At the time of writing, the Maritime Powers Bill 2026, Bill Number 35 of 2026, the Bill, is before Parliament. It represents a significant opportunity for Fiji to bolster maritime security and ocean governance in line with national security objectives and international commitments.

This is a significant moment because the Republic of Fiji Navy, which stands on the frontline of national maritime security, has lacked its own statutory powers. For decades, naval officers relied on delegated powers conferred under separate sectoral legislation. This fragmented arrangement may have led to missed opportunities for capacity building, as well as creating complex training burdens to enforce maritime laws in accordance with national and international legal frameworks.

Fiji is a maritime nation surrounded by an expanse of ocean that includes 1.28 million square kilometres of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) but also includes sovereign maritime zones that are Fiji’s internal waters, archipelagic waters, and territorial sea that links its 330 islands, and underpins domestic and international trade and Fiji’s Blue Economy.

In this bulletin, we examine how the Maritime Powers Act (once passed and in force) will operate and, noting that the Bill is open for consideration by Parliament and public consultation, we provide what we hope are constructive observations to assist the drafters. We further consider how this initiative presents an opportunity for development partners to align technical assistance towards the multiagency coordination required to implement Fiji’s maritime security, anchored by the coordination function of the Maritime Essential Services Centre, MESC.

Reasons for Legislative Reform - why this Bill is needed

The Maritime Powers Bill will resolve the administrative burden that has required naval personnel conducting peacetime constabulary and law enforcement operations to operate without constabulary or legal authority. Before the Maritime Power Bill there has been no single Act (statute) that confers police powers on naval officers to enforce civil, customs, or environmental and natural resource laws at sea.

This situation led to naval personnel relying on multiple other Acts for legal authorisations from individual civilian ministries. This meant that to execute an interdiction, naval officers required appointment under separate Acts, including

• An authorised officer under the Fisheries Act 1941 and the Offshore Fisheries Management Act 2012
• A customs officer under the Customs Act 1986
• An officer exercising powers under the Immigration Act 2003
• A designated inspector under biosecurity, maritime transport, or illicit drug control legislation

This led to an administrative burden that hinders boarding officers, who must navigate different legal authorities that may have different thresholds, reporting requirements, and statutory limitations of while undertaking boarding operations in an already challenging maritime environment. This also created a risk that if legal powers were exceeded or misinterpreted or not conferred that legal ambiguity at sea is created leaving any resulting criminal prosecutions vulnerable to technical evidentiary challenges in court.

The Maritime Powers Bill 2026 addresses these issues by replacing piecemeal ministerial authority (or warrants) with a single, standalone statutory mandate. This reform will provide naval and maritime law enforcement officers with the legal clarity, operational certainty, and institutional confidence required to safeguard national waters. The Bill proposes an amendment to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Act 1949 to insert the Navy Force as a recognised branch of the Regular Force, cementing its peacetime maritime policing identity in primary legislation.

Operation of the Maritime Powers Bill

The proposed statutory framework intends to move away from ad hoc interagency arrangements, establishing an integrated chain of command from national policy down to tactical boarding operations.

1. The Maritime Senior Officials Committee, MSOC. Chaired by the Permanent Secretary responsible for Defence, the MSCO is a twelve member statutory committee that brings together the Commander RFMF, Commissioner of Police, Comptroller of Customs, Chief Executive Officer of the Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji, MSAF, Director General of the Counter Narcotics Bureau (about to be created under a separate Bill), Solicitor General, and Permanent Secretaries for Fisheries, Environment, Immigration, and Foreign Affairs. The MSOC has the task to set national priorities for joint patrols, clarify lead versus supporting agency operational roles, and establish binding national standards for intelligence sharing, transfer of custody, and evidence preservation.
2. Standing Designation of Enforcement Officers. The Commander of the RFMF has power to designate qualified personnel from the Navy, Police, Customs, Immigration, and Counter Narcotics Bureau as statutory Enforcement Officers, removing the requirement for separate ministerial warrants.

