Blog Archives

HOLINESS On The ROCKS. Methodist Church Appoints Malimali to its Constitutional Review Committee after she was nominated by the Church and PAP lawyer who was quoting King Solomon in the Supreme COURT

31/8/2025

Fijileaks: Malimali's drunken episode in Tuvalu, where she became intoxicated and ended up crashing in the Australian Judge's hotel room (the "old dude" was hearing her client's case) was never raised by the Church during the appointment discussions. Nor that she is banned from Tuvalu. It seems the Methodist Church overlooked the advice of Ephesians 5: 18:
"Do not get drunk on wine, which lead to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."

Barbara Malimali

THE nomination of lawyer Tanya Waqanika and former FICAC commissioner Barbara Malimali to a newly-established church committee was questioned by a church member. At a meeting yesterday, church lawyer Simione Valenitabua proposed the appointment of Ms Waqanika and Ms Malimali to the six-member committee tasked with reviewing the church’s constitution every 10 years. Mr Valenitabua suggested both names, along with his and that of Reverend Dr William James Powell, who currently serves at Davuilevu Theological College. Leba Halofaki, a prominent church member, questioned the proposal of Ms Waqanika and Ms Malimali “given that we all clearly know about the case that is before the High Court. They are involved in cases involving the Government and the church does not want to be judged, given that it already knows what’s happening in the Government. It’s nothing personal. It’s for the reputation of the church, to make sure that is not compromised". Mr Valenitabua replied that Ms Waqanika does not have a case before the court, rather she has simply been representing her client in court. He also said Ms Malimali was taking the Government to court, and not the other way around, and that no charges have yet been laid against her. “That case is still before the courts, neither she nor the Government has won yet.” Divisional superintendents, chief stewards, and circuit ministers attending yesterday’s Bose ko Viti ultimately consented to their (Malimali, Waqanika and Valenitabua's appointments.

Tanya
Waqanika

Methodist Church lawyer Simione Valenitabua

"Hindus and Muslims are Pagans who must be converted to Christianity."

For nearly four decades, I’ve walked past the small plaque on New Inn Hall Street in Oxford, where John Wesley reportedly once preached in July 1783. I often pause there, reflecting on Wesley’s radical message of grace, humility, and justice, a faith rooted in liberation and community, not division, and compare his message with Methodism in Fiji.

And yet, each time, I’m haunted by how grotesquely those teachings have been twisted in Fiji since the 1987 coups. Sitiveni Rabuka, a Methodist lay preacher, tore apart our 1970 Constitution on 14 May 1987, claiming that God had “spoken into his ears” and commanded him to seize power from Dr Timoci Bavadra's Coalition government. Under Rabuka's military rule, Methodism was weaponised to sanctify racist ideology and justify persecution of the Indo-Fijians.

We remember the infamous Sunday Observance Decree when shops shuttered, beaches closed, buses stopped running on Sundays, and life itself paused. All enforced under the banner of “Christian (Methodist) values”. And yet beneath this facade of piety, Fiji descended into terror. Indo-Fijians were beaten, their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters were savagely gang-raped, humiliated, and driven from their homes. Fear reigned, and the very Methodist Church that should have stood as a sanctuary of compassion became complicit—blessing a coup regime, offering cover to violence, and draping authoritarianism in the robes of faith.

That legacy has never been dismantled. It lingers like an unhealed wound. The Methodist Church remains deeply entwined with political power, and Rabuka’s influence still threads through its hierarchy and agenda.

This past Sunday, 31 August 2025, as I walked past Wesley’s plaque on my way to another church in the city, the Catholic Church, my thoughts turned to the scandal surrounding Barbara Malimali’s appointment to the Methodist Church’s constitutional review committee. Nominated by the Church’s own lawyer, Simione Valenitabua, alongside Tanya Waqanika, Malimali’s selection isn’t just about one individual. It’s about an entire structure of influence that has endured since 1987. It reveals how the same actors, the same alliances, and the same quiet manipulations of faith and law continue to shape Fiji’s destiny.

It is bitterly ironic. John Wesley preached here of grace, dignity, and equality before God. Yet in Fiji, his spiritual heirs turned Methodism into a weapon of exclusion, fear, and privilege. And now, decades later, as the Church places itself at the heart of constitutional debates once again, the risk is that it continues to serve power rather than challenge it.

That little plaque in Oxford always reminds me how far many iTaukei Methodists have strayed from Wesley’s vision. And how urgently Fiji needs to confront its unfinished reckoning with 1987. Until we do, we will remain trapped in its shadow, governed not by justice or compassion, but by the same old ghosts wearing new robes.

FROM THE PULPIT TO THE PEW

The Methodist Church has approved Barbara Malimali’s appointment to its Constitutional Review Committee, a body tasked with reshaping the church’s governing document every decade. But critics are asking: “What does this say about the church’s moral compass?”

Meanwhile, the Tuvalu drunken episode is no longer a secret, a night of misconduct that embarrassed colleagues and tarnished professional reputations. Yet, the church hierarchy never raised it, never questioned it, and never explained it.

SUING THE STATE, SHAPING THE CHURCH

Malimali is also currently suing the Fiji Government via a judicial review over her dismissal as FICAC Commissioner. Her lawyer is none other than Tanya Waqanika. How does someone like Malimali, entangled in a High Court battle, get handed the keys to rewriting the Methodist Church’s constitution? Answer, through Church and PAP lawyer Simione Valenitabua.

Every Sunday, the Methodist Church preaches sobriety, integrity, and moral leadership. But when it comes to its own appointments, it seems those rules don’t apply at the top. By appointing Barbara Malimali, the Methodist Church has chosen influence over integrity and silence over scrutiny, undermining its authority to speak on morality and youth leadership.

And perhaps, before their next sermon, the Bose ko Viti delegates might want to re-read this verse: “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.”: Ephesians 5:18.

Because right now, Fiji’s largest church looks like it’s being led by spirits of another kind.

MYSTERY SOLVED: Legal World Shook Its Head In Disbelief as PAP Lawyer Simione Valenitabua Quoted King Solomon's Tale of Two Wives and Child before Supreme Court.
Now We Know He Was Moonlighting as Methodist Church's Lawyer, Preaching for the Church Too.

Back on 21 August 2025, I drafted a detailed critique of PAP lawyer Simione Valenitabua’s submissions to the Fiji Supreme Court. I never published it on Fijileaks, for other explosive stories demanded priority. But today, after Valenitabua’s biblical theatre in court, my draft reads like prophecy.

Because there he was, solemnly invoking King Solomon’s parable from 1 Kings 3:16–28, likening the battle over Fiji’s 2013 Constitution v the 1997 Constitution to two wives fighting over a child. The legal fraternity collectively shook its head. This wasn’t constitutional argument. This was Sunday school dressed up as Supreme Court advocacy.

As I wrote in my unpublished draft, this is not a case about divine wisdom. It’s religious theatre masquerading as law, a carefully calculated ploy to manipulate iTaukei religious sentiment by cloaking PAP’s political agenda in biblical imagery.

And now, of course, the missing piece of the riddle is solved: Valenitabua isn’t just PAP’s lawyer. He’s also the lawyer for the Methodist Church.

Suddenly, it all makes sense.

This isn’t about the rule of law. It’s about fusing politics and religion to secure an outcome through emotional manipulation rather than constitutional principle. The courtroom was never meant to be a pulpit but PAP’s legal team seemed intent on turning it into one.

The Bible is not Fiji’s Constitution.

And no amount of Solomonic parables should rewrite it.

ANNEX: My Unpublished Critique of 21 August 2025: KING Solomon’s Sword Cannot Cut the Law: PAP’s Religious Theatre Won’t Rewrite Fiji’s Constitution

One ISIKELI MATAITOGA is now judge on the Fiji Court of Appeal.
He had argued (Victoria University Law Review Journal, 1991) that there was no need to hold referendum on the imposed 1990 Constitution of Fiji.

In the above legal paper, Mataitoga dismissed criticisms of the racist and feudalistic 1990 Constitution’s lack of a referendum as “ill-informed.” He argued that Provincial Councils and Tikina meetings sufficed to represent Fijian (iTaukei) opinion.
Indo-Fijians, he implied, couldn’t express independent views anyway because political and religious leaders supposedly thought for them.
*Fast-forward to 2025, and the same Mataitoga was now publicly stressing the “importance of the public voice” in constitutional matters.

The Court lowered the constitutional amendment threshold. From 75% of Parliament and 75% of all registered voters, it now requires:
Two-thirds of Parliament, and A simple majority of voters who actually turn up at a referendum.

In the end, PAP's lawyer Simione Valenitabua sought to resurrect a past covenant but delivered a present coronation:
King Khaiyum’s 2013 Constitution reigns, while King Solomon’s 1997 gospel fades into myth.
The Irony of Invoking Faith Over Law
PAP’s submissions through lawyer Valenitabua leaned heavily on biblical imagery, morality tales, and appeals to “restorative justice” and yet offered little in the way of legal substance.
He invoked King Solomon, as if Fiji’s judiciary were an altar awaiting divine intervention. He painted the 1997 Constitution as a lost covenant, a sacred scroll awaiting resurrection. He ignored the political reality that three general elections and over a decade of governance have entrenched the 2013 framework into the fabric of Fiji’s laws.
*In doing so, he gifted the Court an open pathway: uphold the legally functional Constitution while dismissing nostalgic appeals to theocratic morality. PAP's case became a sermon dressed up as a Church Service, and the Supreme Court wasn't there for Sunday school.

King Solomon's RING: As the parable of King Solomon's RING reminds us, "This too shall pass.".
The advisory Supreme Court opinion does more than uphold the 2013 Constitution. It fortifies its legitimacy by making amendments easier, not harder.

