"What's happening now is that SODELPA is treating the GCC as a political "passenger", using its own legal standing as a "vehicle" to drive the GCC's agenda into the courtroom (the Supreme Court of Fiji)-even though the GCC has no license, no wheels, and no constitutional right to be there - challenging the validity of the 2013 Constitution. This is not a cultural or a symbolic expression of indigenous heritage. It is a coordinated attempt to smuggle chiefly power back into constitutional politics through judicial proceedings - a move that is legally inappropriate, politically regressive, and constitutionally dangerous."
| *Fijileaks to Sodelpa acting general secretary Viliame Takayawa: "Why is Sodelpa trying to drag in a cultural body like GCC into constitutional matters before the courts?" Takayawa: "We are the bondafide representatives of those that love Fiji as their home, especially indigenous people of Fiji. It is imperative, important to consult the Chiefs through the GCC on their stand on the [2013] Constitution. It is their choice, the GCC, if they want to join us as interveners or not. It is the Fijian thing to do." |   |
| Fijileaks: SODELPA’s Partnership with the Great Council of Chiefs Is a Regressive and Dangerous Constitutional Gambit SODELPA’s recent decision to possibly partner with the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) in its legal challenge to the 2013 Constitution is not only constitutionally misguided but politically reckless. It represents a dangerous attempt to revive the failed ethno-traditionalist power structures that helped destroy the 1997 constitutional order and paved the path to the 2006 coup. |  |
This move should be condemned outright—by citizens, lawyers, and the judiciary—not merely because of what the GCC symbolizes, but because of what its institutional re-entry into constitutional litigation implies: a rejection of democratic equality and a return to elite, race-based rule under the guise of cultural restoration.
1. The GCC Was a Political Actor, Not a Constitutional Guardian
SODELPA’s framing of the GCC as a legitimate stakeholder in constitutional matters ignores the institution’s own dismal record of political complicity and constitutional betrayal.
2. The Judiciary Is No Place for Hereditary Privilege
A legal challenge before the Supreme Court of Fiji must be guided by constitutional law, human rights, and democratic principles. It should not be distorted by hereditary privilege or traditional authority claiming political entitlement.
3. SODELPA’s Move Is Ethno-Nationalist Politics by Legal Means
This partnership is not a neutral cultural gesture—it is a political strategy to revive the same elite structures that enabled the SDL government to hijack the 1997 Constitution and marginalize large sections of Fiji’s population.
SODELPA’s agenda is clear:
4. The GCC’s Return Threatens Constitutional Equality
The 2013 Constitution, for all its controversies, is grounded in the principle of equal citizenship. It makes no room for race-based privilege or chiefly entitlement. It was designed, in part, to end the dual sovereignty that existed under previous regimes—where elected governments governed in name, but the GCC and chiefly elites ruled in practice.
To allow the GCC back into the constitutional conversation now would be to:
5. The Legal System Must Reject Political Symbolism Disguised as Law
Courts do not adjudicate tradition. They adjudicate law, and the law must serve all citizens equally. SODELPA’s use of the GCC in its case is not a legal necessity—it is a symbolic maneuver, an appeal to nostalgia, hierarchy, and ethnic exceptionalism.
It is imperative that the judiciary and the legal profession resist this regression.
This Is Not Cultural Representation—It Is Constitutional Sabotage
SODELPA’s call to bring the Great Council of Chiefs into its constitutional challenge is not about restoring balance. It is about restoring power to a discredited elite—power that was abused, never earned democratically, and was ultimately abolished for just cause.
Fiji cannot afford another cycle of ethnic division, political instability, and constitutional manipulation. The path forward must remain rooted in democratic values, civic equality, and the rule of law—not in the ghosts of a chiefly order that has failed the nation time and again.
The Great Council of Chiefs may remain a respected cultural institution, if the iTaukei people wish it. But it must never again be allowed to interfere in constitutional law or national governance.
The courts must say so clearly—and without hesitation.
