The Commission of Inquiry (COI) in Fiji has reached a significant conclusion regarding the controversial appointment of Barbara Mamalimali as the Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), indicating that the process was not in accordance with the 2013 Constitution. Counsel assisting the COI, Janet Mason, has elaborated on this in part one of a two-part series, revealing that the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) lacks the legal mandate to appoint or discipline the head of FICAC, a finding that has stirred conversations among legal experts and practitioners.
The conclusions drawn by the COI stem from concerns raised by Justice David Ashton-Lewis and Mason about the integrity of the process leading to Mamalimali’s appointment. They posited that if she remained in her position, it could compromise the openness of testimony from potential witnesses. The discussions intensified following the dismissal of Kuliniasi Saumi, a pivotal FICAC investigations manager, which raised further questions about witness intimidation and the decision-making authority regarding Mamalimali’s position.
Emphasizing the constitutional framework governing these appointments, Mason pointed out that while the President of Fiji can act on the advice of the JSC for such roles, the specific provisions for FICAC’s leadership are legislated under the FICAC Act, which creates a disconnect concerning the JSC’s powers. Legal interpretations provided by Professor Philip Joseph suggest that the appointment mechanisms outlined in the FICAC Act conflict with constitutional provisions, leading the COI to conclude that these aspects are indeed ultra vires, or beyond the legal powers granted.
Previously, the Fiji Law Society expressed similar concerns around Mamalimali’s suspension, indicating that without following the JSC’s recommendations, such actions lack constitutional legitimacy. These ongoing legal debates highlight the pressing need for clarity concerning the authority of the JSC, with calls for reforms to strengthen institutional integrity against political interference and uphold the critical principles of governance.
This situation, while complex and fraught with tensions surrounding governance and corruption, presents an opportunity for transformational change within Fiji’s legal structures. By addressing these issues and fostering discussions aimed at enhancing legal accountability, there is hope for reforms that could bolster public trust in institutions, ensuring that the frameworks governing appointments and disciplinary actions are clear and functional. The ongoing inquiry serves as a pivotal moment, with the potential to reshape the future of governance in Fiji towards greater transparency and accountability.
Leave a comment