Fijileaks: Under Judicial Service Commission (JSC) standards, knowledge of such serious misconduct—specifically, Malimali admitting to drinking and “crashing out” in a judge’s room during the Tuvalu appeal—would almost certainly have disqualified her from appointment.That scandal is exactly the sort of disqualifying behavior the JSC is meant to detect. Clearly, if it had been disclosed and they had understood its gravity, she would not have been appointed. Her subsequent SACKING by the President, backed by our legal cases below, must STAND.
*Malimali undermined the moral legitimacy of her appointment. A person who once contributed to the collapse of a judicial decision should not be tasked with holding others accountable for misconduct.
*While we are withholding the full COI Report, we are publishing a limited, verified extract from the Report. The extracts have been carefully selected because: |     Judge Norman Franzi in marathon drinking session with Malimlai in Tuvalu |
- “No Room for Impunity: Malimali’s Admission Undermines the Integrity of Public Office”
By any legal, ethical, or constitutional standard, Barbara Malimali’s admission before the Commission of Inquiry on oath—that she “crashed out” in a judge’s room in Tuvalu after drinking—renders her appointment as FICAC Commissioner indefensible. It is not merely a matter of optics; it strikes at the heart of public trust and institutional integrity.
1. Legal Fitness and the JSC’s Constitutional Duty
Under Section 144 of the Constitution, public office appointments must meet the “fit and proper person” test. This test is not just about formal qualifications—it encompasses integrity, temperament, and character. For the head of Fiji’s anti-corruption watchdog, these qualities are not optional. They are essential.
The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had a constitutional and ethical duty to assess not only her résumé, but her entire professional and moral record. Had they known—fully and credibly—of her involvement in the Tuvalu incident, they would have been bound to reject her candidacy. An incident in which a then-legal representative was found intoxicated in a judge’s room, leading to a successful appeal overturning a criminal verdict, is not a minor lapse. It is judicial misconduct by proxy. It is a breach of public confidence.
That the JSC either did not know—or chose not to ask the right questions—reflects a systemic failure of vetting. Worse, if they were aware and proceeded regardless, that would constitute gross dereliction of duty. Either scenario undermines public faith in an institution designed to uphold judicial independence and moral accountability.
2. The Danger of Normalising Compromise
Fiji cannot afford to normalise behaviour that compromises the judiciary or blurs lines between legal officers and the bench. The Tuvalu Court of Appeal was unambiguous: the incident created “an appearance of bias” and cast doubt on the fairness of a criminal trial. Malimali’s admission adds an uncomfortable truth to what many suspected: that the decision to appoint her was either reckless or dishonest.
By failing to disclose her involvement in that judicial scandal—particularly in a role requiring utmost ethical clarity—Malimali undermined the moral legitimacy of her appointment. A person who once contributed to the collapse of a judicial decision should not be tasked with holding others accountable for misconduct.
3. Institutional Safeguards Must Be Strengthened
This debacle is not just about one individual. It reveals systemic weaknesses in how Fiji vets candidates for high public office. Fiji’s anti-corruption institutions—including FICAC—must not become repositories for politically convenient or ideologically aligned appointments. The JSC’s lapse exposes the need for:
- Transparent, public hearings for appointments to integrity institutions;
- Mandatory background checks including cross-jurisdictional court records;
- Disclosure requirements obligating nominees to reveal any involvement in past judicial findings, scandals, or overturned decisions.
-
Malimali’s appointment has now been revoked by the President following a damning Commission of Inquiry, but the fact that it occurred at all—and was defended by prominent officials—raises deeper questions about Fiji’s governance culture.
Was this a deliberate whitewash of a known scandal? Or was the system too shallow to detect a glaring disqualification? Either answer is damning.
Her admission is too late to prevent the institutional damage, but not too late for Fiji to draw a clear line in the sand: No one who has compromised judicial processes—whether by drunken familiarity with a judge or by silence in the face of scandal—can hold office in our anti-corruption institutions.
Conclusion
Barbara Malimali’s admission confirms what her record already suggested: she should never have been appointed. But the true scandal is broader. It is the failure of the Judicial Services Commission to investigate and act upon public information that was already in the record.
Fiji deserves better. Not just a new commissioner, but a new commitment to truth, accountability, and integrity.
To support the argument that Barbara Malimali’s admission of misconduct and failure to disclose it should have disqualified her from appointment as FICAC Commissioner, we can draw from Fijian, regional, and Commonwealth case law on judicial integrity, fit and proper person standards, and disclosure obligations. Here are key authorities:
1. Judicial Misconduct and Apprehension of Bias
Tuvalu v Malimali (2016)
(Tuvalu Court of Appeal, unreported)
- Facts: The Court overturned a criminal acquittal because Malimali, acting as legal counsel, was found drunk and in a judge’s room late at night, raising doubts about the judge’s impartiality.
- Held: The Court ruled this created an appearance of bias, a foundational breach of the right to a fair trial.
- Relevance: Malimali’s conduct led directly to the collapse of a judicial process. This is not only relevant to her legal career, but should have been considered per se disqualifying for a role like FICAC Commissioner.
2. Fit and Proper Person Standard – Integrity and Disclosure
A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253 (HCA)
- Held: The “fit and proper” test considers both past misconduct and whether the person has been candid and honest about it.
- Quote: “The public must have confidence not only in the legal system but also in those who administer it… A failure to disclose relevant conduct can itself be disqualifying.”
- Relevance: Malimali’s omission of the Tuvalu incident undermines the very standard the Judicial Services Commission must apply.
3. Failure to Disclose Material History – Legal Practice
- Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW (1957) 97 CLR 279
- Held: A legal practitioner was struck off due to conduct involving alcohol and its effect on public confidence in the administration of justice.
- Relevance: While this case dealt with barristers, its principle applies broadly: personal misconduct involving alcohol and public trust can justify removal from office.
4. Fiji Precedent – Judicial Appointments and Misconduct
Narsey v President of Fiji [2006] FJHC 361
- Held: The Court reaffirmed that appointments to public office must be made lawfully, respecting criteria in the Constitution and requiring transparency and accountability.
- Relevance: If the JSC appointed Malimali despite knowledge of disqualifying conduct, or failed to properly investigate, the appointment is legally vulnerable.
5. Standards of Professional Conduct – Regional Precedent
Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Tuala [2009] WSSC 23 (Samoa)
- Facts: Lawyer disciplined for personal misconduct involving a judge.
- Held: Professional conduct that implicates the judiciary or undermines judicial integrity justifies professional sanction.
- Relevance: Malimali’s case parallels this — the incident compromised the judicial process and directly affects her professional suitability.
Fijileaks: An incident in which a then-legal representative, Barbara Malimali, was found intoxicated in a judge’s room, leading to a successful appeal overturning a criminal verdict, is not a minor lapse. It is judicial misconduct by proxy. It is a breach of public confidence
 |  |  |
          |     Conflict of Interest: It seems the COI overlooked one crucial detail. One of the panellist's who interviewed and approved Malimali as the new FICAC Commissioner had witnessed her 2022 application for a practising certificate: the acting Chief Magistrate Josaia Waqaivolavola |
*TUVALU TRYST: When Waqaivolavola witnessed her 2022 Application for a Practising Certificate, was he aware that Malimali had been barred from practising law in Tuvalu? Also, he had not declared his conflict of interest
