FWRM Submission On Governance Laws 2025

07/02/2025

Introduction

The Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) is a feminist organization committed to removing all forms of discrimination against women and girls through advocacy, research and legislative reform. FWRM acknowledges the importance of an accessible rule of law, upheld through the promotion of human rights, democracy and the feminist principles of good governance, transparency and accountability. The three laws enable public access to important information and targets to create a transparent, accountable and responsible governance structure. The point of the rule of law is to ensure that information is accessible and transparent. However, the limited timeframe for consultation on these legislative reviews undermines these principles. The expedited process not only restricts meaningful public engagement but also hinders comprehensive analysis and informed feedback on the three proposed laws.

FWRM appreciates the opportunity from the Fiji Law Reform Commission (FLRC) to make a submission on the following important governance laws. This paper will provide FWRMs analysis and recommendations on:

· The Information Act 2018

· The Code of Conduct Bill 2018

· The Accountability and Transparency Commission Bill 2025

Below are our responses and recommendations.

Governance Laws Public Consultation

The government has spent the past few years reconstructing or establishing new commissions. The government can identify and utilize existing government departments which shared the same mandate imposed on newly proposed commissions, to avoid waste of tax payers’ money on establishment of new offices, hiring human resource and so on. On the contrary, the establishment of the proposed commissions is a concern considering the rising cases of abuse of office and corruption, how can we ensure that the right people are appointed to these positions? The significant financial and time investment in setting up commissions often proves to be a misuse of taxpayer funds and diverting resources from critical national priorities.

Rather than continuously creating new commissions, wouldn’t it be more effective to invest in capacity building and increased budgets for existing institutions to enhance their efficiency and impact.

Information Act 2018

FWRM is a leading civil society organization committed to evidence-based advocacy for the rights of women and girls in Fiji. As a movement that monitors the effectiveness of human rights mechanisms, access to publicly held information is essential for ensuring government accountability. However, this access is hindered by bureaucratic obstacles, outdated digital records, and unmaintained public databases. These barriers significantly impact FWRM’s ability to analyze gender representation in leadership, as seen in our Gender Equality, Diversity & Inclusion – Leadership in Fiji Government-Controlled Boards research.

The Act adopts an overly bureaucratic approach to information access, which would be more appropriately addressed through ministerial or sectoral regulations or standard operating procedures (SOPs). This approach reinforces systemic barriers, disproportionately impacting women, human rights defenders, and marginalized communities.

Archaic language (Sections 12, 13, 14), poor structuring (Sections 8(b), 8(c), 12(2), 12(3) and vague provisions Section 18(1)(a) creates unnecessary complexity, limiting accessibility, while financial barriers further restrict access for those with fewer resources. Without clear exemptions and accountability mechanisms, conflicts of interest and power imbalances may lead to arbitrary denials, undermining transparency. To ensure equitable access, the Act requires simplified language, inclusive implementation, and strengthened oversight mechanisms to uphold constitutional rights.

a. Objectives and Purpose of the act

4. The objectives of this Act are to—

(d) allow a person to make a request to correct or delete personal information held by a public agency in respect of the person to ensure that the information is correct, accurate, complete and not misleading.

Basic purpose of this act in accordance to and Section 25 and section 150 of Fiji’s 2013 constitution is “ A written law shall make provision for the exercise by a member of the public of the right to access official information and documents held by the Government and its agencies.” whilst this act spells out how our right to information is vested and protected, Section 4(d) of the Act contradicts the overall purpose and treats correction or deletion of personal information as an objective rather than a procedural safeguard within regulations or SOPs. Its application raises concerns about privacy, third-party rights, and due diligence.

Recommendation

FWRM strongly recommends the inclusion of clear safeguards to prevent misuse, ensure transparency, and protect sensitive data ensuring that rights are respected, and information is managed transparently and securely. Section 4(d) must explicitly address these concerns or be removed and established as a standalone section.

b. Access to information

The broad strokes in which the legislation is drafted allows for ambiguity in which marginalised communities like women in all their diversities fall through the gaps. As such it is essential that the act accounts for the complexities of accessibility such as time, distance, cost and format in which information is kept, requested and released. As Fiji is diverse with people living in remote islands and rural highlands, it is essential that modes of accessibility in regards to language, literacy and accessibility are considered and not further marginalise such groups.

6.— (2) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the information requested by a person under subsection (1) must be information which—

(a) directly affects the person making the application; and

(b) comes into existence upon or after the commencement of this Act.

