians, and business elites brokered deals over the heads of ordinary citizens. The danger is that an “inclusive review” becomes a selective review, a closed circle of Rabuka, the GCC, Biman Prasad, and a few token civil society figures deciding the nation’s future while pretending it’s participatory.
The Real Democratic Deficit
The Supreme Court ruling exposes a deep fissure in Fiji’s democracy:
This is the paradox Fiji refuses to confront:
Everyone hates the 2013 Constitution but nobody in power dares dismantle it.
The GCC wants a seat at the table of constitutional reform. Fine. But if it wants credibility, it must:
Until then, the GCC’s statements sound less like bold leadership and more like belated commentary from an institution still trying to find its purpose in a republic it never fully accepted. In other words, the Great Council of Chiefs Discovers Bainimarama’s Constitution Exists—12 Years After the Fact.
Sadly, not only the Chiefs went into hiding but even Ratu Viliame Seruvakula, after valiantly putting down the bloody 2 November 2000, and later was the main witness in Sitiveni Rabuka's trial on two charges of inciting mutiny, left Fiji quietly, only to resurface years later, and is now the chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs.
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s advisory ruling, which upheld the continued legal validity of the 2013 Constitution while acknowledging its “democratic deficit”, GCC Chairman Ratu Viliame Seruvakula delivered a statement that was part acceptance, part lament, and part year-2025 revelation. Apparently, the GCC has just realised what the rest of Fiji has known since 2013:
- The Constitution was “imposed on the people”,
- It entrenches key provisions, including Sections 159 and 160, beyond ordinary amendment procedures, and
- It lacks customary dialogue and communal endorsement.
Twelve years late to the party, the GCC has now declared the obvious: Fiji has a “supreme law” it didn’t choose, and that’s a problem.
The GCC’s Selective Amnesia
The GCC’s newfound concern for “inclusive dialogue” would be more compelling if it weren’t for its own historical complicity in Fiji’s constitutional mess:
- 1987: The GCC stood by while Sitiveni Rabuka overthrew an elected government, setting Fiji on the path of coups, decrees, and imposed constitutions.
- 1990 Constitution: The GCC endorsed a blatantly racist, exclusionary framework that entrenched iTaukei supremacy and marginalised Indo-Fijians.
- 1997 Constitution: The GCC backed the Rabuka–Reddy compromise, which at least attempted multiracial balance but failed to prevent the coups of 2000 and 2006.
After more than a decade of silence under the 2013 Bainimarama–Khaiyum Constitution, the GCC now resurfaces, proclaiming its intent to lead Fiji into a “participatory constitutional review.” Fine-sounding words but where was this so-called “voice of the vanua” in 2013, when Fijians were stripped of their democratic choice? Back then, the GCC vanished into hiding, cowed by RFMF guns, biding its time in silence. Now, sensing an opportunity, it re-emerges, eager to reclaim influence and once again masquerade as the true representatives of the common people.
Entrenchment and Hypocrisy
Ratu Viliame Seruvakula complains that the 2013 Constitution’s “unamendable” provisions “hamper our capacity to adapt and renew our constitutional framework.” He’s right but let’s be honest:
- The GCC had no problem with entrenched provisions when they protected iTaukei dominance under the 1990 Constitution.
- It also raised no alarm when Section 157 of the 2013 Constitution entrenched coup immunities, shielding Rabuka, Bainimarama, Khaiyum, and others from prosecution.
If the GCC now finds entrenchment undemocratic, will it publicly call for repealing Section 157 and reopening Fiji’s dark coup history to full judicial scrutiny? Or will it prefer customary amnesia?
The Culture Card
The GCC invokes “customary dialogue” and “communal consensus” as the gold standard for constitutional legitimacy. That sounds poetic but in practice, it risks entrenching elite decision-making disguised as cultural representation.
Fiji’s history shows us that constitutional consultations too often became political theatre where chiefs, politicians, and business elites brokered deals over the heads of ordinary citizens. The danger is that an “inclusive review” becomes a selective review, a closed circle of Rabuka, the GCC, Biman Prasad, and a few token civil society figures deciding the nation’s future while pretending it’s participatory.
The Real Democratic Deficit
The Supreme Court ruling exposes a deep fissure in Fiji’s democracy:
- The 2013 Constitution remains the supreme law, entrenched and insulated from real change.
- The 1997 Constitution, the last people-approved framework, was set aside by decree but never repealed.
- Successive governments, including Rabuka’s current coalition, have benefited from the very framework they now denounce.
This is the paradox Fiji refuses to confront:
Everyone hates the 2013 Constitution but nobody in power dares dismantle it.
The GCC wants a seat at the table of constitutional reform. Fine. But if it wants credibility, it must:
- Admit its historical role in Fiji’s constitutional instability,
- Reject selective outrage over entrenchment and immunity, and
- Commit to a truly people-driven process where chiefs, politicians, and elites don’t dominate the outcome.
Until then, the GCC’s statements sound less like bold leadership and more like belated commentary from an institution still trying to find its purpose in a republic it never fully accepted. In other words, the Great Council of Chiefs Discovers Bainimarama’s Constitution Exists—12 Years After the Fact.
Sadly, not only the Chiefs went into hiding but even Ratu Viliame Seruvakula, after valiantly putting down the bloody 2 November 2000, and later was the main witness in Sitiveni Rabuka's trial on two charges of inciting mutiny, left Fiji quietly, only to resurface years later, and is now the chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs.
