 |  |
  |  |
Fresh questions are being raised over the political neutrality of Fiji’s prosecutorial system following a Facebook exchange involving John Rabuku, who is Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and comments encouraging political alignment with the People’s Alliance Party (PAP).
The controversy arose after Dr Jone Hawea, former Deputy Leader of the We Unite Fiji (WUF) Party, publicly announced his resignation from both his leadership role and party membership in a Facebook post on Tuesday.
Dr Hawea stated that his decision was made after “careful consideration” and reaffirmed his commitment to contributing to national development and the vision of a “New Fiji.”
In response to the resignation post, Rabuku commented publicly, suggesting that Dr Hawea should 'join PAP', a remark that quickly drew attention and criticism online. Other users joined the thread, debating political loyalties and motivations, before Rabuku further engaged in the discussion.
While Rabuku’s supporters argue that the comment was made in a personal capacity and merely as a response to a political development, it must be noted that that the issue is not whether the comment was invited, but whether it was appropriate for someone holding, or acting in, a constitutionally independent office such as the DPP.
Under Fiji’s constitutional framework, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required to operate independently and without political influence. Senior legal officers are also bound by public service and institutional codes of conduct that emphasise political neutrality, particularly in public forums.
Although Fiji law does not prohibit public officers from holding private political views, publicly encouraging an individual to join a specific political party, especially on a widely accessible platform like Facebook, may be viewed as political advocacy, rather than private expression.
Social media is now firmly recognised as a public space, and conduct on such platforms can attract scrutiny if it undermines public confidence in the independence of state institutions. This is especially relevant where the individual involved is easily identifiable and widely known to hold a senior legal position.
At this stage, there is no indication of any formal complaint or investigation. However, the incident has reignited debate about where the line should be drawn between personal expression and professional responsibility for holders of powerful constitutional offices.
The broader concern remains whether public confidence in the neutrality of the Office of the DPP can be maintained when senior figures engage openly in partisan political discussions online, even when those discussions arise from seemingly casual or reactive Facebook exchanges.
As Fiji navigates a politically active period, the episode highlights a core principle of the rule of law: justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. For the Office of the DPP, maintaining both actual and perceived independence remains critical, particularly where future prosecutions may involve the very political actors being publicly discussed online.
The controversy arose after Dr Jone Hawea, former Deputy Leader of the We Unite Fiji (WUF) Party, publicly announced his resignation from both his leadership role and party membership in a Facebook post on Tuesday.
Dr Hawea stated that his decision was made after “careful consideration” and reaffirmed his commitment to contributing to national development and the vision of a “New Fiji.”
In response to the resignation post, Rabuku commented publicly, suggesting that Dr Hawea should 'join PAP', a remark that quickly drew attention and criticism online. Other users joined the thread, debating political loyalties and motivations, before Rabuku further engaged in the discussion.
While Rabuku’s supporters argue that the comment was made in a personal capacity and merely as a response to a political development, it must be noted that that the issue is not whether the comment was invited, but whether it was appropriate for someone holding, or acting in, a constitutionally independent office such as the DPP.
Under Fiji’s constitutional framework, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required to operate independently and without political influence. Senior legal officers are also bound by public service and institutional codes of conduct that emphasise political neutrality, particularly in public forums.
Although Fiji law does not prohibit public officers from holding private political views, publicly encouraging an individual to join a specific political party, especially on a widely accessible platform like Facebook, may be viewed as political advocacy, rather than private expression.
Social media is now firmly recognised as a public space, and conduct on such platforms can attract scrutiny if it undermines public confidence in the independence of state institutions. This is especially relevant where the individual involved is easily identifiable and widely known to hold a senior legal position.
At this stage, there is no indication of any formal complaint or investigation. However, the incident has reignited debate about where the line should be drawn between personal expression and professional responsibility for holders of powerful constitutional offices.
The broader concern remains whether public confidence in the neutrality of the Office of the DPP can be maintained when senior figures engage openly in partisan political discussions online, even when those discussions arise from seemingly casual or reactive Facebook exchanges.
As Fiji navigates a politically active period, the episode highlights a core principle of the rule of law: justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. For the Office of the DPP, maintaining both actual and perceived independence remains critical, particularly where future prosecutions may involve the very political actors being publicly discussed online.
