The chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry, Justice David Ashton-Lewis, has responded assertively to former Attorney-General Graham Leung’s public denial of the inquiry’s findings. Justice Ashton-Lewis claimed that Leung “failed to carry out his job” concerning the controversial appointment of Barbara Malimali as the Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
In a recent interview with Radio New Zealand, Justice Ashton-Lewis highlighted that Leung, along with Chief Justice Salesi Temo, neglected to address serious complaints against Malimali that had been brought to their attention before her appointment. He remarked, “They should have gone further and stopped her appointment… Neither of them did.”
Justice Ashton-Lewis defended the integrity and adherence to the inquiry’s terms of reference, countering claims of bias and exceeding legal boundaries. He emphasized that the inquiry’s responsibilities extended beyond Malimali’s appointment and pointed to a rushed selection process influenced by those wanting to protect themselves from scrutiny. He stated, “Her appointment was illegal, not according to openness and integrity,” defending the commission’s thoroughness against backlash.
While anticipating legal challenges to the inquiry’s report, Justice Ashton-Lewis expressed confidence in its compliance with legal standards, stating that the allegations against the commission are unfounded.
Similarly, former Attorney-General Leung has reiterated his commitment to upholding the law, asserting that his role was consultative as per the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption Act of 2007. He has stated that the Judicial Services Commission was solely responsible for Malimali’s appointment, a point he has emphasized during recent public appearances. Leung’s dismissal by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, following the inquiry’s findings, underscores the ongoing transformations within Fiji’s political realm, which some are hopeful could lead to enhanced transparency and accountability in governance.
This dialogue around the inquiry not only sheds light on intricate points of procedural integrity within Fiji’s governance but also evokes hope for reforms that could strengthen ethical standards and rebuild trust within the public sphere. As Fiji continues to navigate these challenges, there remains optimism that these discussions may catalyze significant structural changes that promote accountability and integrity in public office.
Leave a comment