A senior Australian counsel told the High Court on Tuesday that the President acted beyond his powers in appointing Lavi Rokoika as Acting Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) because no recommendation was made by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). Martin Daubney, King’s Counsel, told Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull that the absence of a JSC recommendation rendered the appointment unlawful, and that Rokoika either knew this at the time or ought reasonably to have known it.
Daubney made the submissions during hearings of separate permanent stay applications by former ministers Manoa Kamikamica and Professor Biman Prasad, who seek to halt FICAC prosecutions against them. As part of his case, he relied on recorded interviews played to the court: a Fiji Times interview conducted by Jake Wise in which Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka acknowledged advising the President on Rokoika’s appointment, and a MaiTV interview with journalist Lavenia Lativereta which, Daubney said, showed Rokoika’s “clear disregard” for the JSC’s statutory role in the selection process.
Rokoika elected not to cross-examine the two subpoenaed witnesses whose recorded evidence was played in court. She had earlier objected to their oral testimony on grounds of relevance, but Daubney told the court that Rokoika’s own defence made the material relevant. He pointed to her claim of entitlement to “de facto” recognition as acting commissioner even if she was not lawfully appointed, arguing that this put the circumstances of her appointment squarely at issue.
Daubney urged the court to view the defects in Rokoika’s appointment as more than technical irregularities. He said they were “fundamental and substantial flaws” going to the root of her authority as acting commissioner and amounted to an abuse of the administration of justice — a defect, he argued, that could justify the granting of permanent stays in the prosecutions against the two ministers.
Rokoika’s legal team responded that a criminal court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of her appointment, submitting that such questions fall within the civil jurisdiction of the courts. That position frames the procedural dispute at the heart of the hearing: whether the High Court can scrutinise the lawfulness of the person bringing criminal charges, or whether such disputes must be resolved by separate civil proceedings.
The latest hearing continues before Justice Fa’alogo Bull. The matter sits against a backdrop of months of controversy over FICAC’s leadership: Fiji’s Law Society has previously urged the President to comply with JSC recommendations after a year marked by legal challenges to Rokoika’s selection and earlier rulings that found aspects of FICAC’s leadership changes unlawful. The outcome of the stay applications could have immediate implications for ongoing corruption prosecutions and for the wider debate over the correct appointment processes for key judicial and anti‑corruption offices.
Leave a comment