Retaining Immunity Is Not Encouraging Coups, Says Rabuku

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions John Rabuku says retaining immunity provisions for Fiji’s past coup leaders does not encourage future coups, but honours guarantees that helped restore democratic rule.

Rabuku says the immunities granted in relation to the coups led by Sitiveni Rabuka and Frank Bainimarama were assurances that those involved would not face prosecution for covered actions after returning power to civilian rule.

He argues that without these guarantees, Fiji could have remained under military rule, and removing them now would amount to going back on commitments made during the country’s transition to democracy.

His comments come amid debate over the immunity provisions in the Constitution Amendment Bill, commonly referred to as Bill 32.

Rabuku says retaining these protections should not be confused with encouraging future coups, as honouring past commitments does not guarantee immunity for anyone who attempts to overthrow an elected government in the future.

He also disputes the argument that removing immunity provisions would prevent another military takeover.

According to Rabuku, a future coup leader could simply abrogate the existing Constitution, introduce a new one containing immunity provisions, and eventually hold elections to return power to civilian rule.

He argues that removing immunity provisions would therefore offer no guarantee against another coup.

Rabuku also points to the imperfections of democracy, arguing that coups can arise when people feel excluded, threatened or unheard, particularly when they believe other avenues for addressing their grievances have failed.

He says that while Fiji can only hope there will never be another coup, the country must recognise the political realities surrounding military takeovers and the restoration of democratic government.

Rabuku maintains that the existing immunities under the 2013 Constitution should remain, stressing that retaining them is about honouring past guarantees rather than encouraging future military interventions.