The Fijian government is currently in negotiations regarding a confidential agreement with Chief Justice Salesi Temo, who has faced serious allegations of corruption stemming from a Commission of Inquiry (COI) conducted last year. The inquiry, led by Australian Judge David Ashton-Lewis, implicated Temo along with ten others, including government officials and legal practitioners, who were found to have allegedly lied under oath and obstructed justice.
Amidst these allegations, public prosecutors recently dismissed all 12 police investigations linked to the COI due to a lack of sufficient evidence. Temo’s legal representative, Isireli Fa, criticized the COI’s findings as “defamatory and baseless,” asserting that the settlement discussions are not focused on financial compensation but rather on minimizing conflict between different branches of the government. Fa emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of both the Judiciary and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).
The inquiry’s focus on Barbara Malimali, the former head of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), has drawn significant public and judicial scrutiny. Judge Ashton-Lewis termed Malimali as “universally corrupt,” claiming she was manipulated by corrupt government officials. Following this, she faced suspension before her original appointment was rescinded. Although she was subsequently cleared of abuse of office allegations, her reputation has taken a considerable hit due to the public remarks made during the inquiry.
Concerns regarding the COI’s proceedings led the JSC to file for a judicial review in the Suva High Court. Fa indicated that the JSC disputes the validity of the COI’s findings and their influence on reputational damage, arguing that the inquiry did not adhere to principles of natural justice—particularly that individuals should be informed in advance of any findings that could affect their reputation.
While the government strives to resolve these contentious issues, it faces criticism. The Fiji Labour Party has voiced its strong opposition to any private settlement, labeling the confidentiality of such an agreement as “repugnant.”
In a broader sense, the fallout from the inquiry illustrates ongoing challenges within Fiji’s political and judicial systems as it navigates issues of accountability and reform. The potential for a confidential resolution may offer a path to averting further litigation, yet it has equally sparked debate over transparency and public trust in the judicial process.