 |  |
 |  |
*If the Report clears those under suspicion, why should Parliament not see it. Rabuka cannot simultaneously claim the report vindicates public officials while refusing to allow Parliament to examine the evidence on which that vindication rests.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has confirmed that the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report into the appointment of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali will not be tabled in Parliament. Instead, Parliament will only receive details of the Government's expenditure on the inquiry as part of the normal reporting of public finances.
According to Rabuka, the report has already been submitted to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, who commissioned the inquiry, and any follow-up action now rests with the Prime Minister's Office, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), FICAC, and the Fiji Police Force.
Rabuka also defended the estimated multi-million-dollar cost of the inquiry, arguing that it was money well spent because it had established that people who had been under suspicion "didn't do anything wrong" and that public funds had been used to uphold the rule of law.
He maintained that while Parliament should know how much the inquiry cost, there was no constitutional or legal necessity for the report itself to be tabled because it had been commissioned by the President rather than Parliament.
What Rabuka's Decision Means
The Prime Minister's announcement effectively ends any expectation that Fiji's elected representatives will debate the report in Parliament.
This distinction is significant.
Parliament is the country's supreme forum for democratic accountability. Once a report is tabled, Members of Parliament can scrutinise its findings, question ministers, debate recommendations, and place differing views on the public record. By withholding the report from Parliament, those opportunities disappear.
Instead, the Government intends to rely on executive agencies to determine what further action, if any, should follow.
Legally, Rabuka may well be correct that the President, as the commissioning authority, receives the report. But legality and accountability are not necessarily identical concepts.
Many commissions of inquiry throughout Commonwealth jurisdictions are ultimately published precisely because they involve matters of overwhelming public importance and because they are funded by taxpayers.
The Constitutional Question
Rabuka's explanation rests on a narrow constitutional proposition that the President commissioned the inquiry; therefore the President receives the report; and Parliament need only approve or scrutinise the expenditure. That interpretation has legal logic.
Yet another constitutional principle exists alongside it.
In any parliamentary democracy, executive government remains politically accountable to Parliament for how public power, and public money, is exercised.
When millions of dollars are spent investigating allegations involving the country's premier anti-corruption institution, many constitutional lawyers would argue that Parliament has a legitimate oversight interest extending beyond merely approving the bill.
The issue therefore becomes one of constitutional convention rather than strict legal obligation.
Public Interest Versus Confidentiality
The Government faces competing considerations. Some recommendations may concern criminal investigations. Others may involve disciplinary proceedings. Publication could potentially prejudice prosecutions or ongoing investigations. Those are legitimate concerns. Even though the DPP has closed the Police files arising from the COI recommendations.
However, complete non-disclosure raises equally legitimate questions.
The inquiry heard evidence over many months, called numerous witnesses, and generated considerable public expectation. Taxpayers financed every sitting. Citizens therefore have an understandable interest in knowing what systemic failures were identified; what institutional reforms were recommended; whether public officials were criticised, and what lessons Government intends to implement.
These broader governance issues can often be disclosed without prejudicing criminal proceedings.
Rabuka's Defence of the Cost
The Prime Minister's most striking observation was his justification for spending millions on the inquiry. He argued that: "At least those people who had been suspected of doing wrong now know that they didn't do anything wrong."
That is one possible interpretation of the inquiry's value.
Another is that commissions of inquiry exist not primarily to clear individuals but to uncover facts, expose institutional weaknesses, recommend reforms, and restore confidence in public administration.
Even where no criminal liability results, a commission can still reveal procedural failures, conflicts of interest, governance deficiencies, or legislative gaps requiring correction.
Those broader public-interest objectives are arguably as important as determining individual innocence.
The Institutions Now Under Pressure
Rabuka indicated that responsibility now shifts to the Office of the Prime Minister; the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; FICAC; and the Fiji Police Force. This means the public will judge these institutions not by the inquiry itself but by what happens next.
If recommendations lead to reforms, prosecutions, or legislative changes, confidence may increase.