The GCC is hankering, with the support of ethno-nationalists (including some nationalist i-Taukei lawyers), to bring back the 1997 Constitution so s131(2) of the RFMF Act in the 2013 Constitution falls by the wayside, and the Chiefs and their political lackeys could once again cause murder and mayhem with impunity in the name of indigenous rights. Sadly, SODELPA leadership has decided to become that vehicle for chiefs to hitch a ride into the courtroom - to call for the destruction of the 2013 Constitution - and the restoration of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji.
1. The GCC Was a Political Actor, Not a Constitutional Guardian
SODELPA’s framing of the GCC as a legitimate stakeholder in constitutional matters ignores the institution’s own dismal record of political complicity and constitutional betrayal.
- Under the 1997 Constitution, the GCC had limited but symbolic powers—nominating the President, appointing senators, and safeguarding iTaukei interests.
- In practice, however, it functioned as an extension of SVT/SDL/SODELPA ethno-nationalist politics.
- It endorsed unconstitutional legislation, failed to condemn the 2000 coup, and backed SDL’s race-based governance, even as that government was undermining constitutional mandates such as Section 99 (multi-party cabinet).
2. The Judiciary Is No Place for Hereditary Privilege
A legal challenge before the Supreme Court of Fiji must be guided by constitutional law, human rights, and democratic principles. It should not be distorted by hereditary privilege or traditional authority claiming political entitlement.
- The judiciary is meant to uphold equal citizenship, not adjudicate on the relative power of chiefs.
- The GCC, as an unelected, male-dominated, and hereditary body, has no standing as a constitutional claimant in a modern secular republic.
- Allowing it to partner in legal proceedings opens the door to parallel systems of power—one democratic, the other feudal—thus undermining the integrity of the judicial process itself.
3. SODELPA’s Move Is Ethno-Nationalist Politics by Legal Means
This partnership is not a neutral cultural gesture—it is a political strategy to revive the same elite structures that enabled the SDL government to hijack the 1997 Constitution and marginalize large sections of Fiji’s population.
SODELPA’s agenda is clear:
- Re-legitimize the GCC to act as a counterweight to Parliament and civic governance;
- Restore a chiefly veto power over national direction and constitutional design;
- Resurrect the 1997 framework, not to honor its inclusive promise, but to reclaim the failed ethno-nationalist dominance that led to its breakdown.
4. The GCC’s Return Threatens Constitutional Equality
The 2013 Constitution, for all its controversies, is grounded in the principle of equal citizenship. It makes no room for race-based privilege or chiefly entitlement. It was designed, in part, to end the dual sovereignty that existed under previous regimes—where elected governments governed in name, but the GCC and chiefly elites ruled in practice.
To allow the GCC back into the constitutional conversation now would be to:
- Reinstate race and birthright as a basis for national power;
- Undo hard-won reforms that protect the rights of Indo-Fijians, Other Minorities, and non-chiefly iTaukei citizens;
- Signal to the nation that cultural identity can override democratic legitimacy.
5. The Legal System Must Reject Political Symbolism Disguised as Law
Courts do not adjudicate tradition. They adjudicate law, and the law must serve all citizens equally. SODELPA’s use of the GCC in its case is not a legal necessity—it is a symbolic maneuver, an appeal to nostalgia, hierarchy, and ethnic exceptionalism.
It is imperative that the judiciary and the legal profession resist this regression.
- The GCC cannot be allowed to re-enter the public legal sphere as a co-litigant, amicus, or constitutional “partner.”
- Its political bias, historical complicity, and structural exclusion of women and commoners render it inherently incompatible with modern constitutional governance.
- Recognizing it in any formal legal submission would damage the impartiality of the court and the credibility of the Constitution itself.
This Is Not Cultural Representation—It Is Constitutional Sabotage
SODELPA’s call to bring the Great Council of Chiefs into its constitutional challenge is not about restoring balance. It is about restoring power to a discredited elite—power that was abused, never earned democratically, and was ultimately abolished for just cause.
Fiji cannot afford another cycle of ethnic division, political instability, and constitutional manipulation. The path forward must remain rooted in democratic values, civic equality, and the rule of law—not in the ghosts of a chiefly order that has failed the nation time and again.
The Great Council of Chiefs may remain a respected cultural institution, if the iTaukei people wish it. But it must never again be allowed to interfere in constitutional law or national governance.
