In Fiji today, a small but important victory has been won for the Constitution, for human rights, and for plain old common sense.
When the Fiji Police Force reversed its earlier decision to block a Hindu spiritual gathering in Suva, Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu didn’t just avoid a public relations headache - he put policing back in step with the law.
Section 22 of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji makes it crystal clear: every person has the right to practise their religion, privately or in public, without interference. International law says the same. By cancelling the permit without explanation, the earlier decision risked looking like an arbitrary restriction - the very thing the Constitution was designed to prevent.
But Tudravu’s statement has hit all the right notes. He acknowledged that no permit was even required, commended the organisers for cooperating with police, and focused on what matters most: ensuring safety and security, not shutting people out of their place of worship. And yes - he apologised.
This is how a secular state should work. You don’t suppress faith; you protect the space for it to flourish. In reversing the ban, Tudravu has shown that the Police Force can be a guardian of rights, not a barrier to them.
In times like these, that’s more than good policing - it’s leadership.
But One Good Decision Doesn’t Erase a Pattern. Police Must Make Rights Protection the Rule, Not the Exception.
Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu deserves credit for reversing the decision to block a Hindu spiritual gathering in Suva. His move was swift, sensible, and legally correct.
But let’s be clear - must become the standard practice, not an occasional concession when public pressure mounts.
The original permit was granted on 31 July, then cancelled on 6 August without explanation. That unexplained U-turn was more than a scheduling hiccup - it was a rights issue. Section 22 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both protect freedom of religion. Any restriction on that right must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Silence on the reasons fails that test.
Tudravu’s reversal fixed this particular problem, but the fact that it happened at all shows there’s work to do. Fiji Police must adopt a “facilitate first” approach to religious and community events. This means:
Rights are not a privilege to be granted and withdrawn at will. They are the starting point from which any state action must justify its limitations If we treat Tudravu’s decision as a one-off act of goodwill, we’ve missed the point. If we treat it as a precedent - a model for handling such cases - we strengthen both our democracy and public trust in law enforcement.
Fiji’s secular state exists to protect the freedom to worship - or not - without fear of arbitrary interference. The police can, and must, be the front line of that protection every single time.
When the Fiji Police Force reversed its earlier decision to block a Hindu spiritual gathering in Suva, Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu didn’t just avoid a public relations headache - he put policing back in step with the law.
Section 22 of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji makes it crystal clear: every person has the right to practise their religion, privately or in public, without interference. International law says the same. By cancelling the permit without explanation, the earlier decision risked looking like an arbitrary restriction - the very thing the Constitution was designed to prevent.
But Tudravu’s statement has hit all the right notes. He acknowledged that no permit was even required, commended the organisers for cooperating with police, and focused on what matters most: ensuring safety and security, not shutting people out of their place of worship. And yes - he apologised.
This is how a secular state should work. You don’t suppress faith; you protect the space for it to flourish. In reversing the ban, Tudravu has shown that the Police Force can be a guardian of rights, not a barrier to them.
In times like these, that’s more than good policing - it’s leadership.
But One Good Decision Doesn’t Erase a Pattern. Police Must Make Rights Protection the Rule, Not the Exception.
Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu deserves credit for reversing the decision to block a Hindu spiritual gathering in Suva. His move was swift, sensible, and legally correct.
But let’s be clear - must become the standard practice, not an occasional concession when public pressure mounts.
The original permit was granted on 31 July, then cancelled on 6 August without explanation. That unexplained U-turn was more than a scheduling hiccup - it was a rights issue. Section 22 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both protect freedom of religion. Any restriction on that right must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Silence on the reasons fails that test.
Tudravu’s reversal fixed this particular problem, but the fact that it happened at all shows there’s work to do. Fiji Police must adopt a “facilitate first” approach to religious and community events. This means:
- Immediate written reasons for any cancellation or restriction.
- A presumption in favour of the event unless there’s a genuine and provable threat to public safety.
- Early engagement with organisers to manage risks rather than block gatherings.
Rights are not a privilege to be granted and withdrawn at will. They are the starting point from which any state action must justify its limitations If we treat Tudravu’s decision as a one-off act of goodwill, we’ve missed the point. If we treat it as a precedent - a model for handling such cases - we strengthen both our democracy and public trust in law enforcement.
Fiji’s secular state exists to protect the freedom to worship - or not - without fear of arbitrary interference. The police can, and must, be the front line of that protection every single time.
  |  |
 |  Hindu Unity Gathering Organiser Sandeep Singh  Alefina Vuki, FHRADC Commissioner 'Fiji is a Secular State, and every person has a right, either individually or in community with others, in private or in public, to manifest and practise their religion...' |
In October - shortly after Diwali - Rabuka began the "rapes and beatings of pagan Indo-Fijians" in 1987
"As Minister for Internal Security, Mr Rabuka had extraordinary range of powers, which violated international standards of human rights, including the detention of any person for two years; order restriction of movement, freedom of expression, employment, residence or activity; prohibit the printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation or possession of any written material, and prohibit its communication through word of mouth etc. And yet Mr Rabuka was free to publish his book “No Other Way”. But no criticism of his book was permitted, and one USP Indo-Fijian lecturer who dared to criticise it, was detained and severely beaten up."
VICTOR LAL, The Fiji Sun, 29 December 2006
 |  |
CHAPTER 10—IMMUNITY
Immunity granted under the 1990 Constitution continues
155. Notwithstanding the abrogation of the Constitution Amendment Act 1997 and despite the repeal of
the Constitution of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji (Promulgation) Decree 1990, Chapter XIV of the
Constitution of 1990 continues in force in accordance with its tenor, and the immunity granted in Chapter XIV of the Constitution of 1990 shall continue.
