‘Malimali Not Given Fair Hearing’
If no settlement is reached, the judge will deliver his ruling on the appellant's application next Monday.
Monday 14 July 2025 | 22:30
Former Fiji Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (FICAC) Commissioner, Barbara Malimali in court on July 14, 2025.
Beranadeta Nagatalevu
The former Fiji Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (FICAC) Commissioner, Barbara Malimali, was denied natural justice.
This was the main argument presented by Malimali’s lawyer, Tanya Waqanika, during yesterday’s hearing on their application seeking leave for judicial review of her termination.
Ms Malimali is taking the President of Fiji, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, the Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka and the Attorney-General’s Office to court for illegally terminating her without following due process.
Related stories
During the proceedings, Ms Waqanika argued that:
- Ms Malimali had sufficient interest in fighting this case because it deeply involved her.
- She referred to Section 112 of the 2013 Constitution where the President should have sought the Judicial Service Commission's (JSC) advice and not the Prime Minister’s.
- She argued the Prime Minister had no right whatsoever to be part of the decision making when it came to such cases.
- She said not only was she denied her right to respond. They also breached her constitutional rights.
- They argued the Commission of Inquiry (Col) Report was unlawful and sought that the recommendation be stayed pending the decision of the High Court for a judicial review.
- If JSC members were implicated, there were due processes and sanctioning and scrutiny that should’ve been followed.
State
Mr Tuiloma argued that while it acknowledged there were no specific provisions in the Constitution to explain how they implemented the report:
- The Prime Minister’s involvement came about after knowing that members of the JSC were implicated in the CoI report
- Ratu Naiqama was entitled to make decisions, especially issues concerning corruption
- It was in the best interest of the public
- The case was about the revocation of her employment and not termination, thus the application should be struck out,
- Sought court costs
After hearing both sides, the court gave both parties until close of business on Friday to confirm whether a settlement has been reached.
If no settlement is reached, the judge will deliver his ruling on the appellant’s application next Monday.
Feedback: Beranadeta@fijisun.com.fj