Former Fiji police commissioner denies using Solicitor-General advice to justify dismissals in Bainimarama-linked case
In Suva High Court, former Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho told the court he did not lie about his evidence and insisted that the Fiji Police Force operates independently, with no authority from former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama over his decisions. He rejected claims that he used the Solicitor-General’s Office to mask an arbitrary act against two officers, Sergeant Penieli Ratei and Constable Tomasi Naulu.
Qiliho outlined the sequence surrounding the officers’ termination, saying any action taken by then-acting Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu after July 24, 2021—when Qiliho had returned to Fiji from the United Kingdom—were null and void, prompting him to reassess the decisions. He acknowledged appointing Tudravu to act in his absence but said he was unaware that the President, acting on the Constitutional Officers Commission’s advice, had endorsed Tudravu’s acting role. He said he only learned of the appointment letter during the trial.
The former commissioner confirmed he decided to terminate the officers between August 11 and 13, 2021, but asked that Ratei and Naulu show cause within four days, with formal termination taking place on August 19. He later agreed to a second legal opinion from the Solicitor-General’s Office, which recommended reinstatement and reimbursement for the officers.
Qiliho pushed back on claims that Bainimarama had any control over his actions, saying that if there had been such influence, he would have seriously weighed the consequences of reinstating the officers. He added that he carried out his policing duties without interference and rejected Tabuakuro’s assertion that he reviewed the file because the complainant, Jonacani Bainimarama, was Bainimarama’s elder brother.
The state, led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Laisani Tabuakuro, has signalled a robust case and is expected to call a substantial number of witnesses. The defense team is led by Davenesh Sharma for Bainimarama and Gul Fatima for Qiliho. Closing submissions have been adjourned to September 1.
Context and significance
Observers see the Bainimarama-Qiliho proceedings as a test of governance ethics, civil-service independence, and the balance between executive oversight and due process in Fiji’s public service. Testimonies have highlighted how disciplinary decisions were shaped and whether political figures exerted pressure on police leadership. Tudravu’s appointment process—including presidential letters after vetting—remains a focal point, with questions about who ordered terminations and how long officers were given to respond.
What to watch next
– Closing submissions from both sides next month to gauge how the court weighs Qiliho’s asserted powers against Tudravu’s disciplinary authority.
– Any further witness testimony clarifying who ordered the terminations and whether due process was observed.
– Potential implications for governance ethics and safeguards in Fiji’s public service, depending on the outcome.
Added value and commentary
– The case highlights the ongoing tension between political influence and police independence, a matter with wide implications for civil-service protections and due process.
– A clear, evidence-based ruling could bolster public confidence in governance and policing integrity, while clarifying the limits of executive influence over internal disciplinary decisions.
– As the trial unfolds, readers can expect closer scrutiny of how legal advice is used in administrative decisions and what constitutes proper oversight of disciplinary matters within the police service.
Hopeful takeaway
– The proceedings offer an opportunity to reinforce accountability and due process in Fiji’s public service. A transparent resolution that upholds officer rights and preserves police independence could strengthen public trust in institutions and set clearer boundaries for executive influence in internal discipline.
Leave a comment