Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has defended the integrity of the Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as Fiji’s FICAC commissioner, saying recent questions about New Zealand lawyer Janet Mason will not undermine the COI’s findings or its work. Rabuka’s comments came as Mason faced scrutiny over a medical certificate she produced declaring herself unfit for work until the end of December 2024, and as details emerged about a misconduct-related suspension and two liquidation applications tied to law firms she once owned.
Rabuka said Mason’s role as counsel assisting the COI began in October 2024, and that pulling her from the inquiry at that stage would likely mean starting over. He explained that the decision to continue with her involvement was taken after considering the complaint that led to her disciplinary action in New Zealand, and he stressed that Mason’s function was to assist and facilitate while the commissioner made the final calls. “She was just assisting, facilitating. The final decisions were made by the commissioner,” Rabuka noted, adding that he had no prior knowledge of Mason’s professional troubles before they surfaced during the inquiry process.
The prime minister also addressed broader concerns about Mason’s past, saying he did not learn of her earlier disciplinary or financial difficulties before her appointment and that these issues only came to light as the COI was underway. He emphasized that his judgment was that her disciplinary history in New Zealand did not automatically bar her from participating in the COI, given that she had been appointed to support the inquiry’s work and that the final decisions rested with the commissioner.
The revelations have added to a wider debate about professional accountability and ethics in Fiji’s governance context, particularly in politically sensitive cases like the one surrounding the Malimali appointment. The Fiji Law Society has previously urged Mason to step aside temporarily to protect public confidence in the COI’s integrity, though it stopped short of calling for her outright removal. The society has highlighted concerns about Mason’s applications for a Fiji practicing certificate and related allegations of document handling, which have been cited by critics as potentially undermining trust in the inquiry.
In New Zealand, Mason faces a three-month suspension from practicing law following a disciplinary ruling by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal for not completing a civil litigation course on time. She has indicated she will appeal the decision and has sought a stay on the suspension, arguing that the ruling should not affect the COI’s proceedings. The High Court later weighed in on the case, with some decisions focusing on proportionate discipline and the potential impact on ongoing public inquiries; in certain proceedings the initial three-month punishment was reduced to a shorter term on appeal, while deferrals and timing considerations remained in play as the COI’s final report neared completion.
Despite the legal and professional turbulence, Mason has asserted that she remains committed to the COI and to maintaining high standards of integrity in her work as counsel assisting. The COI itself has reiterated that its mandate and procedures continue, and it has sought to clarify misunderstandings around document handling and certification requirements, stressing that Mason continues to hold a valid practicing certificate for the purposes of appearing before the inquiry.
As the COI advances toward its final report, stakeholders remain hopeful that the inquiry will yield substantive reforms in Fiji’s governance framework. Observers say a transparent, accountable process can strengthen public confidence in institutions and prompt long-sought improvements in governance and ethical standards, even amid controversy surrounding one of its key participants.
Comments from political and legal observers emphasize the delicate balance between safeguarding the independence and effectiveness of public inquiries and ensuring that all participants meet rigorous professional standards. The current situation is seen as a pivotal moment for Fiji’s governance culture, with the potential to catalyze reforms that enhance accountability, transparency, and public trust in Fiji’s political and legal institutions.
In summary, while Mason’s circumstances have sparked debate and raised questions about balancing professional accountability with ongoing public investigations, the government and the COI affirm their commitment to completing a credible, independent review. The overarching expectation is that the inquiry’s conclusions will help strengthen ethical governance and restore public confidence in Fiji’s institutions, even as these challenges unfold.
Leave a comment