The Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission has warned that any move to declare a State of Emergency (SOE) in Fiji must meet strict legal and human rights thresholds, saying such declarations are “extraordinary and exceptional” and should be a last resort. Director Loukinikini Lewaravu emphasised the need for “clear, demonstrable necessity and credible evidence” before imposing emergency powers, and cautioned against using an SOE as a precautionary or political tool.
Leewaravu told reporters the Commission’s position aligns with recent comments from Defence Minister Pio Tikoduadua and international legal norms. She pointed to Article 4 of the Constitution, saying Fiji is obliged to ensure any public emergency is temporary, actual and of a nature that threatens the life of the nation. “Fiji… is obliged under Article 4… to ensure that Public Emergency is not only a last resort measure, but it must also be temporary, actual and threaten the life of a nation,” she said.
The Commission framed its guidance against the backdrop of growing concern about the illicit drug crisis, but stressed that responses must not erode democratic values. “The response must not come at the expense of democratic principles, human rights and dignity, and the rule of law,” Lewaravu said, urging policymakers to pursue measures that remain rights-respecting and evidence-based even when public safety is at stake.
Beyond opposing blanket emergency powers, the Commission recommended long-term, multi-faceted strategies to address drug-related harm. Lewaravu called for strengthening public institutions and integrating rehabilitation, public education and harm-reduction initiatives into the national response. She also urged inclusive approaches that engage communities, civil society, faith-based organisations and non-governmental organisations in designing and delivering prevention and recovery services.
On the constitutional mechanics of any emergency, the Commission insisted proposals must be strictly time-bound and subject to continuous oversight as required by the 2013 Constitution. “Such a proposal must meet the test of exceptional and last resort; be temporary, strictly time bound; and subject to continuous scrutiny,” Lewaravu said, adding that a clear, accountable pathway back to normal constitutional governance must be part of any emergency measure.
The Commission’s intervention comes as public debate intensifies over how best to tackle organised crime and drug-related harms without undermining civil liberties. By reiterating legal limits and urging transparency, oversight and community-led responses, the Commission seeks to shape any future policy decisions so that public safety and fundamental rights are maintained in balance.
Leewaravu concluded that preserving that balance is essential: “A balanced, evidence-based, rights-respecting approach… safeguards both public safety and the fundamental rights of all people in Fiji.” The call frames theSOE question not simply as an operational choice for enforcement agencies but as a constitutional and human-rights imperative for government.