The High Court in Suva has ordered the State to provide the audio recording and transcript of the Ashton‑Lewis Commission of Inquiry to four individuals who had sought access as part of their challenge to the commission’s findings. Justice Dane Tuiqereqere granted the application and directed that the materials be made available by Monday, March 16.
The applicants named in the court filing are former Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption commissioner Barbara Malimali; Fiji Law Society president William Wylie Clarke; the Society’s immediate past president Laurel Vaurasi; and former attorney‑general Graham Leung. All four are contesting aspects of the Ashton‑Lewis Commission of Inquiry report, which has been described as controversial and contains findings critical of their alleged actions.
In handing down the order, Justice Tuiqereqere required the State to produce both the audio recording and the transcript of the Commission’s hearings. The ruling responds to the applicants’ contention that access to the primary evidentiary record is necessary for a meaningful judicial review of the COI’s conclusions. The matter has been adjourned, with the next court hearing set for April 10.
Justice Ashton‑Lewis, the judge who led the Commission of Inquiry, applied to be joined as an interested party in the judicial proceedings and was granted leave to participate. His inclusion formalises his role in the litigation over the report and will allow him to make submissions to the court on the use and disclosure of the Commission’s material.
The Ashton‑Lewis Commission’s report has attracted public attention and debate since its release, with the four applicants arguing that its findings have adversely affected their reputations and careers. The High Court’s order to make the original audio and transcript available marks a significant procedural development: it opens the possibility that the applicants will be able to test statements, context and the accuracy of the Commission’s record in a contested judicial forum.
Legal observers say disclosure of underlying recordings can be decisive in challenges to administrative or inquiry reports because courts often examine whether conclusions were reasonably and fairly reached on the basis of the evidence before the commission. The applicants have framed their application as necessary to ensure a full and fair hearing on the merits of their objections to the COI findings.
With the State now directed to produce the materials by March 16 and the matter relisted for April 10, the litigation over the Ashton‑Lewis report enters a new phase in which the primary record of the Commission’s proceedings will be available to the court and the parties. The presence of Justice Ashton‑Lewis as an interested party signals that the court will consider submissions from both those who authored the report and those challenging its conclusions before reaching any final determination.
Leave a comment