In December 2023, Justice Ashton-Lewis had dinner at Ashiyana restaurant in Suva with Clarke and lawyer Hamendra Nagin. According to Ashton-Lewis, he told Clarke and Nagin during that dinner that Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had approached him in 2021, when Rabuka was Opposition Leader, and again after becoming Prime Minister, to ask whether he would be interested in becoming Fiji’s Chief Justice.
 Justice Ashton-Lewis  Wylie Clarke | What Chat Topic Was On the Menu?  |  PM Rabuka  Hemendra Nagin |
There was nothing inherently improper about Fiji Law Society president Wylie Clarke dining with Justice David Ashton-Lewis. Lawyers, judges and senior members of the profession frequently meet socially.
But if Ashton-Lewis’s account is accepted, this was no ordinary social dinner. He says that in December 2023, he had dinner in Suva with Clarke and Suva lawyer Hamendra Nagin.
According to Ashton-Lewis, he told Clarke and Nagin during that dinner that Sitiveni Rabuka had approached him in 2021, when Rabuka was Opposition Leader, and again after becoming Prime Minister, to ask whether he would be interested in becoming Fiji’s Chief Justice.
That was an extraordinary disclosure. The man appointed to chair a tribunal concerning Fiji’s suspended Chief Justice was allegedly telling the president of the Fiji Law Society that a political leader had sounded him out about occupying the same office.
There is no evidence that Ashton-Lewis solicited the approaches, that Rabuka promised him the position or that Clarke and Nagin participated in any arrangement. Ashton-Lewis maintains that he was merely recounting approaches made to him.
Nevertheless, the conversation sat at an exceptionally sensitive intersection between judicial discipline, judicial succession and political involvement in the selection of Fiji’s Chief Justice.
Clarke did not disclose the dinner
Clarke subsequently told FijiVillage that Ashton-Lewis had said during a “meet-and-greet” session before the Commission of Inquiry into Barbara Malimali’s appointment that he should be Chief Justice of Fiji. Ashton-Lewis denied making such a statement during the meet-and-greet. He said he did not behave in that manner.
However, in responding to Clarke, Ashton-Lewis disclosed the earlier December 2023 dinner and said that Rabuka’s approaches concerning the Chief Justice position had been discussed there. It was Ashton-Lewis, not Clarke, who revealed the dinner and the substance of that alleged conversation.
Clarke did not mention in his FijiVillage interview that he had previously dined with Ashton-Lewis. Nor did he disclose that the possibility of Ashton-Lewis becoming Chief Justice had already been discussed in his presence.
That omission matters because the earlier conversation was essential context for assessing Clarke’s later allegation.
Without it, the public was left with the impression that Ashton-Lewis’s alleged meet-and-greet remark arose without any previous discussion between the two men about the Chief Justice’s office.
Did the two conversations become conflated? The existence of the earlier dinner raises an obvious evidential question: were there two separate conversations about Ashton-Lewis becoming Chief Justice, or has the substance of the December 2023 dinner become conflated with what was allegedly said at the later COI meet-and-greet?
Clarke says Ashton-Lewis declared during the meet-and-greet that he should be Chief Justice. Ashton-Lewis denies saying that. But he acknowledges that the Chief Justice position had been discussed with Clarke and Nagin at the earlier dinner, when he allegedly related Rabuka’s approaches.
The two men therefore agree that the possibility of Ashton-Lewis becoming Chief Justice was discussed in Clarke’s presence. They disagree about when the crucial words were spoken, how they were expressed and whether Ashton-Lewis was merely recounting Rabuka’s approaches or declaring his own ambition for the office.
That is a significant credibility dispute.
It cannot be resolved fairly without considering the December 2023 dinner, the very event Clarke omitted from his public account.
Was Clarke wrong to attend? Clarke was not automatically wrong to attend the dinner, particularly if he did not know beforehand that judicial appointments would be discussed.
But once the conversation allegedly turned to Rabuka’s approaches and the Chief Justice position, it ceased to be merely a private social occasion.
As president of the Fiji Law Society, Clarke held an institutional responsibility to defend judicial independence and the integrity of constitutional appointments. He should have appreciated the sensitivity of being told that a political leader had approached a judge of the Supreme Court to become the Chief Justice of Fiji. Lewis was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge in Fiji on 14 December, 2023, after being appointed by President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere.
The Chief Justice is not appointed through private political negotiations. Under Fiji’s Constitution, the President appoints the Chief Justice on the advice of the Prime Minister following consultation with the Attorney-General.