The courts must say so clearly—and without hesitation.
The GCC is hankering, with the support of ethno-nationalists (including some nationalist i-Taukei lawyers), to bring back the 1997 Constitution so s131(2) of the RFMF Act in the 2013 Constitution falls by the wayside, and the Chiefs and their political lackeys could once again cause murder and mayhem with impunity in the name of indigenous rights. Sadly, SODELPA leadership has decided to become that vehicle for chiefs to hitch a ride into the courtroom - to call for the destruction of the 2013 Constitution - and the restoration of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji.
Chief Justice Salesi Temo’s public suggestion that the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) may consider making a submission on the 2013 Constitution through the People’s Alliance Party (PAP) or the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (FHRADC) raises serious constitutional, legal, and ethical concerns.
While at first glance this might appear to be a procedural or inclusive gesture, the substantive implications are deeply troubling. Temo is mistaken to encourage or normalize the participation of the GCC—a non-democratic, ethnically exclusive, and politically compromised body—in formal constitutional proceedings. Such a move threatens the rule of law, constitutional equality, and judicial impartiality, even if routed through third parties.
1. Courts Must Not Invite Political or Cultural Elites to Shape Constitutional Law
Temo’s statement carries judicial weight. Even if informal, it signals to the public and the legal community that:
2. The GCC Has No Legal Standing—Direct or Indirect
The GCC is not established by any current law. It has:
3. The Fiji Human Rights Commission Must Not Be Politically Weaponized
Temo’s reference to the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (FHRADC) is particularly problematic. The FHRADC:
4. Political Parties Cannot Be a Constitutional Back Door for Chiefs
If the GCC partners with the People’s Alliance Party (PAP) to file submissions:
5. Judicial Impartiality Must Remain Above Political and Cultural Influence
Temo’s suggestion, even if well-intentioned, undermines judicial impartiality. Judges must:
The Courts Must Reject GCC Submissions in All Forms
Whether through direct filings, or via the PAP or the Human Rights Commission, the GCC’s involvement in constitutional litigation:
The Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) was restored in 2023 by the current Fiji Government under the People’s Alliance-led coalition, but only as a cultural advisory body—not as a constitutional or political authority. This distinction is critical.
Here’s the legal and constitutional reality:
Now that it is formally restored as a non-political cultural body, the GCC’s attempt—or encouragement by others—to engage in constitutional litigation or partner in a High Court challenge creates a dangerous contradiction:
1. Violation of Its Own Mandate
The GCC was explicitly restored without political or legal authority. If it begins to file constitutional submissions or make legal demands through parties like SODELPA or PAP:
The 2013 Constitution does not recognize any chiefly institution as part of the governance or legal system:
The GCC’s current restoration is symbolic, not sovereign. Its chair and deputies are not equivalent to the President, Parliament, or Attorney-General.
Temo and the judiciary must uphold this critical boundary:
Respect for culture must not override the rule of law and constitutional equality.
By engaging with the GCC—even indirectly—on matters of constitutional legality, the courts:
If the GCC wants to advise on cultural matters—language, land tradition, ceremonies—that is within its non-political scope. But if it seeks to:
The lesson from the past is not that the GCC should be ignored—but that it must never again be allowed to decide the legal destiny of the Fijian state.
While at first glance this might appear to be a procedural or inclusive gesture, the substantive implications are deeply troubling. Temo is mistaken to encourage or normalize the participation of the GCC—a non-democratic, ethnically exclusive, and politically compromised body—in formal constitutional proceedings. Such a move threatens the rule of law, constitutional equality, and judicial impartiality, even if routed through third parties.
1. Courts Must Not Invite Political or Cultural Elites to Shape Constitutional Law
Temo’s statement carries judicial weight. Even if informal, it signals to the public and the legal community that:
- Extra-constitutional entities such as the GCC can re-enter the legal and constitutional discourse.
- Unelected traditional authorities may indirectly influence constitutional reform via political or quasi-legal proxies.
2. The GCC Has No Legal Standing—Direct or Indirect
The GCC is not established by any current law. It has:
- No democratic mandate;
- No statutory powers;
- No constitutional recognition.
