"The most important inconsistency in the affidavits are this: Graham Leung says he was merely consulted over Barbara Malimali's appointment. But the former President’s affidavit indicates that the the Attorney-General’s concurrence was one of the assurances relied upon before the appointment was signed. That difference may appear subtle, but constitutionally it is enormous. If the former President signed because the AG concurred with the JSC recommendation, then the AG was not simply consulted. He was part of the chain of constitutional assurance that legitimised the appointment. The former President’s affidavit quietly places the Attorney-General inside the decision-making structure, whereas Leung’s press conference places him outside it. That is the single most striking contrast between the two accounts in the affidavits before the COI."
 |  |  |
   |   |
From Consultation to Controversy: How the Appointment of Barbara Malimali Unravelled the Offices of the President, the Attorney-General and the Judicial Services Commission
The appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) began as a routine constitutional act. It ended as one of the most politically destabilising episodes of the Rabuka government, culminating in a Commission of Inquiry, conflicting affidavits by main constitutional actors, and ultimately the removal of Attorney-General Graham Leung from office following the release of the inquiry’s findings. He was sacked via a text message while in Hong Kong.
What initially appeared to be a straightforward recommendation by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) quickly evolved into a constitutional drama that exposed tensions between the Presidency, the Attorney-General’s office, the Judiciary and FICAC itself.
The documentary record now available, including the affidavit of former President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere, the affidavit of former Attorney-General Graham Leung and the materials annexed to those affidavits, reveals a compressed and controversial sequence of events that unfolded over only a few days in early September 2024.
The Presidential Appointment
Under section 5 of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2007, the Commissioner of FICAC is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Services Commission following consultation with the Attorney-General.
This structure was intended to distribute authority across three constitutional offices: the JSC, the Attorney-General and the President.
The former President stated in his affidavit that his role was limited to acting upon the recommendation presented to him through the Judicial Services Commission. He emphasised that the Office of the President does not conduct interviews or assess candidates but simply formalises appointments once the constitutional requirements appear to have been satisfied.
According to the President’s evidence, the recommendation to appoint Barbara Malimali was delivered to him on the morning of 4 September 2024 by the Chief Registrar, Tomasi Bainivalu. The recommendation had been signed by Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo in his capacity as Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission.
The President stated that he was informed the JSC had conducted interviews, shortlisted candidates and completed its recruitment process. He was also assured that the Attorney-General had been consulted and supported the recommendation.
On that basis the President signed the letter appointing Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of FICAC. At that point, constitutionally speaking, the appointment process appeared complete.
The Warning Letter
What complicated matters was a letter sent to the Office of the President several days earlier.
On 30 August 2024, Francis Puleiwai, then Acting Deputy Commissioner of FICAC, wrote to the President raising concerns that Malimali was under investigation by FICAC in relation to allegations arising from the Electoral Act.
This letter effectively warned the Presidency that the candidate being considered for appointment to head the country’s anti-corruption body was herself the subject of a FICAC investigation.
The President confirmed in his affidavit that he was aware of the letter. The Office of the President subsequently responded that the concerns had been referred to relevant authorities for consultation and advice.
The Attorney-General Leung Enters the Picture
According to the affidavit of Graham Leung, who had been appointed Attorney-General in June 2024, the then Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo consulted him around 2 September 2024 regarding the recommendation that Barbara Malimali be appointed Commissioner of FICAC.
Leung stated that he communicated to the Temo that he was in agreement with the recommendation and endorsed the decision of the Judicial Services Commission. However, the matter did not end there.
On 3 September 2024, Leung telephoned Francis Puleiwai and confirmed that complaints had indeed been made against Malimali. The conversation prompted him to contact Temo and suggest that the appointment should be placed on hold.
This brief intervention by the Attorney-General was later emphasised by Leung both in his affidavit and in a subsequent press conference as evidence that he had exercised caution once he became aware of the allegations.
The Electoral Commissioners’ Letter
The pause appears to have lasted only a matter of hours. Later on 3 September 2024, Leung received a letter from five members of the Electoral Commission defending Malimali and describing the complaint against her as vexatious.
