The official State House photograph shows Anthony Regan (circled in red) among those present for the formal presentation.
*Regan stood with commissioners and other advisers at State House when the completed documents were formally presented, but twenty-five questions sent to him in July about his appointment, remuneration, independence and influence remain unanswered
 |  |
"Fiji’s Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga says constitutional drafters and consultant Professor Anthony Regan are already working from his office as the Coalition Government pushes to have a new draft Constitution ready before 1 September 2026." - 21 July 2026.
Australian constitutional adviser Anthony Regan never acknowledged or answered twenty-five questions sent to him by Fijileaks on Wednesday 29 July concerning his role in preparing Fiji’s proposed new Constitution.
Those questions were sent after Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga disclosed that Regan and constitutional drafters were already working from the Attorney-General’s Office.
The constitutional process has since moved decisively forward.
The Constitutional Review Commission has completed its Report on the 2013 Constitution and produced the Draft Constitution of the Republic of Fiji 2026. The documents were formally presented to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu at State House, where Regan was photographed standing with members of the Commission and others associated with the process.
Following the presentation by CRC chair Sevuloni Valenitabua, the President handed a copy of the Report to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka. The Government announced that it would proceed through Cabinet and then to Parliament.
The Office of the Attorney-General expressly acknowledged the contribution of three constitutional and legislative experts who supported the Commission’s work: Anthony Regan, Kathrene Le Roy and Fiona Leonard.
Regan’s involvement is therefore no longer a matter of speculation. The Government itself has identified him as an expert who supported the CRC’s work, and his presence at State House places him visibly among those associated with the completed Report and Draft Constitution.
Yet the nature and extent of his contribution remain undisclosed.
Questions sent before the drafting was completed
When Fijileaks wrote to Regan in July, the questions were intended to establish what role he had been given before the drafting process reached its conclusion.
We asked who engaged him, when he began work, whether he had a written contract, whether he was being paid, who funded his engagement, to whom he reported and whether he had already drafted or advised upon particular constitutional provisions.
We also asked whether he had advised the Government on the immunity provisions, the amendment requirements in section 160 of the 2013 Constitution and the legality of replacing that Constitution without complying with its own amendment procedure.
Regan was invited to clarify whether he was working for the Government, the Attorney-General’s Office, Cabinet, the CRC or some other body.
He did not acknowledge the correspondence. He did not answer any of the questions.
The completion of the Draft Constitution makes that silence more—not less—important.
The work about which Fijileaks questioned him was not abandoned. It culminated in a completed constitutional document which may profoundly alter Fiji’s system of government, Parliament, institutions, rights and electoral arrangements.
The public is therefore entitled to know what Regan recommended, what provisions he helped to formulate and how much influence his advice had upon the finished text.
From outside commentator to constitutional adviser
Regan is an Australian constitutional lawyer and academic whose work has concentrated on constitutional development, conflict resolution and political reform in the Pacific and elsewhere.
His Australian National University biography records his involvement in constitutional or peace processes in Uganda, Bougainville, East Timor, Solomon Islands and Fiji.
He has also written extensively about Fiji’s 2013 Constitution. In a paper co-authored with Coel Kirkby and Romitesh Kant, he criticised several features of the constitutional order. In August 2024, he publicly argued that the 2013 Constitution required “wholesale change”.
Regan was entitled to express those views. Academic freedom includes the right to criticise constitutions, governments and political institutions.
But a scholar commenting from outside the constitutional process occupies a different position from an adviser helping to produce the document intended to replace the Constitution he has criticised.
Once Regan moved from academic commentary to participation in the official process, questions about his appointment, instructions, remuneration and influence became legitimate matters of public interest.
Was the outcome already contemplated?
One of the questions sent to Regan concerned the perception that the outcome of the review might have been substantially predetermined.
That concern did not arise simply because Regan had criticised the 2013 Constitution. It arose because a known advocate of wholesale constitutional change was brought into a process which has now produced an entirely new Draft Constitution.
A review does not necessarily require replacement. It may conclude that particular provisions should be amended, that institutional safeguards should be strengthened or that parts of the existing Constitution should be retained.
A drafting process directed towards producing a new Constitution begins from a different premise.
The public is entitled to know when the decision was made to move from reviewing the 2013 Constitution to writing its replacement. It is also entitled to know who made that decision and what part Regan and the other experts played in it.
Neither Regan nor the Coalition Government has supplied a satisfactory public account.
Who instructed the experts?
The Acting Attorney-General’s statement says that Regan, Le Roy and Leonard supported the Commission’s work. It does not disclose who selected them, who formally appointed them or the legal and contractual basis upon which they worked.
Nor does it explain whether they reported to the CRC, the Acting Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Office, Cabinet or the Prime Minister.
That distinction matters.