Section 6(2) restricts access to information only to individuals directly affected, limiting broader public access and reducing transparency. This narrow interpretation weakens accountability and public oversight. Rather, the provision to allow broader access, particularly for journalists, researchers, and civil society. This is a clear misalignment form the Constitutional provision to ensuring information crucial for governance, human rights, and policy scrutiny is accessible.

Recommendation

FWRM urges the section to be redefined as to those who are considered to be directly affected to include journalists, researchers and civil society organizations to give leeway to these groups to access important information for the rightful investigation and policy analysis.

c. Disclosure of information

Section 20 outlines the 15 instances where the right to information may be refused. This section uses broad and vague phrasing, allowing excessive discretion in denying access to information, disproportionately affecting women and human rights defenders, and marginalised communities.

20. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the following information is exempt from disclosure and any request made under section 6 for such information must be refused by the Commission— (a) information, the disclosure of which would adversely affect the sovereignty, security or scientific or economic interests of the State; (b) information, the disclosure of which would lead to the incitement or commission of an offence; (c) information expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or which would constitute a contempt of court; (d) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of the privileges of Parliament or a committee or subcommittee of Parliament; (e) information that is subject to legal professional privilege; (f) information available to a person in the exercise of the person’s fiduciary duty, unless the Commission is satisfied that the disclosure of such information is in the public interest; (g)information received in confidence from a foreign government or an international organisation; (h) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for the purposes of law enforcement or security; (i) information which would impede the process of investigation, apprehension or prosecution of an alleged offender; (j) Cabinet documents, including records of deliberations of meetings or decisions of Cabinet; (k) information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to or does not affect any public activity or interest, or which would cause the unwarranted invasion of privacy of the person, unless the Commission is satisfied that the disclosure of such information is in the public interest; (l) information which is classified by Cabinet as an official or State secret and certified in writing by the Secretary to Cabinet; (m) information, the disclosure of which would endanger or harm any protected site or the environment; (n) a trade secret, business know-how, commercially sensitive information and proprietary information relating to the intellectual property of a business; and (o) any other information, the disclosure of which, the Commission deems is not in the public interest.

Recommendation

FWRM requests the Act to incorporate the use of precise language to ensure that the section is fairer. Adding “likely” may help define exemptions more precisely, preventing arbitrary refusals while balancing transparency and security. This will additionally make the section more specific.

Code of Conduct Bill 2025 (CoC)

Established in alignment with section 149 of the 2013 Constitution this bill needs to take into consideration established legislation on non-discrimination, sexual harassment, and accountability. Ensuring transparency, enforcement, and whistle-blower protection while reinforcing ethical governance. Clear provisions must address misconduct, promoting integrity and fairness among public officials in line with Fiji’s broader legal framework.

There is insufficiency in holding the prescribed holders of power listed in Section 149 of the 2013 Constitution such as ministerial, parliament office holders, state, agencies, Permanent Secretaries, ambassadors and all other statutory appointments specifically in upholding standards of non- discrimination, harassment and so on.

a. Lack of clauses and definitions around sexual harassment

Sexual harassment in the workplace remains underreported and not widely recognized as a serious problem. The Bill may not adequately address the unique experiences of women, especially in the context of sexual harassment, violence, or discrimination in the workplace and other settings. The most common sources of harassment faced by journalists while reporting news include individuals in positions of power. More than 50% of the journalists who were interviewed faced sexual harassment from politicians[1].

The absence of clear definitionsof key terms in the Code of Conduct Bill 2018, for instance, “sexual harassment,” “discrimination,” or “misconduct,” poses substantial risks of misinterpretation and uneven application. Clause 2 (Interpretation) refers to “detrimental action” withoutproviding a clear definition and categories of serious abuses, such as sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination. This can also lead to significant barriers in access to justice and challenges in reporting any violations.

Recommendation(s)

· FWRM reiterates the importance of clarity in interpretation and definitions to avoid ambiguity. This will unify enforcement of and offer greater protection from gender-based misconduct. The definitions should cover both physical and non-physical forms of harassment, direct and indirect forms of discrimination and different forms of misconduct for clarity.

• FWRM additionally calls out for the Bill to clearly outline reporting mechanisms as well as fines and penalties to layout the possible ways to access justice.

b. Consistency in clauses under all schedules

Post-office Employment 

12.1 A person to whom this Code applies must undertake that upon leaving office and for a period of 12 months thereafter, he or she will not take up any employment with, accept a directorship of, or act as a consultant to any company, business or organization with which he or she has had official dealings in his or her last 12 months in office.

