High Court flags Commissioner's public statements, quashes inquiry findings

Fiji's High Court has raised significant concerns regarding the conduct and public statements made by a Commissioner of Inquiry, deeming them to have created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Justice Dane Tuiqereqere stated that the Commissioner's remarks, both during and after the inquiry, exceeded the impartiality expected of such a role.

“

the Commissioner’s statements during the inquiry, and comments made after the report was completed, went beyond what could be expected from someone required to approach the process with an open and impartial mind.

The judge highlighted several strong statements from the Commissioner, including a call in the Executive Summary to "clean out" individuals allegedly operating in the shadows to control FICAC. The Commissioner also expressed damaged confidence in Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka for a perceived failure to act decisively on recommendations. These statements, viewed alongside the report's content, led the court to believe a fair-minded observer could conclude the Commissioner suspected interference and sought to identify those responsible.

“

cleaning out” people he alleged had worked in the shadows to gain control of FICAC.

Justice Tuiqereqere rejected the argument that the Commission's report was merely advisory, noting its severe consequences for applicants' reputations and careers. Consequently, the court quashed all adverse findings and recommendations from the May 1, 2025 report, declaring it null and void. However, the judge acknowledged the inquiry served a useful purpose, validating some concerns about Barbara Malimali's appointment, including issues related to Tuvalu and an active FICAC investigation against her at the time.

“

his confidence in Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had been damaged by what he viewed as a failure to act decisively.

The High Court will address damages and costs separately. The ruling underscores the critical importance of procedural fairness and impartiality in commission inquiries, particularly when they carry significant professional and reputational consequences for individuals.

“

the adverse findings had real and severe consequences for the applicants, particularly in terms of their reputations and professional careers.