Prime Minister Rabuka reiterates that the Commission of Inquiry into Barbara Malimali’s FICAC appointment is moving through proper channels, even as Justice David Ashton-Lewis voices concern about the slow pace of action on the findings
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has expressed disappointment that Justice David Ashton-Lewis publicly commented on the inquiry into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). Ashton-Lewis, who heads the Commission of Inquiry (COI), said that while he submitted his report in May, more than 14 weeks later only two of the 17 recommendations have been acted on.
The COI’s revelations are sweeping. Ashton-Lewis had urged the removal of several high-profile public officials, including the Chief Justice, the Acting Director of Public Prosecution, and the Deputy DPP. Rabuka responded that the recommendations are being addressed and stressed that Ashton-Lewis has fulfilled his role as commissioner. He noted that action on recommendations has occurred through referral to police criminal investigations and to FICAC, rather than direct implementation by the government.
Rabuka also outlined the next steps in the process. He said the Chief Justice will be given the right to respond to the allegations and that the allegations will go through the natural justice system, with the Chief Justice informed and given time to respond. If further action is needed after that response, the matter will be referred to a tribunal by the Court of Conduct (COC) in accordance with the Constitution.
The Prime Minister added that the former Acting DPP and others facing allegations must respond as well, after which the COC will decide whether a tribunal is warranted. This, Rabuka said, is the normal course of natural justice in such matters.
Context and responses around the COI
The COI report itself has attracted wide attention. Independent observers and portions of Fiji’s legal community have highlighted the scale of the inquiry, which includes a large volume of testimonies and dozens of recommendations. Some reports describe the document as hundreds of pages long, detailing testimony from numerous witnesses and identifying several individuals in positions of influence who are connected to the Malimali appointment process.
In related coverage, the Fiji Law Society has raised concerns about the conduct and comments of Justice Ashton-Lewis, arguing that public remarks can affect perceptions of judicial independence and the integrity of the process. The Society has called for careful handling of the inquiry’s findings to preserve public confidence in governance and the rule of law.
What this means going forward
– Action on recommendations: With only a portion of recommendations acted upon, the process is poised to proceed through formal channels, including investigations, referrals, and potential tribunal actions if warranted.
– Due process: Rabuka emphasizes that the inquiry’s outcomes will follow established procedures, including natural justice for all involved, and that responses will shape any further steps.
– Public accountability: The COI’s purpose remains to strengthen accountability and transparency around public appointments and governance, with hopes that reforms will restore public trust.
– Public sentiment: The ongoing discourse reflects a broad expectation that governance mechanisms will respond decisively to findings, while maintaining fairness for those named.
Key takeaways
– The COI report covers the Malimali appointment and implicates multiple officials; numbers cited across reports vary between 72 and 73 recommendations, with hundreds of pages of testimony cited in some summaries.
– Only a portion of recommendations have been acted on so far; authorities say referrals to investigative and prosecutorial bodies have been made as part of the process.
– The inquiry’s leadership and the government stress adherence to natural justice and due process as the next steps unfold.
A note of cautious optimism
There is a clear commitment on all sides to transparency and reform. While tensions exist over timing and public commentary, the process remains focused on accountability and strengthening ethical standards in Fiji’s public service. If the findings translate into concrete reforms and timely actions by the relevant agencies and tribunals, the governance landscape could move toward greater integrity and public confidence.
Summary of broader implications
The inquiry underscores Fiji’s ongoing efforts to bolster accountability in public appointments and to ensure that the mechanisms governing anti-corruption bodies function with independence and credibility. As procedures unfold, the public can expect continued emphasis on due process, investigative action where warranted, and a renewed push for reforms that support ethical governance.
Potential positive outlook
Despite disagreements and concerns over timelines, the emphasis on natural justice, transparency, and accountability offers a hopeful path toward meaningful reforms that can strengthen trust in Fiji’s institutions and uphold the integrity of public service.
Leave a comment