As designated Enforcement Officers, personnel receive statutory authority under the Bill to execute core functions including the power to

• Stop and Direct Navigation under sections 28, 30, and 31. Suspect craft must halt, facilitate safe boarding, or navigate under compulsory direction to a designated Fiji port for inspection.
• Board and Search Without a Warrant under sections 29 and 32 to 37. Officers may enter suspect vessels without a judicial warrant, question crew, inspect holds and cargo, conduct urgent personal searches, and deploy modern detection tools, including drug detection dogs and uncrewed aerial surveillance drones.
• Seize Contraband and Detain Vessels under sections 39 to 42. Officers may confiscate illicit narcotics, weapons, illegal catch, and proceeds of crime, with statutory authority to detain vessels and crew for up to 48 hours and apply physical restraint where safety is threatened.
• Execute Warrantless Arrests at Sea under section 45. Officers may arrest suspects on reasonable grounds without a court warrant, authorising naval personnel, including in the absence of sworn police officers, to secure suspects at sea pending handover upon arrival on land.
• Deploy Calibrated Force under sections 49 to 52. Officers may use force, including disabling fire against noncompliant ships authorised by the commanding officer, under uniform rules of engagement.

The Bill enables boarding teams to deploy as integrated, multiagency operational units under section 16. In these scenarios, a division of jurisdiction operates. Naval personnel exercise tactical command and powers of stop, restraint, and security, enabling civilian inspectors to execute their specialised inspection mandates and secure evidence for specific offences.

Where operations involve foreign partner assets operating under bilateral shiprider agreements under section 6, the asset operates under the statutory operational control of the Fiji naval commanding officer, preserving sovereign command over tactical boarding decisions.

Alignment with the UNCLOS Framework

The Bill maintains alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. Key provisions give effect to coastal state authority, including standing powers over stateless craft and Fiji flagged vessels under sections 22 and 23, continuous hot pursuit into international waters using uncrewed aerial systems under section 25, and powers for the Minister to gazette protective zones around critical undersea telecommunications cables and landing sites under section 27, criminalising unauthorised anchoring, dredging, or fishing in these coordinates and thereby protecting this vital infrastructure.

Strategic Significance, National Security, 30x30 Marine Protection, and the Blue Pacific

The Bill provides a central mechanism to assert national sovereignty, protect national security, and implement national and international commitments to ocean governance.

Fiji faces traditional and nontraditional maritime security challenges, and Fiji defines and addresses these challenges in accordance with sovereign national interests.

1. Transnational Narcotics Trafficking. Transnational crime syndicates exploit expansive, remote waters as transhipment corridors and domestic supply routes. This Bill, operating alongside the Counter Narcotics Bureau Bill 2026, equips frontline boarding teams to intercept motherships and feeder craft before illicit drugs reach national islands, addressing enforcement gaps that hindered an integrated national response.
2. Undersea Infrastructure Vulnerability. National telecommunications and banking systems depend on subsea fibre optic links. The Bill provides legal authority to declare protected areas and intercept vessels interfering with critical undersea cables.

A strategic priority is international and national commitments to marine conservation, anchored in UNCLOS, sovereign rights, and national policy frameworks, such as the Climate Change Act 2021 and the National Ocean Policy 2019.

Under the National Ocean Policy and the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3, Fiji has committed to protect 30 percent of the ocean domain by 2030, known as 30x30, while managing 100 percent of national waters. To ensure these marine conservation targets produce tangible results and commercial stocks remain protected for Fijian citizens, effective Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance, MCS, is essential.

The Bill provides the frontline constabulary toolkit required to enforce these designations, compelling noncompliant vessels to halt, inspecting fishing gear, and ordering suspect craft to port. Evidence collected under Part 6 of the Bill can transfer to the Ministry of Fisheries under section 41(2), empowering the Ministry to take administrative enforcement action, such as the cancellation or suspension of commercial fishing licences..

Protecting the rule of law at sea sustains Fiji's Blue Economy, which supports major national industries including tourism, as well as supporting food security for our coastal communities, and enhancing the safety of our shipping. Enactment of a modern, UNCLOS compliant enforcement framework provides a regional benchmark that reinforces the Ocean of Peace vision of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and supports the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent of the Pacific Islands Forum.

Areas or suggestions for Further Consideration 

While the Bill is a significant legislative step, several details in the current Bill may require further consideration by Parliament and legislative drafters to ensure effective operation of the new Act. We provide these suggestions to support Fiji's maritime governance and maritime security operations.