The commissioners wrote that it would be “concerning” for a search warrant to be issued against Malimali on the basis of what they characterised as an unfounded complaint. After receiving the letter, Leung informed Temo that he no longer persisted in his reservations and could see no rational basis for delaying the appointment. The Judicial Services Commission subsequently proceeded with its recommendation to the President.
The Judicial Services Commission’s Recruitment Process
The documents annexed to Leung’s affidavit shed further light on the recruitment process. The position of Commissioner of FICAC had been advertised in June 2024 and again in July after the JSC decided to widen the pool of applicants. Twenty-three applications were received and four candidates were shortlisted for interviews.
The interview panel consisted of:
According to the selection report, Barbara Malimali received the highest marks among the candidates interviewed. The panel therefore unanimously recommended her appointment. It was later revealed by Temo that he did not press for character references because he had personally observed Malimali as a lawyer for the last 15 years.
The Appointment Takes Effect
Following the JSC recommendation, the President signed the appointment letter on 4 September 2024 confirming Malimali’s appointment as Commissioner of FICAC. The appointment was scheduled to take effect on 5 September 2024. What followed the next day would plunge the government into crisis.
The FICAC Confrontation
When Malimali arrived at FICAC headquarters on 5 September 2024 to assume office, she encountered opposition from within the institution. According to Leung’s affidavit, she was detained and questioned by FICAC investigators acting on instructions from Francis Puleiwai.
The situation quickly became chaotic. The spectacle of the newly appointed anti-corruption commissioner being detained by officers from the same institution dominated media headlines. Leung later described the events as a “strange and confusing drama” that unfolded over several days.
The Commission of Inquiry
The controversy surrounding the appointment eventually led to the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1946.
The inquiry was tasked with investigating whether the appointment had been conducted with integrity, fairness and transparency and whether improper influences had been exerted. The inquiry gathered evidence from multiple constitutional actors, including the former President and the Attorney-General. Their affidavits form part of the documentary record that now illuminates the sequence of events leading to the appointment.
Graham Leung’s Defence
In his affidavit and later press conference, Leung consistently maintained that his role in the process was limited. He emphasised that:
Leung also denied allegations that he had encouraged Malimali to apply for the position or that he had served as one of her referees. He stated that he had never seen her application and had no knowledge of who her referees were.
The Central Contradiction
Yet the documentary record reveals a subtle but important tension. Leung repeatedly described himself publicly as having been “only consulted”. However, his affidavit states that he communicated to the Acting Chief Justice that he agreed with and endorsed the decision of the Judicial Services Commission.
The difference between consultation and endorsement may appear technical. In constitutional practice it can be decisive.
The former President’s affidavit further complicates matters. Katonivere stated that he signed the appointment after being assured that the Attorney-General had been consulted and supported the recommendation.
In other words, Katonivere relied on the Attorney-General’s concurrence as part of the due diligence preceding the appointment.
The Political Aftermath
The Commission of Inquiry’s report ultimately led to the removal of Graham Leung as Attorney-General. His dismissal transformed what had begun as a procedural dispute about an appointment into a full-blown political crisis for the Rabuka government.
The Malimali affair also exposed the fragility of Fiji’s institutional architecture. The appointment process involved at least four constitutional actors - the Judicial Services Commission, the Attorney-General, the President and FICAC itself. Yet the episode demonstrated how quickly tensions between those institutions could escalate once allegations of impropriety entered the process.
A Constitutional Cautionary Tale
The controversy surrounding the Malimali appointment now stands as one of the most consequential constitutional episodes of the Rabuka administration.
What began as a routine recommendation by the Judicial Services Commission became a chain reaction involving warnings from FICAC, competing institutional assurances, a dramatic confrontation at the FICAC headquarters and ultimately a Commission of Inquiry that reshaped the political landscape. In the end, the affair left behind a stark lesson.
In constitutional systems where appointments rely on multiple actors acting in sequence, consultation, recommendation and formal appointment, the integrity of the process depends not only on the letter of the law but also on the judgment exercised by those entrusted with its execution.
In the Malimali saga, that judgment is now being scrutinised more closely than ever before.
Our main focus is Graham Leung.
So what can we conclude in our conclusion about his role, protestations, affidavit, press conference and the former President's affidavit regarding Leung.