An informal inquiry about someone’s interest does not necessarily prove that the constitutional process was bypassed. But political approaches to serving or prospective judges can create an appearance that judicial succession is being privately explored before the formal constitutional machinery is engaged.
What did Clarke do with the disclosure? The most important question is not whether Clarke should have eaten dinner with Ashton-Lewis. It is what Clarke did after allegedly hearing the disclosure.
(1) Did he make a contemporaneous record of the conversation?
(2) Did he question whether Rabuka’s reported approaches were constitutionally appropriate?
(3) Did he inform the Fiji Law Society Council or another appropriate authority?
(4) Did he disclose the dinner when giving evidence before the Malimali COI?
(5) Did he regard Ashton-Lewis as merely recounting approaches made to him, or did he interpret his words as expressing a personal ambition to become Chief Justice?
If Clarke considered the December 2023 discussion innocent, what allegedly changed when the two men met again before the COI?
Conversely, if he regarded Ashton-Lewis’s comments as evidence of an improper ambition for the office, why did he remain silent about the earlier conversation when making his accusation publicly?
Clarke should answer the missing questions
Clarke should be invited to confirm or deny Ashton-Lewis’s account of the dinner. If he confirms the account, he should explain why he omitted this highly relevant background from his FijiVillage interview.
If he disputes it, he should state what was discussed and whether Rabuka’s alleged approaches or the prospect of Ashton-Lewis becoming Chief Justice were mentioned. Clarke’s omission does not, by itself, establish dishonesty. But it made his public account materially incomplete.
The dinner provided essential background for determining whether Ashton-Lewis made two separate statements about becoming Chief Justice, whether Clarke misunderstood or conflated the conversations, or whether Ashton-Lewis is now attempting to relocate a damaging remark from the COI meet-and-greet to an earlier private occasion.
The meal was not the real issue
There is no evidence that the dinner itself amounted to misconduct, improper influence or a conspiracy concerning the Chief Justice’s position.
The real issue is what was allegedly discussed across the table.
Ashton-Lewis had been appointed to chair a tribunal investigating allegations against the suspended Chief Justice. Kumar died on the scheduled opening day, leaving the allegations undetermined. The following month, according to Ashton-Lewis, the tribunal chairman told the Fiji Law Society president about Rabuka’s approaches concerning the same judicial office.
That was important constitutional and professional information.
Yet when Clarke later accused Ashton-Lewis publicly of declaring that he should be Chief Justice, Clarke did not disclose the earlier dinner or the fact that the same office had already been discussed between them.
Food for thought: Wylie Clarke was entitled to dine with Justice Ashton-Lewis. But once their conversation allegedly turned to Rabuka’s approaches and Fiji’s highest judicial office, it ceased to be merely a social meal. Clarke’s failure to disclose that earlier conversation left the public with only part of the story in his Fijivillage Straight Talk interview.
But if Ashton-Lewis’s account is accepted, this was no ordinary social dinner. He says that in December 2023, he had dinner in Suva with Clarke and Suva lawyer Hamendra Nagin.
According to Ashton-Lewis, he told Clarke and Nagin during that dinner that Sitiveni Rabuka had approached him in 2021, when Rabuka was Opposition Leader, and again after becoming Prime Minister, to ask whether he would be interested in becoming Fiji’s Chief Justice.
That was an extraordinary disclosure. The man appointed to chair a tribunal concerning Fiji’s suspended Chief Justice was allegedly telling the president of the Fiji Law Society that a political leader had sounded him out about occupying the same office.
There is no evidence that Ashton-Lewis solicited the approaches, that Rabuka promised him the position or that Clarke and Nagin participated in any arrangement. Ashton-Lewis maintains that he was merely recounting approaches made to him.
Nevertheless, the conversation sat at an exceptionally sensitive intersection between judicial discipline, judicial succession and political involvement in the selection of Fiji’s Chief Justice.
Clarke did not disclose the dinner
Clarke subsequently told FijiVillage that Ashton-Lewis had said during a “meet-and-greet” session before the Commission of Inquiry into Barbara Malimali’s appointment that he should be Chief Justice of Fiji. Ashton-Lewis denied making such a statement during the meet-and-greet. He said he did not behave in that manner.
However, in responding to Clarke, Ashton-Lewis disclosed the earlier December 2023 dinner and said that Rabuka’s approaches concerning the Chief Justice position had been discussed there. It was Ashton-Lewis, not Clarke, who revealed the dinner and the substance of that alleged conversation.
