Fijileaks: Integrity Begins at Home: Why Law Society President Must Step Back from calling for the resignation of Justice Lewis as Supreme Court Judge of Fiji
"This is not about whether Justice Lewis’s post-report comments were appropriate. Reasonable people can debate that. But the person making the loudest call for his resignation should not be someone whose own conduct is under inquiry scrutiny. That’s textbook conflict of interest.."
"Let’s be clear: the Law Society President was a witness in that inquiry. He gave evidence. He submitted an affidavit. And from all indications, he is allegedly cited in the report itself. That should have been the moment he stepped back and said, “I am personally involved, and I cannot speak for the Society on this matter.” Instead, he chose to wield his institutional authority in what increasingly looks like an attempt to discredit a process that touched too close to home...That’s textbook conflict of interest.."
 *The Fiji Law Society is today calling on Justice David Ashton-Lewis to resign from the Supreme Court of Fiji or face disciplinary action. President of the Fiji Society, Wylie Clarke says the interview Justice Ashton-Lewis, the former Commissioner of Inquiry, gave to a Queensland radio station, in which he discussed a number of confidential COI matters, has now compromised both the COI and his judicial office. |    |
| When institutions meant to uphold the law start crossing ethical boundaries themselves, public trust unravels quickly. That is exactly what is now happening with the Fiji Law Society, whose President has publicly called for the resignation of Justice David Ashton Lewis — the Commissioner of the recent inquiry into corruption and institutional misconduct. Let’s be clear: the Law Society President was a witness in that inquiry. He gave evidence. He submitted an affidavit. And from all indications, he is allegedly cited in the report itself. That should have been the moment he stepped back and said, “I am personally involved, and I cannot speak for the Society on this matter.” Instead, he chose to wield his institutional authority in what increasingly looks like an attempt to discredit a process that touched too close to home. |  |
This is not about whether Justice Lewis’s post-report comments were appropriate. Reasonable people can debate that. But the person making the loudest call for his resignation should not be someone whose own conduct is under inquiry scrutiny. That’s textbook conflict of interest.
It is also dangerous. When senior legal figures use their office to protect themselves, they corrode the very foundation of public accountability they are sworn to defend. They also weaken the Law Society’s voice when it actually needs to speak — because who will trust it next time?
If the Law Society wants to remain credible, its President must recuse himself from all further public comment on the inquiry. If he won’t, the Society’s Council — and its members — must act. Integrity demands no less.
It is also dangerous. When senior legal figures use their office to protect themselves, they corrode the very foundation of public accountability they are sworn to defend. They also weaken the Law Society’s voice when it actually needs to speak — because who will trust it next time?
If the Law Society wants to remain credible, its President must recuse himself from all further public comment on the inquiry. If he won’t, the Society’s Council — and its members — must act. Integrity demands no less.
Legally, the President of the Fiji Law Society (FLS) can express an opinion or call for Justice David Ashton Lewis’s resignation from any public or judicial office as a matter of public advocacy—but the legitimacy and propriety of such a call is highly questionable if the President of FLS is himself allegedly cited or named in the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report.
Freedom to Comment or Call for Resignation
The FLS President:
Conflict of Interest If Allegedly Cited in the COI Report
However, if the FLS President is:
This would violate natural justice principles and professional ethics, particularly:
Legal and Professional Consequence
If the FLS President:
The President of the Fiji Law Society should not call for Justice Ashton Lewis’s resignation if he is allegedly cited in the COI report. Doing so would create a serious conflict of interest, raise questions about the integrity of the Law Society’s leadership, and could undermine public trust in both the legal profession and the inquiry process.
We refer the President of the Fiji Law Society and its members to go read the cases.
*Lal v President of the Republic of Fiji [2001] FJHC 321
Key Principle:
A public official must avoid making decisions or statements in circumstances where there is a real or perceived conflict of interest. This applies particularly where a person is both a participant and commentator in a matter of public importance.
Relevance: Supports the argument that the FLS President, as a COI witness, must not advocate for resignation of the Commissioner.
Goundar v Commissioner of Police [2011] FJHC 97
Key Principle:
The High Court emphasised that public officers involved in judicial or investigatory processes must uphold the appearance of impartiality, especially where their statements can influence outcomes or public trust.
