When Prosecutors Prejudge: Assistant DPP’s FACEBOOK Post Raises Serious Ethical and Legal Concerns. LAISANI Tabuakuro, "Mohammed Saneem for you. When he is convicted, he must repay $55,000 to State"

On the Court’s Own Motion (Suo Motu)
*The Chief Justice Temo may initiate contempt proceedings if he believes serious interference with the administration of justice has occurred. This is called acting suo motu (Latin: “on its own motion”). 

*The Chief Justice could, for example, issue a summons requiring the Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro to appear and explain why she should not be held in Contempt of Court.

*These screenshots below strengthen the legal argument because they show a pattern of public engagement by the Assistant DPP on platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn about an active criminal case against Mohammed Saneem and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum she is not prosecuting. That conduct goes beyond one prejudicial post. It becomes a course of conduct that heightens the risk of perceived bias and institutional prejudice, especially when the DPP is prosecuting the case.

The rule of law depends not only on the fair administration of justice but also on public confidence that prosecutors, as officers of the court, act impartially, uphold the presumption of innocence, and avoid conduct that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings. When those entrusted with prosecutorial authority use their public platforms to comment on active cases, they risk eroding that confidence and undermining the integrity of the justice system itself.

That concern is now squarely before Fiji's general public following revelations that a senior Assistant DPP Tabuakuro, though not a member of the prosecuting team, has repeatedly used social media platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn to post commentary and news stories about the ongoing criminal trial of former Attorney-General Aiyaz Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem.

​Prejudicial Commentary: “When He Is Convicted…”

In one of the most troubling examples, the Assistant DPP Tabuakuro personally posted a Facebook comment declaring: “When he is convicted, he must repay the $55,000 as restitution to the State. #justicealwaysprevails.”

This was not an offhand remark by a private citizen. It was published by a senior state prosecutor on her own social media page. The language--“when he is convicted”—presupposes guilt, anticipates sentencing, and dismisses the presumption of innocence.

For any prosecutor, such language would be inappropriate. For a senior Assistant DPP, it is profoundly damaging. It gives the appearance that the prosecutorial office itself regards a conviction as a foregone conclusion, a perception fundamentally incompatible with the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Fiji.

A Pattern of Public Engagement, Not an Isolated Incident

The prejudicial post is not an isolated lapse. The Assistant DPP’s own LinkedIn and Facebook activity show repeated sharing and amplification of news stories about the pending trial of Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem including:

• A Mai TV post announcing that the High Court has scheduled their trial for 15 September to 3 October 2025, referring to the charges they face.
• An FBC News report headlined “Court told no tax relief approved for Saneem”, shared on her LinkedIn profile.

While the content of those media articles is public, the fact that a serving Assistant DPP is reposting and circulating them in connection with a case she is not prosecuting reinforces the appearance of institutional interest and personal involvement. In the public mind, these actions, especially when combined with her earlier comment predicting conviction, risk transforming the ODPP’s role from impartial prosecutor into partisan commentator.

Ethical Duties of Prosecutors and the Risk of Bias

The Constitution requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to act independently and “without fear, favour, or prejudice.” That duty extends to all officers acting under the DPP’s authority, including Assistant Directors. Independence and impartiality are not merely operational obligations, they include a duty to avoid public conduct that undermines confidence in the fairness of proceedings.

The United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) provide that prosecutors must:

• “Perform their duties fairly, consistently, and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights.”
• “Refrain from public statements that may prejudice ongoing proceedings.”

The Assistant DPP Tabuakuro’s repeated posts and comments, especially those suggesting an inevitable conviction, appear to violate each of these core principles.

Sub Judice and Contempt: A Real Risk of Prejudice

Under Fiji’s common law of contempt, any public statement that creates a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial can constitute sub judice contempt. This risk is amplified when the speaker is a state prosecutor, whose words carry institutional weight.

The repeated online activity by the Assistant DPP could be argued to have:

• Influenced public opinion by presenting guilt as a certainty.
• Created apprehension of institutional bias within the ODPP.
• Compromised the perceived impartiality of the prosecution service as a whole.

Even if intended as “private” or “personal” activity, prosecutors are held to higher standards precisely because their words can affect the administration of justice.

Privacy Is No Defence: Closed Pages Still Carry Consequences

It is also understood that at least one of the prejudicial posts (on Facebook) was made in a closed or semi-private social media group before being leaked. That does not mitigate the seriousness of the conduct. Courts and disciplinary bodies have consistently held that prosecutorial misconduct is not excused by privacy settings.

If a post concerns an active case, prejudges its outcome, and is foreseeably shareable, the prosecutor remains responsible for its impact, regardless of where or how it was published. Indeed, the use of a closed group may suggest an awareness that the content was inappropriate for public view, aggravating the misconduct rather than excusing it.

Possible Consequences and Institutional Remedies

Given the seriousness of the conduct, several remedies are available:

• Internal Disciplinary Review: The ODPP should investigate the Assistant DPP’s conduct and consider disciplinary measures for prejudicial commentary.
• Referral to the Legal Practitioners Unit: The conduct may constitute professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act.
• Judicial Remedies: Defence counsel may seek judicial acknowledgment of the prejudicial conduct or request assurances of prosecutorial impartiality.
• Public Accountability: The ODPP should publicly reaffirm its commitment to independence and distance itself from any statements or conduct suggesting bias.

