In July, the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC) quietly brushed off a serious complaint against Acting Fiji Corrections Service Commissioner Sevuloni Naucukidi, issuing nothing more than a “warning letter” after deliberating on allegations of misconduct.
Yet, just weeks later, police have formally charged him over the very same incident, forcing Naucukidi to withdraw from an official trip to New Zealand. The episode exposes the COC’s feeble disciplinary culture, raises disturbing questions about institutional accountability, and confirms what critics have long argued: Fiji’s oversight bodies exist to protect insiders, not the public.
Yet, just weeks later, police have formally charged him over the very same incident, forcing Naucukidi to withdraw from an official trip to New Zealand. The episode exposes the COC’s feeble disciplinary culture, raises disturbing questions about institutional accountability, and confirms what critics have long argued: Fiji’s oversight bodies exist to protect insiders, not the public.
 LEGAL CONTEXT: COC’S DUTY TO ACT Under Section 135 of the 2013 Constitution, the Constitutional Offices Commission exists to “advise the President on appointments, suspensions, and removals” of key constitutional office holders, including the Commissioner of Fiji Corrections Service. The Constitutional Offices (Commission) Act 2013 reinforces this by requiring the Commission to ensure that all office-holders “maintain the highest standards of integrity, competence and conduct.” |  |
A complaint alleging misconduct, particularly conduct that could constitute a criminal offence, triggers a positive duty on the Commission to conduct a rigorous investigation, and where necessary, to recommend suspension pending the outcome of criminal or disciplinary proceedings. Anything less risks breaching the principle of legality and undermining the rule of law.
The Commission’s letter dated 25 September 2025, however, shows none of that seriousness. It blandly records that the Commission “deliberated” on the complaint and decided that a warning letter was sufficient. There is no reference to an investigation, no referral to police, and no sign that the Commission even considered whether Naucukidi should be suspended pending further action.
We understand his alleged victim was not invited to provide a formal statement nor the video recording (which we have on us) was taken into account when the COC decided to give Naucukidi a "gentle, soft slap on the wrist".
From Warning to Charges: A Systemic Failure.
The gravity of the Commission’s failure is underscored by what happened next. Weeks after its decision, the Fiji Police Force formally charged Naucukidi, a development that has forced him to withdraw from a planned official trip to New Zealand and cast a long shadow over the credibility of the Fiji Corrections Service.
This stark divergence between the COC’s response and the police’s assessment of the same incident reveals three deeply troubling possibilities:
Any one of these scenarios represents a profound failure of constitutional oversight.
Implications for Rule of Law
The consequences extend beyond one office-holder. The COC’s handling of this complaint undermines the principle of equality before the law, a bedrock of constitutional democracy. It sends a corrosive message that senior officials are treated differently from ordinary citizens, that misconduct in high office can be resolved with a letter, and that accountability is optional for those at the top.
It also risks contaminating ongoing and future prosecutions. Defence lawyers may well argue that the COC’s prior decision not to suspend or investigate amounts to official endorsement of the Commissioner’s conduct, a point that could complicate judicial proceedings and erode public confidence in the outcome.
COC's Credibility in Tatters
What Fiji is witnessing is not an isolated misstep but part of a broader culture of impunity within our constitutional watchdog institutions. The Constitutional Offices Commission has transformed from a guardian of accountability into a gatekeeper for the powerful.
A “warning letter” for conduct now deemed criminal is not merely inadequate. It is institutional complicity. It reflects a Commission that has forgotten its constitutional purpose and prioritised political convenience over public duty.
This scandal must now become a catalyst for reform. Parliament should immediately review the COC’s decision-making standards and consider statutory amendments to require mandatory suspension where criminal conduct is alleged.
The public, too, must demand transparency: the contents of the complaint, the Commission’s reasoning, and any legal advice it relied upon should all be disclosed.
Until that happens, one uncomfortable truth remains: Fiji’s constitutional safeguards are being dismantled from within.
The Commission’s letter dated 25 September 2025, however, shows none of that seriousness. It blandly records that the Commission “deliberated” on the complaint and decided that a warning letter was sufficient. There is no reference to an investigation, no referral to police, and no sign that the Commission even considered whether Naucukidi should be suspended pending further action.
