The University of Fiji has warned that giving village or community leaders the authority to exclude or remove drug users from their communities could conflict with the Constitution and violate fundamental rights.
During the public consultations on the Counter Narcotics Bill, community leaders expressed concern about drug use within villages and requested authority to adopt by-laws allowing them to exclude or remove drug users in the interest of public safety.
While giving it's submission on the Bill, the University says it recognises the important role of community leadership in maintaining social order but stresses that any such mechanism must comply with the Constitution.
It says any by-law permitting exclusion or removal of individuals must be consistent with several sections of the Constitution, including Section 8 (Right to Life), Section 9 (Right to Personal Liberty), Section 13 (Rights of Arrested or Detained Persons), Section 15 (Fair Trial Rights – Access to Courts), Section 21 (Freedom of Movement and Residence), Section 11 (Protection from Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), and Section 26 (Equality and Non-Discrimination).
UniFiji says that customary or village authority cannot override constitutional protections, and that restrictions on liberty or movement must occur through lawful process and judicial oversight.
It also highlighted the legal risks of exclusion powers, warning that if community by-laws were to permit leaders to expel individuals, restrict movement, confine or detain persons, or impose informal punishment, such actions could amount to unlawful detention, denial of due process, arbitrary interference with freedom of movement, collective punishment, and discriminatory treatment of vulnerable persons, including those suffering from addiction.
It says addiction is increasingly recognised as a health and social issue, and unregulated exclusion risks marginalisation rather than rehabilitation.
Comparing Commonwealth practice, the University says that in jurisdictions including Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, community leaders do not have unilateral authority to expel individuals for drug use.
It stressed that restrictions on liberty require court-issued orders, and public safety concerns are addressed through judicial mechanisms, protection orders or structured diversion programmes.
It says local or customary rules may regulate conduct but do not replace judicial authority.
The University emphasised that while community leaders play a critical role in prevention and social cohesion, empowering them to exclude individuals through by-laws risks conflict with constitutional guarantees of liberty, movement, equality and fair trial.
It says a court-supervised and legally structured framework would better balance community safety with constitutional protections.