What Can Reasonably Be Concluded About Graham Leung’s Role
When the documentary record is read together, the former President’s affidavit, Graham Leung’s affidavit, the annexed documents, and Leung’s press conference statements, a reasonably clear picture of Leung’s role in the Malimali appointment begins to emerge.
The evidence does not support the claim that he orchestrated the appointment, but it equally does not sustain the public portrayal that he was merely a passive constitutional consultee.
A more nuanced conclusion is unavoidable.
1. He Was Not a Bystander
Leung repeatedly insisted in his press conference that he was “only consulted” and that the appointment decision rested entirely with the Judicial Services Commission.
Technically that description is correct in law: the JSC recommends the appointment and the President formally appoints the Commissioner. However, the documentary record shows that Leung’s involvement was more substantive than a passive consultation.
In his own affidavit he acknowledged that:
These steps demonstrate that Leung was an active participant in the consultation stage, not merely a recipient of information.
2. His Advice Formed Part of the Presidential Assurance
The significance of Leung’s role becomes clearer when the former President’s affidavit is considered. The former President stated that before signing the appointment he was assured that:
Those assurances were conveyed to the President by the Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu when the appointment documents were presented for signature. In other words, the President understood the Attorney-General’s concurrence to be one of the factors confirming that the appointment process had been properly conducted.
This places Leung’s consultation within the chain of constitutional assurance that led directly to the President signing the appointment.
3. His Attempt to Halt the Appointment Was Brief
Leung’s strongest defence is that he briefly intervened on 3 September 2024 after learning of the allegations against Malimali. He contacted Acting Deputy FICAC Commissioner Francis Puleiwai and then suggested to the Acting Chief Justice that the appointment be paused.
However, the pause appears to have been short-lived. Later that same day, after receiving a letter from Electoral Commissioners defending Malimali, Leung informed the Acting Chief Justice that he no longer persisted in his reservations.
The appointment therefore proceeded almost immediately afterwards.
The episode shows that Leung did exercise caution, but it also demonstrates how quickly that caution was reversed.
4. The Documentary Evidence Contradicts the “Passive Consultation” Narrative
The consultation document annexed to Leung’s affidavit bears his signature acknowledging that he had been consulted regarding the appointment.
This document confirms that the consultation was not informal but formed part of the formal appointment process. Furthermore, Leung’s own affidavit records that he endorsed the JSC recommendation before subsequently reconsidering and then reaffirming that endorsement.
Taken together, these elements undermine the suggestion that his role was purely ceremonial.
5. His Public Defence Was More Restrictive Than His Affidavit
Another notable feature is the difference in tone between Leung’s sworn affidavit and his press conference.
The affidavit is procedural and factual. It describes his consultation with the Acting Chief Justice and his communications regarding the appointment.
The press conference, by contrast, emphasised a much narrower role. Leung repeatedly stressed that the decision belonged entirely to the JSC and that he had merely been consulted.
The press conference therefore represented a political framing of his role, while the affidavit reveals a more detailed and active involvement.
6. The Core Constitutional Reality
The evidence suggests that the appointment unfolded through a sequence of constitutional actors:
In that chain of events, Leung was neither the ultimate decision-maker nor an uninvolved observer. He was the intermediate constitutional adviser whose concurrence formed part of the justification for the appointment proceeding.
Conclusion
The Malimali affair ultimately cost Graham Leung his position as Attorney-General. The Commission of Inquiry report prompted his removal from office, transforming what might have been a technical dispute about an appointment process into a political crisis for the Rabuka government.
The available evidence does not demonstrate that Leung engineered the appointment of Barbara Malimali. But it equally shows that his role was more than the limited consultation he later emphasised publicly.
His affidavit confirms that he endorsed the Judicial Services Commission’s recommendation, briefly attempted to halt the process after learning of allegations against the candidate, and then withdrew that objection. The former President’s affidavit further indicates that the Attorney-General’s concurrence was among the assurances relied upon before the appointment was signed.
In constitutional terms, Leung stood at the critical midpoint of the process, not the architect of the appointment, but one of the key institutional actors whose advice helped enable it to proceed.
