Illustration of RFMF’s role as guardians Constitution questioned

Fiji Constitutional Expert Challenges Military’s Role

Australia’s National University Professor and Constitutional lawyer, Anthony James Regan, asserts that Section 131 (2) does not grant the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) the authority to act as the guardians of the 2013 Constitution.

During a Public Lecture on Constitutional Change in Fiji – Looking to the Future, Prof. Regan stated that Section 131(2) does not impose such a duty on the RFMF. He emphasized that the wording does not establish this role.

Section 131(2) specifies: “It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence, and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians.”

Prof. Regan noted that this section is the sole provision defining the military’s role. He recommended that Fiji should leave constitutional matters to the courts and the government, allowing the military to focus on external threats and peacebuilding efforts.

He explained that military forces globally are designed primarily to handle external threats, with some constitutional provisions allowing internal roles in emergencies under strict limitations. These powers are usually temporary and governed by emergency laws enacted by Parliament, holding the military accountable.

Prof. Regan expressed concerns over the RFMF’s recent discussion of a “guardianship” role, indicating they might see themselves as having authority beyond the government to decide when and how to intervene. He argued that this is not a sound basis for governance and was likely not the drafters’ intention for the constitution.

He acknowledged the RFMF’s professionalism and dedication in global protection, security, and peacekeeping but stressed that it is not their role to act as guarantors of the Constitution.

“I am not criticizing the Fiji military. I am criticizing the notion that a military should unilaterally decide how to guard the Constitution,” he said. He reiterated that constitutional threats should be assessed by the elected government and, if necessary, adjudicated by the courts, which are trained to manage such issues even during emergencies.

Popular Categories

Latest News

Search the website