Justice David Ashton-Lewis failed to afford natural justice to Fiji Law Society president William Wylie Clarke and immediate past president Laurel Vaurasi when he made what their lawyers called “grossly defamatory” findings in a Commission of Inquiry report, the High Court was told yesterday.
King’s Counsel Martin Daubney, appearing before Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, argued that Justice Ashton-Lewis exceeded the inquiry’s narrow mandate — which was confined to examining the appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) — by making adverse findings about Mr Clarke and Ms Vaurasi that were outside the scope of that remit. Daubney told the court the commissioner’s conduct created an appearance of bias and that the report’s adverse conclusions against his clients were improper.
Central to the challenge is a passage in the inquiry report that describes a meeting on September 5, 2024, involving the Chief Registrar and a group of lawyers the report labels the “Malimali Rescue Party.” The report concluded that Mr Clarke, Ms Vaurasi and others used bullying and intimidation to obstruct justice while allegedly attempting to secure Ms Malimali’s release from arrest. Mr Daubney told the court his clients attended the meeting solely in their capacities as representatives of the Fiji Law Society.
Daubney told Justice Tuiqereqere that neither Mr Clarke nor Ms Vaurasi were warned the inquiry might make serious findings about them — including possible referrals for criminal investigation — and they were not given an opportunity to respond. He said other officials cited in the report were recalled to give further evidence during the inquiry, but his clients were not afforded the same right. That, he submitted, amounted to a deliberate denial of natural justice and had caused significant reputational harm.
“Those findings are grossly defamatory,” Daubney told the court, arguing the commissioner’s adverse conclusions went beyond examining the propriety of Ms Malimali’s appointment and instead impugned the conduct and integrity of two senior figures in the legal profession without affording them a fair hearing. He urged the court to scrutinise both the scope of the inquiry and the process followed before making such serious public findings.
The hearing before Justice Tuiqereqere represents the latest legal contest over the inquiry’s report and its consequences for individuals named in it. The challenge raises broader issues about the procedural protections owed to people who are criticised in inquisitorial reports and the limits on what a commission appointed to review a specific administrative decision may lawfully investigate. It also underscores potential reputational and legal repercussions when findings hint at criminality without giving those affected a chance to answer the allegations.
The case is ongoing before the High Court and further submissions are expected. The court will ultimately decide whether the inquiry’s process met standards of natural justice and whether any parts of the report should be set aside or referred for further action.
Leave a comment