Immunity granted under the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 continues
156.—(1) The immunities granted to prescribed persons for prescribed political events under the Limitation of
Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 shall continue in existence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political
Events Decree 2010 shall, in its entirety, continue in existence and shall not be reviewed, amended, altered, repealed or revoked by Parliament.
Further immunity
157. Absolute and unconditional immunity is irrevocably granted to any person (whether in their official or
personal or individual capacity) holding the office of, or holding the office in, as the case may be--
(a) the President;
(b) Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers;
(c) Republic of Fiji Military Forces;
(d) Fiji Police Force;
(e) Fiji Corrections Service;
(f) Judiciary;
(g) public service; and
(h) any public office,
from any criminal prosecution and from any civil or other liability in any court, tribunal or commission, in
any proceeding including any legal, military, disciplinary or professional proceedings and from any order or
judgment of any court, tribunal or commission, as a result of any direct or indirect participation, appointment
or involvement in the Government from 5 December 2006 to the date of the first sitting of the first Parliament
elected after the commencement of this Constitution; provided however any such immunity shall not apply to
any act or omission that constitutes an offence under sections 133 to 146, 148 to 236, 288 to 351, 356 to 361, 364 to 374, and 377 to 386 of the Crimes Decree 2009 (as prescribed in the Crimes Decree 2009 at the date of the commencement of this Constitution).
Immunity entrenched
158.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, this Chapter and any immunity granted or
continued in this Chapter shall not be reviewed, amended, altered, repealed or revoked.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no court or tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to
accept, hear or make any decision or order with respect to any challenge against the provisions of this Chapter and any immunity granted or continued in this Chapter.
(3) No compensation shall be payable by the State to any person in respect of damage, injury or loss to his or
her property or person caused by or consequent upon any conduct from which immunity has been granted under this section.
Immunity granted under the 1990 Constitution continues
155. Notwithstanding the abrogation of the Constitution Amendment Act 1997 and despite the repeal of
the Constitution of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji (Promulgation) Decree 1990, Chapter XIV of the
Constitution of 1990 continues in force in accordance with its tenor, and the immunity granted in Chapter XIV of the Constitution of 1990 shall continue.
Immunity granted under the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 continues
156.—(1) The immunities granted to prescribed persons for prescribed political events under the Limitation of
Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 shall continue in existence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political
Events Decree 2010 shall, in its entirety, continue in existence and shall not be reviewed, amended, altered, repealed or revoked by Parliament.
Further immunity
157. Absolute and unconditional immunity is irrevocably granted to any person (whether in their official or
personal or individual capacity) holding the office of, or holding the office in, as the case may be--
(a) the President;
(b) Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers;
(c) Republic of Fiji Military Forces;
(d) Fiji Police Force;
(e) Fiji Corrections Service;
(f) Judiciary;
(g) public service; and
(h) any public office,
from any criminal prosecution and from any civil or other liability in any court, tribunal or commission, in
any proceeding including any legal, military, disciplinary or professional proceedings and from any order or
judgment of any court, tribunal or commission, as a result of any direct or indirect participation, appointment
or involvement in the Government from 5 December 2006 to the date of the first sitting of the first Parliament
elected after the commencement of this Constitution; provided however any such immunity shall not apply to
any act or omission that constitutes an offence under sections 133 to 146, 148 to 236, 288 to 351, 356 to 361, 364 to 374, and 377 to 386 of the Crimes Decree 2009 (as prescribed in the Crimes Decree 2009 at the date of the commencement of this Constitution).
Immunity entrenched
158.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, this Chapter and any immunity granted or
continued in this Chapter shall not be reviewed, amended, altered, repealed or revoked.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no court or tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to
accept, hear or make any decision or order with respect to any challenge against the provisions of this Chapter and any immunity granted or continued in this Chapter.
(3) No compensation shall be payable by the State to any person in respect of damage, injury or loss to his or
her property or person caused by or consequent upon any conduct from which immunity has been granted under this section.
Fijileaks: Validity and Legal Origins of Sitiveni Rabuka’s Claimed Immunity
*Sitiveni Rabuka’s current immunity from prosecution for his role in the 1987 coups is not grounded in any democratically enacted legal framework. Rather, it derives from decrees he himself issued as a military usurper and was later entrenched in the imposed 1990 Constitution. This immunity lapsed with the enactment of the 1997 Constitution, which contained no such protection. The 2013 Constitution’s Section 157, which re-establishes immunity, lacks legal legitimacy due to its non-democratic origins and cannot override the legal and constitutional rupture created by the 2006 coup.
If the 1997 Constitution is restored, Rabuka’s immunity collapses with it.
A Full Legal Analysis soon.
*Sitiveni Rabuka’s current immunity from prosecution for his role in the 1987 coups is not grounded in any democratically enacted legal framework. Rather, it derives from decrees he himself issued as a military usurper and was later entrenched in the imposed 1990 Constitution. This immunity lapsed with the enactment of the 1997 Constitution, which contained no such protection. The 2013 Constitution’s Section 157, which re-establishes immunity, lacks legal legitimacy due to its non-democratic origins and cannot override the legal and constitutional rupture created by the 2006 coup.
If the 1997 Constitution is restored, Rabuka’s immunity collapses with it.
A Full Legal Analysis soon.
