  The General Secretary says the NFP will comply with the Electoral Act but they will not accept a Minister twisting section 113, frightening school communities, and using Ministry policy to claim authority over facilities that Government does not own. He further says that school communities are not colonies of the Ministry of Education. Iyer stressed that the Minister should read the law properly, respect school management committees, and withdraw his directive immediately. The National Federation Party says the Minister for Education, Aseri Radrodro is misrepresenting section 113 of the Electoral Act by imposing restrictions on the use of school halls for political meetings. NFP General Secretary, Kamal Iyer says section 113(4) prohibits campaign activity inside a public office, it does not say “all schools”. He says it does not say “public infrastructure”. Source: Fijivillage News   |  The Minister for Education, Aseri Radrodro informs that the National Federation Party has misinterpretated his comments on the use of school premises for political campaigns. Radrodro says he was approached by a newspaper journalist to respond to questions on the use of school premises for political rallies. He says he had responded that there is a Ministry of Education policies that any use of school premises needs to be on the consent of the Permanent Secretary for Education. He further clarifies that he had not made any reference to that provision of the Fiji Electoral Act 2014. Radrodro says NFP General Secretary Kamal Iyer stated that his views are warped. The Minister has urged Iyer to first determine the validity of statements attributed to him and then make comments. Radrodro says Iyer should instead read section 150(c) of the Fiji Electoral Act 2014 which clearly outlines that any person who conduct’s any campaign in any educational institution commits an offense and liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or both. He reiterates that the Ministry will protect the integrity of their educational institutions and the wellbeing of the students and teachers by ensuring that school premises are not used for political campaigning by any party. Source: Fijivillage News |
THE DOCUMENT THAT CHANGES THE SCHOOL CAMPAIGN DEBATE: WHAT THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ACTUALLY RULED
The increasingly heated argument between Education Minister Aseri Radrodro and the National Federation Party over the use of school premises for political campaigning must now be examined against a document that ought to be central to the entire debate.
It is not an NFP interpretation of the Electoral Act. Nor is it an interpretation advanced by the Education Minister Aseri Radrodro.
It is Decision Number 29/22 of the Electoral Commission of Fiji, dated 15 November 2022.
And its title could hardly be clearer: “Guideline on the use of School Halls and Premises During Campaign Period.”
The one-page decision, issued under the name of then Electoral Commission chairperson Mukesh Nand, specifically established the rules governing political parties, candidates and their representatives when using school halls and premises during an election campaign.
The document is particularly important because it demonstrates that the electoral authorities themselves did not adopt a blanket proposition that every school in Fiji was automatically prohibited from being used for political campaigning.
Quite the opposite.
The Electoral Commission expressly created a framework under which certain schools could be used.
What Decision 29/22 actually says
The Electoral Commission laid down six conditions.
First, school premises could be used only after school hours, on weekends and on public holidays.
Second, all campaign posters and other campaign materials placed on the premises during their use had to be removed and the premises cleaned afterwards.
Third, and this is particularly important in the present controversy, arrangements for using the school premises had to be in writing and made with the owners or committee operating the school.
The Commission went further. It specifically stated that those arrangements were not to be made with teachers or executive heads of the school.
The political party, candidate or representative was also required to pay whatever fee was charged by the school owners or committee.
Fourth, the Commission stated: “School owners/committee will have the right to decide on allowing the use of the school premises or to refuse the same.”
Fifth came the crucial prohibition: “Government owned schools are not to be used for any campaign.”
Finally, the Commission defined “schools” for the purposes of the guideline as primary or secondary schools.
Those provisions need to be read carefully because they establish a distinction that risks becoming lost in the current political argument.
There are government-owned schools, which Decision 29/22 says cannot be used for campaigning.
And there are other primary and secondary schools whose owners or committees may decide whether to permit their premises to be used, subject to the conditions imposed by the Electoral Commission.
Section 113 does not simply say “no campaigning in schools”This is equally important.
Section 113 of the Electoral Act is headed “Prohibition on use of State resources to campaign.”
Its statutory focus is the misuse of State authority and State resources.
Among other things, it makes it unlawful for a public officer to conduct campaign activities; prohibits forcing or pressuring public officers to participate in campaigning; and makes it unlawful to conduct campaign activities or distribute campaign material inside a public office.
The 2021 amendment also expressly made it unlawful to use a Government vehicle for campaigning except for security purposes.
That distinction has practical consequences.
Section 113 has been enforced against campaigning inside unmistakably State facilities.
In December 2022, for example, FijiFirst candidate Alexander O'Connor was charged under section 113(4) of the Electoral Act over allegations that he campaigned and distributed campaign material inside two health centres and a nursing station.
