Fiji’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Commissioner Barbara Malimali has addressed the controversy surrounding her decision to terminate key witness Kuliniasi Saumi, referring to the situation as an “employment matter.” In a statement to the media, Malimali emphasized her respect for the ongoing Commission of Inquiry (COI) and indicated that she would refrain from commenting further until the inquiry has concluded.
Malimali acknowledged the varying opinions on this issue but reiterated her commitment to allowing the investigative process to unfold naturally. “I am here as a witness and I prefer to respect the process and let it run its course,” she stated.
The situation escalated when Janet Mason, Counsel Assistant to the COI, wrote to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) requesting Malimali’s suspension. Mason highlighted the concern that without action against Malimali, other potential witnesses might fear similar repercussions, which could hinder their willingness to provide testimony and ultimately impede the inquiry.
Amid these developments, the JSC concluded that it lacks the authority to suspend Malimali. This is due to the FICAC Commissioner’s appointment being governed strictly by the FICAC Act, which does not contain provisions for suspension or dismissal, unlike the rules applicable to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Mason, however, argues that under Section 44 of the Interpretation Act, the JSC possesses the authority to act, including the ability to suspend or dismiss. The COI is currently seeking clarification from the President’s Office, the Attorney-General, and the JSC regarding the legality of Malimali’s position and the potential for any action to be taken.
In light of these findings, the ongoing dialogue among various stakeholders demonstrates a proactive approach to ensuring accountability within the FICAC. The legal proceedings surrounding this case underscore the complexities of governance and oversight in Fiji, highlighting the importance of supporting whistleblowers and preserving the integrity of the inquiry process.
Overall, the situation presents an opportunity for meaningful debate about the structures of accountability within governmental organizations, which could lead to more robust policies and protections for witnesses in the future.
Leave a comment