Fiji High Court rejects PM Rabuka’s bid to stall former anti-corruption chief ruling

Fiji’s High Court this week rejected Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s attempt to stall its ruling that the country’s former anti-corruption chief was illegally sacked.

In February, Justice Dane Tuiqereqere found that the President – on the advice of the prime minister – “unlawfully” dismissed Barbara Malimali, the head of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).

The finding reportedly “embarrassed” Rabuka, who applied to the High Court in March for an order staying the execution of the judgement and all further proceedings.

Former FICAC chief Barbara Malimali
Photo: Screengrab / Facebook / The Fiji Times

However, Justice Dane Tuiqereqere refused to grant the stay of execution on Monday, saying he did not have the authority to do so.

The earlier decision has paved the way for the judiciary’s highest body, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), to consider reappointing Malimali, who is now seeking around $US1.4 compensation from the state, plus her job back.

New legal move

Meanwhile, Rabuka’s lawyer Simione Valenitabua told RNZ Pacific that he has now applied to the Court of Appeal for a fresh stay.

He is seeking the following orders:

• The execution of the judgement and orders of the High Court on 2 February be stayed, pending the outcome of his appeal; (of the whole judgement)
• Malimali be “restrained from resuming the office of Commissioner of FICAC until the final determination of the appeal; and
• The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) be prevented from exercising any functions under the FICAC Act pursuant to the orders in the (February) judgement.

Malimali, who was appointed as FICAC’s chief in September 2024, had filed a judicial review challenging the president’s decision.

She claimed that the public termination of her employment had caused her substantial reputational and emotional harm and led to cyberbullying. She asked the court to quash the dismissal, reinstate her as FICAC commissioner, and award damages.

Her lawyer, Tanya Waqanika, reportedly told the High Court previously that Rabuka was appealing the entire judgement to protect President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.

Waqanika claimed the President was facing the threat of being referred to a JSC tribunal over her client’s dismissal, according to fijivillage.com.

Outside the High Court on Monday, Waqanika told local media that she was confident of winning their case in the Court of Appeal.

Justice Tuiqereqere stated in February that “the prime minister did not have the constitutional authority to advise the president to revoke her appointment”, as reported by The Fiji Times.

Tuiqereqere added at the time that the JSC was the only body responsible for appointing, disciplining and removing FICAC’S commissioner.

The president’s decision

The president initially suspended Malimali in May 2025 and subsequently revoked her appointment a month later, on Rabuka’s advice. His decision was made in the wake of a damning Commission of Inquiry into her appointment.

The investigation, headed by Australian Justice David Ashton-Lewis, found that Malimali’s appointment was “legally invalid, ethically reprehensible and procedurally corrupt”.

One of its main findings was that her appointment was “orchestrated to protect political actors and public officials and to derail corruption investigations.”

Rabuka threatened to resign over Tuiqereqere’s finding, walked that idea back and made several u-turns over whether to appeal

the decision, which he finally did.

The prime minister later apeared to be non-committal over the prospect of resigning and told local media that he would await the outcome of his appeal

When asked if he would resign if the appeal failed, he replied: “That was when the decision that came (Tuiqereqere’s ruling) was not very clear to me as a non-lawyer, now I’ll leave it to the court and when that comes out I’ll make a decision.”

Valenitabua previously sent RNZ Pacific an eight-page document outlining Rabuka’s appeal against the “whole judgement”.

In the document, Rabuka claims Tuiqereqere made an “error of law” eleven times, including:

Rabuka wants the appeal to be allowed and the judgement set aside. He is seeking declarations that state that:

• Malimali’s appointment was unlawful and contrary to section 82 of the Constitution
• Section 2 of the FICAC Act is unconstitutional (and purports to require the President to act on the advice (as opposed to the recommendation) of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) before appointing the head of the Commission
• Malimali’s appointment was invalid due to pre-appointment “taint”
• The acting FICAC Commissioner Lavinia Rokoika remain during the appeal process