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

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