FCCC seeks powers: Search premises, seize evidence, electronic records

Listen to this article:

The Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC) logo. Picture: SUPPLIED

Under the proposed Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC) Bill 2026, the FCCC would be given expanded powers to search premises, seize evidence and access electronic records during investigations.

Speaking on the proposed changes, FCCC Manager Legal Krishan Keshwan said during the public consultation on the draft Bill that the existing law only briefly addressed search warrants and lacked detailed provisions outlining when they were required and when the commission could instead rely on a requisition for information notice. Mr Keshwan said the commission currently used requisition for information notices to obtain business records from traders believed to possess information relevant to an investigation.

“The notices would inform traders of the information required and are used where the records were expected to be in the trader’s possession,” he said.

“Failure to comply with a requisition for information notice amounts to a criminal breach under Section 119 of the current law, although a defence exists where the information sought is believed to be self-incriminating.”

Mr Keshwan said the proposed Bill introduced an entire division dedicated to search warrants, providing clear legal provisions governing search and seizure powers.

He said the changes were particularly important for digital forensics, where obtaining electronic evidence would require a search warrant issued by a magistrate. Mr Keshwan said applications for search warrants would follow the same procedures prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Act, requiring the Commission to file information outlining the reasons and purpose for the warrant before it was considered by the court.

“Search warrants generally are used to obtain records held by entities that keep information belonging to other people.

“So as such, records can only be disclosed through lawful means.”

Mr Keshwan added that where a trader under active investigation held the records being sought, a requisition for information notice would not be sufficient.