If the experts were appointed by and accountable to the CRC, the public should be shown the relevant terms of reference and contractual arrangements.
If they were appointed by the Government but assigned to assist the CRC, the possibility of competing lines of authority must be addressed.
If they were working from the Attorney-General’s Office while advising an ostensibly independent Commission, the public is entitled to know how the independence of their work was protected.
The Government cannot invoke the independence of the CRC while withholding the institutional arrangements governing those who helped write its Draft Constitution.
What did Regan draft? The most important unanswered question is what Regan actually contributed to the finished document.
These are not demands for confidential personal information. They concern advice given in the preparation of the supreme law under which every Fijian may be governed.
Regan’s silence can no longer be dismissed as premature
Regan might have argued in July that it was too early to discuss unfinished work. He did not make that argument because he did not reply at all.
That explanation is no longer available.
The CRC’s work is finished. Its Report and Draft Constitution have been delivered. The Government has publicly acknowledged Regan’s contribution. He appeared with those connected to the process at State House.
The constitutional adviser can now tell the people of Fiji what work he performed.
If confidentiality provisions prevent him from disclosing particular advice, he can identify those restrictions and explain who imposed them.
If the Government altered or rejected his recommendations, he can say whether his eventual ability to discuss the advice is limited by contract.
If he believes his role was independent, he can explain the safeguards which protected that independence.
Continued silence serves only to deepen uncertainty about a process which should command public confidence.
“Do not speculate” is not an answer
The Acting Attorney-General urged the public to refrain from speculation about the contents of the Report and Draft Constitution until the Government had properly considered them.
But secrecy produces speculation.
The Government has declined to release the completed documents immediately, while at the same time asking citizens to trust that the process has been independent, consultative and constitutionally legitimate.
That trust cannot be demanded. It must be earned through disclosure.
The public should not have to wait until political decisions have been made before seeing the Draft Constitution intended to govern it. Nor should Parliament be asked to consider the document before citizens have been given sufficient time to read, debate and challenge it.
Publication after the Government has settled its position would not constitute meaningful participation. It would allow public comment only after those exercising power had already decided what they were prepared to accept.
Constitutions belong to the people
A constitution does not belong to the government which happens to be in office when it is drafted.
It belongs neither to the Prime Minister nor to Cabinet; neither to the Attorney-General’s Office nor to the CRC; neither to foreign experts nor to domestic political parties.
It belongs to the people whose rights it regulates and in whose name public power is exercised.
That principle demands transparency about the identity, authority and influence of every person involved in preparing the constitutional text.
Regan was given an opportunity to provide that transparency in July. He did not take it.
For the public record, Fijileaks reproduces below the twenty-five questions sent to him. They remain unanswered, and the invitation to respond remains open.
Questions for Anthony Regan on his role in Fiji’s constitutional review, copied to Siromi Turaqa and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka
Anthony Regan, Bula
Recent public statements by Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga indicate that you are working with constitutional drafters in the Attorney-General’s Office on a proposed new Constitution for Fiji. In the interests of transparency and informed public debate, Fijileaks respectfully invites you to respond to the following questions:
Fijileaks invited Regan to respond in the interests of promoting an informed, balanced and transparent national discussion on constitutional reform.
He never acknowledged the correspondence and did not answer any of the questions.
The Draft Constitution has now been completed. Regan’s role has been officially acknowledged. His opportunity to answer remains open.
Those questions were sent after Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga disclosed that Regan and constitutional drafters were already working from the Attorney-General’s Office.
The constitutional process has since moved decisively forward.
The Constitutional Review Commission has completed its Report on the 2013 Constitution and produced the Draft Constitution of the Republic of Fiji 2026. The documents were formally presented to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu at State House, where Regan was photographed standing with members of the Commission and others associated with the process.
Following the presentation by CRC chair Sevuloni Valenitabua, the President handed a copy of the Report to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka. The Government announced that it would proceed through Cabinet and then to Parliament.
The Office of the Attorney-General expressly acknowledged the contribution of three constitutional and legislative experts who supported the Commission’s work: Anthony Regan, Kathrene Le Roy and Fiona Leonard.
Regan’s involvement is therefore no longer a matter of speculation. The Government itself has identified him as an expert who supported the CRC’s work, and his presence at State House places him visibly among those associated with the completed Report and Draft Constitution.
Yet the nature and extent of his contribution remain undisclosed.
Questions sent before the drafting was completed
When Fijileaks wrote to Regan in July, the questions were intended to establish what role he had been given before the drafting process reached its conclusion.
We asked who engaged him, when he began work, whether he had a written contract, whether he was being paid, who funded his engagement, to whom he reported and whether he had already drafted or advised upon particular constitutional provisions.
