FCOSS told the Constitution Review Commission it supports a secular state in Fiji’s 2013 framework, arguing it protects all faiths, keeps services inclusive, and strengthens judiciary independence.
Fiji’s constitution debate is increasingly turning on how the state should relate to religion—and what that means for everyday access to public services.
The Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS) has urged continued support for a secular state in Fiji’s 2013 Constitution, describing it as a practical safeguard for equality.. Submitting its views to the Constitution Review Commission, FCOSS Executive Director Vani Catanasiga said the existing constitutional protections are meant to cover all faiths while keeping social welfare inclusive and neutral.
Catanasiga’s message was that neutrality is not an abstraction, but a baseline for fairness.. She argued that citizens should be treated equally under the law and be able to access public services without discrimination, regardless of what they believe.. In her submission, FCOSS also acknowledged there is still public uncertainty about what “secular state” actually entails.
The submission pointed to a gap between the concept and community understanding.. Catanasiga said concerns have been raised “on the ground” because discussions on a secular model versus a “Christian State” have been limited.. As a result, she said confusion continues to circulate and can feed fear in parts of the community.
The Commission’s deliberations also reflected that tension.. Member of the Commission, Doctor John Fatiaki questioned the phrase “secular state,” describing it as a “Godless state,” and asking whether that idea conflicts with people’s rights.. That question, he said, goes to the heart of how constitutional language can be interpreted by the public.
FCOSS board member Vipin Maharaj pushed back on that framing, arguing that a secular state does not automatically mean a Godless state.. He said the concept reflects national neutrality, and that any constitutional approach must also consider minority faiths, not only the dominant one.. Maharaj added that, in his view, a “solely Christian State” risks ignoring the protections minority communities require.
Why FCOSS says the wording matters
FCOSS also argued that the constitutional debate should focus on outcomes rather than labels.. For them, the key point is whether constitutional arrangements prevent discrimination and allow citizens to use public services on equal terms.. That reasoning matters because constitutional decisions often shape not just policy, but how people perceive belonging—especially when they feel government systems are linked to religious identity.
The fear that Catanasiga referenced is not unusual in constitutional reforms, where language can be taken as a signal of national direction.. When people sense that their faith status could determine access or recognition, anxiety can grow quickly—even if the law is intended to protect everyone.. FCOSS’s stance suggests they want the debate to move beyond slogans and toward protections that are measurable in daily life.
FCOSS proposals extend beyond religion
Alongside its secular-state position, FCOSS laid out a broader set of recommendations aimed at strengthening governance.. The council called for separation of powers and protections for judicial independence.. It also recommended changes around the appointment mechanics of a vice-presidential role, proposing that the appointment should be tied to functions in the President’s absence rather than defaulting to the Chief Justice, to help reduce the risk of conflict of interest.
FCOSS further focused on how key constitutional actors are appointed.. It highlighted the powers of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, particularly concerning appointments of constitutional office holders.. On judicial independence, FCOSS suggested that judicial remuneration be linked to a performance management framework, and it recommended a shared-signature approach for Chief Justice nominations—jointly signed by the Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition before being presented to the President.
Immunity, healing and rule of law
The submission also touched on accountability and national stability.. FCOSS advocated for removal of constitutional immunity provisions and for entrenchment clauses, framing these as steps that can support national healing and uphold the rule of law.. Their underlying argument is that constitutional safeguards should strengthen trust in institutions—so that justice and governance are not perceived as protected from consequence.
Taken together, FCOSS is pushing for a constitutional direction that it believes does two things at once: it keeps the state neutral in matters of religion, while also tightening institutional checks to protect independence and fairness.. For reformers, this combination is significant—because religion-related language can shape public confidence, and governance mechanics can determine whether that confidence holds under political pressure.
As the Commission weighs submissions, the debate over “secular” wording and the practical safeguards attached to it may remain central.. FCOSS’s call for more awareness suggests the next phase of public engagement will likely be as important as the legal drafting itself—especially if the goal is constitutional changes that communities can understand, accept, and trust.