That distinction explains why the Malimali controversy ultimately reached beyond the Judicial Services Commission and the Presidency to engulf the office of the Attorney-General itself, leading to his unceremonious sacking by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
The appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) began as a routine constitutional act. It ended as one of the most politically destabilising episodes of the Rabuka government, culminating in a Commission of Inquiry, conflicting affidavits by main constitutional actors, and ultimately the removal of Attorney-General Graham Leung from office following the release of the inquiry’s findings. He was sacked via a text message while in Hong Kong.
What initially appeared to be a straightforward recommendation by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) quickly evolved into a constitutional drama that exposed tensions between the Presidency, the Attorney-General’s office, the Judiciary and FICAC itself.
The documentary record now available, including the affidavit of former President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere, the affidavit of former Attorney-General Graham Leung and the materials annexed to those affidavits, reveals a compressed and controversial sequence of events that unfolded over only a few days in early September 2024.
The Presidential Appointment
Under section 5 of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2007, the Commissioner of FICAC is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Services Commission following consultation with the Attorney-General.
This structure was intended to distribute authority across three constitutional offices: the JSC, the Attorney-General and the President.
The former President stated in his affidavit that his role was limited to acting upon the recommendation presented to him through the Judicial Services Commission. He emphasised that the Office of the President does not conduct interviews or assess candidates but simply formalises appointments once the constitutional requirements appear to have been satisfied.
According to the President’s evidence, the recommendation to appoint Barbara Malimali was delivered to him on the morning of 4 September 2024 by the Chief Registrar, Tomasi Bainivalu. The recommendation had been signed by Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo in his capacity as Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission.
The President stated that he was informed the JSC had conducted interviews, shortlisted candidates and completed its recruitment process. He was also assured that the Attorney-General had been consulted and supported the recommendation.
On that basis the President signed the letter appointing Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of FICAC. At that point, constitutionally speaking, the appointment process appeared complete.
The Warning Letter
What complicated matters was a letter sent to the Office of the President several days earlier.
On 30 August 2024, Francis Puleiwai, then Acting Deputy Commissioner of FICAC, wrote to the President raising concerns that Malimali was under investigation by FICAC in relation to allegations arising from the Electoral Act.
This letter effectively warned the Presidency that the candidate being considered for appointment to head the country’s anti-corruption body was herself the subject of a FICAC investigation.
The President confirmed in his affidavit that he was aware of the letter. The Office of the President subsequently responded that the concerns had been referred to relevant authorities for consultation and advice.
The Attorney-General Leung Enters the Picture
According to the affidavit of Graham Leung, who had been appointed Attorney-General in June 2024, the then Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo consulted him around 2 September 2024 regarding the recommendation that Barbara Malimali be appointed Commissioner of FICAC.
Leung stated that he communicated to the Temo that he was in agreement with the recommendation and endorsed the decision of the Judicial Services Commission. However, the matter did not end there.
On 3 September 2024, Leung telephoned Francis Puleiwai and confirmed that complaints had indeed been made against Malimali. The conversation prompted him to contact Temo and suggest that the appointment should be placed on hold.
This brief intervention by the Attorney-General was later emphasised by Leung both in his affidavit and in a subsequent press conference as evidence that he had exercised caution once he became aware of the allegations.
The Electoral Commissioners’ Letter
The pause appears to have lasted only a matter of hours. Later on 3 September 2024, Leung received a letter from five members of the Electoral Commission defending Malimali and describing the complaint against her as vexatious.
The commissioners wrote that it would be “concerning” for a search warrant to be issued against Malimali on the basis of what they characterised as an unfounded complaint. After receiving the letter, Leung informed Temo that he no longer persisted in his reservations and could see no rational basis for delaying the appointment. The Judicial Services Commission subsequently proceeded with its recommendation to the President.
The Judicial Services Commission’s Recruitment Process
The documents annexed to Leung’s affidavit shed further light on the recruitment process. The position of Commissioner of FICAC had been advertised in June 2024 and again in July after the JSC decided to widen the pool of applicants. Twenty-three applications were received and four candidates were shortlisted for interviews.
The interview panel consisted of:
- Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo
- Solicitor-General Ropate Green
- Acting Chief Magistrate Josaia Waqaivolavola
According to the selection report, Barbara Malimali received the highest marks among the candidates interviewed. The panel therefore unanimously recommended her appointment. It was later revealed by Temo that he did not press for character references because he had personally observed Malimali as a lawyer for the last 15 years.
