The University of Fiji (UOF) has urged Parliament to reconsider key provisions of three electoral reform Bills that would substantially reduce penalties for serious electoral misconduct, permit political parties and candidates to provide voters with free transport and refreshments, introduce new grounds affecting voter registration, and significantly liberalize political donation rules.
The University has made a formal submission on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2026 (No. 29), Electoral (Registration of Voters) (Amendment) Bill 2026 (No. 30), and Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) (Amendment) Bill 2026 (No. 31) to the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights.
Vice Chancellor, Professor Shaista Shameem said UOF supports reforms that improve electoral administration, accessibility and accountability, but cautioned against weakening safeguards that protect voters and public confidence in elections.
“Electoral reform must strengthen democracy, not weaken the safeguards that protect it. Where protections against bribery, undue influence and improper political financing are being reduced, there must be a clear and compelling justification,” Professor Shameem said.
Bill 29: Why reduce penalties for serious electoral misconduct?
A central concern raised by UOF is the proposed substantial reduction of penalties for serious electoral offences.
Under Bill 29, serious offences including bribery, undue influence and personation, which currently attract maximum imprisonment terms of up to 10 years, would fall within a new “corrupt electoral practice” framework carrying a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. Other offences that currently carry imprisonment would become fine-only “illegal electoral practices”.
The Bill also allows a political party to be sentenced to imprisonment under section 135A, which is not physically possible, and this should be corrected, the fine tier already provided for political parties ($100,000) should simply apply on its own.
“Bribery, undue influence and personation strike at the integrity of the vote itself. Reducing maximum penalties of up to 10 years to a maximum of two years is a significant policy shift. Parliament and the public should be told clearly why it is necessary,” Professor Shameem said.
UOF has recommended a comprehensive comparison of existing and proposed penalties, together with the policy justification for each reduction or reclassification. Serious electoral misconduct, the University says, must continue to attract effective, proportionate and sufficiently deterrent sanctions.
Free transport and refreshments: where is the line?
Bill 29 would also allow political parties, candidates and their representatives to provide voters with free transport directly to or from the polling venue to which the voter is assigned, and free refreshments during the journey or outside the 100-metre polling boundary, provided they do not influence or attempt to influence the voter’s choice.
UOF recognizes that genuine transport assistance may facilitate participation. However, the law must clearly distinguish voter assistance from treating or electoral inducement.
“Helping someone exercise their right to vote is one thing. Providing benefits in circumstances capable of influencing that vote is another. The law must draw that boundary clearly,” Professor Shameem said.
UOF recommends reasonable limits on the nature and value of refreshments, safeguards against benefits being selectively targeted at identified supporters, and appropriate disclosure or record-keeping requirements.
The University says this amendment should also be considered alongside the proposed reduction in the maximum imprisonment for remaining prohibited vote-buying conduct from 10 years to two years.
“The Bill would expand what parties and candidates may lawfully provide to voters while substantially reducing the maximum penalty when conduct crosses the line into vote buying. Parliament must consider the combined effect, not each amendment in isolation,” Professor Shameem said.
Other Bill 29 concerns include removing the 48-hour pre-poll campaign restriction, meaning the relevant campaign restrictions would apply only on polling day, reducing the restricted area around polling venues from 300 metres to 100 metres, and removing the Supervisor of Elections’ compulsory information-gathering powers without identifying an equivalent replacement. These provisions currently allow the Supervisor to compel any person to disclose relevant information or documents, overriding confidentiality or secrecy obligations under any other law, with penalties for non-compliance or false disclosure. Repealing them, without replacement, would remove both the compulsion mechanism and its enforcement.”
Bill 29 also introduces a new quality-assurance recount power. UOF recognizes the value of quality-assurance recounts in verifying the accuracy of the count and strengthening confidence in results, but says the Bill should clearly define when the power may be used, how it operates alongside the existing recount procedure, and what review or appeal rights apply.
