Fiji Chief Justice Salesi Temo publicly criticized the legal advice given to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu regarding the extension of a Commission of Inquiry into former FICAC commissioner Barbara Malimali, labeling the outcome a waste of public money because advisers failed to properly examine statutory power limits under the Commission of Inquiry Act.
Administrative overreach rarely happens in a vacuum. Often, it stems from a quieter administrative failure: bad legal homework. Earlier this week, that exact dynamic spilled into the public eye in Suva, shaking confidence in how high-profile government inquiries are structured and executed.
A Flawed Extension and a High Court Rebuke
The controversy centers on the legal mechanisms used to probe the appointment of Barbara Malimali to head the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). According to reporting by The Fiji Times and Fijivillage, the trouble began when the executive branch attempted to stretch the lifespan of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) past its lawful boundaries.
Chief Justice Temo laid the blame squarely on the legal teams retained for the task. Speaking directly to newly admitted lawyers, he pointed out that overseas-hired counsel failed to read the Commission of Inquiry Act properly. They did not realize that the President lacked the statutory authority to extend the inquiry’s timeline.
Here is why that matters for institutional integrity. When foundational legal steps are missed, entire state-backed investigations crumble. In a subsequent High Court judgment delivered by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, the extension was ruled ultra vires—beyond the legal power or authority of the office—and rendered null and void. Justice Tuiqereqere further concluded that the inquiry had been tainted by bias and breached natural justice, wiping out its formal findings.
Fixing Accountability at the Source
Chief Justice Temo drew a sharp line between political principals and their legal counselors. The Chief Justice emphasized that responsibility for procedural defects rests entirely with the advisers rather than the public officials who rely on them.
“Lawyers were hired from overseas and they didn’t read the COI Act properly to show that His Excellency the President doesn’t have the power to extend it,” Temo told the new practitioners. He urged young lawyers to dig deeper into statutory parameters, noting that the ultimate loss in this miscalculation was straightforward: money wasted.
Despite the legal framework collapsing under judicial review, Justice Tuiqereqere noted in his ruling that the process had still managed to serve its broader purpose. The inquiry brought to light serious concerns regarding Ms. Malimali’s suitability for the FICAC post, highlighting an active criminal investigation and an incident in Tuvalu. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Temo—who also chairs the Judicial Service Commission—declined to comment separately on the aspects of the judgment questioning the appointment itself, directing those specific inquiries back to Justice Tuiqereqere’s written verdict.
The Macro-Economic Ripple Effects of Procedural Missteps
While the immediate fallout remains confined to Fiji’s domestic judicial and political apparatus, botched public inquiries carry consequences. When public funds are funneled into legally defective overseas advisories that yield nullified outcomes, it signals vulnerabilities in institutional risk management.
| Element | Detail / Authority | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Central Figure | Barbara Malimali (Former FICAC Commissioner) | Subject of the disputed appointment inquiry |
| Key Judicial Figure | Chief Justice Salesi Temo | Criticized legal advice and oversight failures |
| High Court Ruling | Justice Dane Tuiqereqere | Ruled the COI extension ultra vires and void |
| Core Statutory Flaw | Commission of Inquiry Act limits | President lacked legal power to extend the inquiry |
As multiple matters stemming from the inquiry continue to navigate the legal system—with police having already forwarded related case files to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions—the broader lesson for legal practitioners is stark. Thorough due diligence is a vital safeguard for state resources and public trust.
Ultimately, this episode serves as a reminder. When the architects of state inquiries fail to read the fine print, the public pays the price. The debate in Suva has only just begun.
