Australia’s National University Professor and Constitutional lawyer, Anthony James Regan, asserts that Section 131 (2) does not authorize the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) to act as guarantors or guardians of the 2013 Constitution.
In a public lecture on Constitutional Change in Fiji – Looking to the Future, Professor Regan explained that Section 131(2) does not assign such a duty to the RFMF, stating, “…The wording does not do that.”
Section 131(2) specifies that: ‘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.’
According to Professor Regan, this section is the only provision that defines the role of the military.
“If I were advising Fiji, I would suggest leaving matters to the courts and the government, while the military continues its training to protect Fiji from external problems and excels in peacebuilding elsewhere,” he said.
He noted that militaries worldwide are mainly established to address external threats. Some constitutions allow them to undertake internal roles in exceptional circumstances, primarily emergencies, but even then, their powers are highly restricted.
“They can be granted powers outside the normal constitutional role of the military for a limited period, in accordance with emergency laws passed by Parliament. They are held accountable,” he explained.
Professor Regan emphasized that the idea of the military assuming a guardianship role—suggesting they have a role beyond the government and the power to determine whether there is a problem and how to intervene—is not a sound basis for governance. If such a role were intended in the constitution, it would be explicitly stated.
He acknowledged the commendable work, professionalism, and dedication of the RFMF in global protection, security, and peacekeeping services but reiterated that their role is not to act as guarantors or guardians of the Constitution.
“I am not criticizing the Fiji military. I am criticizing the notion that a military should be considered as having the role of unilaterally deciding how it guards the Constitution.”
Professor Regan concluded by stating that the government, elected to uphold and implement the Constitution, typically determines whether the Constitution is under threat. In case of ambiguity or perceived threats, the courts, trained in constitutional assessment, are the appropriate authority to consult.