The Suva High Court recently examined the judicial review case concerning former Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Commissioner Barbara Malimali, emphasizing the legality of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s advice to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu regarding her dismissal. Malimali’s lawyer, Tanya Waqanika, argued that the Prime Minister acted outside his constitutional authority and that the necessary procedures were not adhered to in revoking her appointment.
During the court session, presided over by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, Waqanika contended that Malimali was denied her right to natural justice and that any dismissal should involve a tribunal process, particularly when allegations related to her appointment were referenced in the Commission of Inquiry report. She highlighted that proper protocols stipulated in the FICAC Act and the constitution were not followed, which has raised significant governance and accountability questions.
Malimali was initially suspended on May 29, 2025, and her formal dismissal followed on June 2, based directly on Rabuka’s advice. Waqanika argued that such a dismissal only on the Prime Minister’s recommendation is unconstitutional, asserting that the President did not have the authority to act independently of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which is mandated to conduct such reviews.
Conversely, Deputy Solicitor General Eliesa Tuiloma and senior lawyer Simione Valenitabua, representing the government, maintained that the Prime Minister’s actions were valid under exceptional circumstances due to a claimed “constitutional paralysis” of the JSC. Tuiloma posited that the President used his prerogative powers, asserting that Malimali’s appointment was flawed from the start based on undisclosed character issues during her application process.
The situation surrounding Malimali’s dismissal has also drawn attention to the separation of powers, particularly concerning the independence of institutions like FICAC from political influences. The case is expected to have broader implications for governance in Fiji, echoing concerns about transparency and accountability, especially in light of past allegations linked to Malimali’s role as chair of the Electoral Commission.
Legal experts suggest that the High Court’s decision, due on January 23, 2026, could act as a catalyst for institutional reforms aimed at strengthening governance frameworks within the country. Observers remain hopeful that the outcomes may enhance public trust in government processes and ethics, contributing to a more accountable and transparent political landscape in Fiji.