COMPANIES attempting to introduce workplace drug testing face a challenging task due to constitutional protections and a total lack of local legal precedents, says Munro Leys partner Jon Apted.
Mr Apted told attendees of the Fiji New Zealand and New Zealand Fiji Business Councils 2026 Joint Conference in Nadi on Friday that local lawyers are currently forced to rely on guess work based on overseas common law.
Mr Apted said the Fiji Human Rights Commission has yet to issue specific guidelines for employers, and no test cases have been decided in Fijian courts.
“Drug testing is the sexy word, and that’s the knee-jerk reaction to the drug problem,” he said.
However, he cautioned that unlike breathalyzer tests for alcohol, standard drug tests prove only historical use rather than immediate impairment.
Since drug tests require urine, saliva, or blood samples, they are classified as highly invasive under the law.
Mr Apted warned that testing regimes heavily intersect with the 2013 Constitution, which protects citizens from unconsented medical procedures, unreasonable search, and privacy violations.
Since addiction is medically classified as a condition, workers are protected from discrimination based on health status.
Mr Apted advised businesses that the most reliable method to legally implement testing is to secure explicit consent by writing the requirement directly into employment contracts from the outset.
Employers were also reminded of severe financial and legal risks under the Crimes Act 2009. Under the Act, a corporation can face criminal prosecution if its assets or premises are used by staff for drug crimes, provided the company’s internal culture is found to have tolerated the behavior.
“The way to ensure that you are not found to have a corporate culture that encourages it is to ensure you have strong policies.”
