The High Court in Suva is set to deliver a ruling at midday on Friday over whether the full transcripts of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the appointment of former Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) commissioner Barbara Malimali should be released to a group of applicants who say access is necessary to test the record and inform related proceedings.
Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, who is presiding over the matter, heard oral arguments this week from counsel for both sides. The Office of the Solicitor‑General opposed disclosure, telling the court the COI transcripts constitute evidence meant only for decision‑makers and that wider release could undermine the integrity and confidentiality of the inquiry process. The applicants seeking access include Malimali herself, former attorney‑general Graham Leung, and lawyers Wylie Clarke and Laurel Vaurasi.
Applicants’ counsel, including prominent lawyer Richard Naidu, argued the transcripts may contain material that the applicants are not yet aware of and that the court should determine what evidence actually exists rather than rely on fragments or secondhand accounts. Tanya Waqanika, representing Malimali in related proceedings, questioned the State’s stance in light of hearing footage from the COI that has already appeared on social media, asking why the State would resist releasing written transcripts when portions of the inquiry have been publicly disseminated online.
During the hearing Justice Tuiqereqere flagged concerns about the COI’s protocols after the unexplained online leak of hearing footage, indicating the unauthorised circulation had complicated the court’s assessment of confidentiality and the public interest. That leak has become a central thread in submissions: counsel for the applicants say public availability of footage undermines any argument that transcripts must remain inaccessible to those directly affected, while the State warns that piecemeal distribution of material does not justify wholesale disclosure of the COI’s evidentiary record.
The current application over transcripts forms part of a wider legal dispute that has included judicial review challenges to the COI’s findings and judicial scrutiny of decisions taken over Malimali’s removal. Earlier hearings in the broader matter have addressed whether the Commission of Inquiry report and its processes were properly conducted and what role the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) should play in any subsequent disciplinary or employment decisions. The issue of transcript disclosure could affect how those related proceedings advance, particularly if new material is revealed.
Justice Tuiqereqere also directed counsel for Ashton Lewis—named in earlier filings as a central figure in the COI proceedings—to file an affidavit by the end of March for the court’s consideration. The affidavit requirement signals that the judge is seeking more factual material about the COI’s conduct and the circumstances of the leaked footage before making a final decision on disclosure.
The court’s midday ruling will determine whether the applicants gain access to the full written record of witness testimony and submissions at the COI, a decision that may have immediate implications for ongoing challenges to the inquiry’s findings and for broader transparency questions surrounding Fiji’s use of commissions of inquiry.
Leave a comment