Maharaj questions Rabuka’s motives

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has not yet formally written to or contacted the Leader of the Opposition to discuss the government's plans to amend the 2013 Constitution. Independent opposition MP Alvick Maharaj stated in Parliament yesterday that the government needs to clarify the modifications it intends to make, which is essential for informed discussions.

MP Maharaj pointed out in Parliament, "We learned about the anticipated changes to the Constitution for the first time through the media." He questioned the government's lack of bipartisanship, emphasizing that opposition members are expected to support government actions while only being informed through media reports, raising concerns about transparency and collaboration.

MP Maharaj referred to Chapter 11, which he claimed has been reported on by the media. However, he stated, "What needs to be changed in Chapter 11 remains a mystery. While we speculate that this is related to the requirements for amending the Constitution, we have not been formally informed of the specific content that the government plans to modify," highlighting the need for official communication.

Maharaj accused the government of being afraid to publicly state the specific content it intends to amend in the Constitution. "Is the government afraid to publicly state that they want to deprive all freehold land, Fijian citizenship, equal citizenship and secular state status? Please state publicly what you want to amend in the 2013 Constitution. Vagueness leads to conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theories are not good for anyone. This happened during the last government, and it is still happening now," he asserted, calling for openness and clarity.

Maharaj stated that people will fabricate various theories when the government fails to convey clear information. "We have heard a lot about bipartisanship, about amending the Constitution, but to this day, the Honorable Prime Minister has neither formally written to nor contacted the Leader of the Opposition to discuss their plans to amend the Constitution," underscoring the lack of direct engagement and raising questions about the government's commitment to inclusive dialogue.