Fiji wants its defence force used more directly in support of police and other law enforcement agencies as transnational organised crime grows as a security concern across the Pacific, Minister for Defence Pio Tikoduadua has said. He was speaking at the South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting (SPDMM) in Nadi, in comments reported by Islands Business on 22 September 2026.
This account rests on that single report. Fiji News has not independently verified the minister’s remarks, and the source carries no response from the Fiji Police Force, from France, or from any other minister at the Nadi talks.
Key facts
- Tikoduadua said the contribution of the region’s defence forces to the security of Pacific Island states and their people was central to discussions at the SPDMM in Nadi.
- He said the meeting was focused on bringing defence capabilities to the support of law enforcement agencies dealing with transnational organised crime and other non-traditional security threats.
- He said Fiji was well positioned to contribute because of its existing security infrastructure, including the Maritime Essential Services Centre (MESC) in Suva and Black Rock in Nadi — neither of which the report describes beyond naming it and its location.
- He said those capabilities could be used not only for Fiji’s own security needs but also to support other Pacific Island states, and that the MESC could coordinate maritime operations with France and other, unnamed, regional partners.
- He pointed to discussions with France on additional maritime capabilities, including ship-riding and increased surveillance operations using boats around Fiji and potentially other Pacific states. No agreement, date, vessel count or cost is reported.
- Islands Business reported the comments come as Pacific countries strengthen cooperation around maritime security and transnational organised crime, including illicit drug trafficking.
Why it matters: the line between soldiers and police
What Tikoduadua put on the table in Nadi is not a conventional defence agenda. It is a proposal about the dividing line between soldiers and police — about putting military platforms, surveillance and sea-going capacity behind civilian agencies that are investigating crime, and doing so as a standing arrangement rather than a one-off callout.
“Ultimately, at the end of the day, this whole conference is about how to bring military and defence capability to assist local security and also law and order,” Tikoduadua said, according to Islands Business.
The second thing the remarks do is change Fiji’s posture. Small island states are usually described as recipients of regional security assistance. The minister described Fiji as a supplier of it — offering its facilities and capabilities to neighbours, not only using them at home. That is a claim about capacity, and it is the kind of claim that is normally tested by publishing what the capacity actually is. Fiji News reported earlier this week on the opening of the South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting.
What a defence-for-policing role would have to settle
The report records an intention, not a mechanism. Militarised support to policing is one of the harder things to put on a legal footing, and none of the following questions is answered in the source. They are the questions that would determine whether this is a genuine shift or a form of words at a ministerial meeting.
Who asks, and under what authority
A standing role for defence in law enforcement needs a trigger: a named official who can request military assistance, a threshold for when it is justified, and a written instrument — statute, regulation or cabinet directive — that authorises it. The report does not say whether Fiji has such an instrument, whether one is being drafted, or whether existing arrangements are considered sufficient.
Who is in command
When military personnel operate alongside police, someone has to be in charge of them. The source does not say whether supporting troops or crews would remain under military command, fall under police direction, or sit in some hybrid arrangement — nor whether the same answer would apply when Fijian assets are used to help another Pacific state.
What powers the personnel would hold
Surveillance is one thing; stopping a vessel, boarding it, detaining people and seizing cargo is another. The report does not say whether defence personnel would exercise any of those powers themselves, or whether they would be limited to transporting and supporting officers who hold them. It also does not address rules on the use of force.
What happens to the evidence
Drug prosecutions turn on continuity of evidence. Material gathered from a military aircraft or naval platform still has to survive a defence lawyer’s challenge in court. No handling protocol, chain-of-custody rule or prosecutorial position appears in the report.
Who pays, and for how long
Extra patrols, extra surveillance hours and extra sea days cost money. Islands Business reports no budget figure, no cost-sharing formula with France or any other partner, and no indication of whether this would be funded from Fiji’s own defence vote or by external partners.