Fijileaks:* GCC and Methodist Church Now Hold the Keys

With amendment thresholds lowered, the Great Council of Chiefs and Methodist Church, both enjoying wide influence over iTaukei majority electorate, now possess real political leverage over constitutional change. Sitiveni Rabuka's 1987 Coup Aims Will Come Full Circle, Soon.

The Role of Justice Isikeli Mataitoga: Historical Context and Judicial Impartiality
Mataitoga’s Position During the 1987 Coup
At the time of the 1987 military takeover led by Sitiveni Rabuka, Isikeli Mataitoga was closely involved in advising senior state figures.
Mataitoga, alongside Sir John Falvey, counselled Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, then the Governor-General, that he was no longer recognised as Governor-General but was instead acting merely as a high chief of Cakaudrove Province.
This advice effectively aligned with the military regime’s position that constitutional government and lawful executive authority had been suspended. Later, Mataitoga was sworn in as a captain in the army and appeared in public in military uniform with a pistol at his side—a strong indication of his acceptance of, and participation in, the Rabuka-led coup and the dismantling of democratic governance in Fiji.
Divergence from the Judiciary and Constitutionalists
Fiji’s high court judges, led by Chief Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaga and supported by magistrate Howard Morrison and other senior judges had sent a letter to the Governor-General declaring: The purported suspension of the Constitution was “illegal and invalid"
The Constitution remained in force unchanged. The judiciary reaffirmed its loyalty to the rule of law and constitutional government.
Mataitoga, however, chose a different path by accepting the coup as a fait accompli and participating in the Rabuka military-led administration.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on IMMUNITY protects Isikeli Mataitoga and the Chief Justice Salesi Temo, who joined the Bainimarama administration after the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution as the new Chief Magistrate of Fiji.
In June 2009 he was appointed to the High Court of Fiji as an acting Puisne judge by the Bainimarama military regime. In September 2011, he criticised the New Zealand government for refusing to cooperate with Fiji's military regime or extradite people wanted for political offences by the Bainimarama dictatorship.
Cry Our Beloved Country, Fiji

MICKEY MOUSE Constitutionalism. Why Supreme Court Cannot Rewrite Section 160. If the 2013 Constitution is supreme law, as s.2 declares, then Court’s role is limited to interpreting its Provisions, NOT Rewriting them

30/8/2025

If the Court starts inventing new thresholds, Fiji risks falling into a “Mickey Mouse* Constitutionalism” TRAP.

Any suggestion that the Court could dilute or alter the explicit 75% thresholds in Section 160 (parliamentary votes) and referendum requirements amounts to judicial overreach, bordering on constitutional vandalism.

Constitution
Rewritten in Robes

Fijileaks will issue a comprehensive response after carefully reviewing the Supreme Court’s 61-page ruling. We will also provide detailed reactions to statements made by political parties, party leaders, lawyers (including overnight bush lawyers) and the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) in response to the judgment.

For now, we emphasise that any attempt to reinterpret or dilute the Constitution’s explicit 75% thresholds for parliamentary approval and a referendum risks dragging Fiji into “Mickey Mouse constitutionalism”.
Our full legal and editorial analyses, including responses to political leaders, parties, and the GCC, will follow shortly.

If the 2013 Constitution is indeed the supreme law of Fiji, as Section 2 emphatically declares, then the Supreme Court’s role is limited to interpreting its provisions, not rewriting them. Any suggestion that the Court could dilute or alter the explicit 75% thresholds in Section 160 (parliamentary votes) and referendum requirements amounts to judicial overreach, bordering on constitutional vandalism.

This isn’t merely a technical argument. It goes to the very rule of law and the separation of powers, the two pillars of any functioning constitutional democracy.

The Clear Text of Section 160(2)

Section 160(2) of the 2013 Constitution states:

“A Bill to alter this Constitution must be supported in Parliament by at least three-quarters of the members of Parliament and in a referendum, by at least three-quarters of the registered voters.” The language is:

Express—no ambiguity exists.
Exhaustive—no alternative formula is provided.
Mandatory—it uses “must,” not “may” or “should.”

In constitutional law, when a provision is this clear, courts are bound by what is written. They cannot judicially amend it.

Supreme Court’s Role: Interpretation, Not Amendment

The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution, not its architect. Its task is to interpret meaning where there is ambiguity, silence, or conflict between provisions. Here, there is none.

If the Court were to “reinterpret” 75% to mean two-thirds or even a simple majority, it would be:

Legislating from the bench, which belongs to Parliament, not judges.
Undermining constitutional supremacy—a dangerous precedent.
Opening the door to political manipulation would result in constitutional stability evaporating.

The Only Legal Ways to Change Section 160
There are only two lawful mechanisms to alter the 75% threshold:

A. Follow Section 160’s Own Process

Secure 75% of MPs’ votes and
75% of all registered voters in a referendum.

This is deliberately rigid to preserve constitutional stability and avoid casual amendments.

B. Challenge the Constitution’s Validity
If one argues that the 2013 Constitution itself is invalid, for example, unlawfully imposed after the 2006 coup, that’s a different pathway. But until and unless the Court strikes it down entirely, the Court cannot cherry-pick which provisions to water down.

The “Mickey Mouse” Danger
If the Court starts inventing new thresholds, Fiji risks falling into a “Mickey Mouse constitutionalism” trap:

A system where rules mean whatever the political winds demand.
Where judicial authority is used to deliver political expediency, not uphold constitutional fidelity.
Where the supposed “supreme law” is neither supreme nor law.

This would erode public trust and make Fiji’s constitutional order look like a cartoon democracy — attractive on the surface but hollow inside.

Precedent and International Comparison

Globally, supreme courts do not rewrite explicit amendment clauses. For example:

India’s Supreme Court upheld the “basic structure doctrine,” striking down unconstitutional amendments but never relaxing thresholds.
Kenya’s Supreme Court in 2022 invalidated attempts to amend the constitution outside its rigid procedures.
South Africa’s Constitutional Court has repeatedly warned against judicial rewriting of “supermajority” clauses.

If Fiji’s Supreme Court took a different path, it has become an outlier in comparative constitutional law.

The Political Subtext

If there are whispers about lowering thresholds to restore the 1997 Constitution or undo certain provisions in the 2013 Constitution, these must go through Parliament and a referendum. Anything else is a backdoor coup disguised as judicial interpretation.

The 2013 Constitution ties everyone’s hands: Parliament, Cabinet, Voters, and yes, even the Supreme Court. If judges start replacing 75% with 66% or 51%, Fiji descends into Mickey Mouse constitutionalism where law is rewritten on the fly. That undermines democracy, separation of powers, and the rule of law itself.

Constitutional change cannot come by judicial fiat. It must come through the people.

When the Fiji Supreme Court handed down its “advisory opinion” in response to the Cabinet’s reference under Section 91(5) of the 2013 Constitution, Fijians expected legal clarity.

Instead, they got a judicial earthquake. The judges went far beyond their mandate, re-engineering Fiji’s constitutional framework without a single vote cast in Parliament or a single referendum held.

What should have been a straightforward interpretation of the law turned into an act of judicial law-making. The Court crossed the line from referee to player, altering constitutional thresholds and dismantling entrenched protections designed to safeguard Fiji’s democratic order.

The Limited Question Cabinet Asked

In June 2025, Cabinet sought a narrow advisory opinion under Section 91(5), which allowed the Supreme Court to:

“…give its opinion on any matter concerning the interpretation and application of the Constitution.”

The reference asked five straightforward questions

Was the 2013 Constitution legally effective?
Was the 1997 Constitution still valid?
Were the amendment thresholds in Sections 159 and 160 binding?
Could Parliament bypass those thresholds?
What role did common law play in recognising Fiji’s constitutional order?

This was not an invitation to rewrite the Constitution. It was a request for interpretation.

What the Court Did Instead

The Court recognised the 2013 Constitution—but only on its own rewritten terms.

Conditional Recognition

It accepted the 2013 Constitution as effective but based that on common law recognition dating back to 1874.
It explicitly rejected the validity of the 1997 Constitution (“Opinion: No”).

Lowered Amendment Threshold

It “read down” Sections 160(2) and 160(6):
- Three-quarters of Parliament to two-thirds.
- Three-quarters of all registered voters to a simple majority at referendum.

Disregarded Entrenched Protections

It discarded Section 159(2)(c), which had made the amendment provisions unamendable.

Claimed to “Empower the People”

It argued the three-quarter thresholds created a “democratic deficit”, making the Constitution “virtually unamendable” and disempowering Fijians.

But here’s the paradox: If the Court wanted to empower the people, why didn’t it send the matter back to them through a referendum?

Instead, it imposed its own solution from the bench.

What the Court Should Have Declared

If the Supreme Court had respected its constitutional limits, its ruling would have been short, precise, and lawful.

On Validity of the 2013 Constitution

“The Court recognises the 2013 Constitution as the legally effective Constitution of the Republic of Fiji, by reason of continuity and reliance by Parliament, institutions, and the people.”

On the 1997 Constitution

“The 1997 Constitution, though lawfully enacted, ceased to operate after its displacement in 2009 and replacement in 2013. Its reinstatement would require a democratic process.”

On Amendment Thresholds

“Sections 159 and 160 set out binding amendment procedures, including three-quarter thresholds for Parliament and referenda. These remain operative unless and until amended in accordance with those same provisions.”

On Judicial Limits

“The Court has no authority to alter or ‘read down’ entrenched constitutional provisions. Any change lies exclusively with Parliament and the people via referendum.”

That is what an advisory opinion should have looked like. Interpretation, not invention.

