FICAC says it decided to refer the investigation file to Police in relation to two former FICAC officers as the alleged principal disclosers of Commission information on July 1st this year.
The Commission says it referred the matter and its investigation file to the Fiji Police Force for independent review.
It says it was not a step taken in response to the court ruling regarding Charlie Charters.
FICAC has since written to the Chief Registrar and provided the 1st July 2026 letter that explains the basis of the referral so the correct factual position may be placed before the Court.
The Commission says once former officers of the Commission had been identified, FICAC considered that it was appropriate for the investigation file to be independently reviewed outside the Commission.
The file was therefore referred to the Commissioner of Police to independently review the evidence, the investigation undertaken to date and determine the appropriate course thereafter.
FICAC says the referral occurred on 1st July 2026, before the High Court delivered its ruling on 24th July 2026.
Meanwhile High Court Judge, Justice Pita Bulamainaivalu said the court is highly concerned as to the deliberate circumvention and consequential violation of sections 54 and 55(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act rendering the transfer of a FICAC criminal case to police prosecution as an ultra vires act or unlawful act.
Despite the High Court ruling for the release of Fijian and British national, Charlie Charters' 7 devices after a permanent stay on the FICAC proceedings against Charters, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Nancy Tikoisuva highlighted in Charters' case of the release of the devices that FICAC had transferred the criminal case against former FICAC officers to police prosecution bypassing the ODPP.
This was highlighted in Justice Bulamainaivalu's judgement, where he ordered for the Police to immediately return the devices to Charters.
Tikoisuva has highlighted that the transfer of the case by FICAC to police prosecution bypassing the Office of the DPP is directly in violation of sections 54 and 55(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 which state that every police officer lawfully conducting a prosecution and every public prosecutor appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions shall be subject to the directions of the DPP, and the DPP and the Commissioner of FICAC may at any time transfer to each other the conduct of any prosecution at any time before the close of the prosecution case.
Justice Bulamainaivalu has highlighted that in such a case the public prosecutor or FICAC prosecutor as the case may be, is deemed to have been appointed by the DPP or Commissioner of FICAC to prosecute.
