The High Court has drawn attention to the political nature of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC), as highlighted by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere in his recent ruling. Justice Tuiqereqere declared the termination of Barbara Malimali from her post as FICAC Commissioner unlawful and emphasized the constitutional framework that governs the COC under Section 132 of the Constitution. He contrasted this framework with that of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).
Justice Tuiqereqere noted that the COC comprises members who are either politicians or who are appointed by politicians. The Commission includes the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Attorney-General, two individuals appointed by the President on the Prime Minister’s recommendation, and one individual appointed on the Leader of the Opposition’s advice. This structure, as noted by the Justice, results in a significant contrast to the JSC, emphasizing that the COC possesses a far more politically inclined makeup.
In his observations, Justice Tuiqereqere elaborated on the COC’s critical constitutional role, which encompasses senior state appointments, including positions like the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of the Fiji Corrections Service, the Commander of the Military Forces, the Auditor-General, and the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Fiji. He pointed out that the COC is responsible for advising the President on the appointments of various office holders, underlining how these roles are distinct from others mentioned within the Constitution.
Furthermore, Justice Tuiqereqere emphasized the importance of the design and composition of constitutional bodies, especially when issues of independence, legality, and the separation of powers are at stake. This ruling echoes the ongoing discussion about the interplay between political influence and the functioning of constitutional entities, reminding us of the necessity for an impartial and robust governance framework.
Leave a comment