The permanent stay order on the case of Fijian and British national, Charlie Charters by High Court Judge, Justice Pita Bulamainaivalu can be described as a landmark ruling for the country.
Charters was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting after allegedly helping a FICAC officer unlawfully publish confidential FICAC information.
Charters was stopped at Nadi International Airport on the morning of Saturday 21st February 2026, driven down by FICAC officers to Suva, taken to the FICAC office in the night, held in custody on Saturday and Sunday, and then charged and presented in court on Monday 23rd February.
The judge ruled today that Charters' right to remain silent was violated by FICAC, Charters' right to freedom of speech, expression, thought, opinion and publication under the 2013 Constitution including not to divulge the sources of his journalistic information was violated by FICAC, there was abuse of process by FICAC, the Commission's case on Counts 1 and 2 of aiding and abetting against Charters will inevitably or doomed to fail, and there is a conflict of interest with regard to count 2.
Justice Bulamainaivalu found that FICAC breached Charters' right to remain silent not to incriminate oneself and consult a lawyer under section 13 of the Constitution when the FICAC officers whilst detaining Charters at Nadi International Airport on 21st February 2026 failed to properly caution Charters and provide him the opportunity to consult a lawyer prior to interrogating him to divulge his journalistic sources.
It was also ruled that Charters' right to remain silent under section 13 of the Constitution must not be qualified by an incentive to divulge his sources of information to negate criminal charges.
Charters had argued that FICAC officers had acted in bad faith and improperly when they initially offered to release him provided he divulges the sources of his journalistic information, and upon Charters refusing to disclose, then coerced and subsequently charged him due to his refusal to divulge his sources of information.
FICAC had argued otherwise in the case that the FICAC officers had acted properly and in good faith
when interrogating Charters to reveal the sources of his journalistic information, but did not coerce and subsequently charge Charters for refusing to disclose such information.
Justice Bulamainaivalu said having carefully considered the counsel submissions on point and affidavits, the court finds that Charters has the right to freedom of speech, expression, thought, opinion and publication under section 17 of the Constitution and also not to divulge the sources of his journalistic information, and in the absence of any law to legitimately limit such right pursuant to section 17(3) – (4) of Constitution 2013, that right was therefore violated by FICAC.
Charters had argued that the charges against him are in retaliation to Charters posting and publishing on his facebook account information concerning FICAC, Lavi Rokoika's appointment and conduct as Acting FICAC Commissioner, her husband's access to FICAC premises, and appointment of her niece-in-law as legal officer in FICAC, which retaliatory approach constitutes a violation of his right under section 17(1) of the Constitution 2013 on freedom of speech, expression and publication.
FICAC argued otherwise that Charters' right under section 17(1) of the 2013 Constitution was not violated.
The issue of conflict of interest was also highlighted by Charters where he argued that the particulars of Count 2 mainly concern his report of Rokoika appointing her own niece-in-law, Ulamila Vakalalabure as FICAC legal officer, thus being the subject of the publication and concurrently sanctioning the prosecution of Charters.
Justice Bulamainaivalu said having carefully considered all the evidence, the court concurs with Charters' contention on conflict of interest, which is also indicative of FICAC's failure to properly and thoroughly apply the test for prosecution regarding Charters' criminal matter.
The judge found that the FICAC case against Charters will inevitably or foredoomed to fail because FICAC has failed to identify the person whom Charters allegedly aided and abetted, FICAC breached Charters' right to remain silent and not to self-incriminate, FICAC breached Charters' right to freedom of speech, expression, thought, opinion and publication under section 17 of the Constitution and also not to divulge the sources of his journalistic information.
The judge also highlighted that the particulars of the offence in Counts 1 and 2 are couched in very general and wide terms and not specific enough to allow the defence to discern which evidentiary material in the disclosure correspond to which count.
He said this also prompts the concern of whether Charters, despite pleading not guilty and with legal
counsel, did actually understand what the particulars actually meant during the plea stage, and
likelihood of succumbing to consequential prejudice to the defence.
Justice Bulamainaivalu said the test for prosecution is whether there is sufficient evidence, and if so, then whether it is in the public interest to prosecute and reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.
He said that the court is of the view that based on its findings, FICAC has not properly and thoroughly applied the test for prosecution, but hastily filed the charges against Charters and at the same time, breached Charters' constitutional rights under sections 13 and 17 of the 2013 Constitution, which are legitimate basis to even exclude other evidence which FICAC lacks.
The judge also said that the defacto officer doctrine bars the court from considering the
issues of invalidity of the Acting FICAC Commissioner's appointment
and *ultra vires* acts, which issues are justiciable on a judicial
review action pursuant to Order 53 of the High Court Rules 1988.
FICAC has 30 days to appeal the ruling.
Speaking to fijivillage News, Charlie Charters says he is delighted that the burden of this FICAC prosecution has been lifted off him.
Charters says this is a major win for journalism and it also recognizes the responsibilities that the State has to protect journalists and citizen journalists.
He says there is also a significant amount of criticism about FICAC, particularly the nature of how they brought the prosecution against him and it failed to meet the critical tests that would normally apply.
Charters says he continues to believe in Fiji and it's potential despite what he has been through in the past few months.
