Individuals named in the Commission of Inquiry (COI) concerning the appointment of Barbara Malimali to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) are taking legal steps to reclaim their reputations following the dismissal of twelve related police investigations by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP). In this context, well-known Suva lawyer Richard Naidu has stepped up to represent those seeking a judicial review of the COI findings.
Naidu clarified that the ongoing legal proceedings are aimed at obtaining declarations that the adverse findings made by the COI were reached in an unfair or unreasonable fashion. While he has represented two clients in the COI, additional individuals are also challenging the conclusions of the inquiry through their own legal efforts.
The COI’s report has drawn criticism towards several individuals involved in Malimali’s appointment, suggesting possible criminal conduct that prompted several police investigations. However, following an assessment of the evidence, the ODPP concluded that the criteria for criminal prosecution were not satisfied. Naidu supported this decision, praising the ODPP’s initiative to bring in Australian Kings Counsel M Ian Lloyd for independent advice.
Despite the criminal investigations reaching their conclusion, Naidu pointed out that civil matters stemming from the COI’s proceedings remain active in court. These judicial reviews are specifically centered on the legality and fairness of the COI’s findings, distinctly separate from matters of criminal responsibility.
Emphasizing the individual nature of each Commission of Inquiry, Naidu noted that the current case does not establish a wider legal precedent. He recognized that while such inquiries are infrequent in Fiji, they play a crucial role in examining contentious situations, educating the public, and providing insights that can help avert future issues.
The situation surrounding the FICAC-related COI has ignited debate, with Naidu suggesting that the inquiry may have sparked more controversy than the events it was designed to investigate. He highlighted ongoing discussions about the necessity of the COI in the context of Ms. Malimali’s appointment, indicating that what was meant to enhance transparency has resulted in further disputes.
Through these civil proceedings, the individuals involved remain hopeful for a fair reassessment of the inquiry’s findings and an opportunity to exonerate themselves, showcasing a commitment to justice and accountability within Fiji’s legal framework.