If little happens, critics will inevitably ask whether the inquiry produced meaningful outcomes commensurate with its cost.
The Broader Political Context
The COI became one of the most politically consequential public inquiries in recent Fiji history because it touched the integrity of the country's anti-corruption architecture.
Barbara Malimali's appointment, subsequent legal challenges, judicial proceedings, and the inquiry itself have generated months of intense public debate.
Against that background, withholding the report from Parliament risks prolonging speculation rather than bringing closure.
Transparency often ends controversy.
Secrecy, even if legally justified, can sometimes extend it.
According to Rabuka, the report has already been submitted to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, who commissioned the inquiry, and any follow-up action now rests with the Prime Minister's Office, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), FICAC, and the Fiji Police Force.
Rabuka also defended the estimated multi-million-dollar cost of the inquiry, arguing that it was money well spent because it had established that people who had been under suspicion "didn't do anything wrong" and that public funds had been used to uphold the rule of law.
He maintained that while Parliament should know how much the inquiry cost, there was no constitutional or legal necessity for the report itself to be tabled because it had been commissioned by the President rather than Parliament.
What Rabuka's Decision Means
The Prime Minister's announcement effectively ends any expectation that Fiji's elected representatives will debate the report in Parliament.
This distinction is significant.
Parliament is the country's supreme forum for democratic accountability. Once a report is tabled, Members of Parliament can scrutinise its findings, question ministers, debate recommendations, and place differing views on the public record. By withholding the report from Parliament, those opportunities disappear.
Instead, the Government intends to rely on executive agencies to determine what further action, if any, should follow.
Legally, Rabuka may well be correct that the President, as the commissioning authority, receives the report. But legality and accountability are not necessarily identical concepts.
Many commissions of inquiry throughout Commonwealth jurisdictions are ultimately published precisely because they involve matters of overwhelming public importance and because they are funded by taxpayers.
The Constitutional Question
Rabuka's explanation rests on a narrow constitutional proposition that the President commissioned the inquiry; therefore the President receives the report; and Parliament need only approve or scrutinise the expenditure. That interpretation has legal logic.
Yet another constitutional principle exists alongside it.
In any parliamentary democracy, executive government remains politically accountable to Parliament for how public power, and public money, is exercised.
When millions of dollars are spent investigating allegations involving the country's premier anti-corruption institution, many constitutional lawyers would argue that Parliament has a legitimate oversight interest extending beyond merely approving the bill.
The issue therefore becomes one of constitutional convention rather than strict legal obligation.
Public Interest Versus Confidentiality
The Government faces competing considerations. Some recommendations may concern criminal investigations. Others may involve disciplinary proceedings. Publication could potentially prejudice prosecutions or ongoing investigations. Those are legitimate concerns. Even though the DPP has closed the Police files arising from the COI recommendations.
However, complete non-disclosure raises equally legitimate questions.
The inquiry heard evidence over many months, called numerous witnesses, and generated considerable public expectation. Taxpayers financed every sitting. Citizens therefore have an understandable interest in knowing what systemic failures were identified; what institutional reforms were recommended; whether public officials were criticised, and what lessons Government intends to implement.
These broader governance issues can often be disclosed without prejudicing criminal proceedings.
Rabuka's Defence of the Cost
The Prime Minister's most striking observation was his justification for spending millions on the inquiry. He argued that: "At least those people who had been suspected of doing wrong now know that they didn't do anything wrong."
That is one possible interpretation of the inquiry's value.
Another is that commissions of inquiry exist not primarily to clear individuals but to uncover facts, expose institutional weaknesses, recommend reforms, and restore confidence in public administration.
Even where no criminal liability results, a commission can still reveal procedural failures, conflicts of interest, governance deficiencies, or legislative gaps requiring correction.
Those broader public-interest objectives are arguably as important as determining individual innocence.
The Institutions Now Under Pressure
Rabuka indicated that responsibility now shifts to the Office of the Prime Minister; the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; FICAC; and the Fiji Police Force. This means the public will judge these institutions not by the inquiry itself but by what happens next.
