Fijileaks: "At the heart of the matter lies a troubling contradiction: how can any international body credibly denounce possible charges against Clarke as unjust or outrageous without access to the actual evidence or legal arguments underpinning them? Such pronouncements, absent public documentation, risk veering into the realm of political theatre rather than principled legal objection. It is a move that not only weakens the integrity of international legal institutions but also undermines the very transparency and accountability they are meant to uphold...Until the COI findings are made public, the principled stance is not to brand the unknown as “abhorrent,” but to demand transparency, due process, and accountability — for all sides."
As murmurs grow louder around the possible charges that the President of the Fiji Law Society (along with his immediate predecessor Laurel Vaurasi and three other lawyers) may face, a peculiar narrative is beginning to take shape — one that risks undermining both international legal norms and the principles of due process. Though the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report remains sealed, international law bodies like the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and LAWASIA and human rights observers have not hesitated to describe the prospective charges as “abhorrent.” Yet, without full disclosure of the facts, this rush to judgment warrants scrutiny. Only yesterday, Clarke was calling for the resignation of Justice David Ashton-Lewis as Fiji Supreme Court judge, saying Lewis was 'spilling the contents' of the COI Report when it has yet to be made public. But, it is perfectly fine for the two international law bodies to already brand any possible charges arising out of the COI Recommendations as "abhorrent". Bloody hypocrites.
At the heart of the matter lies a troubling contradiction: how can any international body credibly denounce charges as unjust or outrageous without access to the actual evidence or legal arguments underpinning them? Such pronouncements, absent public documentation, risk veering into the realm of political theatre rather than principled legal objection. It is a move that not only weakens the integrity of international legal institutions but also undermines the very transparency and accountability they are meant to uphold.
Equally concerning is the strategic communications campaign seemingly mounted by Wylie Clarke's allies. By portraying him as a potential victim of political persecution before the charges have even been formally laid or scrutinized, they appear to be engaging in a form of anticipatory deflection — seeking to poison the well of public opinion and frame any legal action as inherently illegitimate. While every accused individual is entitled to a presumption of innocence, the aggressive preemption of legal proceedings runs the risk of short-circuiting them entirely.
If the charges against Clarke are indeed fabricated or disproportionate, let the facts — once made public — speak for themselves. The proper arena for contesting them is in court or at an international tribunal, not in press releases or moral declarations untethered from evidence. Conversely, if the charges are grounded in credible findings of wrongdoing, then international law bodies risk eroding their own authority by condemning them in advance without full knowledge of the case.
Justice, if it is to mean anything, demands patience, impartiality, and a rigorous commitment to truth — not premature outrage or protective myth-making. Until the COI findings are made public, the principled stance is not to brand the unknown as “abhorrent,” but to demand transparency, due process, and accountability — for all sides.
At the heart of the matter lies a troubling contradiction: how can any international body credibly denounce charges as unjust or outrageous without access to the actual evidence or legal arguments underpinning them? Such pronouncements, absent public documentation, risk veering into the realm of political theatre rather than principled legal objection. It is a move that not only weakens the integrity of international legal institutions but also undermines the very transparency and accountability they are meant to uphold.
Equally concerning is the strategic communications campaign seemingly mounted by Wylie Clarke's allies. By portraying him as a potential victim of political persecution before the charges have even been formally laid or scrutinized, they appear to be engaging in a form of anticipatory deflection — seeking to poison the well of public opinion and frame any legal action as inherently illegitimate. While every accused individual is entitled to a presumption of innocence, the aggressive preemption of legal proceedings runs the risk of short-circuiting them entirely.
If the charges against Clarke are indeed fabricated or disproportionate, let the facts — once made public — speak for themselves. The proper arena for contesting them is in court or at an international tribunal, not in press releases or moral declarations untethered from evidence. Conversely, if the charges are grounded in credible findings of wrongdoing, then international law bodies risk eroding their own authority by condemning them in advance without full knowledge of the case.
Justice, if it is to mean anything, demands patience, impartiality, and a rigorous commitment to truth — not premature outrage or protective myth-making. Until the COI findings are made public, the principled stance is not to brand the unknown as “abhorrent,” but to demand transparency, due process, and accountability — for all sides.
 |  |