Why the Actual Ruling Was Dangerous

The Court’s ruling wasn’t just an academic exercise. It has real and immediate consequences:

Concentration of Power

By lowering amendment thresholds, the Court handed extraordinary power to whichever government controls two-thirds of Parliament. A ruling coalition can now reshape the Constitution without needing a true national consensus.

Entrenched Clauses No Longer Safe

By discarding Section 159(2)(c), the Court set a precedent: if “unamendable” provisions can be read down, then nothing in the Constitution is truly protected, including the Immunity provisions in the 2013 Constitution of Fiji. To be continued, especially on Supreme Court's double standard: "We won't touch Immunity provisions"

CHAPTER 10—IMMUNITY
Immunity granted under the 1990 Constitution continues
155. Notwithstanding the abrogation of the Constitution Amendment Act 1997 and despite the repeal of the Constitution of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji (Promulgation) Decree 1990, Chapter XIV of the Constitution of 1990 continues in force in accordance with its tenor, and the immunity granted in Chapter XIV of the Constitution of 1990 shall continue.

Immunity granted under the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 continues.

156.—(1) The immunities granted to prescribed persons for prescribed political events under the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 shall continue in existence.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 shall, in its entirety, continue in existence and shall not be reviewed, amended, altered, repealed or revoked by Parliament.

Further immunity
157. Absolute and unconditional immunity is irrevocably granted to any person (whether in their official or
personal or individual capacity) holding the office of, or holding the office in, as the case may be--
(a) the President;
(b) Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers;
(c) Republic of Fiji Military Forces;
(d) Fiji Police Force;
(e) Fiji Corrections Service;
(f) Judiciary;
(g) public service; and
(h) any public office,

from any criminal prosecution and from any civil or other liability in any court, tribunal or commission, in any proceeding including any legal, military, disciplinary or professional proceedings and from any order or judgment of any court, tribunal or commission, as a result of any direct or indirect participation, appointment or involvement in the Government from 5 December 2006 to the date of the first sitting of the first Parliament elected after the commencement of this Constitution; provided however any such immunity shall not apply to any act or omission that constitutes an offence under sections 133 to 146, 148 to 236, 288 to 351, 356 to 361, 364 to 374, and 377 to 386 of the Crimes Decree 2009 (as prescribed in the Crimes Decree 2009 at the date of the commencement of this Constitution).

Immunity entrenched
158.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, this Chapter and any immunity granted or continued in this Chapter shall not be reviewed, amended, altered, repealed or revoked.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no court or tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to accept, hear or make any decision or order with respect to any challenge against the provisions of this Chapter and any immunity granted or continued in this Chapter.
(3) No compensation shall be payable by the State to any person in respect of damage, injury or loss to his or her property or person caused by or consequent upon any conduct from which immunity has been granted under this section.

Further Fijileaks analysis soon:
Congratulations Fiji: You Can Change Anything You Want, Except Justice
Chapter 10’s blanket immunity provisions remain untouchable.
*Yes, you read that right. Fijians can amend everything, except the clauses that protect those accused of torture, extrajudicial killings, racial persecution, and politically motivated beatings across 1987, 2000, and 2006.

Fijileaks: We will soon reveal the identity of one of the alleged killers. After searching for him for over ten years, the principal suspect has been located. For years our trail had gone cold, after we were repeatedly told, 'Kai he has gone mad, and is wandering around in his village'.
In fact, he is not mad but a spokesman for a prominent High Chief.
The late Fiji Sun* publisher Russell Hunter and I had been working on a book-length manuscript tentatively titled '2 November 2000: Mutiny, Mayhem, and Murder at the RFMF in Fiji', based on years of interviews with high-ranking military officers (current, past, and deceased), including interviews with mutineers. We also relied heavily on highly confidential Police and Military intelligence files provided to us by our exceptional sources.

Snake in the Basket: Is Rabuka’s Constitutional Coup Already Pre-planned?

The snake has finally slithered out of the basket.

For months, the coalition government led by Sitiveni Rabuka has been drip-feeding the public a carefully choreographed narrative about “constitutional review,” “dialogue,” and “national consensus.”

Yet, as this weekend’s headlines reveal, a Bill is already “ready”, fully drafted and apparently poised to land in Parliament ahead of schedule.

This raises profound questions: Was this process ever genuinely consultative? Or have the coalition partners, FijiFirst defectors, the People’s Alliance Party, NFP, and SODELPA factions, been quietly preparing a constitutional ambush while selling the public a staged performance of inclusivity and transparency?

The “Surprise” That Isn’t

The front-page fanfare suggests that Rabuka’s government wants Parliament to believe this Bill simply “matured early,” like tropical fruit ripening ahead of the season. But constitutional amendments are not mangoes that fall from trees (NFP party tree sysmbol). They require:

Drafting by legal experts
Inter-ministerial vetting
Cabinet sign-off
Internal coalition consensus
Public consultation, especially if democracy is to mean anything

So how is it that a fully baked Bill is sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk before most citizens have even been properly consulted?

This is not governance. This is sleight of hand.

The Numbers Game

The 2013 Constitution which Rabuka and his allies now publicly deride contains an ironclad two-thirds threshold for amendments, coupled with a nationwide referendum if Parliament touches certain entrenched provisions.

Yet, according to insiders close to the process, the coalition is betting on two scenarios:

Neutralising opposition MPs through backroom deals or inducements to secure the two-thirds majority; and
Exploiting parliamentary procedure to fast-track the Bill before dissenting forces, civil society, the media, and the broader electorate, can mobilise.

The narrative of a “dead” 1997 Constitution and a “valid” 2013 Constitution, plastered across this weekend’s papers, is part of a psychological softening campaign. The goal is to convince Fijians that the government’s “mandate” to rewrite constitutional arrangements is unquestionable.

But who gave that mandate?

Rabuka’s Snake Dance

For years, Sitiveni Rabuka has cultivated a political mystique: the charmer, the reconciler, the elder statesman. Yet those who have followed his career since the 1987 coups know another Rabuka—the tactician who thrives on deception and misdirection.

Branding Rabuka a “snake” isn’t hyperbole. It’s history. He slithered through the corridors of power in 1987 under the guise of “Fijian supremacy,” only to reinvent himself in 1997 as a champion of multiracialism. Today, he presents himself as the healer who will “fix” the very constitutional architecture that Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum built.

But ask yourself: Who benefits from this sudden rush to legislate?

The Silence of the Coalition Partners

What’s equally alarming is the silence from the National Federation Party (NFP) and SODELPA, both of whom are enabling this manoeuvre. Neither has demanded broader consultation. Neither has warned against constitutional brinkmanship.

This silence speaks volumes. It suggests one of two things:

They’re complicit in a pre-planned scheme; or
They’re being outmanoeuvred by Rabuka and are too timid to resist.

Either way, the Fijian electorate is being kept in the dark.

What’s Coming at the Next Sitting?

The government has not released the Bill. We don’t know what provisions it touches. But if Rabuka is so confident that it’s “ready,” it’s reasonable to infer that the coalition’s constitutional objectives are already settled behind closed doors.

Time for Transparency

If Rabuka’s coalition government truly believes in democratic renewal, it must:

Publish the full draft Bill immediately;
Commit to meaningful national consultations;
Guarantee an independent oversight mechanism before any vote; and
Respect the referendum safeguards in the 2013 Constitution.

Otherwise, this is not a “review.” It’s a constitutional coup by stealth, similar to the judicial coup sprung up by the Supreme Court judges. Cry, The Beloved Country.

TEMO & BAINIVALU Named. 'No Court Will Accept Your Charges'. Former FICAC Deputy Commissioner PULEIWAI files POLICE complaint against those who 'intimidated her' and officers from arresting Barbara Malimali

29/8/2025

Former Acting Deputy Commissioner of FICAC, Francis Leba Puleiwai, has lodged a formal police complaint alleging abuse of office, obstruction of justice, and intimidation by top members of Fiji’s judiciary and the Fiji Law Society (FLS) during the controversial arrest of Barbara Malimali on 5 September 2024. Puleiwai accuses the following individuals of unlawfully interfering with FICAC’s independent operations:

Chief Justice Salesi Temo
Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
Fiji Law Society President Wylie Clarke
Former FLS President Laurel Vaurasi
FLS member & lawyer Amani Bale
FLS member & lawyer Nemani Tuifagalele

Key Allegations

On 5 September 2024, FICAC investigators, acting under Puleiwai’s instructions, arrested Barbara Malimali after she refused an invitation to be interviewed under caution.
Soon after, Clarke, Vaurasi, Bale, Tuifagalele, and Bainivalu arrived at FICAC headquarters and demanded her release.
Chief Registrar Bainivalu, allegedly acting on direct instructions from Chief Justice Temo, told FICAC officers that “no court in Fiji would accept any charges filed against Malimali”.
Puleiwai claims she and other senior officers were intimidated and threatened. Lawyer Amani Bale allegedly warned them it would be “career suicide” to proceed and that they risked losing their jobs.
Under this pressure, Puleiwai says she reluctantly ordered Malimali’s release.

Constitutional Concerns

Puleiwai insists that FICAC is an independent institution under Section 115(6) of the 2013 Constitution and that neither the Chief Justice nor the FLS had any lawful authority to interfere.

She accuses:

CJ Temo of abuse of office under s.139 Crimes Act 2009 and obstruction under both the Crimes Act and FICAC Act 2007.
CR Bainivalu of the same offences for enforcing the CJ’s alleged directives.
The FLS lawyers of unlawful obstruction under s.19(e) Crimes Act 2009 and s.13A FICAC Act 2007.

