Law Society calls on Justice Ashton-Lewis to resign as Supreme Court Judge or face disciplinary action

The Fiji Law Society is today calling on Justice David Ashton-Lewis to resign from the Supreme Court of Fiji or face disciplinary action.

President of the Fiji Society, Wylie Clarke says the interview Justice Ashton-Lewis, the former Commissioner of Inquiry, gave to a Queensland radio station, in which he discussed a number of confidential COI matters, has now compromised both the COI and his judicial office.

Clarke says considerable time and money believed to run into the millions of dollars has been spent on the COI.

He says the post-COI process has descended into chaos.

Clarke adds those persons (according to the Commissioner himself, nine) criticised in the COI Report have had no access to the COI Report and its findings, so they cannot defend themselves from what it says.

He says Justice Ashton-Lewis is openly suggesting that the withholding of the COI Report by the Government, including against persons affected by it, is on his own advice.

The Law Society President says that advice is contrary to section 16 of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji which guarantees executive and administrative justice, the right to procedural fairness, to everyone.

He says elements of the COI Report, including videos of COI witness evidence and affidavits, are now appearing selectively on social media as a result of leaks to individuals who are critics of key officials.

Clarke says we are now beyond the point where there is any sense in keeping the COI Report from the public.

He stresses it should be released so everyone has the same information and those criticised in it know what they are accused of and can respond.

Clarke says the Fiji Law Society has, in the past, been prepared to challenge and take to court questions of the suitability and qualifications of judicial officers.

He says if necessary, it will do so again.

Clarke says the reason that Commissions of Inquiry are, all over the world, entrusted to senior judges is because those judges are seen to have the competence, independence and temperament to manage an inquiry process and make well-founded findings of fact based on that process.

He says in this case, the COI, in the middle of its process, undertook an unprecedented and undignified attack on Malimali, the subject of the inquiry, in order to have her suspended from office insisting, clearly incorrectly, that it could not continue its work without her suspension.

Clarke says Justice Ashton-Lewis, who is bound by section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1946 to swear an oath to preserve the confidentiality of the COI, its proceedings and his opinions, seems to have completely disregarded his legal obligations.

He adds having demanded that all those appearing before him maintain absolute confidentiality, Justice Ashton-Lewis appears to have no problem disregarding his own rules.

Clarke says Justice Ashton-Lewis has mischaracterised the facts in broad and prejudicial statements, claiming, for example, that Malimali had been “universally seen as corrupt” at the time of her appointment.

He says there is no evidence for such a strong statement.

Clarke says by his own admission, Justice Ashton-Lewis appears to be actively advising the Prime Minister on implementation of the COI report, including on how to “cut the ground” from under those he sees as the Prime Minister’s opponents.

Clarke says Justice Ashton-Lewis suggests that he is doing the Prime Minister’s bidding by revealing to him “the crocodiles in the pond” yet the Prime Minister himself was a witness in the COI and potentially the subject of findings (positive or negative).

He adds Justice Ashton-Lewis appears to express his direct political support for the Prime Minister, including defending him from attack from a “wannabe Prime Minister” and declaring that the Prime Minister is committed to the rule of his law, in contrast to his “enemies.”

The Fiji Law Society President says Justice Ashton-Lewis seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of essential facts, including Fiji’s current membership of the Commonwealth.

Clarke says Justice Ashton-Lewis suggests that he has been “quietly” told that he will receive more inquiry work.

He says none of these statements or actions is appropriate for a Judge of the Supreme Court of Fiji.

Clarke stresses that judges at every level of Fiji’s court system are expected to be politically independent, and they are expected to exercise careful discretion to comment on the matters in which they are involved either in the most neutral and sensitive terms, or (in most cases) not at all.

He says Justice Ashton-Lewis’s intemperate comments, including his many references to his engagement with the Prime Minister, suggest he does not understand his role either as a Supreme Court judge or a Commissioner.

Clarke says independence from the Government and from political actors is a fundamental requirement for any judge.

He stresses that in view of his comments, no one appearing before a Supreme Court bench on which Justice Ashton-Lewis sits can be confident that the Supreme Court will look fairly and independently at any legal issue without a political element.