The Government cannot wish away a breach of the Constitution on a legal technicality, the High Court heard yesterday as seven women challenged new electoral laws requiring them to re-register as voters.
Former supervisor of elections Jon Apted, the lawyer for the seven women, made the point yesterday responding to what he called a “technical” objection to their evidence.
The seven women – Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, Priscilla Singh, Adi Davila Toganivalu, Elizabeth Reade Fong, Leba Seni Nabou, Yasmin Nisha Khan and Salote Raikolo Qalo — are all registered on the Fiji electoral roll under their married names.
Changes to electoral laws and the Interpretation Act last year require them to re-register to vote under their birth certificate names.
Their constitutional challenge to the laws was heard yesterday before Chief Justice Kamal Kumar.
Government lawyer Devanesh Sharma objected to the fact that the women had sworn affidavits in the case using names that were not on their birth certificates.
This, he said, breached the (amended) Interpretation Act and was enough to have their evidence struck out.
Responding, Mr Apted said that the plaintiffs had not breached the law since they had provided their birth certificate names in the body of their affidavits — but even if the court dismissed the case on a technicality, the issue would not go away.
“There remain a number of other people who can make an application for Constitutional Redress,” he said.
“Yes, the normal 60-day time limit is up, but that can be extended in the discretion of the court.”
In addition, Mr Apted said, it would be possible for people unlawfully excluded from voting by the law to challenge the election result through an election petition.
This, he said, could potentially upset a whole general election and require it to be re-run.
Accordingly, he said, it was in the interests of everyone, including election officials, that this issue be resolved now.
Mr Apted said it was possible for someone else to bring a new challenge on the basis that they did not before because the present matter was already before the court.
The Chief Justice said he would deliver judgment on notice.
