Senior lawyers Richard Naidu and Graham Leung have raised concerns about a crucial constitutional issue in Fiji, emphasizing that the President lacks the discretion to delay or negotiate over advice provided by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) regarding the Acting Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption.
In a joint statement, the lawyers pointed out that the Constitution unambiguously restricts the President’s authority. “He does not make choices. He does not exercise discretion. And he certainly does not bargain with constitutional bodies who require him to act as the law requires,” they explained.
The recommendation for the termination of Ms. Rokoika’s appointment was made by the JSC following a High Court decision on February 2, 2026, and communicated to the President on February 23. Reports indicate that the President has not acted on this advice immediately, instead opting to seek compensation arrangements prior to revoking her appointment.
The lawyers firmly stated, “That approach is constitutionally wrong,” asserting that Ms. Rokoika, as acting Commissioner, holds a temporary position and consequently has no entitlement to compensation upon the conclusion of her role. They referenced section 82 of the Constitution, which they believe does not allow for negotiation or personal judgment in this matter.
“The President acts only on advice,” the lawyers reiterated, cautioning that if his decisions are influenced by other advice, it is misguided. Though they recognized the significant authority the President wields, they clarified that such powers are limited by constitutional guidelines.
Under section 81, the President is tasked with executing the executive power of the State, but only in the name of the people and in accordance with constitutional demands. The lawyers warned that ignoring the Constitution could erode public trust in Fiji’s democratic institutions. “As guardian of the Constitution, the President must set the standard of constitutional conduct,” they emphasized, highlighting that straying from this framework could raise serious doubts about future decisions.
The situation has been complicated further by Ms. Rokoika’s choice to remain in her position despite the High Court’s ruling. The lawyers criticized her for not stepping down on February 2, 2026, arguing that it is “unbecoming and undignified” for a senior public office holder to cling to office under such circumstances.
This ongoing dialogue surrounding constitutional adherence reflects both a critical examination of governance in Fiji and a hopeful reminder of the importance of upholding democratic principles. By reinforcing the boundaries set forth in the Constitution, Fiji can work towards maintaining the integrity of its institutions and the trust of its citizens.
Leave a comment