Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka's lawyer, Simione Valenitabua stresses that they maintain the procedural obligations of an independent inquiry; including the affording of natural justice, rest exclusively with the Commissioner conducting a Commission of Inquiry, and that their client and President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, should not, act as appellate reviewers of an independent Commission's internal procedures.
While speaking on the High Court ruling by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, Valenitabua says their client and the Executive hold a constitutional duty to transparently release commissioned reports of high national interest to the public.
He says their client's lawful decision to advise and/or publish the COI Report in their view does not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.
The lawyer says their client, Rabuka's successful defence of the establishment of the COI was personally funded, and they anticipate the status quo not to change for his appeal.
He reveals that they will seek to separate the Prime Minister's lawful executive actions from the procedural missteps of the independent Commission.
Valenitabua says they will firmly defend the constitutional principle that the Executive is not legally responsible for curing the procedural defects of an independent commission prior to publication.
He adds over the past few days, certain public narratives have mischaracterised the High Court's decision as a complete vindication for the applicants.
Valenitabua says their client, Rabuka has firmly rejected claims that the Commission of Inquiry was a waste of public funds and has urged the public to read the comprehensive judgement in its entirety before drawing conclusions.
He says a careful reading of the judgement reveals that while the High Court quashed the COI Report into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner on procedural and technical grounds (which they disagree with); specifically relating to the expiry of the Commission's timeframe and the Commissioner's internal procedures, the Court explicitly validated the foundational concerns of the Executive that led to the establishment of the independent COI.
The lawyer says in the final section of the judgement, Justice Tuiqereqere stepped away from analysing the Commission's procedures and delivered his own definitive judicial conclusions on the necessity of the inquiry and the severe impropriety of the underlying appointment.
He says the High Court judgement stated that the inquiry was justified and necessary, the work done by FICAC is vital to the economic and social integrity (and wellbeing) of Fiji, the appointment of the Commissioner is critical to its success and for this reason alone, the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry into Malimali's appointment in October 2024 served a useful purpose and the Commission of Inquiry Report dated 1st May 2025 made some valid points about the appointment process, the circumstances of the Tuvalu issue were relevant to Malimali's suitability for the position as was the fact of the live FICAC investigation into Malimali at the time of her appointment, these matters were required to be disclosed to the Judicial Services Commission, and that it was not appropriate for Malimali to be appointed Commissioner while an active criminal investigation against her was pending.
Valenitabua says these judicial findings completely dismantle any assertion that the COI was a baseless political exercise.
Valenitabua says Justice Tuiqereqere concluded that because the COI Commissioner failed to provide notice of his draft adverse findings, the duty fell upon the Prime Minister and the President to afford the applicants as subjects of the adverse findings, an opportunity to respond before releasing the report to the public.
He says as legal practitioners for Rabuka, the Prime Minister of Fiji, they assert with the greatest of respect to the court, that this is a fundamental error of law.
Valenitabua says their targeted appeal to the Fiji Court of Appeal (to be filed and served after the High Court's determination of costs and damages) will aggressively challenge these specific findings inter alia based on their legal positions.
