| Fijileaks: Justice David Ashton-Lewis’s defence rests on an informal, decades-old verbal recognition in Papua New Guinea. Yet the law in Fiji is clear: Senior Counsel status must be formally conferred and gazetted. *If CID findings confirm that Ashton-Lewis self-styled his title without lawful authority, the repercussions will reverberate far beyond this case—reshaping how Fiji vets judges, recognises foreign qualifications, and safeguards public resources. |  |
NO KIDDING: Justice David Ashton-Lewis insists that he was recognised as a senior counsel by the late Sir Buri Kidu, in the absence of a formal Queen's Counsel (QC) or King's Counsel (KC) system in Papua New Guinea. But PNG Law Society refutes the claim: "Lewis was never Kings Counsel or Senior Counsel." |  |
  Hubert Namani, President PNG Law Society   Wylie Clarke, President, Fiji Law Society | Papua New Guinea Law Society to Fiji Law Society: |
 
|    |
- Fiji’s judiciary is reeling from a new controversy. Justice David Ashton-Lewis, the Supreme Court judge who chaired the explosive Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner, is now facing serious questions about his professional standing after the Papua New Guinea Law Society (PNGLS) confirmed that he has never been appointed King’s Counsel or Senior Counsel in PNG and does not hold a current practising certificate there.
The revelations come just weeks after Justice Ashton-Lewis’s Commission tabled a landmark report making 17 recommendations, including a call for possible criminal charges against some of Fiji’s most powerful legal figures:
- Chief Justice Salesi Temo
- Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
- Fiji Law Society President William Wylie Clarke
With tensions already running high, this new information threatens to erupt into a full-blown institutional crisis.
PNG Law Society’s Stunning Confirmation
In a confidential letter dated 16 June 2025, the PNGLS responded to Fiji Law Society President Wylie Clarke’s urgent inquiry about Justice Ashton-Lewis’s standing. Their answers were unambiguous:
No Senior Counsel Status
“From the PNG Law Society records the answer is NO. Not in Papua New Guinea.”
Despite common perceptions in Fiji’s legal circles, Justice Ashton-Lewis was never appointed King’s Counsel (KC) or Senior Counsel (SC) in PNG.
Not Entitled to Use “SC”
“Based on the PNG Law Society records, the answer is No. He is not entitled to use the post nominals ‘SC’.”
If Justice Ashton-Lewis has used “SC” post-nominals in Fiji, this revelation could expose him to claims of misrepresentation.
No Current Practising Certificate
While Justice Ashton-Lewis was admitted as a lawyer in PNG on 16 November 1984, the PNGLS confirmed that he does not currently hold a practising certificate there. This could raise questions about whether his practising status was properly verified when he was appointed to Fiji’s Supreme Court bench.
The Malimali Inquiry Fallout
Justice Ashton-Lewis chaired one of the most consequential inquiries in Fiji’s recent history: the review into Barbara Malimali’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner. The Commission’s final report, delivered earlier this year, rocked Fiji’s legal establishment by issuing 17 recommendations. Among its most significant findings:
- It raised concerns about serious procedural breaches in Malimali’s appointment.
- It criticised Fiji’s judicial leadership, including the Chief Justice and Chief Registrar.
- It went further still, recommending possible criminal charges against:
- Chief Justice Salesi Temo
- Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
- Fiji Law Society President Wylie Clarke
Conflict of Interest and Perception of Retaliation
The timing of these revelations raises thorny questions:
- Justice Ashton-Lewis attacked the top legal leadership in Fiji with his recommendations.
- Now, those same figures—Temo, Bainivalu, and Clarke—wield influence over institutions that could review his appointment and professional standing.
- Any move to investigate or discipline him, his supporters will claim, will be seen as institutional retaliation rather than impartial oversight.
This sets the stage for a judicial credibility crisis, where even legitimate inquiries into Justice Ashton-Lewis’s credentials could be framed as revenge for his findings. These developments strike at the core of judicial integrity in Fiji. The matter is now in the hands of the Fiji Police Force. But did the JSC verify Justice Ashton-Lewis's credentials before his appointment? Were claims of "SC" status accepted at face value without cross-border checks.
