The University of Fiji, in its submission on the proposed Counter Narcotics Bill, has stated that the introduction of the death penalty for drug offences would engage and potentially conflict with constitutional protections, be inconsistent with international human rights standards, and diverge from Commonwealth practice.
The University acknowledged that during public consultations on the Bill, calls were made for the introduction of the death penalty for serious drug offences, noting that these calls reflect legitimate public concern regarding the growing impact of drug trafficking on families, communities and national security.
While giving its submission on the Bill, UniFiji highlighted that while the seriousness of the drug problem is undisputed, legislative responses must remain constitutionally sound, proportionate and aligned with international human rights standards.
It adds that, for these reasons, the University does not support the introduction of the death penalty for drug offences.
The submission states that the death penalty is a denial of the most basic human rights; it violates one of the most fundamental principles widely accepted human rights law: that the State must recognise the right to life.
It notes that the UN General Assembly has called for an end to the death penalty and that human rights organisations agree that its imposition breaches fundamental, enshrined human rights norms.
The University says the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji establishes a comprehensive Bill of Rights that directly engages the issue of capital punishment.
It says that Section 8 guarantees that every person has the right to life and must not be arbitrarily deprived of life, adding that the death penalty constitutes the ultimate deprivation of life.
They say drug offences, including trafficking, possession and distribution, do not inherently involve intentional killing as a legal element of the offence and that imposing capital punishment for such offences would likely raise serious proportionality concerns and risk being characterised as arbitrary.
It also highlighted Section 11, which provides protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, saying that there is increasing international recognition that the death penalty, particularly where mandatory or disproportionate, may constitute cruel or inhuman punishment.
It says that any attempt to introduce a mandatory death penalty for drug offences would be especially vulnerable to constitutional challenge.
On international obligations, the University cited Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that the death penalty, in countries that have not abolished it, may only be imposed for the “most serious crimes”.
UniFiji says the United Nations Human Rights Committee has consistently interpreted “most serious crimes” to mean crimes involving intentional killing, adding that drug offences do not fall within this category.
It says that UN bodies, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, have repeatedly stated that the death penalty for drug offences is inconsistent with international human rights law, and that reintroducing capital punishment for drug offences would place Fiji at odds with prevailing international standards and expose the State to reputational and diplomatic consequences.
The University also examined comparative Commonwealth practice, saying that comparable democracies, including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada, do not impose the death penalty for drug offences.
It says that instead, jurisdictions strengthen enforcement through long-term imprisonment, asset forfeiture regimes, organised crime legislation, financial investigation powers and cross-border cooperation mechanisms, adding that these approaches target large-scale trafficking networks without undermining constitutional protections.
It says that while drug trafficking poses significant harm to society, capital punishment is not demonstrably more effective as a deterrent than lengthy custodial sentences.
UniFiji says that drug syndicates are often transnational and replaceable; harsh penalties may not dismantle financial structures, and the risk of wrongful conviction in capital cases carries irreversible consequences.
It adds that legislative reform should instead focus on dismantling networks, confiscating proceeds of crime, strengthening investigative capacity and enhancing rehabilitation for users.
The University has reiterated that the introduction of the death penalty for drug offences would engage and potentially conflict with constitutional protections, particularly the right to life and proportionality principles; be inconsistent with international human rights standards limiting capital punishment to the most serious crimes involving intentional killing; and diverge from Commonwealth practice.
It says that while the drug problem warrants strong and decisive legislative action, such action must remain constitutionally sound, proportionate and rights-compliant, and as such, the University does not support the inclusion of the death penalty in the Counter-Narcotics Bill.
