Can the Law Outrun the Controversy?The Malimali Inquiry, Justice Ashton-Lewis, and the Fate of 17 Criminal Referrals
The Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as the FICAC Commissioner delivered a seismic report in 2025, recommending 17 criminal charges against a range of figures—including Chief Justice Salesi Temo, senior Judicial Services Commission (JSC) officials, and other public officers.
But a new controversy threatens to overshadow the CoI itself: Justice Ashton-Lewis, the chair of the inquiry, is under scrutiny for allegedly misrepresenting his legal credentials on his CV—specifically, a claim that he was appointed Senior Counsel (SC) in Papua New Guinea, which PNG authorities appear to dispute. This raises urgent questions:
The short answer: the CoI report stands on its own. Its recommendations remain legally valid. However, the optics are messy, and authorities must tread carefully to avoid accusations of selective enforcement.
The Commission of Inquiry and Its Limits
The Commission of Inquiry into Malimali’s appointment was established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Under this law, a CoI:
This means the CoI’s 17 referrals for possible criminal charges are not binding orders. They are a roadmap, not a verdict.
Fiji Police and FICAC:
The Controversy Over Justice Ashton-Lewis
The CoI’s independence and credibility are complicated by allegations involving its chair:
Does This Invalidate the CoI? No—not automatically.
A CoI’s findings remain legally valid unless:
There’s currently no evidence suggesting the CoI’s factual findings are unreliable. Its recommendations remain legally actionable despite the chair’s personal controversies.
The Stakes: A Substantive Appointment
Unlike an acting appointment, Barbara Malimali was appointed as FICAC Commissioner in September 2024—a substantive role enshrined in the 2013 Constitution.
This distinction matters because:
The FICAC Commissioner is a constitutional integrity officer.
The CoI found significant procedural lapses and recommended Malimali’s removal. That recommendation remains open to legal and political action.
Acting on the 17 Criminal Referrals
The CoI’s report points to potential offences under the Crimes Act 2009, including: Abuse of office, Perjury, False information to a public body, and Using false documents.
Next Steps for Fiji Police and FICAC
The Malimali Commission of Inquiry has left Fiji’s judiciary and integrity institutions at a crossroads.
Until then, Fiji faces a troubling paradox:
The watchdog meant to guard integrity has become a symbol of institutional fragility, and the judge who judged is now himself under judgment.
The Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as the FICAC Commissioner delivered a seismic report in 2025, recommending 17 criminal charges against a range of figures—including Chief Justice Salesi Temo, senior Judicial Services Commission (JSC) officials, and other public officers.
But a new controversy threatens to overshadow the CoI itself: Justice Ashton-Lewis, the chair of the inquiry, is under scrutiny for allegedly misrepresenting his legal credentials on his CV—specifically, a claim that he was appointed Senior Counsel (SC) in Papua New Guinea, which PNG authorities appear to dispute. This raises urgent questions:
- Does the cloud over Justice Ashton-Lewis affect the legal status of the CoI’s findings?
- Can the Fiji Police and FICAC still act on the 17 criminal referrals?
- Or does the inquiry risk being undermined by the credibility of its chair?
The short answer: the CoI report stands on its own. Its recommendations remain legally valid. However, the optics are messy, and authorities must tread carefully to avoid accusations of selective enforcement.
The Commission of Inquiry and Its Limits
The Commission of Inquiry into Malimali’s appointment was established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Under this law, a CoI:
- Investigates matters of public interest;
- Produces a report of findings and recommendations;
- Cannot prosecute or punish anyone.
This means the CoI’s 17 referrals for possible criminal charges are not binding orders. They are a roadmap, not a verdict.
Fiji Police and FICAC:
- Can investigate any allegations identified in the report;
- Must independently verify the evidence;
- Retain full discretion over whether to prosecute.
The Controversy Over Justice Ashton-Lewis
The CoI’s independence and credibility are complicated by allegations involving its chair:
- December 2023. Justice Ashton-Lewis was appointed as a visiting Supreme Court judge by the JSC, chaired by Justice Salesi Temo, then Acting CJ.
- His CV claimed Senior Counsel (SC) status in Papua New Guinea.
- PNG authorities reportedly hold no record of such an appointment.
- If verified, this could expose him to:
- False information to a public body;
- Using false documents;
- Professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act 2009.
Does This Invalidate the CoI? No—not automatically.
A CoI’s findings remain legally valid unless:
- Bias or misconduct in the inquiry process is proven, or
- Key evidence in the report is shown to be fabricated or tainted.
There’s currently no evidence suggesting the CoI’s factual findings are unreliable. Its recommendations remain legally actionable despite the chair’s personal controversies.
The Stakes: A Substantive Appointment
Unlike an acting appointment, Barbara Malimali was appointed as FICAC Commissioner in September 2024—a substantive role enshrined in the 2013 Constitution.
This distinction matters because:
The FICAC Commissioner is a constitutional integrity officer.
- The JSC, chaired by Temo, bears a constitutional duty under Section 105 to ensure appointments are based on merit, with regard to integrity, competence, and suitability.
- Any failure of vetting at this level undermines public trust in FICAC, which is tasked with investigating corruption at the highest levels of government.
The CoI found significant procedural lapses and recommended Malimali’s removal. That recommendation remains open to legal and political action.
Acting on the 17 Criminal Referrals
The CoI’s report points to potential offences under the Crimes Act 2009, including: Abuse of office, Perjury, False information to a public body, and Using false documents.
Next Steps for Fiji Police and FICAC
- Independent Investigations: Both agencies must open case files, review the CoI’s findings, and collect admissible evidence.
- No Automatic Prosecutions: Authorities must build fresh cases; the CoI report alone is not evidence.
- Consistency Matters: If Malimali, JSC members, or Temo are investigated, Justice Lewis’ own appointment must also be reviewed to avoid claims of bias.
The Malimali Commission of Inquiry has left Fiji’s judiciary and integrity institutions at a crossroads.
- Its 17 criminal referrals remain legally valid and actionable.
- But allegations against Justice Ashton-Lewis, the CoI’s chair, risk undermining public confidence if authorities are seen to cherry-pick targets.
- To maintain trust, the Fiji Police and FICAC must:
- Investigate all actors equally,
- Separate the messenger from the message, and
- Reform the JSC’s appointment processes to prevent future failures.
Until then, Fiji faces a troubling paradox:
The watchdog meant to guard integrity has become a symbol of institutional fragility, and the judge who judged is now himself under judgment.