Clarke did not mention in his FijiVillage interview that he had previously dined with Ashton-Lewis. Nor did he disclose that the possibility of Ashton-Lewis becoming Chief Justice had already been discussed in his presence.
That omission matters because the earlier conversation was essential context for assessing Clarke’s later allegation.
Without it, the public was left with the impression that Ashton-Lewis’s alleged meet-and-greet remark arose without any previous discussion between the two men about the Chief Justice’s office.
Did the two conversations become conflated? The existence of the earlier dinner raises an obvious evidential question: were there two separate conversations about Ashton-Lewis becoming Chief Justice, or has the substance of the December 2023 dinner become conflated with what was allegedly said at the later COI meet-and-greet?
Clarke says Ashton-Lewis declared during the meet-and-greet that he should be Chief Justice. Ashton-Lewis denies saying that. But he acknowledges that the Chief Justice position had been discussed with Clarke and Nagin at the earlier dinner, when he allegedly related Rabuka’s approaches.
The two men therefore agree that the possibility of Ashton-Lewis becoming Chief Justice was discussed in Clarke’s presence. They disagree about when the crucial words were spoken, how they were expressed and whether Ashton-Lewis was merely recounting Rabuka’s approaches or declaring his own ambition for the office.
That is a significant credibility dispute.
It cannot be resolved fairly without considering the December 2023 dinner, the very event Clarke omitted from his public account.
Was Clarke wrong to attend? Clarke was not automatically wrong to attend the dinner, particularly if he did not know beforehand that judicial appointments would be discussed.
But once the conversation allegedly turned to Rabuka’s approaches and the Chief Justice position, it ceased to be merely a private social occasion.
As president of the Fiji Law Society, Clarke held an institutional responsibility to defend judicial independence and the integrity of constitutional appointments. He should have appreciated the sensitivity of being told that a political leader had approached a judge of the Supreme Court to become the Chief Justice of Fiji. Lewis was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge in Fiji on 14 December, 2023, after being appointed by President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere.
The Chief Justice is not appointed through private political negotiations. Under Fiji’s Constitution, the President appoints the Chief Justice on the advice of the Prime Minister following consultation with the Attorney-General.
An informal inquiry about someone’s interest does not necessarily prove that the constitutional process was bypassed. But political approaches to serving or prospective judges can create an appearance that judicial succession is being privately explored before the formal constitutional machinery is engaged.
What did Clarke do with the disclosure? The most important question is not whether Clarke should have eaten dinner with Ashton-Lewis. It is what Clarke did after allegedly hearing the disclosure.
(1) Did he make a contemporaneous record of the conversation?
(2) Did he question whether Rabuka’s reported approaches were constitutionally appropriate?
(3) Did he inform the Fiji Law Society Council or another appropriate authority?
(4) Did he disclose the dinner when giving evidence before the Malimali COI?
(5) Did he regard Ashton-Lewis as merely recounting approaches made to him, or did he interpret his words as expressing a personal ambition to become Chief Justice?
If Clarke considered the December 2023 discussion innocent, what allegedly changed when the two men met again before the COI?
Conversely, if he regarded Ashton-Lewis’s comments as evidence of an improper ambition for the office, why did he remain silent about the earlier conversation when making his accusation publicly?
Clarke should answer the missing questions
Clarke should be invited to confirm or deny Ashton-Lewis’s account of the dinner. If he confirms the account, he should explain why he omitted this highly relevant background from his FijiVillage interview.
If he disputes it, he should state what was discussed and whether Rabuka’s alleged approaches or the prospect of Ashton-Lewis becoming Chief Justice were mentioned. Clarke’s omission does not, by itself, establish dishonesty. But it made his public account materially incomplete.
The dinner provided essential background for determining whether Ashton-Lewis made two separate statements about becoming Chief Justice, whether Clarke misunderstood or conflated the conversations, or whether Ashton-Lewis is now attempting to relocate a damaging remark from the COI meet-and-greet to an earlier private occasion.
The meal was not the real issue
There is no evidence that the dinner itself amounted to misconduct, improper influence or a conspiracy concerning the Chief Justice’s position.
The real issue is what was allegedly discussed across the table.
Ashton-Lewis had been appointed to chair a tribunal investigating allegations against the suspended Chief Justice. Kumar died on the scheduled opening day, leaving the allegations undetermined. The following month, according to Ashton-Lewis, the tribunal chairman told the Fiji Law Society president about Rabuka’s approaches concerning the same judicial office.
That was important constitutional and professional information.
