Concerns are now being raised regarding certain sections of the Police Bill which is currently undergoing public consultation, as people are saying this will give excessive powers to the Police officers to access information in people's digital devices, and if the people do not cooperate, they will face up to 5 years imprisonment.
Under Section 87 of the proposed law, a specified person is a person reasonably suspected of having committed an offence in relation to which a search warrant is issued; a crime scene is established; or a digital device was lawfully seized under this law and removed from a place; the owner of a digital device; a person in possession of a digital device; an employee of the owner or person in possession of a digital device; a person who uses or has used a digital device; or a person who is or was a system administrator for the computer network of which the digital device forms or formed a part.
Under Section 88, if a magistrate or a judge issues a search warrant, they may, in the search warrant, order a specified person give a Police officer access to the digital device; give a Police officer access information to the digital device; and provide any assistance necessary to the Police officer for access to the digital device.
Section 91 states that a person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes these orders and does not submit the information regarding the digital device, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of up to 5 years.
Fiji Women's Crisis Centre Legal Officer, Petrina Fremlin has raised concerns that parts of the Police Bill 2026 could allow Police to access people's phones, computers and other digital devices without sufficient safeguards to protect privacy rights.
While making a submission on the Bill, Fremlin says Sections 87 to 91 give Police broad powers to require people to provide access to digital devices, passwords, information and technical assistance, with failure to comply considered a criminal offence.
She says while digital evidence is important in modern criminal investigations, the proposed powers could affect not only suspects, but also ordinary citizens because of the broad definition of a specified person under the bill.
Insert:Fremlin on Police Bill
Fremlin highlighted that digital devices often contain highly personal information, including private messages, financial records, medical information, family photographs and confidential correspondence.
She warned that without stronger safeguards, there is a risk of interference with privacy rights, misuse of personal information and restrictions on freedom of speech and association.
Fremlin says people may become reluctant to share opinions, take part in discussions or associate with certain groups if they believe their private communications could be accessed.
She recommended stronger judicial oversight, including requiring Police to clearly establish a link between a device, the alleged offence and the person concerned before access is granted.
She also called for Police to show that less intrusive investigative options have been exhausted before seeking access to a digital device.
Fremlin further recommended limiting warrants to specific information relevant to an investigation and introducing clearer safeguards on how data is accessed, used, stored and protected.
She says these measures would help balance the needs of law enforcement with the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Parliamentary Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights continues it's public consultations on the Police Bill.