We also asked whether he had advised the Government on the immunity provisions, the amendment requirements in section 160 of the 2013 Constitution and the legality of replacing that Constitution without complying with its own amendment procedure.
Regan was invited to clarify whether he was working for the Government, the Attorney-General’s Office, Cabinet, the CRC or some other body.
He did not acknowledge the correspondence. He did not answer any of the questions.
The completion of the Draft Constitution makes that silence more—not less—important.
The work about which Fijileaks questioned him was not abandoned. It culminated in a completed constitutional document which may profoundly alter Fiji’s system of government, Parliament, institutions, rights and electoral arrangements.
The public is therefore entitled to know what Regan recommended, what provisions he helped to formulate and how much influence his advice had upon the finished text.
From outside commentator to constitutional adviser
Regan is an Australian constitutional lawyer and academic whose work has concentrated on constitutional development, conflict resolution and political reform in the Pacific and elsewhere.
His Australian National University biography records his involvement in constitutional or peace processes in Uganda, Bougainville, East Timor, Solomon Islands and Fiji.
He has also written extensively about Fiji’s 2013 Constitution. In a paper co-authored with Coel Kirkby and Romitesh Kant, he criticised several features of the constitutional order. In August 2024, he publicly argued that the 2013 Constitution required “wholesale change”.
Regan was entitled to express those views. Academic freedom includes the right to criticise constitutions, governments and political institutions.
But a scholar commenting from outside the constitutional process occupies a different position from an adviser helping to produce the document intended to replace the Constitution he has criticised.
Once Regan moved from academic commentary to participation in the official process, questions about his appointment, instructions, remuneration and influence became legitimate matters of public interest.
Was the outcome already contemplated?
One of the questions sent to Regan concerned the perception that the outcome of the review might have been substantially predetermined.
That concern did not arise simply because Regan had criticised the 2013 Constitution. It arose because a known advocate of wholesale constitutional change was brought into a process which has now produced an entirely new Draft Constitution.
A review does not necessarily require replacement. It may conclude that particular provisions should be amended, that institutional safeguards should be strengthened or that parts of the existing Constitution should be retained.
A drafting process directed towards producing a new Constitution begins from a different premise.
The public is entitled to know when the decision was made to move from reviewing the 2013 Constitution to writing its replacement. It is also entitled to know who made that decision and what part Regan and the other experts played in it.
- Did the CRC independently decide that an entirely new Constitution was required?
- Did the Government instruct the drafters to prepare one?
- Did Regan recommend wholesale replacement?
- Or was that destination understood before public consultations had been completed?
Neither Regan nor the Coalition Government has supplied a satisfactory public account.
Who instructed the experts?
The Acting Attorney-General’s statement says that Regan, Le Roy and Leonard supported the Commission’s work. It does not disclose who selected them, who formally appointed them or the legal and contractual basis upon which they worked.
Nor does it explain whether they reported to the CRC, the Acting Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Office, Cabinet or the Prime Minister.
That distinction matters.
If the experts were appointed by and accountable to the CRC, the public should be shown the relevant terms of reference and contractual arrangements.
If they were appointed by the Government but assigned to assist the CRC, the possibility of competing lines of authority must be addressed.
If they were working from the Attorney-General’s Office while advising an ostensibly independent Commission, the public is entitled to know how the independence of their work was protected.
The Government cannot invoke the independence of the CRC while withholding the institutional arrangements governing those who helped write its Draft Constitution.
What did Regan draft? The most important unanswered question is what Regan actually contributed to the finished document.
- Did he prepare draft chapters, clauses or transitional provisions?
- Did he advise on the structure of Parliament, the proposed Senate, the electoral system, the judiciary, fundamental rights, the role of religion, the position of the Great Council of Chiefs or the constitutional amendment procedure?
- Did he advise on the immunity provisions associated with Fiji’s coups?
- Did he examine whether the 2013 Constitution could lawfully be replaced without satisfying sections 159 and 160?
- Did he recommend the legal mechanism by which the Draft Constitution could be adopted?
- Did he advise on the timing of the next general election or on any transitional provision capable of extending the life of the present Parliament?
These are not demands for confidential personal information. They concern advice given in the preparation of the supreme law under which every Fijian may be governed.
Regan’s silence can no longer be dismissed as premature
Regan might have argued in July that it was too early to discuss unfinished work. He did not make that argument because he did not reply at all.
That explanation is no longer available.
The CRC’s work is finished. Its Report and Draft Constitution have been delivered. The Government has publicly acknowledged Regan’s contribution. He appeared with those connected to the process at State House.
The constitutional adviser can now tell the people of Fiji what work he performed.
If confidentiality provisions prevent him from disclosing particular advice, he can identify those restrictions and explain who imposed them.
