The High Court is set to announce its judgment on the judicial review of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali in January 2026. This decision comes after a hearing was held before Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, where Malimali’s legal representative, Tanya Waqanika, argued that Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka did not follow the appropriate procedures when he advised the revocation of her client’s position.
Waqanika asserted that the Prime Minister’s actions denied Malimali the natural justice she deserves, pointing out that the revocation of her appointment was not in accordance with the Constitution. The counsel indicated that the proper procedure would have involved the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) reviewing the Commission of Inquiry report and convening a tribunal to make an informed recommendation to the President regarding Malimali’s position.
The legal argument highlighted that Malimali could only be removed for reasons such as inability to perform her duties or misconduct, and Waqanika contended that the circumstances surrounding Malimali’s dismissal were akin to those of judges, signifying the need for strict adherence to legal guidelines.
Waqanika further noted inconsistencies, mentioning that historically, male constitutional figures retained their positions while undergoing similar inquiries, but the Prime Minister portrayed the tribunal process for Malimali as an unnecessary and costly endeavor. This suggests a disparity in the treatment of male and female officeholders regarding procedural fairness.
Additionally, Waqanika claimed that Malimali faced unlawful arrest in her office and that the allegations against her were not communicated effectively prior to her dismissal. Importantly, she emphasized that the complaint triggering the review originated from an overseas blogger, Alexander Forewood, residing in Australia, questioning the legitimacy of proceeding based on such claims.
The narrative outlines the profound impact of Malimali’s removal, as she has struggled to secure employment and has endured financial and psychological distress due to the situation. Despite her dismissal, Waqanika stressed that Malimali continued fulfilling her duties until her position was revoked and argued for her reinstatement, stating that constitutional protocols were not observed in her case.
This legal battle not only serves to address Malimali’s personal dilemma but also touches on broader themes of governance and accountability within Fiji. The ongoing proceedings could be pivotal in reassessing the autonomy of Fiji’s anti-corruption body and the roles of constitutional institutions, fostering the hope for needed reforms that enhance transparency and integrity in the nation’s governance system. As the case unfolds, the judicial review holds potential implications for public trust and the future landscape of governance in Fiji.