Relevance: FLS President’s statements could undermine the COI findings and trust in due process.
Pinochet (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119 (House of Lords)
Key Principle:
A judge must be disqualified if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, including associations or past involvement with parties to the case.
Relevance: A Law Society president involved in a report cannot later act or speak against the findings—the dual role creates bias or its perception.
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet (No. 1) [1998] UKHL 41
Key Principle:
The mere appearance of conflict is sufficient to disqualify a judge or decision-maker, even if no actual bias is proven.
Relevance: By analogy, applies to any legal leader (e.g. FLS President) who seeks to influence a matter where they are personally named or involved.
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Key Principle:
Any decision-maker (including public officials) must recuse themselves from matters where a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend bias.
Relevance: The FLS President must recuse from public comment because a reasonable observer would question his motives.
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438
Key Principle:
The High Court held that public decision-makers must not participate in matters where they have a personal interest, even reputational.
Relevance: If the COI report touches on the FLS President’s conduct, he has a personal stake and must not lead institutional calls against the Commissioner.
Freedom to Comment or Call for Resignation
The FLS President:
- Has the right to speak publicly on matters of judicial accountability;
- May, in principle, call for the resignation of a judicial officer or commissioner, especially where public confidence in the process is at stake.
Conflict of Interest If Allegedly Cited in the COI Report
However, if the FLS President is:
- Named, criticised, or allegedly cited in the COI report—whether directly or by implication--
- Then any public call for Justice Lewis’s resignation would be viewed as conflicted, self-serving, or possibly an attempt to discredit the findings to avoid scrutiny.
This would violate natural justice principles and professional ethics, particularly:
- The appearance of impartiality;
- The obligation to avoid misusing a professional platform for personal defence.
Legal and Professional Consequence
If the FLS President:
- Uses the office of the Law Society to launch attacks on a COI or judge when he is himself implicated,
- He could be accused of:
- Abuse of office;
- Professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act;
- Undermining judicial independence or due process.
- Recuse himself from any FLS statements regarding the Commission;
- Allow the Vice-President or Council to act independently;
- Issue personal comments in his own name (if ethically defensible), but not in his institutional capacity
The President of the Fiji Law Society should not call for Justice Ashton Lewis’s resignation if he is allegedly cited in the COI report. Doing so would create a serious conflict of interest, raise questions about the integrity of the Law Society’s leadership, and could undermine public trust in both the legal profession and the inquiry process.
We refer the President of the Fiji Law Society and its members to go read the cases.
*Lal v President of the Republic of Fiji [2001] FJHC 321
Key Principle:
A public official must avoid making decisions or statements in circumstances where there is a real or perceived conflict of interest. This applies particularly where a person is both a participant and commentator in a matter of public importance.
Relevance: Supports the argument that the FLS President, as a COI witness, must not advocate for resignation of the Commissioner.
Goundar v Commissioner of Police [2011] FJHC 97
Key Principle:
The High Court emphasised that public officers involved in judicial or investigatory processes must uphold the appearance of impartiality, especially where their statements can influence outcomes or public trust.
Relevance: FLS President’s statements could undermine the COI findings and trust in due process.
Pinochet (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119 (House of Lords)
Key Principle:
A judge must be disqualified if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, including associations or past involvement with parties to the case.
Relevance: A Law Society president involved in a report cannot later act or speak against the findings—the dual role creates bias or its perception.
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet (No. 1) [1998] UKHL 41
Key Principle:
The mere appearance of conflict is sufficient to disqualify a judge or decision-maker, even if no actual bias is proven.
Relevance: By analogy, applies to any legal leader (e.g. FLS President) who seeks to influence a matter where they are personally named or involved.
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Key Principle:
Any decision-maker (including public officials) must recuse themselves from matters where a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend bias.
Relevance: The FLS President must recuse from public comment because a reasonable observer would question his motives.
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438
Key Principle:
The High Court held that public decision-makers must not participate in matters where they have a personal interest, even reputational.
Relevance: If the COI report touches on the FLS President’s conduct, he has a personal stake and must not lead institutional calls against the Commissioner.
 |  |