Conclusion

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Public confidence in the rule of law depends on the impartiality of those who administer it.

By repeatedly posting and sharing commentary about an ongoing criminal trial, including a direct statement that a defendant “will be convicted”, Tabuakuro has crossed a bright ethical line. Whether on a public platform or a closed page, such conduct risks contaminating the judicial process and weakening the credibility of the ODPP itself.

The issue is no longer just about one trial. It is about the integrity of Fiji’s justice system, and whether those entrusted with prosecutorial power, are willing to respect the constitutional principles that give that power legitimacy.

The Chief Justice (or any judge of the High Court or Supreme Court) can initiate contempt of court proceedings against a prosecutor, including an Assistant DPP, if her conduct poses a real risk of prejudicing an ongoing trial or undermining the authority and integrity of the judicial process.

However, there are important procedural and constitutional nuances one can conclude that such an order is likely or straightforward. 

The Legal Basis: Contempt of Court in Fiji

Fiji’s courts derive their contempt powers from:

• The Constitution of Fiji (2013), which vests “inherent jurisdiction” in the High Court and Supreme Court to protect the administration of justice.
• The High Court Act and common law principles, which recognise both civil and criminal contempt, including sub judice contempt.
• The Administration of Justice Act (read with common law), which recognises the High Court’s power to punish for contempt committed “in the face of the court” or “tending to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice.”

Sub judice contempt - the relevant type here - arises where any publication creates a “real risk” of prejudice to pending legal proceedings. This is especially serious if the publication:

• Prejudges guilt or innocence;
• Comments on evidence or witnesses before trial;
• Is made by someone in a position of legal authority.

A Facebook or LinkedIn post by a serving Assistant DPP stating “when he is convicted” clearly engages this test because it:

• Anticipates a guilty verdict;
• Concerns an ongoing criminal trial;
• Comes from an officer whose words carry institutional weight.

Who Can Initiate Contempt Proceedings?

In Fiji and other common law jurisdictions, there are three main ways contempt proceedings can begin:

(a) On the Court’s Own Motion (Suo Motu)

• A judge, including the Chief Justice, may initiate contempt proceedings if he believes serious interference with the administration of justice has occurred.
• This is called acting suo motu (Latin: “on its own motion”).
• The Chief Justice could, for example, issue a summons requiring the Assistant DPP to appear and explain why she should not be held in contempt.

(b) By the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

• Ordinarily, the DPP prosecutes contempt proceedings. But this is complicated here because the person accused works for the DPP.
• If the DPP has a conflict, the court may appoint an amicus curiae (independent counsel) or direct the Solicitor-General or a private practitioner to conduct the prosecution.

(c) On Application by a Party (e.g., the Defence)

• Defence counsel for Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum or Mohammed Saneem could apply to the High Court for leave to bring contempt proceedings against the Assistant DPP.
• If the court is satisfied that there’s a prima facie case, it can allow the matter to proceed.

The Legal Threshold: “Real Risk of Prejudice”

The court will only order contempt charges if two key elements are met:
​
Publication during pending proceedings:

• The posts clearly refer to a trial that is in progress, meaning the matter is “pending” and sub judice rules apply.

Real risk of serious prejudice or interference:

• A senior prosecutor’s post stating “when he is convicted” is textbook prejudgment.
• Her reposting of trial updates reinforces the perception that the prosecution service has already decided the outcome.

If both elements are satisfied, the court can order that Tabuakuro be charged with contempt, even if the original post was “private” or “leaked.”

Chief Justice’s Powers and Role

The Chief Justice of Fiji, as head of the judiciary and presiding officer of the Supreme Court, has inherent power to:

• Summon the Assistant DPP Tabuakuro to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be brought.
• Refer the matter to a disciplinary tribunal or recommend that the DPP suspend her pending inquiry.
• Order an independent contempt prosecution if the case is sufficiently serious.

Why This Case Is Serious

Several aggravating factors make contempt proceedings more likely here:

• Laisani Tabuakuro is not a private citizen but a senior prosecutor. Her words carry official weight.
• The statement was not neutral reportage but a declaration of guilt.

She is not part of the prosecution team, which removes any justification for commenting at all. The conduct shows a pattern of online engagement, not a one-off slip.

Together, these factors amount to more than just poor judgment. They could be seen as an attempt to influence public opinion and undermine the integrity of a pending trial.

Realistic Outcome if the Chief Justice Acts

If the Chief Justice initiates contempt proceedings, the likely steps are:

1. Order to Show Cause: The Assistant DPP is summoned to explain the conduct.
2. Hearing on Prima Facie Case: If the explanation is insufficient, the court may order formal contempt proceedings.
3. Possible Sanctions if Convicted:
   • Public reprimand and formal censure;
   • Fines and costs orders;
   • Suspension from legal practice;
   • In extreme cases, imprisonment (rare but legally possible).

Even short of conviction, the Chief Justice could issue a stern warning or judicial direction to the ODPP about prosecutorial conduct and public commentary. In the meantime, Laisani Tabuakuro must be forced to reveal her entire private chat history regarding the trial of Saneem and Khaiyum before the Chief Justice Salesi Temo.