Fijians’ chance to vote for human rights

When you choose the wrong word by mistake, it’s pretty embarrassing. And it’s even more embarrassing when someone else points it out online. But in Fiji, correcting the mistake could land you in jail, as Richard Naidu learned last month. The prominent lawyer was convicted of contempt of court after he light-heartedly mentioned in a social media post that a judge had erroneously used the word ‘‘injection’’ when he meant ‘‘injunction’’.

With vaccines and the pandemic still fresh in the public’s mind, the slip of the pen was understandable, as was the joke about the error.

The court, however, did not take this stab at humour lightly. Fiji’s attorney-general claimed that the comments online invited ridicule and undermined the judiciary as a whole.

The case made global headlines weeks before Fijians go to the polls on December 14, in the third general election since a coup in 2006.

As Naidu’s experience and myriad human rights concerns illustrate, there is a darker side to this island paradise.

Ahead of the election, Amnesty International has sent political candidates a five-point human rights agenda that the next administration should prioritise if it wants to be taken seriously as a human rights-respecting country.

One test of this is a country’s tolerance for a diverse range of ideas and even criticism.

But that is not what Fiji looks like today. Naidu, for instance, was convicted under an archaic common law known as contempt for scandalising the court. It’s just one of a vast arsenal of laws – such as the Public Order Act and the Crimes Act – that the Fijian government has used to silence or intimidate those who speak out against it.

Over the years, Amnesty International has documented the harassment of and numerous proceedings against journalists, trade union leaders, student and university activists, human rights defenders, politicians and now lawyers.

It’s clear there are repercussions for speaking out – although this may range from not receiving police permits for peaceful protests, and sedition and contempt of court charges, to deportation.

While criticising the courts could easily land you in jail, there are concerns about the lack of appropriate penalties and remedies suitable to deter crimes such as torture and ill-treatment by the security forces.

Greater investment in preventive action to end all forms of violence is required, as well as appropriate access to justice and remedies when it does occur. Moreover, women are severely underrepresented in public and political life.

LGBTI people face high levels of stigma, discrimination and violence in their daily lives.

And the climate crisis presents an existential threat to Fijians’ right to life, livelihoods, adequate housing, healthcare and education.

Inclusive and proactive policies are needed to tackle each of these human rights challenges.

Fiji’s history of coups and political instability is important when it comes to human rights, as it has resulted in higher rates of violence against women, suppression of civil and political rights, and economic decline.

As this election sees two former coup leaders representing separate parties go head-to-head, the focus must be on human rights now more than ever. Without clear commitments from parties and candidates to uphold human rights, things could easily slide backwards, eroding the incremental progress that has been made in the last few years.

Naidu’s sentencing is due on January 5. The next government can send a clear message about the direction it wants to take on human rights by dropping charges and quashing the conviction in this absurd case.