Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says Chief Justice Salesi Temo will be given the right of reply if the allegations outlined in the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report move into police investigations, underscoring that due process will guide any next steps. Rabuka was responding to remarks from COI commissioner Justice Ashton-Lewis, who said the COI found Justice Temo liable for charges including perjury, obstructing and perverting the course of justice, and abuse of office, and recommended that the President be advised under section 111(3) of the Constitution to remove him. The commissioner stressed that no removal had occurred and warned of potential personal and political entanglements that might influence senior figures.
Rabuka reiterated that due process must be followed. He noted that the allegations had not yet been forwarded to the police or FICAC and that the matter should pass through the natural justice system, allowing the Chief Justice to hear the charges and respond. He added that once a response is received, it would be assessed, and if further action is required, the Constitutional Officers’ Commission (COC) would convene to determine whether to refer the case to a tribunal under the Constitution.
The situation sits within a broader debate about accountability and the separation of powers. A related thread from the COI has emphasized the need to address concerns about the judiciary’s independence while ensuring public confidence in governance. Rabuka has repeatedly stressed that authority to discipline or remove senior judicial officers does not lie with the government alone and that proper constitutional processes must be observed.
Key points to watch going forward:
– Whether the allegations against Justice Temo are forwarded to police and FICAC for formal investigation.
– How Justice Temo’s response is handled within the judiciary, and whether the COC or a tribunal is eventually involved.
– The ongoing balance between maintaining judicial independence and ensuring accountability in matters of misconduct.
Context from related discussions suggests a widening push toward stronger governance reforms and transparent handling of complaints involving high-level public officials. The tone from Rabuka indicates a cautious, rule-of-law approach rather than haste, with an expectation that due process will yield clarity on the appropriate next steps.
A hopeful note: as institutions demonstrate adherence to constitutional procedures and due process, public trust in Fiji’s governance and rule of law can be reinforced, even amid controversy surrounding the judiciary. The emphasis on accountable, transparent processes could pave the way for reforms that strengthen both independence and accountability in the long run.
Leave a comment