Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu has issued a warning to Francis Puleiwai, urging her not to undermine the integrity of his office. This statement follows Puleiwai’s recent complaint against Barbara Malimali, the Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). The crux of the complaint revolves around Malimali’s decision to issue a Stop Departure Order (SDO) against Puleiwai.
Bainivalu emphasized the importance of respecting the independence of the legal system in addressing complaints from the public, specifically referring to Puleiwai’s actions as potentially diminishing the seriousness of the complaint mechanism. Puleiwai has argued that Malimali’s issuance of the SDO violated Section 13(l)(e) of the FICAC Act 2007, claiming it was executed improperly, without due process, and with an intention to restrict her movement while Malimali built a case against her.
In her formal complaint sent via email, Puleiwai detailed her assertion that the SDO was issued without a proper investigation being conducted prior to her departure for Brisbane, Australia. She criticized Malimali’s procedure and claimed that the SDO remains active despite alleged procedural failures.
In response, Bainivalu’s correspondence highlighted the need for respect toward the established processes and pointed out that grouping various officials and media into her complaint email was inappropriate. He reiterated that her complaint would be handled like others, without special treatment.
Puleiwai defended her actions by stating that her intent in involving other officials was to promote transparency and accountability. She urged that the complaint process should be impartial and free from favoritism. She also raised concerns about the rapid processing of Malimali’s complaint against her, questioning why hers appeared to be prioritized.
This situation underlines the complexities within the legal framework of Fiji and the importance of maintaining constructive dialogue to uphold the integrity of the legal system. It also reflects a commitment to transparency, as both parties navigate their respective positions in the handling of the complaint.
In summary, this ongoing dispute holds significant implications for how complaints are managed within legal institutions, and it highlights the need for clear communication and fairness in such processes. It is hoped that this situation can lead to constructive changes that enhance the credibility of the complaint mechanisms and establish clear guidelines for future conduct.
Leave a comment