Puleiwai has offered to provide affidavits, recordings, and Commission of Inquiry findings to support her claims. She says the incident undermined the rule of law and compromised FICAC’s operational independence. “We were intimidated, threatened with our jobs, and forced to release Barbara Malimali. This was a clear abuse of office and obstruction of justice," says Francis Puleiwai

FACING UP ON FACEBOOK. Pal Ahluwalia Farewell Turns Sour: USP VC Departs but Allegations of Cronyism, Conflict, and ‘Sole Hustling’ Refuse to Leave. Elizabeth Fong: 'Tukana used Council meetings to market Sole'

28/8/2025

On 27 August 2025, Professor Pal Ahluwalia walked out of the University of the South Pacific for the last time as Vice-Chancellor. You’d think this would be a moment of unity—a chance for the Pacific’s premier regional university to draw a line under six chaotic years, reflect on lessons learned, and move forward. Instead, USP’s send-off for Ahluwalia felt less like a dignified farewell and more like a messy Facebook brawl at the Laucala campus cafeteria, complete with bruised egos, wounded loyalties, and one recurring theme: Sole Factory.

Semi Tukana on his Facebook: The photo below was taken on 14th February 2023 when Prof Pal was allowed back into the country after Rabuka's victorious 2022 election. It shows the Four Musketeers; Viliame Naulivou, Prof. Pal Ahluwalia, His Excellency President of Nauru Lionel Aigimea, and Semi Tukana. Four members of the USP Council who stood and fought for Pal Ahluwalia's reinstatement after his deportation on the 4th February 2021 by the then Fiji regime.

“From where a number of us sit, Semi has without a doubt benefitted from the friendship/collegiality with Pal. He used Council meetings to market Sole.”
Elizabeth Fong

Pal Ahluwalia Waves Goodbye, USP Keeps Fighting:
A Vice-Chancellor Departs, but the Drama Refuses to Go

Elizabeth Fong

Fijileaks:

You’d think that on the 27th of August 2025, the University of the South Pacific would pause to reflect on six turbulent years under Professor Pal Ahluwalia’s leadership. You’d think there would be solemnity, some gracious farewells, maybe a few tears.

But this is the USP. And this is Pal Ahluwalia. And nothing—absolutely nothing—happens quietly here. Because even as Ahluwalia waved goodbye to Laucala, the campus and its alumni were still hurling rhetorical stones at each other across Facebook, WhatsApp, and whatever’s left of USP’s reputation.

The Saint vs The Sceptics

To Ahluwalia's supporters, he leaves canonised—the heroic Vice-Chancellor who dared to expose corruption, fought off “FFP regime” meddling, survived deportation in 2021, staged a triumphant return in 2023, and presided over USP’s finances like some benevolent prophet.

Elizabeth Fong—once a proud USP insider—couldn’t resist lobbing a grenade into the nostalgia parade. Her Facebook comment drips with weary disdain:
“From where a number of us sit, Semi [Tukana] has without a doubt benefitted from the friendship/collegiality with Pal. He used Council meetings to market Sole.”

Ouch. Nothing like accusing a USP Council member of turning regional higher education governance into a trade expo for his side hustle.

Semi Tukana: Entrepreneur, Martyr, Travel Influencer

Naturally, Semi Tukana couldn’t let Fong's response stand.

His response—a masterpiece of self-congratulation and unintentional comedy—deserves to be immortalised:

“My dear sister Libby, I thought you’d be proud of your brother Semi Tukana, proud of an alumni of USP who is an entrepreneur. I used every opportunity available to me to promote Sole and Software Factory everywhere the USP Council takes me.”

Semi Tukana wants you to know two things:

He is working tirelessly to secure foreign exchange by selling Sole to unsuspecting Pacific delegations.
The USP Council meetings are basically business networking junkets—four days away from “normal business routine,” complete with USP-funded flights and “free dinners and lunches.”

The pièce de résistance? Would you rather see Tukana just lay around the swimming pool and drink a pina colada?”

Well, Tukana, judging by the thread, quite a few staff members might prefer you sipping pina coladas silently rather than turning USP’s Council chambers into a Sole showroom.

While "Semi and Libby" duel over whose virtue shines brighter, Abel Caine chimes in like the weary chorus in a Shakespearean tragedy:

“That’s a one-sided story [by Tukana] making Pal out to be some sort of hero. He has incurred the hatred of hundreds of USP staff who will be happy to throw stones at his car and spit in his face when he leaves USP for the last time.”

Ah yes—the spirit of academia, alive and well. Nothing screams “regional unity” like threatening to stone the departing Vice-Chancellor’s car.

The Ten-Time Conqueror of the USP Council: Viliame Naulivou’s Heroic Struggles Against Minutes of Meetings. One of Ahluwalia's Muskeeters!

In a Facebook post brimming with self-congratulation, Viliame Naulivou, Chairman of the University of the South Pacific Students Association, reminisces about his “defining battles” at the USP Council—claiming to have emerged “ten times a conqueror and victor.”

According to Naulivou, the Council chambers were less a meeting room and more a battlefield. While others discussed policy, budgets, and governance, Naulivou was apparently “leading through the fiercest of battles,” accumulating lessons, resilience, and courage along the way.

But the pièce de résistance lies in his tribute to “my three warriors, my greatest motivation”-Professor Pal Ahluwalia, Lionel Aingimea, and Semi Tukana - whom he elevates to mythical status. In Naulivou’s telling, these men weren’t just university administrators and policymakers; they were akin to a band of legendary musketeers, inspiring his “conviction, courage, and unshakable faith” as he defended students from procedural reforms.

From Student Warrior to Fintech Visionary: Viliame Naulivou Reinvents Himself (Again)

*Viliame Naulivou, former Chairman of the University of the South Pacific Students Association, has taken to Facebook to recount his days as a “ten-time conqueror” of the USP Council — but his current profile tells a different story. Today, Naulivou brands himself as a Western Marketing Consultant at Sole Fintech and an entrepreneur, projecting the image of a rising regional business influencer.

The dramatic flourish is vintage Naulivou:

“These men showed me what it means to stand firm in truth, even when the storms rage.”

They survived heated debates over who pays student fees.

What Naulivou doesn’t say—and what matters in the broader context—is that this heroic framing dovetails neatly with the USP factional politics surrounding Pal Ahluwalia’s controversial tenure.

Naulivou’s post positions him as a loyal foot soldier in the Ahluwalia camp, part of the network that fought against Fiji’s government-aligned representatives on the Council. By elevating Ahluwalia and Aingimea as “warriors,” Naulivou doubles down on the narrative of embattled reformers versus shadowy enemies—a storyline that served USP’s anti-Fiji bloc for years.

For all the talk of “sacrifice” and “storms,” the actual outcomes for USP students remain debatable. While Naulivou claims victory, the university’s governance crisis dragged on, student voices were marginalised, and the Fiji government froze funding. Yet here we are, treated to a hero’s memoir of conquering bureaucratic skirmishes.

In short, Viliame Naulivou casts himself [below] as a ten-time David taking on Goliath, only this Goliath was a stack of agenda papers—and the sling was a motion to adjourn.

USP: University of Sole Promotions
Council trips, free dinners, and marketing your private company at student forums?

The Farewell That Turned Into a Firefight

Pal Ahluwalia's allies flooded social media with tributes, hailing his “visionary leadership,” “fearless stance against corruption,” and “financial miracles.” Then came Elizabeth Fong.

In a blistering Facebook comment, the veteran USP insider accused fellow Council member Semi Tukana of turning USP’s highest governing body into a traveling sales pitch:

“Semi used Council meetings held in Fiji and the region to market Sole. He also found favour for appointment to the USP Student Association Council. He has had opportunity to use both Councils to support Sole.”

In other words, while the VC fought governments, Semi Tukana fought for market share.

Semi Tukana's Reply: Entrepreneur or Opportunist?

Semi Tukana, never one to duck a public scrap, fired back with a response that reads like a LinkedIn post disguised as a confession: “I used every opportunity available to me to promote Sole and Software Factory everywhere the USP Council takes me. Would you rather see Semi lay around the swimming pool drinking pina coladas, or see him hustle for business?”

He even boasts that a typical USP Council meeting costs him “four days away from normal business routine” and that his daily rate is “AUD 1,400”—before reassuring us that, naturally, USP covers his flights and meals.

Tukana frames this as entrepreneurial grit. To critics, it looks uncomfortably like leveraging a public role for private gain. And that, right there, is where the rot shows.

Where Governance Ends and Hustle Begins

USP isn’t just any university. It’s a multi-country, multi-million-dollar institution, funded largely by taxpayers across the Pacific. Council members are supposed to safeguard its interests, not turn official meetings into product launches.

Using USP Council travel to promote a personal business—especially while holding influence over student association agendas—isn’t just ethically questionable. Depending on what was promised, approved, or encouraged, it may cross into governance failure territory.

Elizabeth Fong even recalls a 2023 USP Council meeting in Nadi, where Sole was placed on the agenda under dubious circumstances:

“A student rep from a Micronesian country asked who this man was presenting on Sole. I replied Semi Tukana of Fiji. The student said, ‘It appears he is using USP to sell his company!’”

If accurate, that’s not just awkward—that’s a potential conflict of interest.

Pal Ahluwalia's Role in All This: And where does Ahluwalia fit in?

According to Fong and others, Ahluwalia shielded allies and rewarded loyalty—critics allege he facilitated Sole’s prominence within USP networks while marginalising dissenters.

Meanwhile, Ahluwalia's defenders paint a different picture: a Vice-Chancellor fighting political persecution, deported by the FijiFirst regime in 2021, reinstated by a defiant USP Council, and forced to steer the university through COVID while Fiji withheld $90 million in grants.

Both narratives can’t be true at once. But in classic USP style, both are passionately believed.

