The Republic of Fiji v Chandrika

Prasad
 Facts of the case
• In 2000, Chandrika Prasad, a farmer who had been forced
from his home in the aftermath of a coup, took the
Republic of Fiji to court.
• He obtained a declaration that the Constitution of Fiji had
not been displaced by the coup and was still in force.
• Remarkably, the interim government appealed this
decision, submitting the question of its own legality to
the Court.
• When the Court of Appeal also held that the Constitution
remained in effect, the interim government, by and large,
accepted the Court’s decision.
 Coup’s
• In a country with a history of coups – the 2000
coup was Fiji’s third of four
• the case of Fiji v Prasad is a constitutional
judgment of legal and political significance in
Fiji and the Commonwealth of Nations.
 An attempted civilian coup and a military coup

• On 19 May 2000, George Speight led armed supporters into

Fiji’s parliament and took the Prime Minister and several
Cabinet members hostage.
• Clearly, immediate action was required. The 1997
Constitution of Fiji permitted the President to proclaim a state
of emergency, but only ‘on the advice of Cabinet’, most of
which was held hostage.
• On 29 May 2000, the Commander assumed executive power,
issuing decrees abrogating the Constitution and establishing
an interim military government under his leadership.
• On 4 July 2000, an interim civilian government was
established, also by decree.
• The hostages were released on 14 July 2000 and law and
order restored. However, the interim civilian government was
still the de facto government at the time of the Court of
Appeal’s decision in Fiji v Prasad in March 2001.
 The legal resolution
• The legal arguments in Fiji v Prasad focused on the doctrine of necessity and
the legality of a revolutionary government.

• In the High Court, Justice Gates held that the doctrine of necessity permitted
the President to declare a state of emergency and the military to take actions
to resolve the hostage crisis, and maintain law and order. However, once the
crisis was resolved, the Constitution “would re-emerge as the supreme law”.
On this, the Court of Appeal agreed: the doctrine of necessity authorised
temporary extra-constitutional actions but did not permit “permanent
changes to a written constitution, let alone its complete abrogation”.

• The Court of Appeal also considered whether, despite its illegality, the coup
had created a new legal order. In this, the Court of Appeal was guided by
precedents from across the Commonwealth of Nations, where courts have
given legal recognition to regimes that come to power unlawfully. Adapting
the common law of Fiji.
 The legal resolution
• Fiji v Prasad is a landmark in common law
jurisprudence on the doctrine of necessity and the
recognition of legal orders created by coup.
However, while the decisions of the High Court and
Court of Appeal are celebrated as examples of
courts upholding the constitution and rule of law,
they did not have the effect of breaking the cycle of
coups in Fiji.
• Fiji v Prasad is therefore indispensable to
understanding the constitutional system of Fiji
because it marks a range of tensions embedded in
Fiji’s constitutionalism.
 The limits of law
• Fiji v Prasad stands at the limits of positive constitutional
law. Where the constitution does not provide for a lawful
solution, the common law can step in and provide one
through the doctrine of necessity. Further, the power to
declare a new legal order requires the court to step outside
of the constitutional order that provides its own authority
and exercise a ‘supra-constitutional jurisdiction’.

• These anomalies could be suppressed because the courts

found that the Constitution had not been lawfully abrogated.
 To Conclude
• This case was a lesson to those abusing their
power throughout the world
• In such a case, even someone in the position
of a farmer such as Prasad may not be totally
powerless, but might, through the courts, play
a role in the on-going political and legal
development of the nation.