If Justice Ashton-Lewis used titles or credentials to enhance his perceived authority, could critics challenge the validity of his inquiry findings, including recommendations of possible criminal charges? With the PNGLS confirmation now in circulation, several high-stakes outcomes are possible.
Justice David Ashton-Lewis now stands at the epicentre of Fiji’s unfolding legal storm. He is the judge who chaired a seismic inquiry that threatened Fiji’s judicial elite with possible criminal charges. And yet, the Papua New Guinea Law Society’s confirmation that he lacks Senior Counsel status and a current practising certificate raises its own serious questions about his standing and disclosures.
This is more than a personal controversy. It is a test of Fiji’s judicial transparency and institutional resilience. How Fiji’s legal system responds—openly or defensively—will determine whether public trust in the courts survives this moment intact.
When a Title Becomes a Scandal: The Legal Status of “Senior Counsel” in Fiji and the Ashton-Lewis Affair
The unfolding investigation into Justice David Ashton-Lewis—the presiding judge of Fiji’s high-profile Commission of Inquiry (COI)—has thrust into the spotlight a complex but critical issue: the legal status and proper use of the title “Senior Counsel” (SC) in Fiji.
At the heart of the controversy are allegations that Ashton-Lewis falsely styled himself as SC, leveraged this title to secure unlawful benefits, and thereby misled both the Fijian government and the judiciary. While Ashton-Lewis insists he was “informally recognised” as SC during his tenure in Papua New Guinea (PNG) in the 1980s, the absence of a formal conferment process under Fiji’s legal system raises profound questions about judicial integrity, vetting of appointments, and public accountability.
The Law on Senior Counsel in Fiji
Under Fiji’s legal framework—rooted in English common law traditions--legal titles such as “Senior Counsel” (SC) or “Queen’s/King’s Counsel” (QC/KC) are not automatic designations. They require:
Absent these steps, the use of “SC” carries no legal force and may constitute:
Informal Overseas Recognition vs. Domestic Authority
Justice Ashton-Lewis claims he was “recognised as Senior Counsel” by the late PNG Chief Justice Sir Buri Kidu in the early 1980s, while serving as Officer in Charge at the PNG Public Prosecutor’s Office.
However:
The principle is simple: titles are territorial. A title conferred by one jurisdiction has no effect in another unless expressly recognised. Fiji’s statutes do not allow informal overseas recognition to substitute for domestic conferment.
The Ashton-Lewis Appointment: Oversight and Risk
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka personally invited Justice Ashton-Lewis in October 2024 to preside over the COI, a politically sensitive inquiry. The current allegations expose serious systemic failures:
Implications for Judicial Integrity
The scandal has broader ramifications:
This also touches on constitutional accountability. Under the 2013 Constitution, the JSC has the authority to advise the President on judicial appointments but relies heavily on self-disclosed credentials. If this trust is abused, it calls into question the adequacy of institutional safeguards.
Potential Criminal and Disciplinary Exposure
If the allegations are substantiated, Ashton-Lewis could face:
A Question of Public Trust
This controversy strikes at the core of Fiji’s justice system:
The Ashton-Lewis affair underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms ensuring that formal processes, not informal recognitions, govern access to Fiji’s highest legal honour.
Justice David Ashton-Lewis’s defence rests on an informal, decades-old verbal recognition in Papua New Guinea. Yet the law in Fiji is clear: Senior Counsel status must be formally conferred and gazetted.
If CID findings confirm that Ashton-Lewis self-styled his title without lawful authority, the repercussions will reverberate far beyond this case—reshaping how Fiji vets judges, recognises foreign qualifications, and safeguards public resources.
For now, the scandal remains a live test of judicial integrity and governmental accountability in Fiji’s constitutional framework.
