Professor Anthony James Regan, a Constitutional lawyer and professor at Australia’s National University, asserted that Section 131 (2) does not grant the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) the role of being the guarantors or guardians of the 2013 Constitution. During a public lecture titled “Constitutional Change in Fiji – Looking to the Future,” Prof. Regan explained that the wording of Section 131 (2) does not imply such a duty for the RFMF.
Section 131(2) states: “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 pointed out that this is the only constitutional provision outlining the military’s role.
He suggested that if he were advising Fiji, he would recommend leaving constitutional matters to the courts and government. He emphasized that the military should focus on their training, which includes protecting Fiji from external threats and participating in peacebuilding efforts globally.
Prof. Regan highlighted that militaries worldwide are primarily established to handle external threats and that constitutional provisions typically allow them internal roles only in exceptional circumstances, such as emergencies, and even then, with severe limitations. These powers are often granted for limited periods under emergency laws passed by Parliament, and the military is held accountable for its actions.
He expressed concern over the notion that the Fijian military might assume a guardianship role, suggesting they could unilaterally decide when and how to intervene in constitutional matters. Prof. Regan argued that this is not a sound basis for governance, and if such a role were intended, it should have been explicitly mentioned in the Constitution’s drafting.
While acknowledging the professionalism and dedication of the RFMF in global peacekeeping and protection, Prof. Regan clarified that it is not their role to serve as guarantors or guardians of the Constitution. He criticized the idea that the military should have the authority to unilaterally decide how to uphold the Constitution, noting that such decisions normally fall within the purview of the elected government, which can consult the courts when constitutional issues arise.