Fijileaks: Every document cited by us contains Leung's fingerprints.
According to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka's affidavit to the COI, he had instructed Leung NOT to approve Malimali's appointment
 |   |
When a former Attorney-General labels a legally constituted Commission of Inquiry (COI) Report as “absurd,” the nation should not be cowed by the bravado — it should ask: What is he trying to hide?
Graham Leung’s public denunciation of the COI Report is not just disrespectful — it is dangerous, dishonest, and self-interested. This was not merely a difference of opinion or spirited legal debate. It was an outright dismissal of a constitutional process, laced with contempt and timed suspiciously as the Commission’s findings cast serious allegations his way.
Let us not mince words: the COI findings reportedly implicate Leung in alleged abuse of office, perjury, and obstruction and perversion of the course of justice — specifically relating to the appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). This is not a minor administrative footnote; it strikes at the heart of public sector integrity and the rule of law.
Rather than respond to these grave accusations with clarity, evidence, or legal rebuttal, Leung chose to impugn the entire process — branding it “rubbish” with the flippancy of someone used to immunity from accountability. But unlike the courtroom, where evidence is tested and arguments are grounded in law, Leung offered nothing more than political theatre. No rebuttal of findings. No engagement with facts. Just bluster.
This is particularly egregious given Leung’s past posturing as a reformer and champion of judicial independence. When faced with allegations of dishonesty and abuse of legal process himself, the mask drops — revealing someone who will trash a constitutional body rather than face scrutiny.
The public must be clear-eyed: this is not about freedom of speech or a principled critique of institutional findings. This is an attempt by a politically connected figure to delegitimise a lawful inquiry that has dared to examine the conduct of the powerful. It is obstruction by narrative — a smear campaign against the very concept of public accountability.
Worse, Leung’s comments have a chilling effect on public confidence. If a former A-G can so casually denounce a Commission chaired by a senior jurist, with witnesses testifying under oath, then what is left of lawful oversight? It sends the message that in Fiji, if you’re elite enough, you can mock the system and intimidate it into silence.
It is worth remembering that Barbara Malimali’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner was deeply controversial from the outset, marred by concerns over political interference and questionable vetting. The COI was tasked with investigating precisely these kinds of potential abuses. If the findings now show that Leung played a central role in manipulating or deceiving that process — through dishonesty or obstruction — then he should face the consequences in law, not hide behind insults.
No one is above the law — and certainly not those who once held the office of Attorney-General. If Leung believes the COI has erred, he knows the proper legal avenues: judicial review, formal legal response, or factual rebuttal. What he has offered instead is a political tantrum wrapped in a lawyer’s robe — unworthy of the profession and deeply corrosive to public trust.
In Fiji’s long journey to institutional integrity, this COI may yet mark a turning point. But only if the public rejects attempts to bully or shame it into irrelevance. Graham Leung’s performance is not just a disgrace to his office — it is an insult to the Fijian people’s right to the truth.
If there is evidence to be tested, let it be tested in a court of law. Until then, the Commission of Inquiry Report stands. And those named in it — including Leung — must answer, not attack.
Graham Leung’s public denunciation of the COI Report is not just disrespectful — it is dangerous, dishonest, and self-interested. This was not merely a difference of opinion or spirited legal debate. It was an outright dismissal of a constitutional process, laced with contempt and timed suspiciously as the Commission’s findings cast serious allegations his way.
Let us not mince words: the COI findings reportedly implicate Leung in alleged abuse of office, perjury, and obstruction and perversion of the course of justice — specifically relating to the appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). This is not a minor administrative footnote; it strikes at the heart of public sector integrity and the rule of law.
Rather than respond to these grave accusations with clarity, evidence, or legal rebuttal, Leung chose to impugn the entire process — branding it “rubbish” with the flippancy of someone used to immunity from accountability. But unlike the courtroom, where evidence is tested and arguments are grounded in law, Leung offered nothing more than political theatre. No rebuttal of findings. No engagement with facts. Just bluster.
This is particularly egregious given Leung’s past posturing as a reformer and champion of judicial independence. When faced with allegations of dishonesty and abuse of legal process himself, the mask drops — revealing someone who will trash a constitutional body rather than face scrutiny.
The public must be clear-eyed: this is not about freedom of speech or a principled critique of institutional findings. This is an attempt by a politically connected figure to delegitimise a lawful inquiry that has dared to examine the conduct of the powerful. It is obstruction by narrative — a smear campaign against the very concept of public accountability.
Worse, Leung’s comments have a chilling effect on public confidence. If a former A-G can so casually denounce a Commission chaired by a senior jurist, with witnesses testifying under oath, then what is left of lawful oversight? It sends the message that in Fiji, if you’re elite enough, you can mock the system and intimidate it into silence.
It is worth remembering that Barbara Malimali’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner was deeply controversial from the outset, marred by concerns over political interference and questionable vetting. The COI was tasked with investigating precisely these kinds of potential abuses. If the findings now show that Leung played a central role in manipulating or deceiving that process — through dishonesty or obstruction — then he should face the consequences in law, not hide behind insults.
No one is above the law — and certainly not those who once held the office of Attorney-General. If Leung believes the COI has erred, he knows the proper legal avenues: judicial review, formal legal response, or factual rebuttal. What he has offered instead is a political tantrum wrapped in a lawyer’s robe — unworthy of the profession and deeply corrosive to public trust.
In Fiji’s long journey to institutional integrity, this COI may yet mark a turning point. But only if the public rejects attempts to bully or shame it into irrelevance. Graham Leung’s performance is not just a disgrace to his office — it is an insult to the Fijian people’s right to the truth.
If there is evidence to be tested, let it be tested in a court of law. Until then, the Commission of Inquiry Report stands. And those named in it — including Leung — must answer, not attack.