If recommendations lead to reforms, prosecutions, or legislative changes, confidence may increase.
If little happens, critics will inevitably ask whether the inquiry produced meaningful outcomes commensurate with its cost.
The Broader Political Context
The COI became one of the most politically consequential public inquiries in recent Fiji history because it touched the integrity of the country's anti-corruption architecture.
Barbara Malimali's appointment, subsequent legal challenges, judicial proceedings, and the inquiry itself have generated months of intense public debate.
Against that background, withholding the report from Parliament risks prolonging speculation rather than bringing closure.
Transparency often ends controversy.
Secrecy, even if legally justified, can sometimes extend it.
Fijileaks has consistently maintained that sunlight remains the strongest disinfectant in public life.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says Parliament need only see the bill - not the report.
That may satisfy the minimum legal requirement.
It does not satisfy the higher standard of democratic accountability.
Fijileaks has consistently maintained that sunlight remains the strongest disinfectant in public life.
If taxpayers financed a Commission of Inquiry costing millions of dollars, then taxpayers deserve more than reassurance that "those suspected did nothing wrong."
They deserve to understand why that conclusion was reached.
They deserve to know whether government institutions functioned properly.
They deserve to know what reforms have been recommended.
They deserve to see, except where genuine legal necessity requires redaction, the reasoning behind one of the most significant inquiries into Fiji's governance in recent years.
Parliament exists precisely to scrutinise the Executive.
A report that never reaches Parliament cannot be debated by elected representatives, challenged by the Opposition, or defended by ministers in full public view.
The Government says criminal investigations continue.
If so, sensitive portions of the report could be withheld temporarily or appropriately redacted.
That should not become a justification for suppressing the entire document indefinitely.
History shows that confidence in institutions is strengthened not by secrecy but by openness.
Whether the report ultimately vindicates officials, criticises procedures, recommends sweeping reforms, or does all three, its greatest value lies in informing the nation.
A Commission of Inquiry should leave behind more than invoices and expenditure statements.
It should leave behind a public record.
Otherwise, Fiji risks remembering not what the inquiry discovered but only how much it cost.
That may satisfy the minimum legal requirement.
It does not satisfy the higher standard of democratic accountability.
Fijileaks has consistently maintained that sunlight remains the strongest disinfectant in public life.
If taxpayers financed a Commission of Inquiry costing millions of dollars, then taxpayers deserve more than reassurance that "those suspected did nothing wrong."
They deserve to understand why that conclusion was reached.
They deserve to know whether government institutions functioned properly.
They deserve to know what reforms have been recommended.
They deserve to see, except where genuine legal necessity requires redaction, the reasoning behind one of the most significant inquiries into Fiji's governance in recent years.
Parliament exists precisely to scrutinise the Executive.
A report that never reaches Parliament cannot be debated by elected representatives, challenged by the Opposition, or defended by ministers in full public view.
The Government says criminal investigations continue.
If so, sensitive portions of the report could be withheld temporarily or appropriately redacted.
That should not become a justification for suppressing the entire document indefinitely.
History shows that confidence in institutions is strengthened not by secrecy but by openness.
Whether the report ultimately vindicates officials, criticises procedures, recommends sweeping reforms, or does all three, its greatest value lies in informing the nation.
A Commission of Inquiry should leave behind more than invoices and expenditure statements.
It should leave behind a public record.
Otherwise, Fiji risks remembering not what the inquiry discovered but only how much it cost.
*We have the entire tape recording in our possession plus the transcript
Despite this, the meeting quickly descended into a series of interventions aimed at derailing the investigation and preventing charges.
Alleged Interference by Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
Tomasi Bainivalu, the Chief Registrar, immediately questioned FICAC’s authority to arrest Malimali and urged caution, while simultaneously suggesting that the investigation be halted:
“I do not know what power you have to arrest your own Commissioner… Why so fast overnight? Is it birthed from bitterness?… I’m not here to interfere with your work, but what is the right and best way?”
