Justice David Ashton-Lewis of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) has come under fire for making scathing remarks about former FICAC commissioner Barbara Malimali, labeling her as “universally corrupt,” “unqualified,” and someone who would “protect high-ranking people.” These statements have been described by Ms. Malimali’s legal counsel, Tanya Waqanika, as exceeding the inquiry’s scope and causing significant reputational damage to her client, who is currently out of work.
During the proceedings regarding a judicial review aimed at contesting the COI’s report, which implicates Fiji Law Society president William Wylie Clarke, past president Laurel Vaurasi, and former attorney-general Graham Leung, Waqanika indicated that the process was fundamentally flawed. She claimed that both she and Ms. Malimali were barred from attending essential testimonies, making the inquiry resemble more of a “trial.”
Waqanika pointed out that the inquiry had been misused as a political tool to disparage individuals not involved in politics, arguing that Ms. Malimali was not given a fair chance to respond to the findings prior to their public release. In support of her argument, she referenced a 1993 judicial review where it was determined that former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka was denied the opportunity to respond appropriately.
On the other hand, senior lawyer Richard Naidu, representing Clarke and Vaurasi, contended that the COI’s terms of reference did not allow for the examination of occurrences post-Malimali’s appointment. He argued that investigations into appointments should not stretch to events occurring afterward, asserting that findings against his clients related to an incident following Ms. Malimali’s appointment, during which they allegedly tried to assist during her purported arrest.
Lawyer Seforan Fatiaki, representing Leung, stated that his client has suffered professionally due to the COI’s findings and recommendations, which have inflicted severe damage on his reputation. The applicants insist their cases are substantive and not trivial, presenting valid arguments.
In contrast, the counsel for the respondents from the Attorney-General’s Office maintained that while the court cannot annul the COI’s findings, it could declare them unlawful, as the report’s nature is advisory.
Justice Dane Tuiqereqere presides over the matter and recently dismissed a motion to include Justice Ashton-Lewis as a party to the proceedings. A decision is expected on January 23, offering a potential resolution to this contentious issue. The outcome of this case may have far-reaching implications for the integrity of the inquiry process in Fiji, potentially prompting a reassessment of the boundaries and responsibilities of judicial inquiries.
Leave a comment