The Aftertaste of Pal Ahluwalia's Tenure

For all his achievements—no staff redundancies, no base salary cuts, boosting USP’s cash reserves from $20m to $120m—Ahluwalia leaves behind an institution deeply fractured:

Council members trading personal insults on Facebook.
Allegations of preferential treatment and side deals.
Staff still bitter enough to threaten stoning his car on departure.
A governance culture where lines between personal ambition, institutional duty, and political loyalty remain hopelessly blurred.

In this environment, it’s almost impossible to separate legitimate reform from personal vendetta—or integrity from opportunism.

The USP Brand Problem

Here’s the brutal truth: while students struggle with rising fees and under-resourced programmes, USP’s leaders seem preoccupied with settling scores, marketing their own businesses, and rewriting history on Facebook threads.

Ahluwalia departs carrying both plaudits and resentment, while Semi Tukana prepares for the next Council trip, ready to promote Sole to yet another captive audience—and maybe sip that pina colada after all.

The Pacific deserves better than this. Its premier regional university should be a centre of excellence, not a stage for personal hustles and political theatre.

Fijileaks Editorial Verdict

Pal Ahluwalia exits.
Semi Tukana hustles.
Elizabeth Fong fumes.
USP stays stuck.

The Vice-Chancellor may be gone, but the smell of Sole lingers long after his farewell.

When Council meetings double as business expos, who’s really safeguarding the Pacific’s premier university?

USP is not a private club. It’s a taxpayer-funded, regionally owned institution meant to serve students, research, and Pacific development.

If Council meetings have become free advertising platforms or arenas for settling personal scores, then member governments and donor partners have a right—even an obligation—to demand accountability.

For now, the optics are ugly:

A departing VC feted like a saint.
A Council member boasting about hustling Sole Factory across the Pacific.
Alumni and insiders openly trading accusations of opportunism and cronyism.

USP deserves better. The region deserves better.

And Fijileaks will keep digging.

From Fijileaks Archive, 22 October 2024

JUSTICE Delayed Is Justice Denied: FICAC Must Charge the NFP leader, Deputy PM and Finance Minister Biman Prasad Without Further Excuse

On 5 September 2024, Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Biman Prasad, was set to be formally charged by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) on allegations arising from his 2014 false declarations under the Political Parties Act and related matters.

The legal advice underpinning this prosecution came from none other than Richard Naidu, Prasad’s own lawyer, who had assessed the evidence and advised that charges were imminent and inevitable.

But on 4 September 2024—the day before charges were to be filed--Barbara Malimali was abruptly appointed FICAC Commissioner. Within 24 hours, she was arrested by her own FICAC officers on unrelated grounds.

Amidst the chaos, the Fiji Law Society (FLS), led by President Wylie Clarke, and other senior lawyers intervened behind the scenes. By 5 September, the process had been derailed.

Since then, nearly a year has passed. Biman Prasad has never been charged.

The Law and the EVIDENCE Has Not Changed. Only the Will to Act

TRAPPED in the CROSSFIRE: Can Fiji Police and FICAC Act on Malimali Inquiry and 17 Criminal Referrals while Judge Ashton-Lewis faces Police Complaint? YES. Criminal referrals remain Legally Valid and Actionable

27/8/2025

Can the Law Outrun the Controversy?The Malimali Inquiry, Justice Ashton-Lewis, and the Fate of 17 Criminal Referrals

The Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as the FICAC Commissioner delivered a seismic report in 2025, recommending 17 criminal charges against a range of figures—including Chief Justice Salesi Temo, senior Judicial Services Commission (JSC) officials, and other public officers.

But a new controversy threatens to overshadow the CoI itself: Justice Ashton-Lewis, the chair of the inquiry, is under scrutiny for allegedly misrepresenting his legal credentials on his CV—specifically, a claim that he was appointed Senior Counsel (SC) in Papua New Guinea, which PNG authorities appear to dispute. This raises urgent questions:

Does the cloud over Justice Ashton-Lewis affect the legal status of the CoI’s findings?
Can the Fiji Police and FICAC still act on the 17 criminal referrals?
Or does the inquiry risk being undermined by the credibility of its chair?

The short answer: the CoI report stands on its own. Its recommendations remain legally valid. However, the optics are messy, and authorities must tread carefully to avoid accusations of selective enforcement.

The Commission of Inquiry and Its Limits

The Commission of Inquiry into Malimali’s appointment was established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Under this law, a CoI:

Investigates matters of public interest;
Produces a report of findings and recommendations;
Cannot prosecute or punish anyone.

This means the CoI’s 17 referrals for possible criminal charges are not binding orders. They are a roadmap, not a verdict.

Fiji Police and FICAC:

Can investigate any allegations identified in the report;
Must independently verify the evidence;
Retain full discretion over whether to prosecute.

The Controversy Over Justice Ashton-Lewis

The CoI’s independence and credibility are complicated by allegations involving its chair:

December 2023. Justice Ashton-Lewis was appointed as a visiting Supreme Court judge by the JSC, chaired by Justice Salesi Temo, then Acting CJ.
His CV claimed Senior Counsel (SC) status in Papua New Guinea.
PNG authorities reportedly hold no record of such an appointment.
If verified, this could expose him to:
- False information to a public body;
- Using false documents;
- Professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act 2009.

Does This Invalidate the CoI? No—not automatically.

A CoI’s findings remain legally valid unless:

Bias or misconduct in the inquiry process is proven, or
Key evidence in the report is shown to be fabricated or tainted.

There’s currently no evidence suggesting the CoI’s factual findings are unreliable. Its recommendations remain legally actionable despite the chair’s personal controversies.

The Stakes: A Substantive Appointment

Unlike an acting appointment, Barbara Malimali was appointed as FICAC Commissioner in September 2024—a substantive role enshrined in the 2013 Constitution.

This distinction matters because:

The FICAC Commissioner is a constitutional integrity officer.

The JSC, chaired by Temo, bears a constitutional duty under Section 105 to ensure appointments are based on merit, with regard to integrity, competence, and suitability.
Any failure of vetting at this level undermines public trust in FICAC, which is tasked with investigating corruption at the highest levels of government.

The CoI found significant procedural lapses and recommended Malimali’s removal. That recommendation remains open to legal and political action.

Acting on the 17 Criminal Referrals

The CoI’s report points to potential offences under the Crimes Act 2009, including: Abuse of office, Perjury, False information to a public body, and Using false documents.

Next Steps for Fiji Police and FICAC

Independent Investigations: Both agencies must open case files, review the CoI’s findings, and collect admissible evidence.
No Automatic Prosecutions: Authorities must build fresh cases; the CoI report alone is not evidence.
Consistency Matters: If Malimali, JSC members, or Temo are investigated, Justice Lewis’ own appointment must also be reviewed to avoid claims of bias.

The Malimali Commission of Inquiry has left Fiji’s judiciary and integrity institutions at a crossroads.

Its 17 criminal referrals remain legally valid and actionable.
But allegations against Justice Ashton-Lewis, the CoI’s chair, risk undermining public confidence if authorities are seen to cherry-pick targets.
To maintain trust, the Fiji Police and FICAC must:
- Investigate all actors equally,
- Separate the messenger from the message, and
- Reform the JSC’s appointment processes to prevent future failures.

Until then, Fiji faces a troubling paradox:

The watchdog meant to guard integrity has become a symbol of institutional fragility, and the judge who judged is now himself under judgment.

Judicial Earthquake: Judge Who Targeted Fiji’s Top Legal Figures Faces Credential Bombshell. Rebellion or Retaliation? Justice Ashton-LEWIS Under Scrutiny for using 'SC' - Senior Counsel - in his CV and COI Report

26/8/2025

Fijileaks: Justice David Ashton-Lewis’s defence rests on an informal, decades-old verbal recognition in Papua New Guinea. Yet the law in Fiji is clear: Senior Counsel status must be formally conferred and gazetted.
*If CID findings confirm that Ashton-Lewis self-styled his title without lawful authority, the repercussions will reverberate far beyond this case—reshaping how Fiji vets judges, recognises foreign qualifications, and safeguards public resources.

Sir Buri Kidu

By-gone era,
Ashton-Lewis

NO KIDDING: Justice David Ashton-Lewis insists that he was recognised as a senior counsel by the late Sir Buri Kidu, in the absence of a formal Queen's Counsel (QC) or King's Counsel (KC) system in Papua New Guinea. But PNG Law Society refutes the claim: "Lewis was never Kings Counsel or Senior Counsel."

Hubert Namani, President PNG Law Society

Wylie Clarke, President, Fiji Law Society

Papua New Guinea Law Society to Fiji Law Society:
Justice Ashton-Lewis has never been appointed Kings Counsel or Senior Counsel in Papua New Guinea

Fiji’s judiciary is reeling from a new controversy. Justice David Ashton-Lewis, the Supreme Court judge who chaired the explosive Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner, is now facing serious questions about his professional standing after the Papua New Guinea Law Society (PNGLS) confirmed that he has never been appointed King’s Counsel or Senior Counsel in PNG and does not hold a current practising certificate there.

The revelations come just weeks after Justice Ashton-Lewis’s Commission tabled a landmark report making 17 recommendations, including a call for possible criminal charges against some of Fiji’s most powerful legal figures:

Chief Justice Salesi Temo
Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
Fiji Law Society President William Wylie Clarke

With tensions already running high, this new information threatens to erupt into a full-blown institutional crisis.

PNG Law Society’s Stunning Confirmation

In a confidential letter dated 16 June 2025, the PNGLS responded to Fiji Law Society President Wylie Clarke’s urgent inquiry about Justice Ashton-Lewis’s standing. Their answers were unambiguous:

No Senior Counsel Status

“From the PNG Law Society records the answer is NO. Not in Papua New Guinea.”

