OPPOSITION MP Premila Kumar has questioned whether it was appropriate for Chief Justice Salesi Temo to publicly describe the Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of former FICAC commissioner Barbara Malimali as “money wasted”, saying the remark was troubling in light of the High Court’s finding that “the inquiry had served a useful purpose” and Ms Malimali’s appointment was inappropriate.
Chief Justice Temo made the comment while addressing newly admitted lawyers, criticising the legal advice provided to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu over the extension of the Commission of Inquiry.
It followed Justice Dane Tuiqereqere’s ruling that the President did not have the power to extend the COI’s term beyond the period for which he had originally appointed it. He declared the COI’s work undertaken after that point to be unlawful.
However, Mrs Kumar said the legal validity of the later stages of the inquiry and the public-interest questions that led to its establishment were two separate issues.
“The Chief Justice’s comment does create a legitimate public-interest question about whether it is appropriate for the head of the Judiciary, who chaired the institution involved in the appointment of the FICAC commissioner, to publicly characterise the Commission of Inquiry as ‘money wasted’,” she said.
She said the COI was established after serious concerns were raised about Ms Malimali’s appointment as FICAC commissioner and her arrest on the following day by FICAC officers.
“There were also questions concerning reported issues surrounding Ms Malimali’s inability to practise law in Tuvalu and what consideration, if any, was given to those matters when assessing the statutory requirement that a person appointed to such an important office be fit and proper.
“The High Court itself observed that the establishment of the inquiry had served a useful purpose and, importantly, found that it was not appropriate for Ms Malimali to have been appointed as FICAC Commissioner while an active criminal investigation against her was pending.
“That is precisely why reducing the entire episode to ‘money wasted’ is troubling.”
Mrs Kumar said the High Court expressly recognised the importance of the appointment of the FICAC Commissioner and stated that FICAC’s work is vital to Fiji’s economic and social integrity.
“The procedural defects in the commission therefore should not be allowed to obscure the substantive public-interest questions that originally necessitated scrutiny.
“Unfortunately, that question remains unanswered: how was Ms Malimali recommended and appointed to head Fiji’s principal anti-corruption institution? And why her appointment was rushed.
“Seeking answers is not an attack on the Judiciary; it is about accountability, transparency and maintaining public confidence in Fiji’s constitutional institutions and the rule of law.”