Fiji’s EEZ is currently missing from the definition of “Fiji Waters”

Section 2 of the Bill defines Fiji waters as the internal waters, archipelagic waters, contiguous zone, continental shelf and territorial sea of Fiji.

This definition does not include the 1.28 million square kilometre Exclusive Economic Zone of Fiji, but it does include the continental shelf.

Under UNCLOS and the Marine Spaces Act 1977, coastal states like Fiji are conferred with territorial sovereignty within internal, archipelagic, and territorial waters, where general domestic criminal laws apply.

In the EEZ, a coastal state like Fiji does not hold territorial sovereignty, but exercises sovereign rights over natural resources such as fisheries and seabed minerals, alongside jurisdiction over marine environmental protection and marine scientific research.

If the drafters deliberately excluded the EEZ from the definition of “Fiji waters” to avoid assertion of general criminal jurisdiction over foreign ships exercising high seas freedoms of navigation under UNCLOS Article 58, inclusion of the continental shelf creates a puzzling situation.

Under international law, the continental shelf possesses the legal status of the EEZ, where Fiji holds sovereign rights over seabed resources, not territorial sovereignty. The continental shelf refers to the seabed and subsoil, making its inclusion within a statutory definition of waters inconsistent.

Core constabulary powers, such as warrantless searches under section 37 and directions to port under section 31 of the Bill, attach to actions within Fiji waters. However, excluding the EEZ (as is presently the case) creates legal ambiguity regarding whether these powers apply to interdictions in these offshore areas.

This may be a simple oversight or omission and drafters can easily resolve this issue by including the EEZ within the definition of Fiji waters, while carefully calibrating the scope of powers exercisable in that zone to reflect UNCLOS limits, including full domestic criminal jurisdiction within the territorial sea, alongside sovereign rights, fisheries, environmental protection, stateless vessels, and flag state consented enforcement within the EEZ.

Jurisdictional Ambiguity in the Contiguous Zone

A related drafting issue arises regarding the Contiguous Zone of 12 to 24 nautical miles. Under section 2 of the Bill, the Contiguous Zone sits within the definition of Fiji waters, while falling under provisions referencing waters beyond territorial limits, termed international waters.

The term international waters in primary legislation lacks precision, as UNCLOS defines distinct maritime zones rather than an undifferentiated international expanse. Under UNCLOS Article 33, coastal state powers in the Contiguous Zone are limited to prevention and punishment of infringements of customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary, CFIS, laws committed within national territory or the territorial sea.

Classifying the Contiguous Zone alongside internal and territorial waters within Fiji waters creates a risk that enforcement officers attempt to exercise general criminal powers over foreign vessels beyond the CFIS mandate permitted by Article 33, exposing resulting prosecutions to legal challenge. The Bill’s drafters may want to consider this further, and differentiate the distinct legal grounds for enforcement within the Contiguous Zone.

Designation of Fisheries and Environment Officers should be included

Under section 15(1), the Commander RFMF holds power to designate Enforcement Officers from the Navy, Police, Customs, Immigration, and Counter Narcotics Bureau. Authorised officers from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change are absent from this statutory list, appearing under the general category of any other public officer nominated by the Minister under section 15(1)(g).

Fisheries protection and marine environmental conservation represent central pillars of Fiji’s national maritime security and 30x30 commitments. Therefore it seems important that officers from the Ministries of Fisheries and Environment should appear in section 15(1) of the Bill. This inclusion will ensure civilian fisheries and environmental inspectors receive statutory cross designation upon commencement, cementing integrated multiagency boarding teams.

The Subsidiarity Rule and Naval Authority under Section 28(4)

Section 28(4) of the Bill provides that an enforcement officer who is a member of the Navy or military forces may exercise powers under this Act in relation to a suspected relevant offence where no enforcement officer from an agency or competent authority with specific jurisdiction over that offence is present and available to exercise those powers at the time.

While intended to respect civilian agency primacy in areas such as Fisheries, Customs, or Police, this wording could lead to operational confusion or hesitation at sea. In contested court proceedings, defence counsel may argue that if a civilian inspector was aboard the naval vessel, naval boarding crew lacked freestanding lawful authority to conduct searches or seize contraband. If a civilian inspector was aboard but incapacitated by for example seasickness or injury or was unable to board in heavy swell, disputes will arise regarding whether the officer was available.