Fiji Labour Party candidate Ajay Nand was similarly charged under section 113(4) after campaigning and distributing election material inside Korovou Police Station. Unlike O'Connor's case, Nand's prosecution proceeded to conviction. In July 2026, the Nausori Magistrates Court sentenced him to eight months' imprisonment, suspended for two years.
The Nand conviction therefore provides a concrete example of the conduct to which section 113(4) has been applied: the use of a State facility or public office for electoral campaigning.
But it does not necessarily answer the materially different question now at the centre of the NFP-Radrodro dispute: whether section 113 imposes an absolute prohibition on political meetings or campaigning at every primary and secondary school in Fiji, irrespective of whether the premises are State-owned or belong to a religious, community or private organisation.
That distinction becomes particularly important when Decision 29/22 is considered. If the Fijian Elections Office itself issued guidelines governing the circumstances in which school halls and premises could be used during the campaign period, it is difficult to reconcile that regulatory approach with an interpretation of section 113 that says Parliament had already imposed an absolute prohibition on political activity at every school.
The Nand case therefore demonstrates the reach of section 113(4) into unquestionably State-controlled premises; it should not, without further legal analysis, be treated as authority for the much broader proposition that every school hall in Fiji is automatically a prohibited campaign venue.
The problem with Radrodro's position
Education Minister Aseri Radrodro has said that there are Ministry of Education policies requiring any use of school premises to have the consent of the Permanent Secretary for Education.
That assertion raises a separate question.
There may indeed be Ministry policies regulating the use of schools. If such a policy exists and presently applies, it should be produced and its precise wording examined.
But it should not be presented as though it is what Electoral Commission Decision 29/22 says.
It isn't.
The Electoral Commission's guideline does not, on its face, say that political parties must obtain permission from the Permanent Secretary for Education before using every school premises.
Instead, it says that arrangements must be made in writing with the owners/committee operating the school.
And paragraph four goes even further by expressly giving the school owners/committee the right to decide whether to allow or refuse use of the premises.
That creates the question Radrodro now needs to answer.
What is the precise Ministry of Education policy upon which he relies, when was it made, under what statutory authority was it made, and how does it operate alongside Decision 29/22 of the Electoral Commission?
Producing that policy would go a long way towards resolving the argument.
But NFP should not overstate its case either. The existence of Decision 29/22 does not mean that political parties have an unrestricted entitlement to campaign at schools.
They plainly do not.
The guideline imposes conditions. Campaigning cannot take place during school hours. Written arrangements are required. The owners or committee can refuse permission. Campaign material must be removed afterwards.
And most importantly, government-owned schools cannot be used for campaigning at all.
The question therefore cannot properly be reduced to the proposition that “political parties may campaign in schools”.
The more accurate proposition is: The Electoral Commission's 2022 guideline permitted political campaign use of certain non-government school premises, subject to specified conditions, while expressly prohibiting campaigning at government-owned schools.
The Electoral Commission itself should clarify the position. There is another reason this matters now.
The 2026 campaign period has already begun, and the Electoral Commission has publicly reminded political parties that section 113 and the other campaign restrictions remain in force. Commission chairman Justice Usaia Ratuvili was reported in May as emphasising that Fiji's existing electoral law remains operative unless and until Parliament changes it.
That makes Decision 29/22 impossible simply to ignore.
If the Electoral Commission considers its November 2022 guideline to have expired with the 2022 General Election, been revoked, superseded or replaced, it should say so.
If Decision 29/22 continues to represent the Commission's interpretation of how school premises may be used during a campaign period, it should say that too.
Political parties, school management committees, religious organisations, teachers and voters should not have to determine the answer through competing political press statements.
The document speaks for itself. There is ultimately a straightforward way of cutting through much of the rhetoric. Read Decision 29/22. It does not say: “Political campaigning is prohibited at all schools.”
It says: “Government owned schools are not to be used for any campaign.”
And for the other schools falling within the guideline, it expressly provides that the school owners or committee have the right to decide whether to allow or refuse use of the premises.
That is a substantial distinction.
It also means that neither side should conflate three separate things: section 113 of the Electoral Act, Electoral Commission Decision 29/22, and whatever separate Ministry of Education policy Radrodro says requires approval from the Permanent Secretary.
They may interact, but they are not the same instrument.
Until the Ministry produces the policy upon which the Minister relies, and until the Electoral Commission clarifies the continuing status of Decision 29/22 for the 2026 campaign, categorical assertions from either political side should be treated cautiously.
For the moment, however, one documentary fact is beyond dispute: In November 2022, Fiji's Electoral Commission itself issued a formal guideline expressly providing for political parties and candidates to use certain school halls and premises for campaigning, subject to strict conditions, while drawing an explicit red line around government-owned schools.
That document must now be part of any serious discussion of the Radrodro-NFP controversy.
