[Source: File]

Former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali was condemned without warning and denied a chance to defend herself before losing her post.

This, according to her counsel, Tanya Waqanika.

She said the Commission of Inquiry issued severe findings on integrity and alleged misconduct without notice.

Waqanika argued those conclusions were never put to her client during the hearings. Yet they formed the basis for her removal and lasting reputational damage.

She also told the High Court that the process had shut Malimali out at critical stages and failed to give her a fair hearing.

According to Waqanika, the inquiry strayed beyond its mandate. The terms of reference dealt with the appointment process, not Malimali’s fitness for office. Still, the report declared her appointment unlawful and painted her as unfit. She said that the leap went beyond what the inquiry was allowed to do.

She also pointed to a sharp shift in tone. During proceedings, Waqanika said the Commissioner expressed confidence in Malimali’s honesty. The final report accused her of deception and misconduct. She said that the reversal came without warning or a chance to respond.

The court heard Malimali and her lawyers were shut out of key evidence. They were excluded from parts of the hearings and could not test witness claims. Others, with no direct role in the appointment, were allowed to question witnesses.

Waqanika said the process was uneven and flawed. Her client had little time to prepare and received material in fragments. She was not given the report before it was released. By the time it surfaced publicly, the damage had already spread.

She also challenged the legal footing of the inquiry. Parts of the terms cited in the report were never gazetted, she said. That raised doubts about the scope and authority of the findings.

The court was told the fallout was immediate. Malimali lost her job and faced scrutiny based on claims she could not answer. Waqanika said the process carried the weight of a final verdict without meeting basic standards of fairness.

Malimali and the other applicants are seeking to strike out the COI findings and recommendations, arguing they stem from a process that fell short of the law.

The hearing submissions on this case continue before High Court judge Justice Dane Tuiqereqere in the Suva High Court.