The High Court is poised to deliver its verdict on the judicial review brought by former Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), Barbara Malimali, in January of next year. During a hearing presided over by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, Malimali’s defense, led by attorney Tanya Waqanika, argued that due processes were not adhered to when Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka advised the President, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, to revoke her position.
Waqanika contends that Malimali was denied her right to natural justice, as the process that led to her dismissal on June 2, 2025, failed to include a proper investigation and recommendation from the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which, according to the FICAC Act, is the only body authorized to handle such matters. She highlighted that Malimali’s removal was akin to the dismissal of judges, asserting that stringent constitutional processes outlined in Section 112 were disregarded.
Furthermore, Waqanika spoke on the inconsistencies in the treatment of male constitutional office holders as opposed to Malimali, who was faced with a dismissal that she argued was dismissive and driven by cost-related comments made by the Prime Minister in the media. Waqanika articulated Malimali’s struggles post-dismissal, noting that she has faced financial challenges and ongoing societal malignment without due process or an opportunity to defend herself against the allegations raised.
The legal contention draws attention to the essential dialogue surrounding governance and accountability within Fiji, particularly concerning the powers vested in the Prime Minister and the sanctity of institutions like FICAC. The implications of Malimali’s case could foster necessary reforms aimed at enhancing transparency and integrity in governance.
As the High Court’s ruling approaches, there is a growing optimism that this legal examination will contribute to a reevaluation of procedural fairness and accountability in Fiji’s political framework. Observers hope that positive outcomes from this case will invigorate public trust in government processes and set a precedent for more robust checks and balances in the future.
Leave a comment