The University of Fiji, in making submissions on the proposed Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2025, says the Bill should clarify its purpose given its inconsistency with a fundamental principle provided in international instruments on the rights of indigenous people.
Referring to the United Nations Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Vice Chancellor, Professor Shameem said that in the list of definitions adopted by the United Nations bodies and Special Rapporteurs for application of indigenous rights, the one glaring definition that the Bill does not cover is that people identifying as indigenous should form non-dominant groups of society. The Rights of Indigenous People’s Bill of Fiji is unable to fulfil that crucial requirement of the international legal definition, she said. Thus, the purpose of the Bill was unclear in the Fijian context she said.
To piggy-back on the pain, suffering and humiliation of other indigenous communities, such as the aboriginals of Australia, the indigenous people of the United States, Norway and other countries who rightfully could claim protection in international law because they formed non-dominant groups and were deprived of their fundamental rights historically as well as in present times, was unfair to those who were truly disadvantaged and discriminated against on grounds of their indigeneity. This was not the case for Fiji and therefore to use international law as a method of claiming more privileges than other citizens was not only discriminatory but criminal under the provisions of the Crimes Act 2009, she said.
She said that in Fiji, under the 2013 Constitution, the iTaukei are constitutionally recognized as the Indigenous people of Fiji, constitute the majority of the population, own their customary land, and already benefit from extensive constitutional and legislative protections relating to land, culture, language, traditional institutions, political participation, equality before the law and protection from discrimination.
The University’s submission observes that the rights recognized under UNDRIP are already substantially reflected in Fiji’s Constitution and existing legislation. The Bill neither identifies any deficiency in the current legal framework nor explains why existing protections are inadequate. It therefore remains unclear whether the Bill addresses an identifiable legal or policy deficiency or simply duplicates rights that already exist.
If the Bill is intended to remedy state discrimination or disadvantage, Parliament should clearly identify the nature of that discrimination and provide evidence demonstrating why existing constitutional and legislative protections are insufficient. Likewise, any legislative or institutional gaps should be specifically identified and accompanied by an explanation of why they cannot be addressed under the existing legal framework.
The submission also recommends that Parliament determine whether the Bill merely gives statutory effect to existing constitutional rights or creates new legal rights, obligations or remedies. If new rights are intended, their scope, legal effect and relationship with Fiji’s constitutional framework should be clearly articulated. Parliament should also consider how provisions relating to self-determination and autonomy under UNDRIP would operate within Fiji’s constitutional order and whether they could create uncertainty or conflict with constitutional principles, including constitutional supremacy and equal citizenship.
Professor Shameem emphasized that international human rights law exists to strengthen the protection of rights, not diminish them. Accordingly, legislation implementing UNDRIP should reinforce Fiji’s constitutional guarantees and should not be capable of being used to undermine the constitutionally protected rights of other persons, for example the TLTB’s submission to the Constitutional Review Commission that section 29 (5) of the 2013 Constitution should be repealed. If the Commission accepted that, every person’s section 27 right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their property will be affected.
She said that before enacting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2025, Parliament should identify the specific discrimination, legal deficiency or institutional gap the Bill seeks to address, explain why existing protections are inadequate, and demonstrate why a standalone Act is necessary or even whether it applies in the Fijian context. Only then can Parliament properly assess the Bill’s necessity, scope and legal implications.