Schedule 1 Code of Conduct for president, prime minister and ministers

10.2 Except with the express approval of the appointing authority, a person to whom this Code applies will resign or decline directorships of public or private companies and businesses on taking up office.

Such clauses must be extended to avoid any influence and corruption, Fiji constitutes of close-knit communities, having a 12-month period may show risk of sensitive information being discussed or shared with other persons. A longer period will minimize the risk of confidential information being misused.

Recommendation(s)

· FWRM suggests that the term should be extended for a minimum of three to five years to avoid the above.

· FWRM also suggests that the post-office employment clause be implemented across and be the same for all officials and individuals listed under all schedules.

· FWRM emphasizes the need for a uniform approach, with no exceptions or special approvals, as allowing them could create opportunities for corruption.

c. Strengthening protections for complainants

Part 5 Protection of Complainants

20. Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who makes a complaint under this Act concerning an alleged or suspected non-compliance with a Code of Conduct by any person— (a) incurs no civil or criminal liability for doing so; and (b) is not, for doing so, liable— (i) to any disciplinary action; or (ii) for any breach of duty of secrecy or confidentiality (whether or not imposed by a written law) applicable to that person. Offence of taking detrimental action 21.—(1) Any person who takes or threatens to take any detrimental action against another person because anyone has made, or intends to make, a complaint under this Act for an alleged or suspected non-compliance with a Code of Conduct by any person commits an offence and is liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both. (2) Any person who— (a)attempts to commit an offence under subsection (1); or (b) intending that an offence under subsection (1) be committed, incites another person to commit that offence, commits an offence and is liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

24. Any person who has made a complaint under this Act and— (a) who fails, without reasonable excuse, to assist the Commission in investigating the complaint in any way, including failing to provide the Commission with any information requested by the Commission; (b) who discloses the details of his or her complaint to any other person or entity other than the Commission; (c) the substance of the complaint was malicious or was politically motivated against the person the subject of the complaint or was made for the purpose of discrediting or defaming, or causing reputational damage to, the person the subject of the complaint; or (d) who breaches any provision of this Act, forfeits the protection given to that person under this Part.

Section 20 of the bill provides protection to whistleblowers which is crucial for any form of violations around discrimination and harassment or misconduct. However, this is forfeited in section 24 if there are any form or malicious or politically inclined motives associated to the complaints, this may restrict or discourage complainants/victims/survivors from speaking out. And section 21 further criminalizes retaliation against complainants.

Recommendation

FWRM suggests that regulations include strong safeguards against all retribution, whether direct or indirect, which may have a disproportionate effect on women. This may include explicit provisions against the unfair treatment of complainants.

Accountability and Transparency Commission Bill

a. Concerns Regarding Oversight and Enforcement Mechanisms

The effectiveness of the Accountability and Transparency Commission in addressing abuse of power remains uncertain, particularly if oversight bodies lack independence or are vulnerable to political interference. A truly independent and impartial body is essential to ensure that misconduct, including gender-based discrimination and abuse, is thoroughly investigated and addressed without external influence. Without sufficient autonomy, the Commission may struggle to hold powerful individuals accountable, undermining the bill’s objectives.

Additionally, section 5 of the CoC emphasizes confidentiality, which, while important for protecting complainants, may also restrict public transparency regarding the handling of complaints and investigations. There must also be sufficient consideration in terms of actual or perceived bias and conflict of interest. This must be adequately considered in the reporting, investigative and stages of finding resolution. Lack of transparency could reduce public trust in the Commission’s ability to enforce the Code of Conduct effectively, particularly if cases of misconduct are handled behind closed doors without adequate reporting mechanisms.Furthermore, section 12 grants the Commission authority to dismiss complaints it deems “frivolous” or “malicious”. Without clear criteria for such determinations, there is a risk that legitimate concerns, particularly those related to gender-based misconduct, could be dismissed prematurely. This provision could discourage individuals, especially women from reporting violations due to fears that their complaints will not be taken seriously or unfairly dismissed. There is a need to specify how this is determined/ will be determined, and how it is applied.

Recommendations

· FWRM requests that the Proposed Bill outline the specific requests and more information, time and clarity be provided to the public.

· FWRM additionally requests a clear criterion to clarify what constitutes “frivolous” or “malicious’ complaints. Such a criteria would increase public transparency and may create a system of addressing complaints fairly.

© Scoop Media