A clearer approach may be to provide that naval personnel have concurrent, freestanding authority to enforce relevant maritime offences, establishing that personnel act in support of or in conjunction with civilian enforcement agencies, and that the presence of a civilian officer does not invalidate secondary constabulary actions taken by naval personnel.

Detention Timelines and Fiji’s Maritime Geography under Section 42 - a practical issue

Section 42 of the Bill limits the detention of a suspect vessel to 48 hours without a court extension. Given the extent of national maritime boundaries, an interception executed near the outer edge of the EEZ, south of the Lau Group, or near Rotuma can require an ocean transit of 60 to 72 hours back to port in heavy seas.

While section 47 provides an exception based on impracticability for bringing arrested persons before a magistrate, section 42 does not provide an automatic transit time exclusion for detained vessels. To prevent unlawful detention claims, the Bill should establish that the 48 hour detention clock commences upon vessel arrival at a designated port in Fiji, or authorise remote, electronic detention extension hearings via satellite link while at sea.

Conflict of Laws and Precedence under Section 58(2) of the Bill

Section 58(2) provides that where the exercise of a power under this Act is inconsistent with the exercise of a power conferred under an Act referred to in subsection (1), the provision conferring the power under that Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

The statutes referenced in subsection (1) include older legislation such as the Marine Spaces Act 1977, the MSAF Act 2009, and the Maritime Transport Act 2013. By establishing that older, sectoral Acts prevail in any conflict of powers, the Bill subordinates modern constabulary standards to older statutory provisions. To preserve legal certainty, the section may require adjustment to confirm that the Maritime Powers Act prevails regarding constabulary boarding, search, seizure, and hot pursuit procedures, while preserving the substantive regulatory mandates of sectoral authorities.

Operationalising the Act, Technical Assistance and the Role of the MESC

Enactment of primary legislation represents the initial step, as statutory authority without operational machinery hampers maritime and national security. Core powers to stop, board, search, and arrest take statutory effect upon commencement, but this framework requires secondary regulations under section 65 to function in practice.

Secondary regulations establish procedural safeguards, including the storage, custody, and disposal of seized illicit narcotics and vessels under section 44 of the Bill which is an issue that is of some current discussion in Fiji.

Further, the administrative compensation framework for unmerited warrantless searches under section 62, and protocols governing the deployment of uncrewed surveillance drones and tracking systems under section 65(e) and (f). Without these secondary instruments, boarding officers face evidentiary challenges over chain of custody, creating potential legal liabilities for the State.

This requirement provides an avenue for development partners to deliver targeted technical assistance across three core areas.

1. Specialised Legal Drafting. Assisting the formulation of secondary regulations and standard operating procedures for evidence preservation.
2. Joint Training initiatives. Implementing certified, multiagency training under section 18 in calibrated use of force, human rights safeguards, and digital evidence gathering.
3. Operational Coordination through the MESC. Integrating the statutory framework into the Maritime Essential Services Centre, MESC.

As the designated 24 hour National Maritime Fusion Centre of Fiji, the MESC is the operational engine that translates statutory powers into targeted action on the water.

Rather than deploying naval vessels on sweeps across 1.28 million square kilometres, the MESC provides the coordination mechanism to implement Fiji’s maritime security priorities in the national interest.

Conclusion

The Maritime Powers Bill 2026 is an essential initative that modernises the maritime law enforcement framework for Fiji. By replacing outdated, delegated ministerial powers with a unified statutory mandate, it equips naval and civil enforcement officers with the legal tools required to defend national maritime sovereignty.

However, there are issues that have been identified above that may require clarification and further thought, and these include the practical drafting considerations identified which we hope are helpful in this context. 

DISCLAIMER: This bulletin is provided for information purposes only, and is not intended to be, and nor should it be relied on as legal advice. We recognise the complexity and time and other contraints and pressure that affects legislative drafting and our bulletin is intended to provide helpful information only. We warmly congratulate the Fiji Navy and all who have been involved in this initiative in the advancement of Fiji's maritime governance in line with Fiji's maritime security aims and objectives in the national interest.