PRIME Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has rejected the High Court finding that he and the President had a duty to give those affected by the Commission of Inquiry, an opportunity to respond before the report was made public.
The finding, made by High Court Judge Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, is among the specific grounds Mr Rabuka is challenging in his appeal, according to his legal representative Simione Valenitabua.
Mr Valenitabua said the Prime Minister disagreed with the court’s conclusion that, because the Commissioner Justice David Ashton-Lewis had failed to give notice of draft adverse findings, the responsibility fell on the Prime Minister and the President to give the affected parties an opportunity to respond before the report was released publicly.
In a statement, Mr Valenitabua said the legal team considered the finding a “fundamental error of law”.
“The appeal would specifically challenge the findings in paragraphs 372 and 374 of the judgment,” Mr Valenitabua said.
He said the Prime Minister’s legal team argues that there was no legal duty on the Prime Minister or the President to issue to individuals specific letters or notices or equivalent opportunities to respond to findings of an advisory report before its publication.
He said the Prime Minister’s lawyers maintained that the procedural obligations of an independent inquiry, including the requirement to afford natural justice, rested with the commissioner conducting the inquiry.
“Our client and His Excellency the President of Fiji cannot, and should not, act as appellate reviewers of an independent commission’s internal procedures.”
The legal team also argues that the executive had a constitutional duty to transparently release commissioned reports of high national interest to the public.
“We will seek to separate his lawful executive actions from the procedural missteps of the independent commission.
“The executive is not legally responsible for curing the procedural defects of an independent commission prior to publication.”
The appeal is expected to be filed and served after the High Court determines costs and damages.
Mr Valenitabua also said the Prime Minister’s successful defence of the COI’s establishment was personally funded and that the appeal would likewise be the same.
