| The recent media release from the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) stating that it is “shocked” that former member Tanya Waqanika has been charged by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) focuses on sentiment rather than substance. It is important to clarify what has actually occurred and why the charge is a matter of public record, not merely a political surprise. On 11 December 2025, lawyer and former SODELPA MP Tanya Waqanika appeared in court after being charged by FICAC with an alleged breach of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013. |  |
| Specifically, she is accused of contravening Section 14(7) of that Act by publicly indicating opposition to a registered political party while serving as a public officer. In her case, as a board member of Investment Fiji and Telecom Fiji Limited, when she posted comments on social media dated 19 April 2024 that reportedly opposed SODELPA. The law places clear limits on political expressions by public officers in certain contexts in order to uphold neutrality and public confidence in statutory bodies. Board members of statutory entities like Investment Fiji and Telecom Fiji have defined duties and standards they must meet, including restrictions on political activity specified in the Political Parties Act. The essence of the charge is that, as a public officer, Waqanika was subject to those rules and is alleged to have breached them, and that is a statutory question, not a partisan one. | 
|
SODELPA’s statement frames the matter as if the charge itself is unexpected or an affront, but that perspective overlooks the legal framework in question. The Political Parties Act is designed to regulate how public officeholders engage with party politics to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain institutional integrity. Whether one supports freedom of speech in principle or not, the specific provisions of the Act were in force at the relevant time and form the basis for FICAC’s action.
Furthermore, SODELPA notes it did not itself make a complaint in this case, yet FICAC prosecutes offences on behalf of the public interest when there is reasonable cause. The fact that a political party did not lodge the initial complaint does not negate the statutory authority of FICAC to investigate and charge alleged offences.
It is also worth noting that in court the defence has signalled an intention to challenge the proceedings, including filing a stay application in the High Court. Such procedural moves are not uncommon in criminal cases and are part of the ordinary legal process rather than an admission of error or illegitimacy on the part of the prosecuting authority.
In summary, the charge against Waqanika arises from a specific statutory scheme regulating political activity by public officers. Public debate about whether those rules are appropriate is one thing; disregarding the fact that the charging decision is grounded in existing law is another.
Statements of “shock” from a political party do not alter the legal context in which this matter is being litigated.
It is also worth noting that in court the defence has signalled an intention to challenge the proceedings, including filing a stay application in the High Court. Such procedural moves are not uncommon in criminal cases and are part of the ordinary legal process rather than an admission of error or illegitimacy on the part of the prosecuting authority.
In summary, the charge against Waqanika arises from a specific statutory scheme regulating political activity by public officers. Public debate about whether those rules are appropriate is one thing; disregarding the fact that the charging decision is grounded in existing law is another.
Statements of “shock” from a political party do not alter the legal context in which this matter is being litigated.
Takayawa While confirming to the Fiji Times, that she had been questioned by FICAC, Tanya Waqanika was careful to specifically identify former SODELPA general secretary Viliame Takayawa as the complainant, noting that the investigation arose from a complaint he lodged over a social media post she made last year.
According to the Fiji Times report: "Ms Waqanika said she was taken in after Supervisor of Elections Ana Mataiciwa referred the complaint, lodged by former SODELPA general secretary Viliame Takayawa, to FICAC.
“Basically, it was in regards to a Facebook post that I did last year and the complainant was Viliame Takayawa, the former general secretary for SODELPA,” she said.
“My post was on April 16th or April 19th of last year and it had to do with the demise of SODELPA following the annual general meeting and what could happen with the Coalition because by then, Aseri (Radrodro) was not a Cabinet minister.
“The interview went well and I was told I had breached Section 14D of the Fijian Political Parties Act 2013 that ‘a public officer shall not publicly indicate support for or opposition to any proposed political party”.
Ms Waqanika said she told FICAC she didn’t see herself supporting or opposing SODELPA.
“All I said is the demise of Sodelpa. And everybody talks about it,” she said.