Most significantly, Bainivalu relayed what he described as instructions from the Chief Justice Salesi Temo:
“Just when she left… the Chair called again to CJ… and I remember he did say that on the phone… don’t accept any charge… this is the beginning of that dialogue.”
This statement is deeply concerning. If accurate, it indicates that a senior judicial officer sought to prevent the filing of a criminal charge, potentially amounting to judicial interference in an active investigation. It is one of the clearest indicators in the transcript of a potential attempt to pervert the course of justice, because it suggests coordination between the judiciary and external actors to prevent a criminal charge from ever reaching the courts.
Alleged Pressure and Threats from Senior Lawyer Amani Bale
Amani Bale, a senior lawyer, made some of the most direct and threatening interventions. He demanded that the suspect be released:
“I ask that you release her and she be released immediately and let the JSC go and convince…”
He also attempted to intimidate investigators by threatening their professional futures:
“What you have done now will spoil your careers but that’s your choice.”
Bale repeatedly asserted that pursuing charges would be futile because the courts would refuse to entertain them:
“You heard very clearly that Court would not accept it… if you go to Court it won’t accept your charges.”
These statements constitute clear attempts to pressure investigators into abandoning their lawful duties.
Alleged Misuse of Authority by Wylie Clarke, President of the Fiji Law Society
Wylie Clarke, President of the Fiji Law Society, argued that because Malimali had been appointed Commissioner, investigators were now obliged to obey her instructions, even though she was the subject of their investigation:
“She is now the substantive Commissioner under the law… you have to follow her direction right or wrong… If she directs you to stop this right now, what would you guys do?”
He further warned that continuing with the investigation would provoke institutional conflict:
“Continuing down this path is going to end up in a stand-off between this organisation and the Court… That will undermine confidence in the whole justice system.”
Such statements are significant because they explicitly suggest that institutional power, rather than law, should dictate the outcome of a criminal investigation.
Alleged Attempts by Senior Lawyer Laurel Vaurasi to Dissuade Investigators
Laurel Vaurasi, a senior practitioner, echoed similar arguments, warning that continuing the investigation could place FICAC “outside the law”:
“If you continue to keep her… the Court will listen to her application but not yours… Standing by your conviction has to be based on law… Otherwise, you are now operating outside the law.”
Her remarks were calculated to sow doubt about the legality of the investigation and discourage investigators from proceeding. While more subtle, Vaurasi's language is part of intimidation and pressure aimed at halting a criminal process. Even indirect attempts, by invoking consequences and urging withdrawal, can amount to perversion if they are intended to derail an investigation.
Alleged Conduct of Barbara Malimali – Initiating External Interference
It is understood that Barbara Malimali herself telephoned Wylie Clarke, while she was under active investigation and/or under arrest, to seek his assistance. If proven, this demonstrates that Malimali herself initiated efforts to interfere with the investigation.
The transcript also shows that her supporters repeatedly invoked her appointment as Commissioner as a shield against prosecution, implying that investigators were now subordinate to her, even though the investigation predated her appointment and concerned her own conduct.
Pattern of Coordinated Obstruction
When viewed collectively, the statements above reveal a pattern of coordinated conduct by senior figures, including judicial officers and members of the legal profession, aimed at obstructing a criminal investigation. This includes:
The content and tone of the meeting make clear that these were not mere opinions or legal debates.They were calculated acts intended to discourage, prevent, or defeat the course of justice.
Contrast: FICAC Investigation Team (Puleiwai, Saumi, Bokini Ratu). These officers largely resisted pressure and emphasised:
Alleged Interference by Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
Tomasi Bainivalu, the Chief Registrar, immediately questioned FICAC’s authority to arrest Malimali and urged caution, while simultaneously suggesting that the investigation be halted:
“I do not know what power you have to arrest your own Commissioner… Why so fast overnight? Is it birthed from bitterness?… I’m not here to interfere with your work, but what is the right and best way?”
