[Photo: LITIA CAVA]

The Attorney-General’s Office has told the High Court that the Commission of Inquiry into recent government appointments should not be struck down over timing issues.

They argued that the law allows flexibility in how commissions operate.

Deputy Solicitor-General Eliesa Tuiloma, leading submissions with three co-counsel, said the Commission of Inquiry Act does not expressly prohibit extensions.

He says the President has the authority to set and adjust terms, including reporting timelines.

The State argued that the key issue is not legality but interpretation. It maintained that Section 3 of the Act allows variation of a commission’s terms and that this can include timeframes for reporting.

Counsel also distinguished the case from the Vatukoula goldmine ruling. They said that in that matter, an official had acted without proper authority, while in the current case, any extensions were signed by the President himself.

The State further relied on the de facto doctrine, arguing it did not apply because there was no clear evidence that the Commissioner acted in defiance of the law. It said the work continued under valid presidential authority.

On remedies, the State submitted that even if procedural flaws are found, the court should not nullify the entire report. Instead, it said declarations on fairness or procedural breaches would be more appropriate than striking out findings.

High Court judge Justice Dane Tuiqereqere questioned aspects of the legal reasoning during submissions and sought clarification on how the statutory provisions should be interpreted.

The court also heard arguments on whether invalidating the report would be too drastic a remedy, given the stage the inquiry had reached.

The hearing will continue as the High Court considers submissions on both the legality of the Commission of Inquiry’s actions and the appropriate remedies, if any, to be granted.

The hearing will resume this morning in the Suva High Court at 10am this morning.