The Suva High Court has recently delved into the judicial review case involving former Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Commissioner Barbara Malimali. The court is scrutinizing the legality of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s counsel to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu regarding Malimali’s dismissal. Her attorney, Tanya Waqanika, argued that the Prime Minister overstepped his constitutional authority and failed to follow required procedures in rescinding Malimali’s appointment.
At the court proceedings, led by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, Waqanika insisted that Malimali was deprived of her right to natural justice, emphasizing that any dismissal necessitates a tribunal process, especially since allegations pertaining to her appointment surfaced within the Commission of Inquiry report. She cited a disregard for the protocols outlined in both the FICAC Act and the constitution, raising essential questions about governance and accountability in Fiji.
Malimali’s suspension occurred on May 29, 2025, followed by her formal dismissal on June 2, directly based on the Prime Minister’s recommendations. Waqanika contended that this process was unconstitutional, emphasizing that the President lacked the authority to act without the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which is responsible for such assessments.
On the other hand, Deputy Solicitor General Eliesa Tuiloma and senior lawyer Simione Valenitabua, representing the government, argued that the Prime Minister’s decision was legitimate due to an alleged “constitutional paralysis” affecting the JSC. Tuiloma defended that the President exercised his prerogative powers, asserting that Malimali’s appointment was flawed from the outset due to undisclosed character issues during her application.
The circumstances surrounding Malimali’s dismissal have raised significant concerns regarding the separation of powers and the political independence of institutions like FICAC. Given the implications of this case for Fiji’s governance, there are heightened discussions about the necessity for enhanced transparency and accountability, particularly considering previous allegations associated with Malimali’s position as chair of the Electoral Commission.
Legal experts anticipate that the High Court’s decision, expected on January 23, 2026, could potentially drive institutional reforms that strengthen governance frameworks in Fiji. Many observers remain optimistic that the outcomes of this case may foster greater public trust in governmental processes and ethics, promoting a more accountable and transparent political environment.