Pages circulating on social media, said to be part of the Commission of Inquiry report into the appointment of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, contain claims of alleged attempts to undermine the inquiry.
The leaked document, which appears to be a section of the report, describes several incidents involving alleged discriminatory conduct towards Commissioner David Ashton-Lewis and Counsel Assisting, Australian barrister Janet Mason.
According to the document, both officials were subjected to disparaging remarks, with references made to their foreign nationalities, conduct allegedly in breach of section 26 of the 2013 Constitution.
“There were moments during the COI hearing when Ms Malimali inappropriately, unprofessionally, and in breach of s.26 of the Constitution, raised the issue of the nationality of Counsel Assisting,” the document states.
It also describes rising tensions during questioning over a Tuvaluan Legal Practitioners Committee decision, which had reportedly found Ms Malimali not of fit and proper character to practise law there.
Ms Malimali is alleged to have responded by saying she felt like she was on trial and questioned the appropriateness of “somebody from another country… come into my country, as an indigenous person to offend me and insult me”.
The Commissioner, according to the document, stepped in to emphasise the relevance of such matters to the inquiry’s terms of reference.
A separate extract, reportedly annexed to the document, includes a letter dated January 25, 2025, and said to be written by Ms Malimali’s legal counsel Tanya Waqanika to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
It allegedly refers to Justice Ashton-Lewis as “patronising” and objects to the presence of “two foreigners” presiding over proceedings in Fiji.
“The nationality of Counsel Assisting and the Commissioner were used as a means to attempt to discredit and undermine the COI and its work,” the document states.
It also references the early dismissal of FICAC investigations manager Kuliniasi Saumi, the Fiji Law Society’s public questioning of Ms Mason’s qualifications, and concerns over the Commission’s legitimacy because its hearings began before the Commission’s terms of reference were formally gazetted.
While the authenticity of the document has not been officially confirmed, its appearance online has already stirred public debate.
Efforts are being made to seek official comment from relevant authorities.