There is also a difficulty with Radrodro's reliance on section 150 of the Electoral Act. Section 150 is essentially the Act's regulation-making power: it empowers the Electoral Commission to make regulations necessary for carrying out the Act. It does not, by itself, establish a blanket prohibition against political meetings in all school premises.
Indeed, the more relevant evidence of how the Electoral Commission exercised its authority is its own Decision 29/22 of 15 November 2022, which expressly allowed certain non-government school premises to be used during the campaign period, subject to conditions, while specifically prohibiting the use of government-owned schools.
Therefore, citing section 150 (c) of the Fiji Electoral Act 2014 does not by itself answer the central question: where is the regulation, guideline or other legal instrument that overrides or supersedes Decision 29/22 and requires Permanent Secretary approval for the use of non-government-owned school premises?
The increasingly heated argument between Education Minister Aseri Radrodro and the National Federation Party over the use of school premises for political campaigning must now be examined against a document that ought to be central to the entire debate.
It is not an NFP interpretation of the Electoral Act. Nor is it an interpretation advanced by the Education Minister Aseri Radrodro.
It is Decision Number 29/22 of the Electoral Commission of Fiji, dated 15 November 2022.
And its title could hardly be clearer: “Guideline on the use of School Halls and Premises During Campaign Period.”
The one-page decision, issued under the name of then Electoral Commission chairperson Mukesh Nand, specifically established the rules governing political parties, candidates and their representatives when using school halls and premises during an election campaign.
The document is particularly important because it demonstrates that the electoral authorities themselves did not adopt a blanket proposition that every school in Fiji was automatically prohibited from being used for political campaigning.
Quite the opposite.
The Electoral Commission expressly created a framework under which certain schools could be used.
What Decision 29/22 actually says
The Electoral Commission laid down six conditions.
First, school premises could be used only after school hours, on weekends and on public holidays.
Second, all campaign posters and other campaign materials placed on the premises during their use had to be removed and the premises cleaned afterwards.
Third, and this is particularly important in the present controversy, arrangements for using the school premises had to be in writing and made with the owners or committee operating the school.
The Commission went further. It specifically stated that those arrangements were not to be made with teachers or executive heads of the school.
The political party, candidate or representative was also required to pay whatever fee was charged by the school owners or committee.
Fourth, the Commission stated: “School owners/committee will have the right to decide on allowing the use of the school premises or to refuse the same.”
Fifth came the crucial prohibition: “Government owned schools are not to be used for any campaign.”
Finally, the Commission defined “schools” for the purposes of the guideline as primary or secondary schools.
Those provisions need to be read carefully because they establish a distinction that risks becoming lost in the current political argument.
There are government-owned schools, which Decision 29/22 says cannot be used for campaigning.
And there are other primary and secondary schools whose owners or committees may decide whether to permit their premises to be used, subject to the conditions imposed by the Electoral Commission.
Section 113 does not simply say “no campaigning in schools”This is equally important.
Section 113 of the Electoral Act is headed “Prohibition on use of State resources to campaign.”
Its statutory focus is the misuse of State authority and State resources.
Among other things, it makes it unlawful for a public officer to conduct campaign activities; prohibits forcing or pressuring public officers to participate in campaigning; and makes it unlawful to conduct campaign activities or distribute campaign material inside a public office.
The 2021 amendment also expressly made it unlawful to use a Government vehicle for campaigning except for security purposes.
That distinction has practical consequences.
Section 113 has been enforced against campaigning inside unmistakably State facilities.
In December 2022, for example, FijiFirst candidate Alexander O'Connor was charged under section 113(4) of the Electoral Act over allegations that he campaigned and distributed campaign material inside two health centres and a nursing station.
Fiji Labour Party candidate Ajay Nand was similarly charged under section 113(4) after campaigning and distributing election material inside Korovou Police Station. Unlike O'Connor's case, Nand's prosecution proceeded to conviction. In July 2026, the Nausori Magistrates Court sentenced him to eight months' imprisonment, suspended for two years.
The Nand conviction therefore provides a concrete example of the conduct to which section 113(4) has been applied: the use of a State facility or public office for electoral campaigning.
But it does not necessarily answer the materially different question now at the centre of the NFP-Radrodro dispute: whether section 113 imposes an absolute prohibition on political meetings or campaigning at every primary and secondary school in Fiji, irrespective of whether the premises are State-owned or belong to a religious, community or private organisation.
That distinction becomes particularly important when Decision 29/22 is considered. If the Fijian Elections Office itself issued guidelines governing the circumstances in which school halls and premises could be used during the campaign period, it is difficult to reconcile that regulatory approach with an interpretation of section 113 that says Parliament had already imposed an absolute prohibition on political activity at every school.