At the heart of the controversy are allegations that Ashton-Lewis falsely styled himself as SC, leveraged this title to secure unlawful benefits, and thereby misled both the Fijian government and the judiciary. While Ashton-Lewis insists he was “informally recognised” as SC during his tenure in Papua New Guinea (PNG) in the 1980s, the absence of a formal conferment process under Fiji’s legal system raises profound questions about judicial integrity, vetting of appointments, and public accountability.
The Law on Senior Counsel in Fiji
Under Fiji’s legal framework—rooted in English common law traditions--legal titles such as “Senior Counsel” (SC) or “Queen’s/King’s Counsel” (QC/KC) are not automatic designations. They require:
- Formal appointment by letters patent issued under the authority of the Chief Justice or relevant constitutional head.
- Publication in the Fiji Government Gazette, giving the title full legal effect.
- Registration in the Roll of Practitioners, maintained by the Chief Registrar.
Absent these steps, the use of “SC” carries no legal force and may constitute:
- Misrepresentation under the Crimes Act 2009.
- Unlawful enrichment if financial benefits were tied to the title.
- Breach of statutory duties under the Legal Practitioners Act.
Informal Overseas Recognition vs. Domestic Authority
Justice Ashton-Lewis claims he was “recognised as Senior Counsel” by the late PNG Chief Justice Sir Buri Kidu in the early 1980s, while serving as Officer in Charge at the PNG Public Prosecutor’s Office.
However:
- PNG’s informal recognition is not automatically transferable to Fiji.
- Even in PNG, SC/QC titles require formal conferment--not merely verbal acknowledgement.
- Without gazettal or a formal instrument, such recognition does not authorise self-styling as SC in other jurisdictions.
The principle is simple: titles are territorial. A title conferred by one jurisdiction has no effect in another unless expressly recognised. Fiji’s statutes do not allow informal overseas recognition to substitute for domestic conferment.
The Ashton-Lewis Appointment: Oversight and Risk
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka personally invited Justice Ashton-Lewis in October 2024 to preside over the COI, a politically sensitive inquiry. The current allegations expose serious systemic failures:
- Due diligence gaps: Was Ashton-Lewis’s SC title independently verified before appointment?
- Remuneration risks: Allowances and benefits may have been calculated based on his claimed SC status.
- Public trust: A judge presiding over a politically charged inquiry now faces a CID probe — undermining confidence in the COI process.
Implications for Judicial Integrity
The scandal has broader ramifications:
- Judicial vetting: The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) may need to implement stricter verification protocols for all appointees, particularly those recruited internationally.
- Title protection: Fiji lacks explicit statutory penalties for unauthorised use of “SC/QC” titles, leaving a gap now exposed.
- Transparency obligations: Where public funds are tied to judicial appointments, full disclosure of qualifications should be mandatory.
This also touches on constitutional accountability. Under the 2013 Constitution, the JSC has the authority to advise the President on judicial appointments but relies heavily on self-disclosed credentials. If this trust is abused, it calls into question the adequacy of institutional safeguards.
Potential Criminal and Disciplinary Exposure
If the allegations are substantiated, Ashton-Lewis could face:
- Criminal liability under sections of the Crimes Act dealing with:
- Obtaining a financial advantage by deception.
- Misuse of public funds.
- False representation.
- Professional sanctions under the Legal Practitioners Act, including suspension or deregistration.
- Recovery of benefits unlawfully obtained from the State.
- Appointment of a new presiding judge.
- Judicial review of the COI’s findings to date.
- Parliamentary intervention to restore public confidence.
A Question of Public Trust
This controversy strikes at the core of Fiji’s justice system:
- Can the public trust judicial appointments if titles and credentials go unverified?
- How can the integrity of politically sensitive inquiries be protected from reputational collapse?
- Should Fiji enact specific statutory provisions regulating the use and recognition of foreign-conferred titles?
The Ashton-Lewis affair underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms ensuring that formal processes, not informal recognitions, govern access to Fiji’s highest legal honour.
Justice David Ashton-Lewis’s defence rests on an informal, decades-old verbal recognition in Papua New Guinea. Yet the law in Fiji is clear: Senior Counsel status must be formally conferred and gazetted.
