The Judicial Services Commission now faces a significant task following the High Court’s ruling on the legality of the removal of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Justice Dane Tuiqereqere ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to the President to revoke Malimali’s appointment was unlawful. However, the Judge refrained from making any orders regarding her reinstatement, or for general or special damages.

In his ruling, Justice Tuiqereqere stated that the question of Malimali’s reinstatement is a matter for the Judicial Services Commission to consider and determine.

This also includes addressing the appointment of Lavi Rokoika as Acting Commissioner.

The Judge further stated that he would not make any award for general or special damages at this stage.

He noted that the JSC’s decision on the status of Malimali’s position will determine what, if any, loss of income she may have suffered from June 2, 2025.

The Suva High Court has also ordered the respondents to pay Malimali costs of $7,500, to be paid within 28 days.

Malimali was removed from office in June last year following advice from the Prime Minister to the President to revoke her appointment.

This came after a Commission of Inquiry into her appointment concluded that she was unsuitable for the position.

In summary, the Commission of Inquiry found that there was an active investigation involving Malimali and that the complaints against her had merit.

It also noted that she had been involved in what was described as a serious issue relating to an inappropriate encounter in Tuvalu in 2016. That matter was the subject of a decision by an appellate court in Tuvalu, which made adverse findings.

As a result of the 2016 incident, Malimali was declined a practising certificate in Tuvalu in March 2017. The Commission of Inquiry further found that she had failed to fully and properly disclose that she had been barred from practising overseas.

The Inquiry also stated that her appointment was influenced by political and other interests.

Justice Tuiqereqere, in ruling in favour of Malimali, stated that the Judicial Services Commission was capable of considering the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and making its own decision on whether to recommend to the President the revocation of her appointment, or to take any other course of action it considered appropriate.

He noted that the JSC comprises five members. While the Commission of Inquiry was critical of two members, three were not subject to criticism. Pursuant to Section 104 of the Constitution, a quorum for a JSC meeting consists of the Chairperson and two members.

Justice Tuiqereqere stated that the JSC could have addressed the Inquiry’s criticisms by convening a meeting to consider the possible revocation of Malimali’s appointment, and any members with alleged conflicts could have recused themselves.

Malimali had argued that the Prime Minister did not act reasonably in relying on the findings and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Stream the best of Fiji on VITI+. Anytime. Anywhere.