‘Gaps’ in Constitution undermine anti-corruption work, says FICAC

The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has made a formal submission to the Constitution Review Commission, raising concerns about gaps in the country’s legal framework.

Acting Commissioner Lavi Rokoika said current constitutional provisions do not clearly define FICAC’s role in dealing with corruption.

She pointed to Sections 115 and 117 of the Constitution, which establish both FICAC and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). She said the two offices are placed on equal footing, with similar powers to start, transfer, and stop legal proceedings.

However, Ms Rokoika said the Constitution fails to clearly state that FICAC’s work should focus specifically on corruption.

“The problem with the current provision is that it does not specifically focus on corrupt actions,” she said.

She explained that both offices are described in general terms, dealing with offences and legal proceedings, but without clearly separating FICAC’s anti-corruption mandate.

“This is the first gap that we have identified,” she said.

She also raised concerns about independence. While both offices appear similar in the Constitution, she said their actual level of independence differs.

The DPP’s independence is clearly protected under the Constitution. In contrast, FICAC’s operations are partly governed by the FICAC Act 2007, which includes provisions requiring the commission to report to the Attorney-General.

Ms Rokoika said this weakens FICAC’s independence.

“There is no equivalent requirement for the DPP,” she said.

She added that differences also exist in how appointments are handled. The Constitution clearly outlines how the DPP is appointed, but does not provide the same detail for FICAC.

The DPP’s office also allows for acting appointments, while FICAC does not have a similar provision.

Ms Rokoika said these gaps need to be addressed to strengthen the commission’s role and ensure it can effectively tackle corruption.