The Nand case therefore demonstrates the reach of section 113(4) into unquestionably State-controlled premises; it should not, without further legal analysis, be treated as authority for the much broader proposition that every school hall in Fiji is automatically a prohibited campaign venue.
The problem with Radrodro's position
Education Minister Aseri Radrodro has said that there are Ministry of Education policies requiring any use of school premises to have the consent of the Permanent Secretary for Education.
That assertion raises a separate question.
There may indeed be Ministry policies regulating the use of schools. If such a policy exists and presently applies, it should be produced and its precise wording examined.
But it should not be presented as though it is what Electoral Commission Decision 29/22 says.
It isn't.
The Electoral Commission's guideline does not, on its face, say that political parties must obtain permission from the Permanent Secretary for Education before using every school premises.
Instead, it says that arrangements must be made in writing with the owners/committee operating the school.
And paragraph four goes even further by expressly giving the school owners/committee the right to decide whether to allow or refuse use of the premises.
That creates the question Radrodro now needs to answer.
What is the precise Ministry of Education policy upon which he relies, when was it made, under what statutory authority was it made, and how does it operate alongside Decision 29/22 of the Electoral Commission?
Producing that policy would go a long way towards resolving the argument.
But NFP should not overstate its case either. The existence of Decision 29/22 does not mean that political parties have an unrestricted entitlement to campaign at schools.
They plainly do not.
The guideline imposes conditions. Campaigning cannot take place during school hours. Written arrangements are required. The owners or committee can refuse permission. Campaign material must be removed afterwards.
And most importantly, government-owned schools cannot be used for campaigning at all.
The question therefore cannot properly be reduced to the proposition that “political parties may campaign in schools”.
The more accurate proposition is: The Electoral Commission's 2022 guideline permitted political campaign use of certain non-government school premises, subject to specified conditions, while expressly prohibiting campaigning at government-owned schools.
The Electoral Commission itself should clarify the position. There is another reason this matters now.
The 2026 campaign period has already begun, and the Electoral Commission has publicly reminded political parties that section 113 and the other campaign restrictions remain in force. Commission chairman Justice Usaia Ratuvili was reported in May as emphasising that Fiji's existing electoral law remains operative unless and until Parliament changes it.
That makes Decision 29/22 impossible simply to ignore.
If the Electoral Commission considers its November 2022 guideline to have expired with the 2022 General Election, been revoked, superseded or replaced, it should say so.
If Decision 29/22 continues to represent the Commission's interpretation of how school premises may be used during a campaign period, it should say that too.
Political parties, school management committees, religious organisations, teachers and voters should not have to determine the answer through competing political press statements.
The document speaks for itself. There is ultimately a straightforward way of cutting through much of the rhetoric. Read Decision 29/22. It does not say: “Political campaigning is prohibited at all schools.”
It says: “Government owned schools are not to be used for any campaign.”
And for the other schools falling within the guideline, it expressly provides that the school owners or committee have the right to decide whether to allow or refuse use of the premises.
That is a substantial distinction.
It also means that neither side should conflate three separate things: section 113 of the Electoral Act, Electoral Commission Decision 29/22, and whatever separate Ministry of Education policy Radrodro says requires approval from the Permanent Secretary.
They may interact, but they are not the same instrument.
Until the Ministry produces the policy upon which the Minister relies, and until the Electoral Commission clarifies the continuing status of Decision 29/22 for the 2026 campaign, categorical assertions from either political side should be treated cautiously.
For the moment, however, one documentary fact is beyond dispute: In November 2022, Fiji's Electoral Commission itself issued a formal guideline expressly providing for political parties and candidates to use certain school halls and premises for campaigning, subject to strict conditions, while drawing an explicit red line around government-owned schools.
That document must now be part of any serious discussion of the Radrodro-NFP controversy.
There is also a difficulty with Radrodro's reliance on section 150 of the Electoral Act. Section 150 is essentially the Act's regulation-making power: it empowers the Electoral Commission to make regulations necessary for carrying out the Act. It does not, by itself, establish a blanket prohibition against political meetings in all school premises.
Indeed, the more relevant evidence of how the Electoral Commission exercised its authority is its own Decision 29/22 of 15 November 2022, which expressly allowed certain non-government school premises to be used during the campaign period, subject to conditions, while specifically prohibiting the use of government-owned schools.
Therefore, citing section 150 (c) of the Fiji Electoral Act 2014 does not by itself answer the central question: where is the regulation, guideline or other legal instrument that overrides or supersedes Decision 29/22 and requires Permanent Secretary approval for the use of non-government-owned school premises?
The "Oxford St" Tent Columnist. Apology: From the comfort of my tent pitched on "Oxford St in London", or so National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad insists is my permanent address.
