JSC rebuts Justice Ashton-Lewis’s remarks on COI recommendations; says he is functus officio and out of authority
The Judicial Service Commission in Fiji has admonished former Commission of Inquiry Commissioner Justice David Ashton-Lewis for comments on how to implement the COI’s recommendations, saying his role ended with the inquiry’s conclusion and submission of the final report. JSC Secretary and Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu stressed that Justice Lewis is functus officio and therefore has no authority to comment on, interpret, or direct actions on the recommendations. Responsibility for the report now rests with the country’s constitutional authorities, particularly the President in consultation with the Prime Minister. Bainivalu reaffirmed the judiciary’s independence, dismissing calls to remove Chief Justice Salesi Temo as unwarranted and inappropriate, and emphasized that the JSC will not entertain further commentary from individuals no longer in office.
Context and related developments
– The broader COI saga around Barbara Malimali’s appointment as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has sparked ongoing debate over judicial independence and public accountability. The Fiji Law Society has publicly criticized Justice Ashton-Lewis, with calls for his resignation amid remarks deemed to undermine public trust in the judiciary.
– Reports detailing the COI’s findings have generated a range of opinions. Some voices, including opposition members, defend Justice Ashton-Lewis and argue the judge’s disclosures are in the public interest and help illuminate concerns about misconduct within government circles.
– The COI’s investigative scope reportedly culminated in a lengthy report, with coverage noting dozens of witnesses, a large body of findings, and a substantial number of recommendations aimed at strengthening accountability and governance.
– Legal and political commentators emphasize the tension between maintaining judicial independence and ensuring accountability for public officials, especially when inquiries intersect with political sensitivities. Calls for reforms and stronger safeguards for judicial integrity have featured prominently in this debate.
What this means going forward
– The JSC’s stance seeks to keep the focus on constitutional channels for acting on the COI’s findings, rather than on statements by former officials, and it underscores a commitment to separation of powers and the impartial administration of justice.
– With the President and Prime Minister now central to how the report’s recommendations are acted upon, Fiji faces a period of careful consideration and potentially significant reforms to governance, accountability, and the independence of the judiciary.
– The ongoing discussions reflect a broader public expectation that inquiries of this scale translate into transparent processes and credible reforms that bolster public confidence in Fiji’s institutions.
Summary
The Judicial Service Commission has countered Justice David Ashton-Lewis’s public remarks about implementing COI recommendations, asserting he is no longer authorized to speak on the matter. The report’s next steps rest with constitutional authorities, while the broader controversy surrounding the COI—particularly around FICAC, judicial independence, and calls for accountability—continues to unfold, with voices across the spectrum urging reforms to strengthen governance and public trust.
Additional notes for readers
– The situation highlights the delicate balance between upholding judicial independence and ensuring accountability for officials implicated in high-stakes inquiries.
– As Fiji navigates these issues, observers will be watching for concrete steps toward reforms that can reinforce the rule of law and restore confidence in public institutions.
Leave a comment