Despite common perceptions in Fiji’s legal circles, Justice Ashton-Lewis was never appointed King’s Counsel (KC) or Senior Counsel (SC) in PNG.

Not Entitled to Use “SC”

“Based on the PNG Law Society records, the answer is No. He is not entitled to use the post nominals ‘SC’.”

If Justice Ashton-Lewis has used “SC” post-nominals in Fiji, this revelation could expose him to claims of misrepresentation.

No Current Practising Certificate

While Justice Ashton-Lewis was admitted as a lawyer in PNG on 16 November 1984, the PNGLS confirmed that he does not currently hold a practising certificate there. This could raise questions about whether his practising status was properly verified when he was appointed to Fiji’s Supreme Court bench.

The Malimali Inquiry Fallout

Justice Ashton-Lewis chaired one of the most consequential inquiries in Fiji’s recent history: the review into Barbara Malimali’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner. The Commission’s final report, delivered earlier this year, rocked Fiji’s legal establishment by issuing 17 recommendations. Among its most significant findings:

It raised concerns about serious procedural breaches in Malimali’s appointment.
It criticised Fiji’s judicial leadership, including the Chief Justice and Chief Registrar.
It went further still, recommending possible criminal charges against:
- Chief Justice Salesi Temo
- Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
- Fiji Law Society President Wylie Clarke

These were extraordinary recommendations, striking at the heart of Fiji’s judicial governance.

Conflict of Interest and Perception of Retaliation

The timing of these revelations raises thorny questions:

Justice Ashton-Lewis attacked the top legal leadership in Fiji with his recommendations.
Now, those same figures—Temo, Bainivalu, and Clarke—wield influence over institutions that could review his appointment and professional standing.
Any move to investigate or discipline him, his supporters will claim, will be seen as institutional retaliation rather than impartial oversight.

This sets the stage for a judicial credibility crisis, where even legitimate inquiries into Justice Ashton-Lewis’s credentials could be framed as revenge for his findings. These developments strike at the core of judicial integrity in Fiji. The matter is now in the hands of the Fiji Police Force. But did the JSC verify Justice Ashton-Lewis's credentials before his appointment? Were claims of "SC" status accepted at face value without cross-border checks.

If Justice Ashton-Lewis used titles or credentials to enhance his perceived authority, could critics challenge the validity of his inquiry findings, including recommendations of possible criminal charges? With the PNGLS confirmation now in circulation, several high-stakes outcomes are possible.

Justice David Ashton-Lewis now stands at the epicentre of Fiji’s unfolding legal storm. He is the judge who chaired a seismic inquiry that threatened Fiji’s judicial elite with possible criminal charges. And yet, the Papua New Guinea Law Society’s confirmation that he lacks Senior Counsel status and a current practising certificate raises its own serious questions about his standing and disclosures.

This is more than a personal controversy. It is a test of Fiji’s judicial transparency and institutional resilience. How Fiji’s legal system responds—openly or defensively—will determine whether public trust in the courts survives this moment intact.

When a Title Becomes a Scandal: The Legal Status of “Senior Counsel” in Fiji and the Ashton-Lewis Affair

The unfolding investigation into Justice David Ashton-Lewis—the presiding judge of Fiji’s high-profile Commission of Inquiry (COI)—has thrust into the spotlight a complex but critical issue: the legal status and proper use of the title “Senior Counsel” (SC) in Fiji.

At the heart of the controversy are allegations that Ashton-Lewis falsely styled himself as SC, leveraged this title to secure unlawful benefits, and thereby misled both the Fijian government and the judiciary. While Ashton-Lewis insists he was “informally recognised” as SC during his tenure in Papua New Guinea (PNG) in the 1980s, the absence of a formal conferment process under Fiji’s legal system raises profound questions about judicial integrity, vetting of appointments, and public accountability.

The Law on Senior Counsel in Fiji

Under Fiji’s legal framework—rooted in English common law traditions--legal titles such as “Senior Counsel” (SC) or “Queen’s/King’s Counsel” (QC/KC) are not automatic designations. They require:

Formal appointment by letters patent issued under the authority of the Chief Justice or relevant constitutional head.
Publication in the Fiji Government Gazette, giving the title full legal effect.
Registration in the Roll of Practitioners, maintained by the Chief Registrar.

Absent these steps, the use of “SC” carries no legal force and may constitute:

Misrepresentation under the Crimes Act 2009.
Unlawful enrichment if financial benefits were tied to the title.
Breach of statutory duties under the Legal Practitioners Act.

Informal Overseas Recognition vs. Domestic Authority

Justice Ashton-Lewis claims he was “recognised as Senior Counsel” by the late PNG Chief Justice Sir Buri Kidu in the early 1980s, while serving as Officer in Charge at the PNG Public Prosecutor’s Office.

However:

PNG’s informal recognition is not automatically transferable to Fiji.
Even in PNG, SC/QC titles require formal conferment--not merely verbal acknowledgement.
Without gazettal or a formal instrument, such recognition does not authorise self-styling as SC in other jurisdictions.

The principle is simple: titles are territorial. A title conferred by one jurisdiction has no effect in another unless expressly recognised. Fiji’s statutes do not allow informal overseas recognition to substitute for domestic conferment.

The Ashton-Lewis Appointment: Oversight and Risk

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka personally invited Justice Ashton-Lewis in October 2024 to preside over the COI, a politically sensitive inquiry. The current allegations expose serious systemic failures:

Due diligence gaps: Was Ashton-Lewis’s SC title independently verified before appointment?
Remuneration risks: Allowances and benefits may have been calculated based on his claimed SC status.
Public trust: A judge presiding over a politically charged inquiry now faces a CID probe — undermining confidence in the COI process.

Implications for Judicial Integrity

The scandal has broader ramifications:

Judicial vetting: The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) may need to implement stricter verification protocols for all appointees, particularly those recruited internationally.
Title protection: Fiji lacks explicit statutory penalties for unauthorised use of “SC/QC” titles, leaving a gap now exposed.
Transparency obligations: Where public funds are tied to judicial appointments, full disclosure of qualifications should be mandatory.

This also touches on constitutional accountability. Under the 2013 Constitution, the JSC has the authority to advise the President on judicial appointments but relies heavily on self-disclosed credentials. If this trust is abused, it calls into question the adequacy of institutional safeguards.

Potential Criminal and Disciplinary Exposure

If the allegations are substantiated, Ashton-Lewis could face:

Criminal liability under sections of the Crimes Act dealing with:
- Obtaining a financial advantage by deception.
- Misuse of public funds.
- False representation.
- Professional sanctions under the Legal Practitioners Act, including suspension or deregistration.
- Recovery of benefits unlawfully obtained from the State.

Additionally, the Commission of Inquiry itself may be compromised, potentially requiring:

Appointment of a new presiding judge.
Judicial review of the COI’s findings to date.
Parliamentary intervention to restore public confidence.

A Question of Public Trust

This controversy strikes at the core of Fiji’s justice system:

Can the public trust judicial appointments if titles and credentials go unverified?
How can the integrity of politically sensitive inquiries be protected from reputational collapse?
Should Fiji enact specific statutory provisions regulating the use and recognition of foreign-conferred titles?

The Ashton-Lewis affair underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms ensuring that formal processes, not informal recognitions, govern access to Fiji’s highest legal honour.

Justice David Ashton-Lewis’s defence rests on an informal, decades-old verbal recognition in Papua New Guinea. Yet the law in Fiji is clear: Senior Counsel status must be formally conferred and gazetted.

If CID findings confirm that Ashton-Lewis self-styled his title without lawful authority, the repercussions will reverberate far beyond this case—reshaping how Fiji vets judges, recognises foreign qualifications, and safeguards public resources.

For now, the scandal remains a live test of judicial integrity and governmental accountability in Fiji’s constitutional framework.

Why Fijileaks Entered the Debate on Justice Ashton-Lewis and the Senior Counsel Title

In recent weeks, Fiji’s local media and social media platforms have been abuzz with debate over Justice David Ashton-Lewis and his use of the title “SC”—Senior Counsel. Some have questioned the legitimacy of the designation, while others dismiss the controversy as a distraction from the substance of the Commission of Inquiry he presided over.

At Fijileaks, we do not enter this debate lightly. We recognise that the Commission has concluded, and Justice Ashton-Lewis’s report has already been delivered to the President. But we also believe that public trust in Fiji’s institutions—and particularly in bodies as consequential as a Commission of Inquiry—depends on transparency, accuracy, and accountability at every stage of the process.

The use of prestigious professional titles such as Senior Counsel (SC) is not a trivial matter. In most Commonwealth jurisdictions, including Australia, such titles are formally conferred through rigorous vetting, judicial endorsement, and public notification. They are not merely stylistic flourishes, but signals to the public of a lawyer’s tested excellence and recognised standing.

Where questions arise over the basis or recognition of such titles, especially when used by those entrusted with presiding over matters of national importance, public scrutiny is not only justified—it is necessary. Fijileaks is therefore compelled to join this conversation, not to undermine any individual, but to ensure that Fiji’s citizens receive complete and accurate information about those empowered to influence policy, law, and governance.

In doing so, we seek to focus the debate where it belongs:

on the standards of vetting applied to judicial appointments;
on the importance of full disclosure of credentials; and
on maintaining the integrity of processes whose findings may shape Fiji’s future.

This is not a personal attack on Justice Ashton-Lewis, nor an attempt to prejudge his report. It is, rather, an assertion of principle: when institutions ask for the public’s trust, they must also earn it through openness and accuracy.