From Fijileaks Archive, 24 September 2025
 The rule of law depends not only on the fair administration of justice but also on public confidence that prosecutors, as officers of the court, act impartially, uphold the presumption of innocence, and avoid conduct that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings. When those entrusted with prosecutorial authority use their public platforms to comment on active cases, they risk eroding that confidence and undermining the integrity of the justice system itself. That concern is now squarely before Fiji's general public following revelations that a senior Assistant DPP Tabuakuro, though not a member of the prosecuting team, has repeatedly used social media platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn to post commentary and news stories about the ongoing criminal trial of former Attorney-General Aiyaz Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem. |   |
Prejudicial Commentary: “When He Is Convicted…”
In one of the most troubling examples, the Assistant DPP Tabuakuro personally posted a Facebook comment declaring: “When he is convicted, he must repay the $55,000 as restitution to the State. #justicealwaysprevails.”
This was not an offhand remark by a private citizen. It was published by a senior state prosecutor on her own social media page. The language - “when he is convicted” -presupposes guilt, anticipates sentencing, and dismisses the presumption of innocence.
For any prosecutor, such language would be inappropriate. For a senior Assistant DPP, it is profoundly damaging. It gives the appearance that the prosecutorial office itself regards a conviction as a foregone conclusion, a perception fundamentally incompatible with the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Fiji.
A Pattern of Public Engagement, Not an Isolated Incident
The prejudicial post is not an isolated lapse. The Assistant DPP’s own LinkedIn and Facebook activity show repeated sharing and amplification of news stories about the pending trial of Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem including:
Ethical Duties of Prosecutors and the Risk of Bias
The Constitution requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to act independently and 'without fear, favour, or prejudice'. That duty extends to all officers acting under the DPP’s authority, including Assistant Directors. Independence and impartiality are not merely operational obligations, they include a duty to avoid public conduct that undermines confidence in the fairness of proceedings.
The United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) provide that prosecutors must:
The Assistant DPP Tabuakuro’s repeated posts and comments, especially those suggesting an inevitable conviction, appear to violate each of these core principles.
Sub Judice and Contempt: A Real Risk of Prejudice
Under Fiji’s common law of contempt, any public statement that creates a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial can constitute sub judice contempt. This risk is amplified when the speaker is a state prosecutor, whose words carry institutional weight.
The repeated online activity by the Assistant DPP could be argued to have:
Even if intended as private or personal activity, prosecutors are held to higher standards precisely because their words can affect the administration of justice.
Privacy Is No Defence: Closed Pages Still Carry Consequences
It is also understood that at least one of the prejudicial posts (on Facebook) was made in a closed or semi-private social media group before being leaked. That does not mitigate the seriousness of the conduct. Courts and disciplinary bodies have consistently held that prosecutorial misconduct is not excused by privacy settings.
If a post concerns an active case, prejudges its outcome, and is foreseeably shareable, the prosecutor remains responsible for its impact, regardless of where or how it was published. Indeed, the use of a closed group may suggest an awareness that the content was inappropriate for public view, aggravating the misconduct rather than excusing it.
Possible Consequences and Institutional Remedies
Given the seriousness of the conduct, several remedies are available:
Conclusion
Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Public confidence in the rule of law depends on the impartiality of those who administer it.
By repeatedly posting and sharing commentary about an ongoing criminal trial, including a direct statement that a defendant 'will be convicted', Tabuakuro has crossed a bright ethical line. Whether on a public platform or a closed page, such conduct risks contaminating the judicial process and weakening the credibility of the ODPP itself.
The issue is no longer just about one trial. It is about the integrity of Fiji’s justice system, and whether those entrusted with prosecutorial power, are willing to respect the constitutional principles that give that power legitimacy.
The Chief Justice (or any judge of the High Court or Supreme Court) can initiate contempt of court proceedings against a prosecutor, including an Assistant DPP, if her conduct poses a real risk of prejudicing an ongoing trial or undermining the authority and integrity of the judicial process.
In one of the most troubling examples, the Assistant DPP Tabuakuro personally posted a Facebook comment declaring: “When he is convicted, he must repay the $55,000 as restitution to the State. #justicealwaysprevails.”
This was not an offhand remark by a private citizen. It was published by a senior state prosecutor on her own social media page. The language - “when he is convicted” -presupposes guilt, anticipates sentencing, and dismisses the presumption of innocence.
For any prosecutor, such language would be inappropriate. For a senior Assistant DPP, it is profoundly damaging. It gives the appearance that the prosecutorial office itself regards a conviction as a foregone conclusion, a perception fundamentally incompatible with the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Fiji.
A Pattern of Public Engagement, Not an Isolated Incident
The prejudicial post is not an isolated lapse. The Assistant DPP’s own LinkedIn and Facebook activity show repeated sharing and amplification of news stories about the pending trial of Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem including:
- A Mai TV post announcing that the High Court has scheduled their trial for 15 September to 3 October 2025, referring to the charges they face.
