Following the Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of the former FICAC Commissioner, the commission’s legal counsel, Janet Mason’s continued media engagement has drawn both interest and scrutiny. In this Q&A with The Fiji Times‘ Samantha Rina, Ms Mason explains her public commentary, motivations, and views on legal ethics, media freedom, and accountability. The following is the unedited exchange.
FT: Could you clarify whether your appointment included any expectations or restrictions around post-engagement public commentary?
JM: Unless such information is already in the public domain, I cannot disclose the contents of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) Report, or the evidence obtained during the course of the COI. As you will be aware, the commissioner delegated to me the role of keeping the media, and therefore the public, informed of procedural matters related to the COI. I remain free to discuss such procedural matters as I see fit.
FT: What motivates your continued public engagement or comments since the COI Report has been submitted, and the work of the commission has concluded?
JM: The media frequently ask me questions. I respond where I can. I do so because I think the public of Fiji deserve to hear the views of the COI on procedural matters.
FT: Have you sought permission or guidance from the commission lead before speaking out?
JM: I am a free agent and do not need to seek anyone’s approval to respond to media queries. However, I remain in frequent contact with His Lordship, Justice Ashton-Lewis.
FT: Do you believe your ongoing statements respect Fiji’s legal and political sovereignty?
JM: This is an absurd question. You are implying that my views on legal matters related to Fiji have something to do with the legal and political sovereignty of Fiji. In relation to “legal sovereignty”, have I breached some international law convention? I have never ever understood that professionals from one country are forbidden from commenting on matters within other countries. Taking this further, perhaps The Fiji Times should stop printing commentary on other nations. No more Donald Trump articles on tariffs. No more articles involving New Zealand law and politics.
FT: Do you see your continued involvement as ethical and professionally appropriate?
JM: Not only is my involvement ethically and professionally appropriate, but I have a responsibility to correct matters that a newspaper may print which are profoundly wrong. The public of Fiji deserve to hear a variety of views on matters important to them.
FT: Would you support a Fijian lawyer doing the same in your home country?
JM: Yes, I would most certainly one hundred per cent support a Fijian lawyer speaking out in my country. I firmly support freedom of speech and the ethical responsibility of lawyers, in particular, to give of their time freely to assist with public discourse on important and topical matters.
FT: What impact do you hope your commentary will have?
JM: I am asked questions by the media and I answer them where I can. I hope that the public can see that, at times, they are being hoodwinked by a small cabal of individuals who are propped up by certain biased journalists.
FT: Are you still in Fiji and now working out of Fiji as a private legal practitioner?
JM: What I do with my time and my skills is absolutely none of your business.
FT: Any further comments?
JM: Essentially, you are assuming that I am a foreigner and implying that I have no right to comment on legal matters related to Fiji. Well, not only are you wrong on so many levels, but you appear very much to be breaching the discrimination provisions in s 26 of the Constitution. In addition, you seem to have no comprehension of the rights of freedom of speech that are guaranteed under s 17 of the Constitution, rights which all journalists should have ingrained in them. Your questions reek of bias, and it looks to me as if The Fiji Times did not like my comments which the Fiji Sun printed, responding to your article which contained the interview you had with Wylie Clarke. You have tried to deal with this by making out that I have no right to speak out publicly on legal issues in Fiji. Well, I have every right to do so, and in fact, I have a responsibility to speak out when I see glaring inaccuracies, misinformation, and/or, inadequate legal commentary. It is a well-known phenomenon that when a person, or an entity, starts attacking someone on a personal basis, then it means that they have lost the argument on an intellectual, moral and ethical basis.
