The ongoing legal battle surrounding the dismissal of former Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Commissioner Barbara Malimali continues to unfold in the Suva High Court. The judicial review, presided over by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, is examining the validity of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s advice to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, which led to Malimali’s termination on June 2, 2025.
Both the Prime Minister’s and Attorney General’s legal teams submitted arguments asserting that their actions adhered to constitutional provisions. Simione Valenitabua, representing the Prime Minister, maintained that, given the alleged dysfunction within the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the Prime Minister was the most appropriate person to advise the President on these matters. He asserted that previous cases demonstrated a lack of clarity regarding protocol, effectively creating what he described as a “constitutional gap.”
In contrast, Malimali’s attorney Tanya Waqanika countered that the President acted beyond his constitutional authority („ultra vires“) by solely relying on the Prime Minister’s advice without involving the JSC, which is traditionally responsible for such appointments. She emphasized that natural justice was not afforded to Malimali, as the proper procedures were overlooked, potentially signaling a broader constitutional crisis.
This case has sparked a broader conversation about governance and accountability within Fiji, particularly focusing on the independence of institutions like FICAC. Legal experts have noted that Malimali’s lengthy suspension and troubling appointment have raised serious questions about the integrity of governmental processes in Fiji. Observers are hopeful that the court’s decisions, slated for January 23, 2026, may catalyze necessary reforms aimed at strengthening institutional integrity and improving public trust in Fiji’s political landscape.
Throughout this legal process, the importance of adhering to established protocols for dismissals is glaring, as it underscores the need for accountability and transparency in governance. If the court finds in favor of Malimali, it could lead to significant changes in the dynamics of power between the executive and independent commissions, ultimately fostering a more robust framework for countering corruption and ensuring fair administrative practices in the future.
Leave a comment