 |   |
In a bold and constitutionally grounded statement, Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Pryde has reminded the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) of a simple but powerful truth: it is wrong for a constitutional body to delegate its duties to other agencies.
Pryde’s assertion should not be brushed aside. It raises serious concerns about the growing tendency of public institutions to blur constitutional lines—sometimes out of political expediency, sometimes out of institutional convenience, and occasionally out of fear.
But the law is clear: the JSC must carry out its own investigations and make its own decisions when the future of an officeholder like the DPP is at stake. Anything less is a breach of the constitutional trust placed in that body.
A Body Created by the Constitution Must Obey It
The JSC is not an advisory committee. It is a constitutional commission, explicitly entrusted with powers to appoint, suspend, or remove key legal and judicial officers, including the DPP and the Commissioner of FICAC. These are non-delegable responsibilities.
If the JSC is indeed waiting on another agency—be it FICAC, the Public Service Commission, or any police or administrative authority—to decide the fate of the DPP before taking any independent action, then it has effectively outsourced the Constitution.
You Cannot Delegate Judgment
The JSC may seek assistance. It may commission independent legal advice or fact-finding from a retired judge or qualified investigator. What it cannot do, however, is hand over its constitutional duty to act—to investigate, deliberate, and decide—to another institution and then simply endorse that agency’s findings.
That is not independence. That is not constitutionality. And that is not justice.
If this is the path being taken in Pryde’s case, it sets a dangerous precedent. Every future holder of an independent constitutional office could be politically undermined by a process in which the JSC refuses to act unless or until another agency takes the lead—effectively creating a constitutional vacuum where no one takes responsibility.
The Role of the JSC Is to Decide, Not Hide
At its best, the JSC is a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that decisions affecting judicial independence and prosecutorial integrity are made free from political pressure and with direct accountability to the Constitution.
At its worst, the JSC becomes a bystander, hiding behind other institutions and avoiding the hard decisions it was created to make.
Pryde is absolutely right to raise the alarm. Whether one agrees with his legal record or not, his point speaks to a larger truth: constitutional bodies must act constitutionally. There is no room for buck-passing when the rule of law is on the line
The Fijian Public Deserves Better
The people of Fiji deserve to know whether the JSC is doing its job—or whether it is waiting for someone else to do it for them. Transparency, accountability, and constitutional courage are not optional for the JSC. They are its very reason for existing.
If the Commission cannot or will not exercise its judgment independently, then it invites public doubt—not just in the fairness of the process against Pryde, but in the integrity of the constitutional system itself.
We must not allow that to happen.
Pryde’s assertion should not be brushed aside. It raises serious concerns about the growing tendency of public institutions to blur constitutional lines—sometimes out of political expediency, sometimes out of institutional convenience, and occasionally out of fear.
But the law is clear: the JSC must carry out its own investigations and make its own decisions when the future of an officeholder like the DPP is at stake. Anything less is a breach of the constitutional trust placed in that body.
A Body Created by the Constitution Must Obey It
The JSC is not an advisory committee. It is a constitutional commission, explicitly entrusted with powers to appoint, suspend, or remove key legal and judicial officers, including the DPP and the Commissioner of FICAC. These are non-delegable responsibilities.
If the JSC is indeed waiting on another agency—be it FICAC, the Public Service Commission, or any police or administrative authority—to decide the fate of the DPP before taking any independent action, then it has effectively outsourced the Constitution.
You Cannot Delegate Judgment
The JSC may seek assistance. It may commission independent legal advice or fact-finding from a retired judge or qualified investigator. What it cannot do, however, is hand over its constitutional duty to act—to investigate, deliberate, and decide—to another institution and then simply endorse that agency’s findings.
That is not independence. That is not constitutionality. And that is not justice.
If this is the path being taken in Pryde’s case, it sets a dangerous precedent. Every future holder of an independent constitutional office could be politically undermined by a process in which the JSC refuses to act unless or until another agency takes the lead—effectively creating a constitutional vacuum where no one takes responsibility.
The Role of the JSC Is to Decide, Not Hide
At its best, the JSC is a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that decisions affecting judicial independence and prosecutorial integrity are made free from political pressure and with direct accountability to the Constitution.
At its worst, the JSC becomes a bystander, hiding behind other institutions and avoiding the hard decisions it was created to make.
Pryde is absolutely right to raise the alarm. Whether one agrees with his legal record or not, his point speaks to a larger truth: constitutional bodies must act constitutionally. There is no room for buck-passing when the rule of law is on the line
The Fijian Public Deserves Better
The people of Fiji deserve to know whether the JSC is doing its job—or whether it is waiting for someone else to do it for them. Transparency, accountability, and constitutional courage are not optional for the JSC. They are its very reason for existing.
If the Commission cannot or will not exercise its judgment independently, then it invites public doubt—not just in the fairness of the process against Pryde, but in the integrity of the constitutional system itself.
We must not allow that to happen.