Bill 30: Voter disqualification must be clearly defined by law
Bill 30 would establish a Corrupt Electoral Practices List (CEPL), with inclusion potentially resulting in removal from the National Register of Voters for up to four years.
UOF says that where legislation affects a person’s ability to vote, the grounds, procedures and safeguards should be clearly established in the law itself.
The Bill refers to “Category A” offences under the Electoral (Local Government Elections) Regulations 2026 without identifying those offences in the Bill or establishing the criteria for that classification.
UOF has also recommended that where the conviction or Court finding underlying a CEPL listing is overturned, quashed or set aside, the law should expressly require the person’s prompt removal from the CEPL and reinstatement to the voter roll.
The University has further questioned why breach of official duty by an election registration officer, currently punishable by a maximum fine of $50,000 and/or 10 years’ imprisonment, would become a fine-only offence.
“A consequence as serious as losing voter registration must rest on clear law, clear grounds and proper safeguards,” Professor Shameem said.
Bill 31: Who funds political parties — and when do voters get to know?
UOF has raised significant concerns about the combined effect of the political-finance reforms under Bill 31.
Clause 8 would remove the existing $10,000 annual donation limit, permit donations from persons who are neither Fijian citizens nor former Fijian citizens, and require those donors to declare their donations to the Registrar within 60 days after polling day, with the declaration then published.
This could allow a substantial non-citizen donation to finance an election campaign without voters knowing about it before they vote.
“Voters should know who is substantially financing political parties and candidates before they cast their ballots. Disclosure after polling provides retrospective accountability; it does not give voters the information when they need it most,” Professor Shameem said.
UOF recommends retaining a reasonable donation cap; retaining the restriction on non-citizen donations or, at minimum, imposing strict monetary and source-verification safeguards; and requiring significant donations to be declared and published promptly after receipt and before polling day.
The University has also called for safeguards to verify the true source of political funds and prevent political-finance rules from being circumvented through nominees or intermediaries.
UOF says removing donation limits also sits uneasily with the stated objective of campaign expenditure limits creating a “level playing field”.
“Expenditure limits control how much may be spent. Donation limits address how much financial influence may be concentrated in a single donor. They are different safeguards and serve different purposes,” Professor Shameem said.
UOF supports campaign expenditure limits in principle but says the proposed ceilings of $300,000 per candidate and $3 million per political party should be supported by an evidence-based justification. The final submission identifies the absence of an explained basis for those amounts as one of UOF’s principal concerns.
The University has also addressed proposed provisions concerning protocol or similar gifts to villages and community groups. UOF recognizes and respects the importance of genuine customary protocol in Fiji. However, declaration of a gift should not, by itself, provide a safe harbour from bribery laws where the benefit is intended to induce electoral support. UOF recommends clear definitions, reasonable value limits and appropriate safeguards.
Timing of the reforms
UOF has also raised concern about the timing of the reforms. Fiji is within the constitutional window for the next General Election, from 7 August 2026 to 6 February 2027, and the campaign period commenced on 25 May 2026.
The University is not calling for all reforms to be postponed. Instead, it recommends a clause-by-clause assessment, with provisions not necessary for the effective administration, accessibility or integrity of the forthcoming election deferred until after the election.
Any provisions applying to the forthcoming election should have clear transitional arrangements. UOF has also stressed that the three Bills are interconnected and their commencement should be coordinated.
Electoral reform must strengthen public confidence
UOF says the Bills contain reforms capable of improving electoral administration, accessibility and accountability. Its concern is that changes which remove or reduce existing safeguards should not proceed without clear reasons, evidence and proportionate protections.
“These reforms concern the protection of the vote, the consequences of electoral wrongdoing, who may finance political campaigns, what voters are entitled to know before polling day, and the circumstances in which a person may lose voter registration. These are matters that go directly to public confidence in the electoral process,” Professor Shameem said.
“Our position is straightforward: make elections more accessible and effective, but do not weaken the safeguards that keep them free, fair, transparent and credible.”
The three Bills should only proceed subject to appropriate amendment and clarification.