The France discussions: what is and is not on the record
France is the only partner named in connection with anything specific, which makes the gaps around it significant. The report does not define ship-riding, does not say whose officers would ride on whose vessels, does not say how many boats or personnel are contemplated, does not give a start date, and does not say whether an agreement exists at all. It also does not name the other regional partners the MESC would supposedly coordinate with.
On the published record, the Fiji–France element is a description of discussions. Nothing in the source indicates it has progressed beyond that.
Who has not spoken
The absences matter as much as the statements. There is no comment from the Fiji Police Force, the agency that would be supported and whose officers would work alongside defence personnel. There is none from France, the partner whose capabilities were cited. There is none from any other defence minister at the SPDMM, so it is not known from this report whether the position Tikoduadua set out has regional backing or is Fiji’s alone. There is no opposition or civil-society response on the use of military assets in domestic law enforcement.
What to watch next
- Whether an SPDMM communiqué or outcomes statement is published, and whether it names defence support to law enforcement as an agreed workstream.
- Any joint statement from Fiji and France, which would show whether the maritime discussions have become an arrangement and on what terms.
- Any published description of the Maritime Essential Services Centre’s mandate, staffing or partner list, which would test the claim that Fiji can coordinate regional operations from it.
- Any legislative or regulatory step in Fiji setting out how defence assistance to police is requested, commanded and funded.
- Any comment from the Fiji Police Force on what support it has asked for.
Related coverage
Islands Business does not connect the Nadi discussions to the stories below. Fiji News offers them as related reporting on the same policy area, not as context supplied by the source.
- Fiji News has covered figures showing cocaine detections in the Pacific rose 98 per cent, with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime urging Pacific states to go after criminal profits.
- Fiji News has also reported a chief who warned MPs not to rush security treaties with Australia, an indication that outside security partnerships remain contested domestically.
Sourcing note
Every attributed fact in this article comes from the Islands Business report of 22 September 2026. The general explanation of ship-riding in the FAQ below is background supplied by Fiji News and is not drawn from that report. Fiji News has sought no comment for this piece and will update it if the Fiji Police Force, the Ministry of Defence, France or other SPDMM participants issue statements.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does “ship-riding” mean, and did Islands Business define it?
No — the outlet lists ship-riding as one of the maritime capabilities discussed with France but does not explain what it would involve. In Pacific maritime security practice the term is generally used for arrangements in which officers from one state travel aboard another state’s patrol vessel or aircraft so that boardings and enforcement action can be taken under the first state’s law inside its own waters. Fiji News is offering that as general background only: the source does not say the Fiji–France discussions follow that model, does not say whose officers would ride on whose vessels, and does not name the waters involved.
Has anything actually been agreed with France?
Nothing in the report says so. Islands Business describes discussions on additional maritime capabilities — ship-riding and increased surveillance operations using boats around Fiji and potentially other Pacific states. There is no signed agreement described, no start date, no number of vessels or personnel, no duration and no cost in FJD or any other currency. On the record as it stands, this is talk about capability, not a commitment.
Who has not commented on this story?
The Fiji Police Force, which would be the civilian agency on the receiving end of any defence support, is not quoted. Neither is France, whose maritime cooperation the minister raised, nor any other defence minister attending the Nadi meeting. Islands Business carries only Tikoduadua’s remarks. Fiji News has not obtained independent comment from those parties for this report and will update if it does.
What concrete outcomes did the Nadi meeting produce?
None are described. Tikoduadua said the outcomes would focus on strengthening cooperation between defence forces and law enforcement agencies and on keeping pace with emerging security challenges, according to Islands Business. The outlet does not publish a communiqué text, a list of agreed measures, a timeline or the names of the states that signed up to anything. Readers should treat the meeting’s output as unpublished rather than absent.
What would have to be settled before soldiers could routinely support police in Fiji?
The source does not address this, and that is the gap in the story. At minimum a working arrangement would need a stated legal authority for the request, a rule on who holds command of military personnel doing policing tasks, a position on whether those personnel can detain, search or use force, a chain-of-custody rule so that material gathered from a naval platform survives challenge in court, and a funding line. None of those appear in the report.
