The Fiji Law Reform Commission has published a discussion paper on reviewing the Police Act 1965, focusing on whether the Fiji Police Force should retain the legal entitlement to carry arms at all. The paper notes that, in practice, police officers are not armed, raising questions about the relevance of the current provision.
Under Section 5 of the Police Act, the force is empowered to carry arms. The definition of “arms” used in the discussion aligns with the Arms and Ammunition Act 2003, which defines arms as any lethal weapon capable of discharging a shot or missile. The existing law also contains several references to police access to weapons, including Sections 15 and 39, which deal with the return of arms and ammunition after service and cases of loss or damage, respectively. The paper argues that the Act’s apparent intention was to arm the police, yet the force does not carry arms in practice, highlighting a mismatch between law and reality.
Because of this contradiction, the discussion paper suggests the armament provision may be outdated and no longer necessary. It proposes that, during public consultations, the question of whether this provision should remain active be considered, particularly since it is not used in practice.
The reform process includes wide public participation. Public submissions will be welcomed online, and nationwide meetings will be held at town and village halls, community centers across Fiji, to gather input. Priority topics identified for the review include clarifying and modernizing police powers, revising use-of-force guidelines and accountability measures, protecting whistleblowers and informers, strengthening community policing, improving training with an emphasis on ethics and sensitivity, and responsibly employing technology while safeguarding privacy and rights. Officials emphasize that modernizing the Police Act is seen as foundational for future reforms and better policing overall.
Context from related coverage shows that the arming debate in Fiji has been ongoing and highly debated. Some officials, including the Commissioner of Police and the Defence Minister, have argued that arming police could be necessary to confront intensified crime and drug-related threats, while others have cautioned against immediate arming and stressed improving operational effectiveness, de-escalation, and non-lethal options. A key historical point is the removal of weapons from most police units by the Fiji Military Forces in 2006, which has shaped the current cautious stance. Supporters of reform argue that any move toward armament must be preceded by rigorous risk assessments, robust gun-control measures, comprehensive training, and strong community policing to maintain public trust.
What this means for Fiji is a potential recalibration of police powers and capabilities within a modern framework that prioritizes human rights, accountability, and community involvement. The process aims to deliver a more transparent, professional, and responsive police service, with technology and training enhancements, while ensuring that any decision to arm officers would follow careful risk assessment and policy guidance.
Outlook: If the consultation process is inclusive and reforms balance effective policing with rights protections, Fiji could see a strengthened police service that is better prepared for contemporary challenges, with clearer rules, stronger oversight, and reinforced community trust. The reform offers a path toward improved public safety and police professionalism through thoughtful, evidence-based changes.
Additional notes for readers and editors:
– The discussion aligns with broader reform goals: modernizing policing powers, strengthening accountability, and promoting community policing.
– Readers are encouraged to participate in the consultation to influence use-of-force policies, oversight mechanisms, and the balance between armed and non-armed policing options.
– A cautious, risk-based approach to arming police—prioritizing training, oversight, and de-escalation—appears likely to shape any future policy decisions.
Leave a comment