Yet when Clarke later accused Ashton-Lewis publicly of declaring that he should be Chief Justice, Clarke did not disclose the earlier dinner or the fact that the same office had already been discussed between them.
Food for thought: Wylie Clarke was entitled to dine with Justice Ashton-Lewis. But once their conversation allegedly turned to Rabuka’s approaches and Fiji’s highest judicial office, it ceased to be merely a social meal. Clarke’s failure to disclose that earlier conversation left the public with only part of the story in his Fijivillage Straight Talk interview.
President of the Fiji Law Society, Wylie Clarke says Justice David Ashton-Lewis, the Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner had said to Clarke in their meet and greet session before the COI that Justice Ashton-Lewis should be the Chief Justice of Fiji.
However, Justice Ashton-Lewis says he never made those comments in that meet and greet session and he does not behave like that, although he did confirm to fijivillage News today that he spoke to Clarke and lawyer, Hemendra Nagin during a dinner in December 2023 that he was approached in 2021 by Sitiveni Rabuka, who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, if Justice Ashton-Lewis would be interested in becoming the Chief Justice of Fiji, and again after becoming Prime Minister, Rabuka approached him again on whether he would be interested in becoming the Chief Justice.
While speaking on fijivillage Straight Talk With Vijay Narayan, Clarke said during the meet and greet session, Justice Ashton-Lewis seemed more interested in knowing what the Law Society's attitude would be to an expatriate Chief Justice and Clarke says he refused to engage with him as it was inappropriate.
Clarke adds Justice Ashton-Lewis also said that he (Justice Ashton-Lewis) should be Chief Justice.
He says he and others in the room including Janet Mason and the Secretary of the COI from the Prime Minister's Office were shocked.
Clarke says he told Justice Ashton-Lewis that this is a really inappropriate conversation as the Law Society has no role to play in the appointment of the Chief Justice and it was inappropriate to discuss about Justice Ashton-Lewis becoming the Chief Justice because the COI in it's terms of reference were supposed to deal with the Judicial Services Commission and the Chairman of the JSC, who is the Chief Justice Salesi Temo.
However Justice Ashton-Lewis maintains that the only conversation that took place was during the dinner in December 2023 about the Prime Minister asking him if he was interested in becoming the Chief Justice.
Justice Ashton-Lewis says he was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge in December 2023.
He says he remembers Clarke and Nagin saying to him at the time for him to take up the post if offered.
Clarke has maintained that he never spoke to Justice Ashton-Lewis about taking up the Chief Justice post.
However, Justice Ashton-Lewis says he never made those comments in that meet and greet session and he does not behave like that, although he did confirm to fijivillage News today that he spoke to Clarke and lawyer, Hemendra Nagin during a dinner in December 2023 that he was approached in 2021 by Sitiveni Rabuka, who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, if Justice Ashton-Lewis would be interested in becoming the Chief Justice of Fiji, and again after becoming Prime Minister, Rabuka approached him again on whether he would be interested in becoming the Chief Justice.
While speaking on fijivillage Straight Talk With Vijay Narayan, Clarke said during the meet and greet session, Justice Ashton-Lewis seemed more interested in knowing what the Law Society's attitude would be to an expatriate Chief Justice and Clarke says he refused to engage with him as it was inappropriate.
Clarke adds Justice Ashton-Lewis also said that he (Justice Ashton-Lewis) should be Chief Justice.
He says he and others in the room including Janet Mason and the Secretary of the COI from the Prime Minister's Office were shocked.
Clarke says he told Justice Ashton-Lewis that this is a really inappropriate conversation as the Law Society has no role to play in the appointment of the Chief Justice and it was inappropriate to discuss about Justice Ashton-Lewis becoming the Chief Justice because the COI in it's terms of reference were supposed to deal with the Judicial Services Commission and the Chairman of the JSC, who is the Chief Justice Salesi Temo.
However Justice Ashton-Lewis maintains that the only conversation that took place was during the dinner in December 2023 about the Prime Minister asking him if he was interested in becoming the Chief Justice.
Justice Ashton-Lewis says he was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge in December 2023.
He says he remembers Clarke and Nagin saying to him at the time for him to take up the post if offered.
Clarke has maintained that he never spoke to Justice Ashton-Lewis about taking up the Chief Justice post.
30 November 2023: NFP leader Biman Prasad at Ashiyana Restaurant, Suva
  |   |
WHO REPRESENTED MALIMALI?
