Waqanika Seeks Cross-Examination of President and Prime Minister in Malimali Case

Waqanika Seeks to Cross-Examine President and Prime Minister in Malimali Judicial Review

Suva, Fiji – Tanya waqanika, the lawyer representing former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, has formally requested the High Court’s permission to cross-examine both the President and the Prime Minister. The request stems from Malimali’s ongoing judicial review case concerning her dismissal.

Malimali is challenging decisions made by President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, and the Attorney General. Central to the challenge are two Commission of Inquiry reports,dated May 1st and May 14th,which Waqanika stated were the basis for Malimali’s suspension.

Waqanika is seeking access to these specific reports for her client’s case.These documents are crucial as they apparently led to Malimali’s removal from her position as FICAC Commissioner.

During a hearing before Suva High Court Judge Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, Waqanika was instructed to file a formal affidavit outlining her request. The Deputy Solicitor general, Eliesa Tuiloma, informed the court that the Commission of Inquiry report is publicly available on the goverment website.

Tuiloma also assured the court that the government would disclose all relevant matters pertaining to the case. This indicates a commitment to clarity in the proceedings.

The judicial review application specifically targets the President’s exercise of power in terminating Malimali’s appointment. This action was reportedly taken based on advice received from Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Malimali’s legal team argues that the President may not have possessed the constitutional authority to dismiss her solely on the Prime Minister’s counsel. This legal argument questions the constitutional validity of her dismissal process.

Prime Minister Rabuka had initially announced Malimali’s suspension. He later confirmed her dismissal, stating that it followed his recommendation to the President.

The matter has been adjourned until September 8th.The definitive hearing date will be set following this upcoming mention.

Frequently Asked questions

• Who is requesting to cross-examine the President and Prime Minister?

  Tanya Waqanika, the lawyer for former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, is requesting the cross-examination.

• What is the basis of the judicial review case?

  The judicial review is based on Malimali’s dismissal as FICAC Commissioner, challenging the powers exercised by the President and the advice from the Prime Minister.

• Which reports are central to Malimali’s case?

  Two Commission of Inquiry reports, dated May 1st and May 14th, are central to the case as they reportedly led to Malimali’s suspension.

• What is the legal argument regarding Malimali’s dismissal?

  Malimali’s legal argument suggests the President may not have had the constitutional authority to dismiss her solely on the prime Minister’s advice.

• Where is the Commission of inquiry report available?

  The Deputy Solicitor General stated that the Commission of Inquiry report is available on the government website.

• When is the next court date for this case?

  The matter has been adjourned to September 8th,with the hearing date to be set thereafter.

What are your thoughts on this legal challenge? Share your comments below and let us know if you think the President and prime Minister should be cross-examined.

What specific evidence does Waqanika’s legal team intend to present during cross-examination to challenge the government’s narrative regarding the Malimali project’s intent?

The Demand for Direct Testimony: A Legal Breakdown

Waqanika, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the ongoing Malimali case, has formally requested the right to cross-examine both the President and the Prime Minister. This move, announced on July 27th, 2025, represents a important escalation in the high-profile legal battle concerning alleged governmental misconduct related to the Malimali land progress project. The request centers around claims of direct involvement and knowledge held by the nation’s top leaders regarding decisions that allegedly led to significant financial losses and displacement of local communities.

This development is being closely watched by legal experts, political analysts, and the public alike, as it raises questions about executive privilege, accountability, and the potential for a constitutional crisis. Key terms driving search interest include “malimali case update,” “President cross-examination,” and “Prime Minister legal challenge.”

Core Arguments for Cross-Examination

Waqanika’s legal team argues that direct testimony from the President and Prime Minister is crucial for several reasons:

Establishing Direct Knowledge: The plaintiffs contend that both leaders were actively briefed on the risks associated with the Malimali project and approved key decisions despite warnings from advisors. Cross-examination aims to establish this direct knowledge and intent.

Challenging Official Narratives: The government has maintained that the Malimali project was undertaken in good faith and with the best interests of the nation at heart. Waqanika seeks to challenge this narrative by presenting evidence suggesting deliberate negligence or even malfeasance.

uncovering Potential Conflicts of Interest: Allegations of potential conflicts of interest involving close associates of the President and Prime Minister and the developers of the Malimali project are central to the case. direct questioning could shed light on these connections.

Accountability and Transparency: The plaintiffs believe that holding the highest-ranking officials accountable for their actions is essential for restoring public trust and ensuring transparency in government.

government Response and Legal Hurdles

The government has strongly opposed the request, citing concerns about executive privilege and the potential disruption to the functioning of the executive branch. The Attorney General’s office released a statement arguing that compelling the President and prime Minister to testify would set a perilous precedent and undermine the separation of powers.

Several legal hurdles stand in Waqanika’s path:

1. Executive Privilege Claims: The government is expected to invoke executive privilege to shield sensitive details and protect the confidentiality of presidential and prime ministerial communications.
2. Immunity from Suit: Arguments regarding immunity from suit,notably while in office,will likely be raised. The extent of this immunity is a complex legal question.
3. Relevance and Necessity: The court will need to determine whether the testimony of the President and Prime Minister is genuinely relevant and necessary to the resolution of the case. Waqanika must demonstrate that other sources of information are insufficient.
4. Potential for Political Interference: Concerns about the potential for political interference in the judicial process are also being voiced.

Related searches include “executive privilege definition,” “immunity for heads of state,” and “Malimali project timeline.”

The Malimali Case: A Brief Overview

The Malimali case revolves around a large-scale land development project initiated in 2022. The project aimed to create a new economic zone, but it was plagued by allegations of corruption, environmental damage, and the forced displacement of local communities. Plaintiffs claim that the project was poorly planned, lacked proper environmental impact assessments, and was awarded to developers with questionable credentials. Financial irregularities and inflated contract values are also key points of contention.

The case has already seen numerous delays and legal challenges. previous attempts to obtain documents related to the project were met with resistance from the government. The current request for cross-examination represents a new and perhaps decisive phase in the legal proceedings.

Potential Implications and Future outlook

the outcome of this request could have far-reaching implications:

Precedent Setting: allowing cross-examination of the President and Prime Minister would establish a significant precedent for holding high-ranking officials accountable.

Political Fallout: Regardless of the outcome, the case is highly likely to have significant political fallout, potentially leading to calls for resignations or even impeachment proceedings.

Impact on Foreign Investment: The controversy surrounding the Malimali project could deter foreign investment and damage the nation’s reputation.

Strengthening of Legal Oversight: A successful challenge to executive privilege could strengthen the role of the judiciary in overseeing the actions of the executive branch.

The court is expected to rule on Waqanika’s request within the next two weeks. The ruling will be closely monitored by legal scholars, political observers, and the public, as it could shape the future of accountability and transparency in government. Ongoing keywords include “Malimali case ruling,” “political accountability,” and “government transparency.”