The Suva High Court is currently deliberating on a pivotal case concerning the dismissal of former Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Commissioner Barbara Malimali, after she filed a judicial review asserting that Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka exceeded his constitutional authority in advising President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu to revoke her appointment. During a recent hearing presided over by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, Malimali’s lawyer Tanya Waqanika articulated that the dismissal process disregarded proper constitutional protocols and denied her client the right to natural justice.
Malimali’s dismissal, which occurred in June amidst allegations regarding her appointment, sparked significant legal contention. Waqanika argued that the President should not have acted solely on the Prime Minister’s recommendation, emphasizing that any dismissal necessitates a thorough investigation and involvement from the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). Citing constitutional violations, Waqanika pointed out that Malimali faced defamation and career repercussions due to a lack of procedural fairness, further calling attention to the necessity for safeguarding independent institutions like FICAC from political influence.
In defense of the Prime Minister’s actions, Deputy Solicitor General Eliesa Tuiloma claimed that the advice offered to the President was constitutionally sound, asserting that the rare circumstances led to a justified intervention due to an alleged “constitutional paralysis” within the JSC. He highlighted that the appointment was void from the start, given Malimali’s previous undisclosed character issues.
Representatives for the Prime Minister maintained that his actions fell within the constitutional framework, asserting that the decision was not politically motivated but rooted in a need for constitutional stewardship amidst an evolving governance crisis. Senior lawyer Simione Valenitabua emphasized that the President, while primarily acting on the Prime Minister’s advice, retains the discretion to consult and make decisions that serve the public interest.
As the litigation unfolds, the implications of this case are profound, touching on core issues of governance, accountability, and the independence of anti-corruption institutions in Fiji. Legal experts and government observers share a hopeful perspective that the court’s eventual ruling, set for January 23, 2026, could serve as a catalyst for necessary reforms aimed at enhancing transparency and restoring public trust in Fiji’s political framework. The outcome of this case could significantly influence the checks and balances necessary for a robust governance system, fostering integrity in public office and reinforcing credibility in Fijian governance.
Leave a comment