According to the Fiji Times report: "Ms Waqanika said she was taken in after Supervisor of Elections Ana Mataiciwa referred the complaint, lodged by former SODELPA general secretary Viliame Takayawa, to FICAC.
“Basically, it was in regards to a Facebook post that I did last year and the complainant was Viliame Takayawa, the former general secretary for SODELPA,” she said.
“My post was on April 16th or April 19th of last year and it had to do with the demise of SODELPA following the annual general meeting and what could happen with the Coalition because by then, Aseri (Radrodro) was not a Cabinet minister.
“The interview went well and I was told I had breached Section 14D of the Fijian Political Parties Act 2013 that ‘a public officer shall not publicly indicate support for or opposition to any proposed political party”.
Ms Waqanika said she told FICAC she didn’t see herself supporting or opposing SODELPA.
“All I said is the demise of Sodelpa. And everybody talks about it,” she said.
*As we recently pointed out, Waqanika was already under scrutiny by the late SODELPA MP Dr Mere Samisioni. In private emails to Fijileaks, she protested that Waqanika was breaching the statutory board rules and improperly interfering in political party matters. She was seeking a legal opinion on the issue and was even prepared to raise the matter with Takayawa for further legal action.
*It remains unclear whether Takayawa acted on Dr Samisoni's concerns by reporting Waqanika to FICAC, which has now charged her and brought her before the courts.
*The timing of those charges, however, is not a matter for Fijileaks to speculate upon or pursue. She, however, has attacked FICAC in her latest Facebook post (read below).
SPEAKING WHILE CHARGED: IS TANYA WAQANIKA HELPING HER CASE OR HURTING IT?
There is a difference between being angry and being right.
Tanya Waqanika’s most recent Facebook post has struck a nerve but the harder question, the one her supporters are avoiding, is whether she was right to make such sweeping allegations publicly while both she and Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica remain before the courts.
The answer is not comfortable.
Waqanika is entitled to her opinion. Being charged does not strip a citizen of the right to speak. But criminal proceedings are not conducted in a vacuum, and neither are lawyers ordinary defendants.
Once charges are laid, the rules tighten. Courts expect restraint. Prosecutors expect silence. And lawyers are held to a higher standard than the rest of the public, whether they like it or not.
What Waqanika did was not simply protest her innocence. She went much further. She alleged that prosecutors were instructed to charge Kamikamica despite knowing there was no evidence. She claimed multiple legal opinions were ignored. She suggested fear inside FICAC, and the misuse of state power to punish those perceived as threats.
Those are not casual remarks. They are allegations of serious misconduct, made publicly, while cases are live, and without any affidavit, application, or formal complaint to accompany them.
That is where the problem lies.
Courts do not appreciate criminal cases being tried on Facebook. Nor do they welcome accused persons, especially lawyers, narrating alleged internal prosecutorial conversations in public while proceedings are still underway. Even if such claims are true, the timing and forum matter.
There is also the question of fairness to others. Waqanika is not a party to the Kamikamica case, yet she has publicly commented on it in a way that goes to the heart of the prosecution’s integrity.
Kamikamica himself has largely stayed silent. His defence, if any, belongs in court, not on someone else’s timeline.
For a lawyer, this is dangerous ground. The legal profession expects grievances about prosecutors and judges to be raised formally, not aired emotionally online. Regulators are less concerned with whether a lawyer “felt compelled” to speak than with whether she chose the proper avenue.
Facebook is not a protected forum. It offers no privilege, no immunity, and no procedural safeguards. Allegations made there carry defamation risk, disciplinary risk, and the possibility of being cited back against the speaker later.
None of this means Waqanika is lying. It means she may have spoken at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and in the wrong way.
If FICAC truly ignored legal advice and pushed through a case it knew was weak, that is a matter for judicial scrutiny. If prosecutors were pressured or fearful, that demands investigation. But those processes begin with sworn evidence, not social media posts.
There is also a strategic reality. Judges tend to be unimpressed by accused persons who litigate in public while insisting on fairness in court. Silence is not an admission of guilt; sometimes it is self-preservation.
