A DISCUSSION paper by the Fiji Law Reform Commission on the review of the Police Act 1965 has touched on the issue of whether the Fiji Police Force should continue to be legally entitled to carry arms, given that in practice, they are not armed.
The paper notes that under Section 5 of the current Police Act, the Fiji Police Force is entitled to carry arms, and that the definition of “arms” is likely to align with the one provided in the Arms and Ammunition Act 2003.
The Act says, “‘arms’ means any lethal weapon with or without a barrel of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged or which can be adapted for the discharge of any such shot, bullet or other missile.”
In addition, the existing legislation contains multiple references to police access to weapons.
The paper states that Section 15 of the Act “deals with the return of ‘arms and ammunition’ after service,” while Section 39 covers “cases where an officer loses or damages his or her arms and ammunition.”
“It is clear that the intention of the Act was indeed to arm the Fiji Police Force,” states the paper.
“The police do not, in fact, carry arms.”
This contradiction between law and practice has prompted the discussion paper to suggest that the provision may be outdated and no longer necessary.
“During public consultations, it is perhaps worth considering if this provision is necessary, as it is not used in practice,” the paper proposes.