The Appointment Takes Effect
Following the JSC recommendation, the President signed the appointment letter on 4 September 2024 confirming Malimali’s appointment as Commissioner of FICAC. The appointment was scheduled to take effect on 5 September 2024. What followed the next day would plunge the government into crisis.
The FICAC Confrontation
When Malimali arrived at FICAC headquarters on 5 September 2024 to assume office, she encountered opposition from within the institution. According to Leung’s affidavit, she was detained and questioned by FICAC investigators acting on instructions from Francis Puleiwai.
The situation quickly became chaotic. The spectacle of the newly appointed anti-corruption commissioner being detained by officers from the same institution dominated media headlines. Leung later described the events as a “strange and confusing drama” that unfolded over several days.
The Commission of Inquiry
The controversy surrounding the appointment eventually led to the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1946.
The inquiry was tasked with investigating whether the appointment had been conducted with integrity, fairness and transparency and whether improper influences had been exerted. The inquiry gathered evidence from multiple constitutional actors, including the former President and the Attorney-General. Their affidavits form part of the documentary record that now illuminates the sequence of events leading to the appointment.
Graham Leung’s Defence
In his affidavit and later press conference, Leung consistently maintained that his role in the process was limited. He emphasised that:
- the JSC controlled the recruitment process;
- he was consulted as required by law;
- the Constitution did not require his approval;
- and the final appointment was made by the President.
Leung also denied allegations that he had encouraged Malimali to apply for the position or that he had served as one of her referees. He stated that he had never seen her application and had no knowledge of who her referees were.
The Central Contradiction
Yet the documentary record reveals a subtle but important tension. Leung repeatedly described himself publicly as having been “only consulted”. However, his affidavit states that he communicated to the Acting Chief Justice that he agreed with and endorsed the decision of the Judicial Services Commission.
The difference between consultation and endorsement may appear technical. In constitutional practice it can be decisive.
The former President’s affidavit further complicates matters. Katonivere stated that he signed the appointment after being assured that the Attorney-General had been consulted and supported the recommendation.
In other words, Katonivere relied on the Attorney-General’s concurrence as part of the due diligence preceding the appointment.
The Political Aftermath
The Commission of Inquiry’s report ultimately led to the removal of Graham Leung as Attorney-General. His dismissal transformed what had begun as a procedural dispute about an appointment into a full-blown political crisis for the Rabuka government.
The Malimali affair also exposed the fragility of Fiji’s institutional architecture. The appointment process involved at least four constitutional actors - the Judicial Services Commission, the Attorney-General, the President and FICAC itself. Yet the episode demonstrated how quickly tensions between those institutions could escalate once allegations of impropriety entered the process.
A Constitutional Cautionary Tale
The controversy surrounding the Malimali appointment now stands as one of the most consequential constitutional episodes of the Rabuka administration.
What began as a routine recommendation by the Judicial Services Commission became a chain reaction involving warnings from FICAC, competing institutional assurances, a dramatic confrontation at the FICAC headquarters and ultimately a Commission of Inquiry that reshaped the political landscape. In the end, the affair left behind a stark lesson.
In constitutional systems where appointments rely on multiple actors acting in sequence, consultation, recommendation and formal appointment, the integrity of the process depends not only on the letter of the law but also on the judgment exercised by those entrusted with its execution.
In the Malimali saga, that judgment is now being scrutinised more closely than ever before.
Our main focus is Graham Leung.
So what can we conclude in our conclusion about his role, protestations, affidavit, press conference and the former President's affidavit regarding Leung.
What Can Reasonably Be Concluded About Graham Leung’s Role
When the documentary record is read together, the former President’s affidavit, Graham Leung’s affidavit, the annexed documents, and Leung’s press conference statements, a reasonably clear picture of Leung’s role in the Malimali appointment begins to emerge.
The evidence does not support the claim that he orchestrated the appointment, but it equally does not sustain the public portrayal that he was merely a passive constitutional consultee.
A more nuanced conclusion is unavoidable.
1. He Was Not a Bystander
Leung repeatedly insisted in his press conference that he was “only consulted” and that the appointment decision rested entirely with the Judicial Services Commission.