Fijileaks enters the fray because credibility matters—for judges, for commissions, and for Fiji itself.

To be continued, including the status of the Police/FICAC probe into COI Report

Integrity on Holiday: PM Rabuka’s Brilliant Move—Appointing a FICAC Suspect as Acting Prime Minister. Kamikamica takes charge of Fiji. We look like a country where active FICAC suspects can helm the executive

24/8/2025

In a move that would leave even the most seasoned satirists scrambling for words, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has appointed Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica as Acting Prime Minister—while Kamikamica is under active investigation by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), with his mobile phone seized as part of the probe.

For a government that campaigned on transparency, accountability, and restoring public trust, this decision sends precisely the opposite message: integrity is optional, and legal clouds are politically irrelevant.

Constitutional Authority vs. Fiduciary Duty

Yes, Rabuka can appoint anyone he chooses from among his ministers to act as Prime Minister under Section 92(3) of the 2013 Constitution. But constitutional power is not a blank cheque. There is an implicit fiduciary duty owed to the public to ensure that interim leadership is free from conflicts of interest and legal compromise.

By appointing a minister who is an active subject of a FICAC investigation, Rabuka risks:

Undermining public confidence in the executive branch;
Compromising Cabinet solidarity if legal advice is required on FICAC-related matters; and
Creating a potential conflict of duties between Kamikamica’s role as Acting PM and his status as an investigation subject.

Presumption of Innocence vs. Perception of Guilt

Legally, Kamikamica remains innocent until proven guilty. However, this principle cannot be stretched into political immunity from scrutiny. Courts deal with evidence, but governance deals with public trust.

By promoting someone under investigation, Rabuka is gambling with the credibility of his own government. Even if Kamikamica is later cleared, the optics are catastrophic—Fiji looks like a country where active FICAC suspects can helm the executive.

Political Fallout: A Crisis of Credibility

This appointment plays directly into the hands of Rabuka’s critics, who have long accused him of running a government of double standards. Opposition figures will now have a simple, devastating line of attack:

“If you’re under investigation, don’t worry—Rabuka will promote you.”

For a coalition already plagued by FICAC-linked scandals involving Biman Prasad, and other senior figures, this move deepens the narrative that ethical leadership is absent.

Implications for FICAC Independence

FICAC’s credibility was already under siege. With the Acting PM now an active investigation subject, two scenarios emerge:

If FICAC proceeds aggressively, the government looks divided, with its own Acting PM potentially facing charges.
If FICAC slows down or backs off, the agency will be accused of political capture, reinforcing the perception that big names are untouchable.

Either way, institutional integrity suffers. Rabuka had at least alternative Acting PM options who were untainted by active corruption investigations. By bypassing these safer choices, Rabuka signaled either astonishing political tone-deafness or deep factional debts within the coalition.

This decision is more than just bad optics; it has structural consequences:

It erodes public trust in the executive;
It undermines FICAC’s institutional credibility;
It signals to investors and development partners that accountability is negotiable;
It emboldens political opponents who can now plausibly argue that the coalition protects its own, even under investigation.

In appointing Manoa Kamikamica as Acting Prime Minister despite his ongoing FICAC investigation, Rabuka has made a legally permissible but politically disastrous choice.

For a leader whose legacy hinges on restoring constitutionalism and integrity after years of Bainimarama’s authoritarianism, this move looks alarmingly like old Fiji politics repackaged. It sends the wrong message at home, to the region, and to Fiji’s development partners.

Rabuka had a chance to demonstrate that his government holds itself to a higher standard. Instead, he has set the bar lower than ever.

Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade Manoa Kamikamica has once again assured the Indo-Fijian community that there is no religious intolerance and acts of sacrilege in the country.

Speaking at the Hindu peace gathering in Suva, Kamikamica highlighted that this is more than a religious event, with leaders calling it a “nation-building initiative”.

Kamikamica says that the peace event hopes to restore trust, promoting reconciliation, and bridging divides across communities. Source: FBC News

A businesswoman charged by FICAC with two counts of bribery appeared in the Suva Magistrates Court earlier this afternoon.
It is alleged that Anita Ranjini Mala between 21st November 2016 and 7th February 2017, whilst being the proprietor of Celsius Fire Protection and Pest Control, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, offered an advantage of $500 to $800 to Inia Saqanamua who was an inspector with the Ministry of Labour, on account of Saqanamua performing an act in his capacity as a public servant. It is also alleged that Mala on 24th November 2016, offered an advantage of $500 to Anare Macedru who was a technical officer at the Ministry of Labour, on account of Macedru performing an act in his capacity as a public servant.

JSC vs Justice David Ashton-Lewis: An Institutional Clash Over the CoI’s Explosive Recommendations. JSC secretary denounces Lewis statement

23/8/2025

Salesi Temo

David Ashton-Lewis

Tomasi Bainivalu

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s strongly worded media release on 21 August 2025 (published below) signals more than just a routine clarification—it marks the opening of a deep institutional rift between the judiciary and the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the administration of justice.

At the centre of this clash is Justice David Aston-Lewis, the former CoI Commissioner, whose remarks about the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka advising the President to remove Chief Justice Salesi Temo have triggered a sharp and public rebuke from the JSC.

JSC Slaps Down Ashton-Lewis and the CoI

The JSC’s statement is categorical:

Justice Ashton-Lewis is functus officio—his mandate ended the moment his report was submitted.
He has no authority to comment on, interpret, or push for the implementation of the CoI’s 17 recommendations.
The JSC warns that his alleged suggestion about removing the Chief Justice under Section 111(3) of the 2013 Constitution is inappropriate and unwarranted.

The subtext is unmistakable: the judiciary sees the CoI as finished business and will not tolerate interference in how its recommendations are handled.

Underlying Tensions: Judicial Independence vs. Executive Leverage

While the JSC frames its response as a defence of judicial independence, this clash exposes deeper tensions:

The CoI’s recommendations include measures touching on judicial governance, oversight, and possible removals at the highest levels.
If Justice Ashton-Lewis’s comments are accurately reported, they imply executive involvement—via the Prime Minister advising the President—in matters traditionally protected from political influence.
The JSC’s forceful statement doubles down on the principle that the Chief Justice’s role is constitutionally protected and beyond external manipulation.

This isn’t just about one Commissioner overstepping his mandate—it’s about who really holds power over the judiciary.

The CoI’s Shadow Over the Judiciary

The CoI was always going to be controversial. Its establishment signalled unease with the state of the judiciary’s governance and has left behind a volatile mix of recommendations now sitting on the desks of constitutional authorities.

By publicly distancing itself from Ashton-Lewis and emphasising that it is seeking its own legal advice on the report, the JSC appears to be:

Asserting control over how—or whether—the recommendations will be acted upon.
Shielding the Chief Justice and the judiciary from perceived external meddling.
Preparing to challenge or filter aspects of the CoI report it views as threatening judicial independence.

In effect, the JSC has put up a firewall around the judiciary—and Justice Ashton-Lewis’s public commentary has triggered an early test of that wall.

High Stakes for the 2013 Constitution

This confrontation touches the nerve centre of Fiji’s 2013 Constitution:

Section 111(3), cited in Ashton-Lewis’s suggestion, governs the removal of the Chief Justice—a process tightly safeguarded to prevent political interference.
If the CoI’s recommendations or their advocates appear to invite executive influence, it could destabilise the carefully balanced separation of powers.
Conversely, if the JSC appears to stonewall legitimate reform, it risks accusations of protecting vested interests within the judiciary.

This isn’t just about one judge, one report, or one Commission—it’s about constitutional integrity and the limits of executive power.

What Comes Next

The JSC has confirmed it is taking legal advice on the CoI findings and will “shortly take appropriate action.” That phrase leaves the door wide open:

Will the JSC formally reject key recommendations?
Will Parliament and the Prime Minister sidestep the judiciary and move directly on reforms?
Could this escalate into a constitutional confrontation between Fiji’s executive and judicial branches?

One thing is certain: this clash has raised the stakes on how Fiji handles judicial accountability and constitutional reform.

The JSC’s attack on Ashton-Lewis is more than a spat over protocol—it’s an early salvo in a power struggle over the future of the judiciary, the integrity of the CoI’s recommendations, and the boundaries of executive influence under the 2013 Constitution.

Key points in his public statement:

Ignored Recommendations: Only 2 out of 17 COI recommendations have been implemented.
Removal of Top Officials: The COI called for the removal of Chief Justice Salesi Temo for alleged perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of office, but Rabuka has failed to advise the President. Ashton-Lewis suggests political interference because Ratu Naiqama and Temo are close friends and related by marriage.
Barbara Malimali’s Dismissal: While Malimali has been removed as Acting FICAC Commissioner, her deputy Lisiate Fotofili was rehired in the Office of the DPP — against COI advice.
Conflict of Interest at ODPP: The COI found that Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva and Deputy DPP John Rabuku are “conflicted” and lack impartiality. Despite this, they remain in office and control investigations into figures implicated in the COI report.
Threat to Rule of Law: Ashton-Lewis warns that allowing implicated officials to oversee investigations “makes a mockery of justice” and breaches the independence of Fiji’s criminal justice system.
Call for Action: He appeals to the President, Prime Minister, and Judicial Services Commission to uphold constitutional duties and act decisively against corruption.

www.fijileaks.com/home/justice-ashton-lewis-slams-rabuka-and-ratu-naiqama-ficac-inquiry-recommendations-ignored-coi-called-for-removal-of-temo-for-alleged-perjury-obstruction-of-justice-abuse-of-office-but-rabuka-fails-to-act

Pardon My Ambition: Nawaikula Bets on Presidential Mercy to Shortcut Democracy. If Nawaikula Gets a Pardon, Why Not Empty Prisons of all iTaukei Prisoners? He hopes pardon will enable a Political COMEBACK

22/8/2025

*We are being treated to political theatre about whether a presidential pardon can be used to rewind the law—not for justice, but for Nawaikula's personal political ambition

If NIKO NAWAIKULA Gets a Pardon, Why Not Empty the Prisons Too?

