Village by‑law debate highlights tension between safety and rehabilitation

Community protection must not come at the cost of reha bilitation rehabilitation, lawyer Natalie Raikadroka said.

She said this as debate over invoking village by‑laws in Fiji’s proposed narcotics legislation intensified during the national consultation at the Lautoka Girmit Centre yesterday.

Concerns were raised about whether empowering villages to remove suspected drug users and traffickers would strengthen community safety or undermine rehabilitation efforts.

Ms Raikadroka, the University of Fiji’s legal officer, said communities were an important “safety net” for vulnerable citizens.

“In social work, we talk about a safety net made up of courts, NGOs, faith‑based organisations, families, and the vanua,” Ms Raikadroka said.

She said lawmakers must carefully as sess assess the impact on the four pillars of drug policy: harm reduction, demand reduction, supply reduction, and legal reform.

“When those strands work together, they catch the vulnerable before they fall further into harm.”

She cautioned against shunning offenders, particularly those seeking rehabilitation.

“If you push someone out of their community, away from their vanua, where else are they meant to go? Will that reduce harm or push them deeper into drug use?”

She acknowledged that community protection was important, but said “second chances matter,” referencing ongoing consultations on the Counter‑Narcotics Bill.

“Rehabilitation cannot work if the community is not there to catch the person.”

Ministry of Policing’s Inspector Jemesa Lave said there is a need for careful calibration between enforcement and restoration.

“There needs to be a balance between the restorative and punitive aspects of what we are rolling out. That requires serious consideration,” he said.

As the draft Counter‑Narcotics Bill moves closer to Parliament, stakeholders agreed on one point: Fiji must protect its communities without closing the door on those seeking a path back.