Technically that description is correct in law: the JSC recommends the appointment and the President formally appoints the Commissioner. However, the documentary record shows that Leung’s involvement was more substantive than a passive consultation.
In his own affidavit he acknowledged that:
- the Acting Chief Justice consulted him on the proposed appointment;
- he initially communicated that he agreed with and endorsed the recommendation;
- he later intervened to suggest the appointment be placed on hold;
- and he subsequently withdrew that objection.
These steps demonstrate that Leung was an active participant in the consultation stage, not merely a recipient of information.
2. His Advice Formed Part of the Presidential Assurance
The significance of Leung’s role becomes clearer when the former President’s affidavit is considered. The former President stated that before signing the appointment he was assured that:
- The Judicial Services Commission had conducted due process; and
- The Attorney-General Graham Leung had been consulted and supported the recommendation.
Those assurances were conveyed to the President by the Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu when the appointment documents were presented for signature. In other words, the President understood the Attorney-General’s concurrence to be one of the factors confirming that the appointment process had been properly conducted.
This places Leung’s consultation within the chain of constitutional assurance that led directly to the President signing the appointment.
3. His Attempt to Halt the Appointment Was Brief
Leung’s strongest defence is that he briefly intervened on 3 September 2024 after learning of the allegations against Malimali. He contacted Acting Deputy FICAC Commissioner Francis Puleiwai and then suggested to the Acting Chief Justice that the appointment be paused.
However, the pause appears to have been short-lived. Later that same day, after receiving a letter from Electoral Commissioners defending Malimali, Leung informed the Acting Chief Justice that he no longer persisted in his reservations.
The appointment therefore proceeded almost immediately afterwards.
The episode shows that Leung did exercise caution, but it also demonstrates how quickly that caution was reversed.
4. The Documentary Evidence Contradicts the “Passive Consultation” Narrative
The consultation document annexed to Leung’s affidavit bears his signature acknowledging that he had been consulted regarding the appointment.
This document confirms that the consultation was not informal but formed part of the formal appointment process. Furthermore, Leung’s own affidavit records that he endorsed the JSC recommendation before subsequently reconsidering and then reaffirming that endorsement.
Taken together, these elements undermine the suggestion that his role was purely ceremonial.
5. His Public Defence Was More Restrictive Than His Affidavit
Another notable feature is the difference in tone between Leung’s sworn affidavit and his press conference.
The affidavit is procedural and factual. It describes his consultation with the Acting Chief Justice and his communications regarding the appointment.
The press conference, by contrast, emphasised a much narrower role. Leung repeatedly stressed that the decision belonged entirely to the JSC and that he had merely been consulted.
The press conference therefore represented a political framing of his role, while the affidavit reveals a more detailed and active involvement.
6. The Core Constitutional Reality
The evidence suggests that the appointment unfolded through a sequence of constitutional actors:
- The Judicial Services Commission conducted the recruitment process.
- The Attorney-General was formally consulted and initially endorsed the recommendation.
- The President relied on assurances that consultation had occurred and that due process had been followed before signing the appointment.
In that chain of events, Leung was neither the ultimate decision-maker nor an uninvolved observer. He was the intermediate constitutional adviser whose concurrence formed part of the justification for the appointment proceeding.
Conclusion
The Malimali affair ultimately cost Graham Leung his position as Attorney-General. The Commission of Inquiry report prompted his removal from office, transforming what might have been a technical dispute about an appointment process into a political crisis for the Rabuka government.
The available evidence does not demonstrate that Leung engineered the appointment of Barbara Malimali. But it equally shows that his role was more than the limited consultation he later emphasised publicly.
His affidavit confirms that he endorsed the Judicial Services Commission’s recommendation, briefly attempted to halt the process after learning of allegations against the candidate, and then withdrew that objection. The former President’s affidavit further indicates that the Attorney-General’s concurrence was among the assurances relied upon before the appointment was signed.
In constitutional terms, Leung stood at the critical midpoint of the process, not the architect of the appointment, but one of the key institutional actors whose advice helped enable it to proceed.
That distinction explains why the Malimali controversy ultimately reached beyond the Judicial Services Commission and the Presidency to engulf the office of the Attorney-General itself, leading to his unceremonious sacking by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
 |  |