Wylie Clarke Denies Being Her Lawyer, but Amani Bale’s Affidavit Says Clarke and Vaurasi Introduced Themselves as Her Lawyers
  |  |
In his affidavit, Wylie Clarke has denied that he was Malimali's LAWYER
 |  |  |
 Malimali-Saumi exchange regarding arrest and charging of NFP leader |   Kuliniasi Saumi |
THE 5 SEPTEMBER DOMINO EFFECT: Lawyers' Intervention Secured Malimali's Release. But Did It Also Stop FICAC From Cautioning and Charging Biman Prasad That Afternoon?
The events of 5 September 2024 raise an important chronological question about what happened inside FICAC after the arrest of newly appointed Commissioner Barbara Malimali.
That morning, Malimali was arrested by FICAC officers. A group of lawyers subsequently intervened over her detention and sought her release. Whatever their intention in assisting Malimali, the intervention had a potentially significant collateral consequence: Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister and NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad, who was expected to return to FICAC that afternoon to complete his caution interview and, according to the material then circulating within FICAC, face charges, was not charged.
The chronology becomes even more important when Richard Naidu’s communication to Malimali is considered. Naidu was seeking the postponement of Prasad’s FICAC appearance until Monday, 9 September, referring to the World Bank President Ajay Banga’s official visit and telling Malimali: “We are mindful that this is your first day in office (5 September 2024) and this is hardly the way you may want to begin it.”
But that produces an obvious question: when did Malimali actually receive and respond to Naidu’s request?
If Malimali had already been arrested that morning and was herself the subject of FICAC action, the precise sequence of communications becomes critical.
Evidence placed before the Commission of Inquiry by FICAC was that it was not until approximately 2pm on 5 September that officers were informed that they were not to proceed with charges without Malimali’s authorisation, an instruction which encompassed the proposed action involving Prasad.
The issue, therefore, is not simply whether lawyers were entitled to intervene on Malimali’s behalf. The larger question is whether the intervention, Malimali’s release, Naidu’s request concerning Prasad, and the subsequent instruction restraining FICAC officers from proceeding with charges intersected in a way that also benefited Prasad at the very moment FICAC was preparing to take action against him.
The documentary trail should be capable of answering this without speculation: At what time was Naidu’s request sent? When did Malimali receive it? Did she reply, and if so at what time? Who issued or communicated the approximately 2pm instruction? On whose authority? And was Prasad’s proposed charge specifically discussed before that instruction was given?
Those timestamps matter. They could establish whether these were merely separate events occurring during an extraordinary day at FICAC or whether there was a direct chronological connection between Malimali’s arrest and release, the lawyers’ intervention, and the stopping of the proposed action against Biman Prasad.
That morning, Malimali was arrested by FICAC officers. A group of lawyers subsequently intervened over her detention and sought her release. Whatever their intention in assisting Malimali, the intervention had a potentially significant collateral consequence: Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister and NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad, who was expected to return to FICAC that afternoon to complete his caution interview and, according to the material then circulating within FICAC, face charges, was not charged.
The chronology becomes even more important when Richard Naidu’s communication to Malimali is considered. Naidu was seeking the postponement of Prasad’s FICAC appearance until Monday, 9 September, referring to the World Bank President Ajay Banga’s official visit and telling Malimali: “We are mindful that this is your first day in office (5 September 2024) and this is hardly the way you may want to begin it.”
But that produces an obvious question: when did Malimali actually receive and respond to Naidu’s request?
If Malimali had already been arrested that morning and was herself the subject of FICAC action, the precise sequence of communications becomes critical.
Evidence placed before the Commission of Inquiry by FICAC was that it was not until approximately 2pm on 5 September that officers were informed that they were not to proceed with charges without Malimali’s authorisation, an instruction which encompassed the proposed action involving Prasad.
The issue, therefore, is not simply whether lawyers were entitled to intervene on Malimali’s behalf. The larger question is whether the intervention, Malimali’s release, Naidu’s request concerning Prasad, and the subsequent instruction restraining FICAC officers from proceeding with charges intersected in a way that also benefited Prasad at the very moment FICAC was preparing to take action against him.
The documentary trail should be capable of answering this without speculation: At what time was Naidu’s request sent? When did Malimali receive it? Did she reply, and if so at what time? Who issued or communicated the approximately 2pm instruction? On whose authority? And was Prasad’s proposed charge specifically discussed before that instruction was given?
Those timestamps matter. They could establish whether these were merely separate events occurring during an extraordinary day at FICAC or whether there was a direct chronological connection between Malimali’s arrest and release, the lawyers’ intervention, and the stopping of the proposed action against Biman Prasad.
| | |