- Violate the principle of legal standing (locus standi);
- Allow a non-legal, non-citizen entity to influence public law;
- Create a precedent where status and ancestry grant access to judicial forums.
3. The Fiji Human Rights Commission Must Not Be Politically Weaponized
Temo’s reference to the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (FHRADC) is particularly problematic. The FHRADC:
- Exists to protect the rights of all citizens equally;
- Has a statutory mandate to remain independent of political and traditional influence;
- Cannot be used as a channel for political or cultural lobbying.
4. Political Parties Cannot Be a Constitutional Back Door for Chiefs
If the GCC partners with the People’s Alliance Party (PAP) to file submissions:
- This effectively restores the GCC’s political role, despite its abolition.
- It violates the separation of culture and constitutional power.
- It repeats the SDL-era mistake of co-mingling race, tradition, and party politics—which directly led to the 2006 coup.
5. Judicial Impartiality Must Remain Above Political and Cultural Influence
Temo’s suggestion, even if well-intentioned, undermines judicial impartiality. Judges must:
- Remain strictly neutral;
- Avoid giving political actors (especially discredited ones like the GCC) signals of welcome;
- Uphold equal access to justice, not elite access via traditional status.
The Courts Must Reject GCC Submissions in All Forms
Whether through direct filings, or via the PAP or the Human Rights Commission, the GCC’s involvement in constitutional litigation:
- Violates equal citizenry;
- Restores a racially and culturally exclusive constitutional vision;
- Undermines legal impartiality and the integrity of public institutions;
- Encourages the political resurrection of a discredited body.
The Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) was restored in 2023 by the current Fiji Government under the People’s Alliance-led coalition, but only as a cultural advisory body—not as a constitutional or political authority. This distinction is critical.
Here’s the legal and constitutional reality:
- The GCC has no standing under the 2013 Constitution.
- It was not restored by statute or constitutional amendment to exercise any formal legal or political powers.
- Its reinstatement was purely ceremonial and cultural, framed as a means of preserving iTaukei customs and identity—not influencing governance, legislation, or constitutional interpretation.
- The GCC’s revived leadership (chairperson and deputies) exist under internal protocols, not under any law that gives them public or legal power.
Now that it is formally restored as a non-political cultural body, the GCC’s attempt—or encouragement by others—to engage in constitutional litigation or partner in a High Court challenge creates a dangerous contradiction:
1. Violation of Its Own Mandate
The GCC was explicitly restored without political or legal authority. If it begins to file constitutional submissions or make legal demands through parties like SODELPA or PAP:
- It exceeds its mandate as a cultural institution;
- It violates the trust and conditions upon which it was publicly restored;
- It risks triggering renewed public division and constitutional instability.
The 2013 Constitution does not recognize any chiefly institution as part of the governance or legal system:
- There is no legal path for the GCC to act as a co-litigant or constitutional adviser;
- Restoring it informally cannot grant it formal powers;
- Allowing it to file submissions would amount to judicial recognition of a parallel, unelected power structure.
The GCC’s current restoration is symbolic, not sovereign. Its chair and deputies are not equivalent to the President, Parliament, or Attorney-General.
- They have no authority to make legal claims on behalf of any citizen;
- They do not represent all iTaukei, let alone the broader Fijian population;
- They cannot claim any legal standing unless formally authorized by statute, which has not occurred
Temo and the judiciary must uphold this critical boundary:
Respect for culture must not override the rule of law and constitutional equality.
By engaging with the GCC—even indirectly—on matters of constitutional legality, the courts:
- Risk breaching the separation of culture and state;
- Allow a revived but unaccountable institution to interfere in public law;
- Signal that traditional status still carries legal weight, even without constitutional authority.
If the GCC wants to advise on cultural matters—language, land tradition, ceremonies—that is within its non-political scope. But if it seeks to:
- File court submissions;
- Partner in constitutional litigation;
- Influence the direction of Fiji’s national legal identity--
The lesson from the past is not that the GCC should be ignored—but that it must never again be allowed to decide the legal destiny of the Fijian state.
