The RFMF Commander’s submission on constitutional immunity challenges Fiji to confront its past and build a democracy grounded in accountability, indigenous recognition and the rule of law.
The submission by Republic of Fiji Military Forces Commander Major-General Ro Jone Kalouniwai to the Special Parliamentary Committee reviewing Constitution Amendment Bill No. 32 of 2026 may prove a defining moment in Fiji’s constitutional journey.
The Commander called for the removal of constitutional immunity and proposed a framework for truth, accountability and reconciliation.
Coming from an institution central to Fiji’s constitutional upheavals, his position deserves serious reflection.
For decades, immunity has been defended as the price of restoring stability after unconstitutional changes of government. Yet those who suffered intimidation, displacement, violence and economic loss were afforded no comparable protection.
When the military itself questions this imbalance, the justification for permanent immunity becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.
The Commander’s submission does not absolve the RFMF of its history. Its significance lies in recognising that military legitimacy derives from service under the Constitution, not from the capacity to intervene when civilian politics becomes dysfunctional.
Such principles must outlast individual Commanders.
The Prime Minister’s Unfortunate Reminder
There was a striking irony before the Commander’s presentation.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka spoke of constructing a Constitution that would endure for generations. Then, addressing the Commander, he remarked:
“Because if things go wrong, either you or your successor will have to bring it back to order.”
Perhaps he intended to emphasise the military’s responsibility for national stability. But context matters.
Mr Rabuka led Fiji’s 1987 coups. He understands the consequences of crossing the boundary between military authority and civilian government.
His words were therefore particularly ill-judged.
Constitutional disagreements belong in Parliament, legal disputes in the courts, and political judgments with the electorate. The military has no independent mandate to correct civilian political outcomes.
Indeed, proposed section 151 of the Government’s own Bill places the RFMF under civilian authority and confines its responsibilities to defence and legally authorised assistance.
It is a remarkable irony that the serving Commander should be questioning the constitutional legacy of military intervention while a former coup leader, now Prime Minister, still invokes the military’s possible role in restoring order.
Constitutional maturity requires abandoning not merely unconstitutional conduct, but the assumptions that once normalised it.
The Contradiction Within the Bill
Bill No. 32 declares constitutional supremacy and prohibits unconstitutional attempts to establish government. Proposed section 2(6) rejects immunity for such future actions.
Yet Chapter 14 preserves extensive immunity arising from earlier political upheavals.
Section 207 seeks to shield those protections from amendment and judicial challenge, while section 209 simultaneously provides a special amendment procedure encompassing the same provisions.
This apparent contradiction demands legal clarification.
More fundamentally, how can a Constitution condemn future unconstitutional seizures of power while permanently protecting those associated with past ones?
A transitional accommodation may have been necessary for stability. But temporary necessity should not become permanent constitutional privilege.
The Commander’s submission offers an opportunity for lawful reform, not another constitutional rupture.
Reconciliation Without Impunity
Removing immunity must not invite political vengeance.
The proposed truth, accountability and reconciliation process must be independent, credible and fair. Victims must be heard, evidence examined and responsibility established through due process.
Grave offences cannot disappear beneath another blanket of immunity. Equally, military service or political association must never become grounds for collective punishment.
Reconciliation cannot be imposed, and forgiveness cannot be legislated.
Justice must neither protect yesterday’s powerful nor serve today’s political victors.
The Vanua and Fiji’s Constitutional Future
Fiji’s military and political history has a significant iTaukei dimension. But the actions of individual officers must never be confused with the collective aspirations of the iTaukei or the authority of the Vanua.
The military defends the Republic. Parliament derives authority from the electorate. The Vanua possesses customary legitimacy rooted in land, identity and traditions predating the modern State.
These responsibilities must remain distinct.
The BLV’s support for removing immunity demonstrates that indigenous authority and constitutional accountability can reinforce one another.
A distinctly Fijian democracy must recognise the Vanua without politicising it, respect the military without empowering it to govern, and guarantee equal citizenship without denying the nation’s indigenous foundations.
These are complementary principles.
The Legacy We Leave
The Commander’s submission challenges the RFMF to institutionalise political neutrality and civilian subordination. It challenges Parliament to confront immunity without self-interest, and political leaders to abandon military intervention as a conceivable solution to constitutional disagreement.
The question of immunity deserves a clear, separate referendum question, allowing citizens to exercise informed judgment.
Our generation cannot rewrite the history through which it came to leadership. But it can determine what constitutional inheritance it leaves behind.
If the military is prepared to question the immunity inherited from Fiji’s coups, Parliament should have the courage to question why that immunity must endure.
The final measure of our service will not be the authority we once exercised, but the limits we had the wisdom to place upon it.
And perhaps the clearest evidence of constitutional maturity will be when the Constitution, rather than the uniform, unquestionably has the final word.