- An FBC News report headlined “Court told no tax relief approved for Saneem”, shared on her LinkedIn profile.
Ethical Duties of Prosecutors and the Risk of Bias
The Constitution requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to act independently and 'without fear, favour, or prejudice'. That duty extends to all officers acting under the DPP’s authority, including Assistant Directors. Independence and impartiality are not merely operational obligations, they include a duty to avoid public conduct that undermines confidence in the fairness of proceedings.
The United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) provide that prosecutors must:
- “Perform their duties fairly, consistently, and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights.”
- “Refrain from public statements that may prejudice ongoing proceedings.”
The Assistant DPP Tabuakuro’s repeated posts and comments, especially those suggesting an inevitable conviction, appear to violate each of these core principles.
Sub Judice and Contempt: A Real Risk of Prejudice
Under Fiji’s common law of contempt, any public statement that creates a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial can constitute sub judice contempt. This risk is amplified when the speaker is a state prosecutor, whose words carry institutional weight.
The repeated online activity by the Assistant DPP could be argued to have:
- Influenced public opinion by presenting guilt as a certainty.
- Created apprehension of institutional bias within the ODPP.
- Compromised the perceived impartiality of the prosecution service as a whole.
Even if intended as private or personal activity, prosecutors are held to higher standards precisely because their words can affect the administration of justice.
Privacy Is No Defence: Closed Pages Still Carry Consequences
It is also understood that at least one of the prejudicial posts (on Facebook) was made in a closed or semi-private social media group before being leaked. That does not mitigate the seriousness of the conduct. Courts and disciplinary bodies have consistently held that prosecutorial misconduct is not excused by privacy settings.
If a post concerns an active case, prejudges its outcome, and is foreseeably shareable, the prosecutor remains responsible for its impact, regardless of where or how it was published. Indeed, the use of a closed group may suggest an awareness that the content was inappropriate for public view, aggravating the misconduct rather than excusing it.
Possible Consequences and Institutional Remedies
Given the seriousness of the conduct, several remedies are available:
- Internal Disciplinary Review: The ODPP should investigate the Assistant DPP’s conduct and consider disciplinary measures for prejudicial commentary.
- Referral to the Legal Practitioners Unit: The conduct may constitute professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act.
- Judicial Remedies: Defence counsel may seek judicial acknowledgment of the prejudicial conduct or request assurances of prosecutorial impartiality.
- Public Accountability: The ODPP should publicly reaffirm its commitment to independence and distance itself from any statements or conduct suggesting bias.
Conclusion
Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Public confidence in the rule of law depends on the impartiality of those who administer it.
By repeatedly posting and sharing commentary about an ongoing criminal trial, including a direct statement that a defendant 'will be convicted', Tabuakuro has crossed a bright ethical line. Whether on a public platform or a closed page, such conduct risks contaminating the judicial process and weakening the credibility of the ODPP itself.
The issue is no longer just about one trial. It is about the integrity of Fiji’s justice system, and whether those entrusted with prosecutorial power, are willing to respect the constitutional principles that give that power legitimacy.
The Chief Justice (or any judge of the High Court or Supreme Court) can initiate contempt of court proceedings against a prosecutor, including an Assistant DPP, if her conduct poses a real risk of prejudicing an ongoing trial or undermining the authority and integrity of the judicial process.
It is alleged that Rasova falsely stated that his permanent place of residence was in Nasenivolau, Nabouwalu village, Ono, Kadavu and obtained $21,350 in parliamentary allowances between July 2019 and April 2020.
The Suva Magistrates Court has found that former SODELPA MP Simione Rasova has a case to answer in court.
He appeared before Magistrate Joseph Daurewa this afternoon, who delivered the ruling given by Magistrate Pukeria Low.
Rasova has 28 days to appeal the ruling.
The former MP is charged with one count of providing false information to a public servant, allegedly lying about his residence, and obtaining a financial gain.
It is alleged that Rasova falsely stated that his permanent place of residence was in Nasenivolau, Nabouwalu village, Ono, Kadavu and obtained $21,350 in parliamentary allowances between July 2019 and April 2020. Source: Fijivillage News, 11 February 2026
He appeared before Magistrate Joseph Daurewa this afternoon, who delivered the ruling given by Magistrate Pukeria Low.
Rasova has 28 days to appeal the ruling.
The former MP is charged with one count of providing false information to a public servant, allegedly lying about his residence, and obtaining a financial gain.
It is alleged that Rasova falsely stated that his permanent place of residence was in Nasenivolau, Nabouwalu village, Ono, Kadavu and obtained $21,350 in parliamentary allowances between July 2019 and April 2020. Source: Fijivillage News, 11 February 2026