If CID findings confirm that Ashton-Lewis self-styled his title without lawful authority, the repercussions will reverberate far beyond this case—reshaping how Fiji vets judges, recognises foreign qualifications, and safeguards public resources.
For now, the scandal remains a live test of judicial integrity and governmental accountability in Fiji’s constitutional framework.
Why Fijileaks Entered the Debate on Justice Ashton-Lewis and the Senior Counsel Title
In recent weeks, Fiji’s local media and social media platforms have been abuzz with debate over Justice David Ashton-Lewis and his use of the title “SC”—Senior Counsel. Some have questioned the legitimacy of the designation, while others dismiss the controversy as a distraction from the substance of the Commission of Inquiry he presided over.
At Fijileaks, we do not enter this debate lightly. We recognise that the Commission has concluded, and Justice Ashton-Lewis’s report has already been delivered to the President. But we also believe that public trust in Fiji’s institutions—and particularly in bodies as consequential as a Commission of Inquiry—depends on transparency, accuracy, and accountability at every stage of the process.
The use of prestigious professional titles such as Senior Counsel (SC) is not a trivial matter. In most Commonwealth jurisdictions, including Australia, such titles are formally conferred through rigorous vetting, judicial endorsement, and public notification. They are not merely stylistic flourishes, but signals to the public of a lawyer’s tested excellence and recognised standing.
Where questions arise over the basis or recognition of such titles, especially when used by those entrusted with presiding over matters of national importance, public scrutiny is not only justified—it is necessary. Fijileaks is therefore compelled to join this conversation, not to undermine any individual, but to ensure that Fiji’s citizens receive complete and accurate information about those empowered to influence policy, law, and governance.
In doing so, we seek to focus the debate where it belongs:
This is not a personal attack on Justice Ashton-Lewis, nor an attempt to prejudge his report. It is, rather, an assertion of principle: when institutions ask for the public’s trust, they must also earn it through openness and accuracy.
Fijileaks enters the fray because credibility matters—for judges, for commissions, and for Fiji itself.
To be continued, including the status of the Police/FICAC probe into COI Report
In recent weeks, Fiji’s local media and social media platforms have been abuzz with debate over Justice David Ashton-Lewis and his use of the title “SC”—Senior Counsel. Some have questioned the legitimacy of the designation, while others dismiss the controversy as a distraction from the substance of the Commission of Inquiry he presided over.
At Fijileaks, we do not enter this debate lightly. We recognise that the Commission has concluded, and Justice Ashton-Lewis’s report has already been delivered to the President. But we also believe that public trust in Fiji’s institutions—and particularly in bodies as consequential as a Commission of Inquiry—depends on transparency, accuracy, and accountability at every stage of the process.
The use of prestigious professional titles such as Senior Counsel (SC) is not a trivial matter. In most Commonwealth jurisdictions, including Australia, such titles are formally conferred through rigorous vetting, judicial endorsement, and public notification. They are not merely stylistic flourishes, but signals to the public of a lawyer’s tested excellence and recognised standing.
Where questions arise over the basis or recognition of such titles, especially when used by those entrusted with presiding over matters of national importance, public scrutiny is not only justified—it is necessary. Fijileaks is therefore compelled to join this conversation, not to undermine any individual, but to ensure that Fiji’s citizens receive complete and accurate information about those empowered to influence policy, law, and governance.
In doing so, we seek to focus the debate where it belongs:
- on the standards of vetting applied to judicial appointments;
- on the importance of full disclosure of credentials; and
- on maintaining the integrity of processes whose findings may shape Fiji’s future.
This is not a personal attack on Justice Ashton-Lewis, nor an attempt to prejudge his report. It is, rather, an assertion of principle: when institutions ask for the public’s trust, they must also earn it through openness and accuracy.
Fijileaks enters the fray because credibility matters—for judges, for commissions, and for Fiji itself.
To be continued, including the status of the Police/FICAC probe into COI Report
