Senior attorneys Richard Naidu and Graham Leung have expressed serious reservations about a pressing constitutional matter in Fiji, asserting that the President does not possess the authority to delay or negotiate the Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) recommendations concerning the Acting Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption. In their joint statement, they emphasized that the President’s role is strictly defined by the Constitution and does not allow for personal discretion or negotiation with constitutional bodies.
The attorneys pointed out that the JSC had recommended the termination of Ms. Rokoika’s appointment following a High Court ruling issued on February 2, 2026. This recommendation was communicated to the President on February 23. However, reports indicate that the President has opted to postpone taking action on this advice, suggesting the need to discuss compensation arrangements prior to formally revoking her appointment.
Naidu and Leung argue that this decision lacks constitutional validity. They clarified that Ms. Rokoika, who serves in an acting capacity, does not have a permanent position and therefore should not expect any compensation upon the termination of her appointment. Citing section 82 of the Constitution, they assert that there is no room for negotiation or discretion in this context.
“The President acts only on advice. If he is being advised otherwise, then he is being wrongly advised,” the lawyers stated. They acknowledged the President’s authority as head of state but stressed that all powers must be employed within the constitutional framework.
The attorneys warned of the potential consequences of failing to adhere to constitutional obligations, suggesting that such actions could undermine public confidence in democratic institutions. As the custodian of the Constitution, the President has a duty to uphold constitutional integrity. Any deviation from this responsibility could generate skepticism regarding his future decisions.
Additionally, the lawyers took issue with Ms. Rokoika’s continued presence in her role despite the High Court’s ruling, suggesting she should have resigned immediately after the ruling on February 2, which deemed her appointment unlawful. They characterized her decision to remain in office as “unbecoming and undignified” for a senior public official.
This situation highlights the vital need to maintain constitutional standards and the responsibilities of leadership in fostering public trust in governance. While challenges remain, there is optimism that addressing these concerns can lead to enhanced integrity and accountability within Fiji’s democratic framework.