Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has acknowledged for the first time that a recent High Court ruling declaring the removal of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali illegal has affected him personally, saying the judgment strikes at a decision he made when he advised the President to revoke her appointment.
Justice Dane Tuiqereqere delivered the judgment in February, finding that the process used to remove Malimali did not meet legal requirements. While the court ruled the dismissal unlawful, it stopped short of ordering her reinstatement and referred remaining matters, including any disciplinary considerations, to the Judicial Services Commission for further action.
Rabuka told reporters he was “personally affected” by the ruling because he was the public official who recommended to the President that Malimali’s appointment be revoked. His recommendation followed a Commission of Inquiry report into her appointment, which prompted the executive action. The Prime Minister said any decision on whether he would step down would depend on the outcome of any appeal and the further legal processes now under way.
The revelation is the latest development in a politically sensitive saga that has left the government navigating legal, administrative and reputational consequences. In recent days Rabuka has been reported to be weighing his options, including the prospect of resignation, and sought time to consider the implications of the court’s finding. Cabinet ministers have urged deliberation; Information Minister Lynda Tabuya previously told media the Prime Minister had requested several days to reflect on next steps.
Legal pathways remain open. The government can seek leave to appeal the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, and the Judicial Services Commission is expected to examine the referral from the High Court concerning procedural and disciplinary aspects of Malimali’s removal. How those two parallel processes unfold will shape whether Rabuka presses an appeal, faces further political pressure, or sees the matter ultimately resolved through the JSC’s processes.
The case has underscored tension over the proper route for handling allegations against statutory anti-corruption commissioners and the role of the executive when a Commission of Inquiry report is presented. Malimali’s legal team previously argued that the Judicial Services Commission, not unilateral executive action, should have been the body to consider her position. The High Court’s finding that the removal was unlawful gives weight to that argument and raises questions about adherence to due process when key independent offices are under scrutiny.
For now, Rabuka has signalled he will reserve final judgment on both an appeal and his political future until the legal avenues have been tested. The Prime Minister’s admission that the ruling has affected him personally brings a new, immediate human dimension to a case that has already had significant institutional reverberations.
Leave a comment