Fiji Opposition MP Sanjay Kirpal said he was sick and had to leave Parliament, explaining his absence during the crucial vote on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025, which failed by a single vote on Tuesday.
The final vote, held after an 11-hour debate, saw 40 votes in favour, 14 against, and one abstention (DNPV – Did Not Press Vote), falling one vote short of the required 41 for passage.
In an interview, Kirpal confirmed he was present during the morning session but left to see a doctor, missing the final debate and vote. His absence raised questions, as he was among four Opposition MPs who had earlier supported the suspension of certain parliamentary standing orders to allow the Bill’s first reading last week.
“I was sick, so I went to see a doctor,” Kirpal said. “If I was there, I would have voted No. But in the Constitution, you need at least 41 members to get it through, and whether I voted No or wasn’t in Parliament, the result would have been the same.”
Of the four Opposition MPs, two—Sachida Nand and Shalen Kumar—ultimately voted in favour of the Bill alongside the Government, while Rinesh Sharma opposed it.
In a statement issued today outlining his “reason for not voting on Constitution Amendment Bill”, Kirpal stated that his opposition stemmed from concerns over transparency and public participation in the process, arguing that constitutional changes must “prioritise the rights and voices of the people.”
Kirpal “firmly believe” any amendments to the Constitution should follow a “holistic and transparent process.” He criticised the Bill, which sought to lower the parliamentary threshold for constitutional changes from a 75% majority to a two-thirds (66%) majority and remove the requirement for a referendum.
“This shift would have effectively silenced the voices of the people, allowing significant constitutional amendments to be made without their direct input. Such a move risks eroding public trust, discouraging investor confidence, and ultimately leading to economic instability,” he said.
He further stated that constitutional amendments should “align with international standards and democratic principles”, ensuring protection for all Fijians “regardless of ethnicity, race, or colour.”
After the Bill’s defeat, the Coalition Government is reportedly exploring alternative avenues.
Under Section 91(5) of the 2013 Constitution, the Cabinet has the authority to seek a legal opinion from the Supreme Court on matters concerning the interpretation or application of the Constitution. It previously exercised this power in June last year, requesting the Supreme Court’s opinion on the qualifications of Justice Alipate Qetaki to hold office as a Judge of the Court of Appeal and lawyer John Rabuku for the position of Director of Public Prosecutions.
Related Articles:
It Ends Here – Fiji Speaker Says After Parliament Voted Against Bill to Amend Fiji Constitution
Fiji Opposition MP Supports and Defends Government Constitution Amendment Bill
Support Amendment Bill To Allow for Open Discussion on 2013 Constitution: Fiji AG
Fiji Constitution Needs Change, But Process Lacks Transparency, Says Independent Opposition MP
Fiji Government Will Not “Dictate or Impose” Constitutional Amendments
Bill To Amend 2013 Constitution to be Tabled in Parliament
Fiji Pledges to Attain A Rating in Human Rights Commission Despite Constitutional Challenges
GCC Discusses Legal Reform and Calls for Review of 2013 Constitution
Fiji’s PM Rabuka Calls for Constitutional Reform as Electoral Landscape Shifts
2013 Constitution Review Futile Without Discussing Past Events Including Coups: Seruiratu
Fiji 2013 Constitution bias, and not unifying, warrants urgent review: Naupoto