So, former MP Niko Nawaikula wants a presidential pardon so he can jump the eight-year stand-down and stage a political comeback.

Forgive us for asking: what makes him so special?

In 2022, the courts convicted him for lying about his residence to unlawfully claim over $20,000 in parliamentary allowances —money taken straight from taxpayers’ pockets. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, and the 2013 Constitution is very clear:

“If you are sentenced to 12 months or more, you cannot contest elections for eight years after your sentence.”

That rule wasn’t written for “ordinary” criminals only. It was written for everyone.

Yet here we are, being treated to political theatre about whether a presidential pardon can be used to rewind the law—not for justice, but for personal ambition.

“This 2013 Constitution is oppressive—except when it rescues me personally."

A Pardon for the Privileged

Let’s be blunt: if Nawaikula were just an ordinary iTaukei villager convicted of stealing $20,000 worth of yaqona or diesel, he wouldn’t even dream of a presidential pardon.

There would be no lawyers whispering constitutional shortcuts.
No media attention.
And certainly no sympathy from those in power.

But because Nawaikula once sat in Parliament with the President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, lost his seat under the very Constitution he now rails against, and just so happens to have been a political colleague of the current President when they both served as MPs, suddenly, a pardon is on the table?

This smells less like justice and more like privilege masquerading as mercy.

Where Does It End?

If Nawaikula gets a free pass:

Shouldn’t we empty Naboro Prison too?
What about the hundreds of young iTaukei men serving long sentences for thefts worth far less than $20,000?
Do they not deserve a second chance?

Or is the rule simple: if you wear a sulu in Parliament, you get special treatment; if you wear orange in Naboro, tough luck.

This selective compassion exposes a system where connections trump fairness.

The Bitter Irony

Let’s not forget the ultimate twist

Nawaikula hates the 2013 Constitution.
He has campaigned for its repeal, calling it illegitimate.
Yet now, when it suits him, he wants to use its presidential pardon provision to erase his conviction and leap back into politics.

It’s as if he’s saying: “This Constitution is oppressive—except when it rescues me personally.”

If a presidential pardon is granted here, it will send a loud, dangerous message:

Laws are for the little people.
If you are ordinary iTaukei, serve your time.
But if you are connected, powerful, or a former colleague of the President, the Constitution bends to your ambition.

Either apply mercy equally—or don’t apply it at all.

From Fijileaks Archive, 6 December 2020

Vijendra Prakash is accused of falsely claiming $33,000 in Travel Insurance

"Honourable Members of Parliament, and all those tuning in from the comfort of their home, as your elected Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the Almighty God for this great honour bestowed on me.
I must sincerely thank the Honourable Members of Parliament for the trust and confidence placed on me to serve this august House as Speaker.
Honourable Members, allow me to also congratulate you again, individually and collectively, for your successful election to this august House."

CRIME PAYS IN FIJI, HANDSOMELY
From PRISON to Parliament to Presidency

All Aboard the Sinking Canoe: When the RFMF Sets Sail, PAP LAWYER Simione Valenitabua, Captain Sitiveni Rabuka and PAP Better Pack Life Jackets. Ah, don't forget to take the President, floating on choppy seas

20/8/2025

The People’s Alliance Party (PAP) has now doubled down on its legal challenge to the 2013 Constitution, urging the Supreme Court to declare the document illegitimate and “restore” the 1997 Constitution. Its submissions by PAP’s lawyer, Simione Valenitabua, were dramatic, emotional, and laced with symbolism. He quoted Fijian proverbs about sinking canoes and condemned the “hull” of the 2013 Constitution as unfit to keep the state afloat.
But beneath the poetry lies a dangerous reality: this is not just a courtroom contest—it’s a constitutional gamble that risks destabilising the state itself.
The RFMF does not need an invitation to act when the state’s security and constitutional integrity are at stake.

Simione Valenitabua. Sadly, he was addressing the i-Taukei voters and not addressing the court on the questions before them

In a court drenched in political nostalgia and selective memory, People’s Alliance Party lawyer Simione Valenitabua stood before the Supreme Court demanding for the Judges to obliterate the 2013 Constitution and “restore” the 1997 Constitution, invoking ancient proverbs about sinking canoes and stormy seas.

“The canoe of our state is sinking,” Valenitabua declared dramatically, “and Your Lordships must act before we all drown under the weight of an illegitimate constitution.”

Powerful words. Poetic even. But perhaps Valenitabua and his client, the Prime Minister and self-anointed “King Rabuka,” should start polishing their paddles — because if the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) decide to “set sail” from the barracks in response to this constitutional brinkmanship, there may be no dry land left for the ethno-nationalists and their supporters to stand on.

For decades, Rabuka’s political fortunes have relied on rewriting Fiji’s constitutional history, yet this latest courtroom manoeuvre is nothing short of a gamble with the nation’s stability. PAP’s leadership is effectively challenging the very legal order under which it governs, while simultaneously insisting it doesn’t “really” accept the 2013 Constitution—a Constitution it swore oaths under, uses daily to exercise power, and now casually describes as a “sinking hull.”

One wonders if Valenitabua and PAP have considered what happens if their wish comes true and the Supreme Court throws Fiji into constitutional chaos. The RFMF, guardians of “the state” under Section 131 of the very same 2013 Constitution, are unlikely to stand by and watch the ship capsize without taking command of the wheel.

If that day comes, the “restorationists” might find themselves needing their own canoe, paddling not towards a reborn democracy but towards the nearest safe harbour—preferably outside Fiji’s exclusive economic zone.

Until then, PAP’s lawyers might want to remember one thing: shouting “abandon ship” while still standing on the bridge doesn’t make you the captain. It just makes you look like someone who forgot to bring a life jacket.

Ah, and lest they forget, they’ll need to take along their ceremonial figurehead and co-traveller on this legal odyssey: President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu. After all, what’s a royal canoe ride without the High Chief and his presidential entourage?

PAP’s Constitutional Gamble Risks Inviting the RFMF Back Into the Political Arena

PAP can't ride freely on ethno-nationalist wave

PAP governs under the very framework it now seeks to destroy. Its leaders swore oaths of allegiance to the 2013 Constitution, they invoke it daily to make laws, and they depend on it to maintain executive authority.

Yet in the same breath, they tell the courts their participation has been “for convenience only,” as though Fiji’s legal order were some optional garment they can wear or discard at will.

This is more than political theatre. If PAP succeeds in persuading the Supreme Court that the 2013 Constitution is invalid, the decision would create a constitutional vacuum. Parliament, Cabinet, and even the presidency itself would have no lawful foundation. Governance would be paralysed overnight.

And in Fiji, we all know what happens when a power vacuum opens.

Section 131: The RFMF’s Mandate

Under Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution, the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) holds an explicit constitutional role as the “guardian of the State,” with the mandate to “ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians.”

PAP cannot simply pretend this clause doesn’t exist while inviting the judiciary to pull the rug out from under the legal framework that currently defines the RFMF’s powers, obligations, and limits. If the Supreme Court declares the 2013 Constitution invalid, it would force the RFMF to act--not out of political preference, but out of constitutional necessity.

The Political Recklessness of “Convenient Governance”

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and his allies have tried to frame this court action as a principled defence of democracy. But PAP’s posture reveals something else entirely: they want the power that comes with the 2013 Constitution while pretending their hands are clean of its birth.

By insisting their compliance with the current constitutional order has been “for convenience only,” PAP risks undermining public confidence in every law, every Cabinet decision, and every appointment made since 2013. If they don’t believe in the legitimacy of their own authority, why should the people?

A Warning, Not a Threat

This is not a call for military intervention. But history teaches us that Fiji’s stability cannot be taken for granted. Every significant constitutional rupture in the last 40 years—1987, 2000, 2006—has eventually drawn the RFMF into the political arena.

By pushing the Supreme Court to repudiate the 2013 Constitution without providing a clear roadmap for lawful continuity, PAP is flirting with the same destabilising forces it claims to oppose. The RFMF does not need an invitation to act when the state’s security and constitutional integrity are at stake.

If PAP truly seeks national unity and stability, it must abandon brinkmanship and engage in genuine dialogue about constitutional reform—through Parliament, public consultation, and democratic consensus—not by inviting the judiciary to detonate the foundation of the state.

Otherwise, if the “canoe” Valenitabua so passionately described really does start sinking, PAP’s leaders—and yes, even President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu—may find themselves scrambling for paddles in a storm they created.

<<Previous

MYSTERY SOLVED: Legal World Shook Its Head In Disbelief as PAP Lawyer Simione Valenitabua Quoted King Solomon's Tale of Two Wives and Child before Supreme Court. ​Now We Know He Was Moonlighting as Methodist Church's Lawyer, Preaching for the Church Too.

*One ISIKELI MATAITOGA is now judge on the Fiji Court of Appeal.*He had argued (Victoria University Law Review Journal, 1991) that there was no need to hold referendum on the imposed 1990 Constitution of Fiji.

*The Court lowered the constitutional amendment threshold. From 75% of Parliament and 75% of all registered voters, it now requires: ​*Two-thirds of Parliament, and A simple majority of voters who actually turn up at a referendum.

Constitution Rewritten in Robes

Pal Ahluwalia Waves Goodbye, USP Keeps Fighting: A Vice-Chancellor Departs, but the Drama Refuses to Go