If the Government altered or rejected his recommendations, he can say whether his eventual ability to discuss the advice is limited by contract.
If he believes his role was independent, he can explain the safeguards which protected that independence.
Continued silence serves only to deepen uncertainty about a process which should command public confidence.
“Do not speculate” is not an answer
The Acting Attorney-General urged the public to refrain from speculation about the contents of the Report and Draft Constitution until the Government had properly considered them.
But secrecy produces speculation.
The Government has declined to release the completed documents immediately, while at the same time asking citizens to trust that the process has been independent, consultative and constitutionally legitimate.
That trust cannot be demanded. It must be earned through disclosure.
The public should not have to wait until political decisions have been made before seeing the Draft Constitution intended to govern it. Nor should Parliament be asked to consider the document before citizens have been given sufficient time to read, debate and challenge it.
Publication after the Government has settled its position would not constitute meaningful participation. It would allow public comment only after those exercising power had already decided what they were prepared to accept.
Constitutions belong to the people
A constitution does not belong to the government which happens to be in office when it is drafted.
It belongs neither to the Prime Minister nor to Cabinet; neither to the Attorney-General’s Office nor to the CRC; neither to foreign experts nor to domestic political parties.
It belongs to the people whose rights it regulates and in whose name public power is exercised.
That principle demands transparency about the identity, authority and influence of every person involved in preparing the constitutional text.
Regan was given an opportunity to provide that transparency in July. He did not take it.
For the public record, Fijileaks reproduces below the twenty-five questions sent to him. They remain unanswered, and the invitation to respond remains open.
Questions for Anthony Regan on his role in Fiji’s constitutional review, copied to Siromi Turaqa and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka
Anthony Regan, Bula
Recent public statements by Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga indicate that you are working with constitutional drafters in the Attorney-General’s Office on a proposed new Constitution for Fiji. In the interests of transparency and informed public debate, Fijileaks respectfully invites you to respond to the following questions:
- When were you first approached by the Coalition Government, or by any representative of the Government, regarding participation in Fiji’s constitutional review process?
- Who formally invited you to participate, and under what authority was that invitation made?
- What is your official role? Are you serving as a consultant, adviser, constitutional expert, member of a drafting team, or in another capacity?
- Are you working under a written contract? If so, will that contract or your terms of reference be made public?
- Are you being remunerated for your work? If so, who is funding your engagement, and what are the financial arrangements?
- When did you commence work on the constitutional review?
- How many visits have you made to Fiji in connection with this assignment?
- Have you already contributed to the drafting of any constitutional provisions? If so, which areas of the proposed Constitution have you been asked to advise upon?
- Have you prepared any reports, memoranda, discussion papers or draft constitutional text? If so, will these documents be released to the public?
- To whom do you report in the course of your work - the Acting Attorney-General, Cabinet, the Constitutional Review Commission, or another body?
- Have you met Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka regarding the constitutional review? If so, how many times and what matters were discussed?
- Have you consulted any political parties, civil society organisations, trade unions, faith groups, business organisations or community representatives outside Government?
- How do you respond to concerns that, because you have publicly criticised significant aspects of the 2013 Constitution over many years, your appointment may create a perception that the outcome of the review has been substantially predetermined?
- Do you consider yourself able to approach the drafting process with complete impartiality despite your previously published academic criticisms of the 2013 Constitution?
- In your view, what aspects of the 2013 Constitution continue to serve Fiji well and should be retained?
- Which provisions of the 2013 Constitution do you believe require amendment, and why?
- Have you advised Government regarding the constitutional immunity provisions? If so, what principles have guided your advice?
- Have you discussed the constitutional amendment threshold contained in section 160 of the 2013 Constitution with Government?
- Have you offered advice on whether the existing Constitution can lawfully be replaced without complying with its amendment procedures?
- Will the Draft Constitution be published before it is presented to Parliament, allowing sufficient time for public scrutiny and comment?
- Do you believe Fiji should adopt an entirely new Constitution or amend the existing 2013 Constitution? What constitutional principles support your preferred approach?
- What safeguards are in place to ensure that your advice remains independent of the political objectives of the Government of the day?
- If your recommendations are not accepted by Government, will you disclose the nature of your advice once the constitutional process has concluded?
- Looking back, do you stand by your previous public criticisms of the 2013 Constitution, or have any of your views evolved?
- Finally, do you accept that, because constitutions belong to the people rather than governments, the public is entitled to full transparency regarding the identity, role and influence of everyone involved in drafting Fiji’s next Constitution?
Fijileaks invited Regan to respond in the interests of promoting an informed, balanced and transparent national discussion on constitutional reform.
He never acknowledged the correspondence and did not answer any of the questions.
The Draft Constitution has now been completed. Regan’s role has been officially acknowledged. His opportunity to answer remains open.
