Australia’s National University Professor and Constitutional lawyer, Professor Anthony James Regan, asserts that Section 131 (2) does not authorize the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to act as the guarantors or guardians of the 2013 Constitution.
Speaking at a Public Lecture on Constitutional Change in Fiji – Looking to the Future, Prof. Regan noted that Section 131(2) does not assign such a duty to the RFMF, stating, “The wording does not do that.”
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 mentioned that this section is the sole provision detailing the military’s role.
Prof. Regan advised that the courts and the government should handle constitutional matters, allowing the military to focus on protecting Fiji from external threats and participating effectively in international peacebuilding efforts. He emphasized that most militaries worldwide are designed to address external threats and are given internal roles only under exceptional circumstances, such as emergencies, with strict limitations.
“When militaries are given powers outside their normal constitutional role, it is for a limited period and according to emergency laws made by Parliament, with accountability measures in place,” he explained. Prof. Regan expressed concern about the military in Fiji discussing a guardianship role, suggesting they perceive a role beyond governmental power to determine when and how they should intervene.
“This is not a solid foundation for governance, and if it were intended explicitly in the constitution, it would have been drafted as such,” he said.
Acknowledging the RFMF’s professionalism and dedication in global protection, security, and peacekeeping services, Prof. Regan clarified that their role should not include serving as guarantors or guardians of the Constitution.
“I am not criticizing the Fiji military. I am criticizing the notion that a military should unilaterally decide how it guards the Constitution,” he stated. “Who typically decides whether the Constitution is under threat? It’s the elected government, which is responsible for upholding and implementing it. When there are issues in interpretation or threats, they can consult the courts, which are trained to assess these situations, even during emergencies recognized after coups,” Prof. Regan concluded.