We understand his alleged victim was not invited to provide a formal statement nor the video recording (which we have on us) was taken into account when the COC decided to give Naucukidi a "gentle, soft slap on the wrist".
From Warning to Charges: A Systemic Failure.
The gravity of the Commission’s failure is underscored by what happened next. Weeks after its decision, the Fiji Police Force formally charged Naucukidi, a development that has forced him to withdraw from a planned official trip to New Zealand and cast a long shadow over the credibility of the Fiji Corrections Service.
This stark divergence between the COC’s response and the police’s assessment of the same incident reveals three deeply troubling possibilities:
- Gross Negligence: The Commission failed to obtain or consider key evidence that law enforcement later uncovered - evidence serious enough to justify criminal charges.
- Deliberate Protection: The Commission had access to the facts but chose to allegedly shield a politically favoured appointee from proper scrutiny.
- Institutional Paralysis: The Commission was unwilling to exercise its constitutional power to suspend or refer, preferring instead to issue a token reprimand and hope the matter disappeared.
Any one of these scenarios represents a profound failure of constitutional oversight.
Implications for Rule of Law
The consequences extend beyond one office-holder. The COC’s handling of this complaint undermines the principle of equality before the law, a bedrock of constitutional democracy. It sends a corrosive message that senior officials are treated differently from ordinary citizens, that misconduct in high office can be resolved with a letter, and that accountability is optional for those at the top.
It also risks contaminating ongoing and future prosecutions. Defence lawyers may well argue that the COC’s prior decision not to suspend or investigate amounts to official endorsement of the Commissioner’s conduct, a point that could complicate judicial proceedings and erode public confidence in the outcome.
COC's Credibility in Tatters
What Fiji is witnessing is not an isolated misstep but part of a broader culture of impunity within our constitutional watchdog institutions. The Constitutional Offices Commission has transformed from a guardian of accountability into a gatekeeper for the powerful.
A “warning letter” for conduct now deemed criminal is not merely inadequate. It is institutional complicity. It reflects a Commission that has forgotten its constitutional purpose and prioritised political convenience over public duty.
This scandal must now become a catalyst for reform. Parliament should immediately review the COC’s decision-making standards and consider statutory amendments to require mandatory suspension where criminal conduct is alleged.
The public, too, must demand transparency: the contents of the complaint, the Commission’s reasoning, and any legal advice it relied upon should all be disclosed.
Until that happens, one uncomfortable truth remains: Fiji’s constitutional safeguards are being dismantled from within.
*Charged, Bailed, and Cleared to Leave Fiji: |  |
The Ministry of Justice confirms, in a statement, that the Acting Commissioner of Corrections, Sevuloni Naucukidi, has written to the Minister for Justice and Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga, formally advising that he is withdrawing from the Minister’s upcoming official delegation to New Zealand this week. Turaga acknowledges and respects Naucukidi’s decision and appreciates his continued leadership in maintaining the effective operation and stability of the Corrections Service during this period.
Fiji’s justice system has once again bent the law into a pretzel to protect the powerful.
Acting Corrections Commissioner Sevuloni Naucukidi was charged and granted bail over this week yet instead of being treated like any other accused person, he returned to court days later to seek permission to travel overseas.
Incredibly, the Magistrates Court granted the application. No prosecutor opposed it. His passport remained in his possession. And he was set to board a flight to New Zealand before abruptly withdrawing from the trip amid public outrage and growing scrutiny. It is a textbook case of elite privilege, and a damning indictment of how Fiji’s criminal justice system treats the powerful.
Why this decision defies Logic, and the Law
Bail Law Was Designed to Prevent Exactly This
Bail is not a courtesy. It’s a legal mechanism to ensure an accused:
Granting international travel to an accused person, particularly one holding a sensitive public office, undermines all four objectives. It introduces risk, creates opportunity for flight, and erodes public confidence in the administration of justice.
A Public Official Facing Criminal Charges Should Be Suspended, Not Flying Overseas to rub shoulders with Fiji's Acting Attorney-General Siromi TURAGA
Naucukidi is not an ordinary defendant. As Acting Fiji Corrections Service Commissioner, he oversees the imprisonment of others. Allowing him to leave Fiji before his first plea hearing doesn’t just look bad. It trashes the principle of equality before the law under Section 13 of the Constitution.