Most significantly, Bainivalu relayed what he described as instructions from the Chief Justice Salesi Temo:
“Just when she left… the Chair called again to CJ… and I remember he did say that on the phone… don’t accept any charge… this is the beginning of that dialogue.”
This statement is deeply concerning. If accurate, it indicates that a senior judicial officer sought to prevent the filing of a criminal charge, potentially amounting to judicial interference in an active investigation. It is one of the clearest indicators in the transcript of a potential attempt to pervert the course of justice, because it suggests coordination between the judiciary and external actors to prevent a criminal charge from ever reaching the courts.
Alleged Pressure and Threats from Senior Lawyer Amani Bale
Amani Bale, a senior lawyer, made some of the most direct and threatening interventions. He demanded that the suspect be released:
“I ask that you release her and she be released immediately and let the JSC go and convince…”
He also attempted to intimidate investigators by threatening their professional futures:
“What you have done now will spoil your careers but that’s your choice.”
Bale repeatedly asserted that pursuing charges would be futile because the courts would refuse to entertain them:
“You heard very clearly that Court would not accept it… if you go to Court it won’t accept your charges.”
These statements constitute clear attempts to pressure investigators into abandoning their lawful duties.
Alleged Misuse of Authority by Wylie Clarke, President of the Fiji Law Society
Wylie Clarke, President of the Fiji Law Society, argued that because Malimali had been appointed Commissioner, investigators were now obliged to obey her instructions, even though she was the subject of their investigation:
“She is now the substantive Commissioner under the law… you have to follow her direction right or wrong… If she directs you to stop this right now, what would you guys do?”
He further warned that continuing with the investigation would provoke institutional conflict:
“Continuing down this path is going to end up in a stand-off between this organisation and the Court… That will undermine confidence in the whole justice system.”
Such statements are significant because they explicitly suggest that institutional power, rather than law, should dictate the outcome of a criminal investigation.
Alleged Attempts by Senior Lawyer Laurel Vaurasi to Dissuade Investigators
Laurel Vaurasi, a senior practitioner, echoed similar arguments, warning that continuing the investigation could place FICAC “outside the law”:
“If you continue to keep her… the Court will listen to her application but not yours… Standing by your conviction has to be based on law… Otherwise, you are now operating outside the law.”
Her remarks were calculated to sow doubt about the legality of the investigation and discourage investigators from proceeding. While more subtle, Vaurasi's language is part of intimidation and pressure aimed at halting a criminal process. Even indirect attempts, by invoking consequences and urging withdrawal, can amount to perversion if they are intended to derail an investigation.
Alleged Conduct of Barbara Malimali – Initiating External Interference
It is understood that Barbara Malimali herself telephoned Wylie Clarke, while she was under active investigation and/or under arrest, to seek his assistance. If proven, this demonstrates that Malimali herself initiated efforts to interfere with the investigation.
The transcript also shows that her supporters repeatedly invoked her appointment as Commissioner as a shield against prosecution, implying that investigators were now subordinate to her, even though the investigation predated her appointment and concerned her own conduct.
Pattern of Coordinated Obstruction
When viewed collectively, the statements above reveal a pattern of coordinated conduct by senior figures, including judicial officers and members of the legal profession, aimed at obstructing a criminal investigation. This includes:
- Relaying instructions allegedly from the Chief Justice not to accept charges.
- Issuing threats to investigators’ careers.
- Misrepresenting the legal effect of the suspect’s appointment.
- Demanding her immediate release.
- Warning of institutional retaliation if the investigation continued.
- Soliciting external assistance from professional associations to intervene.
The content and tone of the meeting make clear that these were not mere opinions or legal debates.They were calculated acts intended to discourage, prevent, or defeat the course of justice.
Contrast: FICAC Investigation Team (Puleiwai, Saumi, Bokini Ratu). These officers largely resisted pressure and emphasised:
- The investigation had been ongoing since April.
- Evidence existed to support charges.
- They were acting under constitutional powers and the rule of law.
