The High Court is poised to deliver its judgment on the judicial review concerning former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali in January 2026. This significant decision follows a hearing presided over by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, during which Malimali’s legal counsel, Tanya Waqanika, contended that Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka failed to adhere to proper protocols in advising the revocation of Malimali’s appointment.
Waqanika argued that the Prime Minister’s actions denied Malimali her right to natural justice, positing that the removal was executed without constitutional grounds. She asserted that the appropriate course of action would have involved the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) considering the Commission of Inquiry report and subsequently convening a tribunal to provide a well-informed recommendation to the President regarding Malimali’s future in her role.
The legal arguments emphasized that Malimali could only face removal under specified circumstances such as inability to perform her duties or allegations of misconduct. Waqanika pointed out that the situation surrounding Malimali’s dismissal mirrored issues faced by judges, underscoring the necessity for strict adherence to established legal frameworks.
Further raising concerns, Waqanika noted historical discrepancies in treatment, highlighting that male constitutional figures have retained their positions despite undergoing similar inquiries. She argued that the Prime Minister’s view of the tribunal process for Malimali as unnecessary and costly indicated a potential bias against female officeholders.
In addition, Waqanika claimed that Malimali experienced an unlawful arrest at her workplace and pointed out that the allegations leading to her dismissal were inadequately communicated to her beforehand. Notably, she revealed that the complaint prompting the review originated from an overseas blogger, Alexander Forewood, based in Australia, questioning the validity of advancing on such claims.
The implications of Malimali’s removal extend beyond her personal circumstances; she has grappled with difficulties in securing employment and has faced significant financial and psychological challenges since the incident. Despite her dismissal, Waqanika highlighted that Malimali continued to perform her duties until the revocation, arguing for her reinstatement and contending that constitutional protocols were flouted in her case.
This legal struggle addresses not only Malimali’s plight but also raises critical questions about governance and accountability in Fiji. The ongoing court proceedings may prove essential in reassessing the independence of Fiji’s anti-corruption agency and the functioning of constitutional institutions. This case fosters hope for reforms that strengthen transparency and integrity in the nation’s governance, with the potential to reshape public trust and influence the future landscape of governance in Fiji.