How can citizens have confidence in a justice system that locks up the poor for minor offences while allowing a charged official to represent the state abroad?
Prosecutorial Inaction Is Unforgivable
Perhaps most controversial is that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) did not oppose the travel application. The DPP had a clear path to argue that travel should be denied pending plea. It chose not to. That decision cannot be justified in law or public policy.
Judicial Discretion Misapplied
Yes, courts have discretion to allow overseas travel under bail. But discretion must be exercised in the public interest, and in a way that upholds confidence in the justice system. This decision did neither. It was a misjudgment that has now backfired, forcing Naucukidi to withdraw from his trip under public and institutional pressure.
A System That Shields Its Own
Let us be clear: this is not an isolated lapse. It is part of a pattern, a culture of impunity in which public officials are handled with velvet gloves while ordinary people face the full weight of the law.
Fijileaks Call to Action
Fiji’s Parliament must act now to close this loophole. We call for:
A man charged with a criminal offence and entrusted with enforcing the law should never have been cleared to leave the country. The fact that he was, and only backed down when exposed, is proof that the system itself is on trial.
Incredibly, the Magistrates Court granted the application. No prosecutor opposed it. His passport remained in his possession. And he was set to board a flight to New Zealand before abruptly withdrawing from the trip amid public outrage and growing scrutiny. It is a textbook case of elite privilege, and a damning indictment of how Fiji’s criminal justice system treats the powerful.
Why this decision defies Logic, and the Law
Bail Law Was Designed to Prevent Exactly This
Bail is not a courtesy. It’s a legal mechanism to ensure an accused:
- Appears in court,
- Does not reoffend,
- Does not interfere with witnesses,
- And does not abscond from the jurisdiction.
Granting international travel to an accused person, particularly one holding a sensitive public office, undermines all four objectives. It introduces risk, creates opportunity for flight, and erodes public confidence in the administration of justice.
A Public Official Facing Criminal Charges Should Be Suspended, Not Flying Overseas to rub shoulders with Fiji's Acting Attorney-General Siromi TURAGA
Naucukidi is not an ordinary defendant. As Acting Fiji Corrections Service Commissioner, he oversees the imprisonment of others. Allowing him to leave Fiji before his first plea hearing doesn’t just look bad. It trashes the principle of equality before the law under Section 13 of the Constitution.
How can citizens have confidence in a justice system that locks up the poor for minor offences while allowing a charged official to represent the state abroad?
Prosecutorial Inaction Is Unforgivable
Perhaps most controversial is that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) did not oppose the travel application. The DPP had a clear path to argue that travel should be denied pending plea. It chose not to. That decision cannot be justified in law or public policy.
Judicial Discretion Misapplied
Yes, courts have discretion to allow overseas travel under bail. But discretion must be exercised in the public interest, and in a way that upholds confidence in the justice system. This decision did neither. It was a misjudgment that has now backfired, forcing Naucukidi to withdraw from his trip under public and institutional pressure.
A System That Shields Its Own
Let us be clear: this is not an isolated lapse. It is part of a pattern, a culture of impunity in which public officials are handled with velvet gloves while ordinary people face the full weight of the law.
- The Constitutional Offices Commission brushed off the original misconduct complaint with a mere warning letter.
- The DPP stood by silently as a charged man asked for permission to leave the jurisdiction.
- The Magistracy said yes without regard for public confidence or the appearance of justice.
Fijileaks Call to Action
Fiji’s Parliament must act now to close this loophole. We call for:
- Automatic suspension of any constitutional office-holder upon criminal charge.
- Mandatory passport surrender in all indictable cases, regardless of status.
- Judicial review of bail variations in cases involving public officials, with written reasons made public.
- Prosecutorial accountability: the DPP must explain why travel was not opposed.
A man charged with a criminal offence and entrusted with enforcing the law should never have been cleared to leave the country. The fact that he was, and only backed down when exposed, is proof that the system itself is on trial.
*COC in 2015 and Ten Years Later in 2025. From Dictatorship to Democracy? More Like Musical Chairs. Same COC, Different Faces