Waqanika’s post reads less like a legal submission and more like a warning shot, a line drawn in the sand. It may resonate politically. It may even turn out to be vindicated. But legally, it complicates her own position.
In Fiji, whistleblowers often pay a price. But so do those who confuse whistleblowing with public venting while cases are live.
If what she says is true, it will surface eventually through proper channels. The danger is that by speaking too early, and too freely, she has given her critics ammunition and shifted attention away from the conduct she wants examined.
The law is unforgiving in that way.
Being right is not always enough. Timing, method, and restraint matter just as much.
And for a lawyer facing charges, they matter more than anything else.
There is a difference between being angry and being right.
Tanya Waqanika’s most recent Facebook post has struck a nerve but the harder question, the one her supporters are avoiding, is whether she was right to make such sweeping allegations publicly while both she and Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica remain before the courts.
The answer is not comfortable.
Waqanika is entitled to her opinion. Being charged does not strip a citizen of the right to speak. But criminal proceedings are not conducted in a vacuum, and neither are lawyers ordinary defendants.
Once charges are laid, the rules tighten. Courts expect restraint. Prosecutors expect silence. And lawyers are held to a higher standard than the rest of the public, whether they like it or not.
What Waqanika did was not simply protest her innocence. She went much further. She alleged that prosecutors were instructed to charge Kamikamica despite knowing there was no evidence. She claimed multiple legal opinions were ignored. She suggested fear inside FICAC, and the misuse of state power to punish those perceived as threats.
Those are not casual remarks. They are allegations of serious misconduct, made publicly, while cases are live, and without any affidavit, application, or formal complaint to accompany them.
That is where the problem lies.
Courts do not appreciate criminal cases being tried on Facebook. Nor do they welcome accused persons, especially lawyers, narrating alleged internal prosecutorial conversations in public while proceedings are still underway. Even if such claims are true, the timing and forum matter.
There is also the question of fairness to others. Waqanika is not a party to the Kamikamica case, yet she has publicly commented on it in a way that goes to the heart of the prosecution’s integrity.
Kamikamica himself has largely stayed silent. His defence, if any, belongs in court, not on someone else’s timeline.
For a lawyer, this is dangerous ground. The legal profession expects grievances about prosecutors and judges to be raised formally, not aired emotionally online. Regulators are less concerned with whether a lawyer “felt compelled” to speak than with whether she chose the proper avenue.
Facebook is not a protected forum. It offers no privilege, no immunity, and no procedural safeguards. Allegations made there carry defamation risk, disciplinary risk, and the possibility of being cited back against the speaker later.
None of this means Waqanika is lying. It means she may have spoken at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and in the wrong way.
If FICAC truly ignored legal advice and pushed through a case it knew was weak, that is a matter for judicial scrutiny. If prosecutors were pressured or fearful, that demands investigation. But those processes begin with sworn evidence, not social media posts.
There is also a strategic reality. Judges tend to be unimpressed by accused persons who litigate in public while insisting on fairness in court. Silence is not an admission of guilt; sometimes it is self-preservation.
Waqanika’s post reads less like a legal submission and more like a warning shot, a line drawn in the sand. It may resonate politically. It may even turn out to be vindicated. But legally, it complicates her own position.
In Fiji, whistleblowers often pay a price. But so do those who confuse whistleblowing with public venting while cases are live.
If what she says is true, it will surface eventually through proper channels. The danger is that by speaking too early, and too freely, she has given her critics ammunition and shifted attention away from the conduct she wants examined.
The law is unforgiving in that way.
Being right is not always enough. Timing, method, and restraint matter just as much.
And for a lawyer facing charges, they matter more than anything else.
PHOTO Ops, Smiles and Silence: How Long Before Convicted Coupist, Ethno-Nationalist, and Racist George Speight Comes Clean on the 2000 COUP? Always Available for Dessert, Roti & Curry But
Never for the Truth
From Fijileaks Archives
 |    |
