The Suva High Court has ruled that any challenge to the appointment of Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Acting Commissioner Lavi Rokoika must be pursued through judicial review in the civil jurisdiction — not through criminal proceedings.
Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull made the clarification while dismissing a permanent stay application filed by former Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica.
In her ruling, Justice Bull said the court was not the appropriate forum to test the legality of Ms Rokoika’s appointment within a criminal matter.
“Any challenge to the appointment ought to be pursued by way of judicial review proceedings in the civil jurisdiction,” she stated.
She emphasised that a stay application in criminal proceedings was not suitable, particularly as key parties such as the Prime Minister and the President were not before the court.
The High Court rejected Mr Kamikamica’s bid to halt proceedings, finding that he had failed to meet the legal threshold required to justify a permanent stay.
Justice Bull also ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support claims that Ms Rokoika knew, or ought to have known, that her appointment was unlawful.
“The applicant has not discharged the burden of proof,” she said.
The Court further noted that Ms Rokoika has been acting in the role since May 29, 2025, and continues to perform its functions. As a result, the de facto doctrine applies, meaning actions taken under her authority — including the laying of charges — remain valid.
On allegations of conflict of interest arising from Ms Rokoika’s previous role as counsel in a Commission of Inquiry, Justice Bull said the claims were speculative and unsupported.
“There is no evidence suggesting mala fides or egregious conduct,” she said.
The Court also dismissed arguments that the disclosed evidence showed a complete absence of criminal wrongdoing, describing the claim as without merit.
Mr Kamikamica is charged with one count of perjury under the Crimes Act 2009. It is alleged that between December 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, in Suva, he knowingly made a false statement under oath, claiming he had no involvement in the appointment of the FICAC Commissioner.
In the alternative, he faces a charge of giving false information to a public servant.
The matter will now proceed in the Magistrates Court, with the High Court ruling clarifying the legal pathway for any challenge to the FICAC Acting Commissioner’s appointment.
