Fiji's ex-anti-corruption head to fight 'destroyed career' after damning inquiry
Photo:
RNZ Pacific / Fiji Government / FICAC
The former head of Fiji's anti-corruption agency may move to have the damning Commission of Inquiry report into her appointment quashed.
Barbara Malimali - described as "universally corrupt" by the commissioner of the inquiry - was suspended by Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka on 29 May.
Her lawyer Tanya Waqanika told
Pacific Waves
that Justice David Ashton-Lewis'
public remarks
has destroyed Malimali's legal career.
Rabuka released a
redacted copy
of the final report on the government's website last Monday, but leaked copies have been circulating for weeks.
Justice Ashton-Lewis found that six members of government and four lawyers lied under oath, obstructed justice and perverted the course of justice.
"I've done my job, the rest is up to up to Sitiveni Rabuka to act," he said.
Justice Ashton-Lewis said the edited version cuts out almost an entire chapter of adverse findings against individuals, in a bid not to prevent or bias any subsequent police investigations.
He claims it exposed what he called a systemic failure of integrity at the highest levels of Fiji's governance and justice systems.
Ashton-Lewis said Malimali's appointment to the role last September was legally invalid, ethically reprehensible and procedurally corrupted.
"She was a pawn in the hands of devious members of government, who wanted any allegations against them or other government members thrown out," he told RNZ Pacific.
Waqanika said Ashton-Lewis' allegations in the report are merely his "narrative" and the real truth lies in the court transcripts.
She claims his public comments destroyed Malimali's reputation.
"He made a defamatory and derogatory comment in a podcast and called her universally corrupt," Waqanika said.
"It's an issue of clearing her name, she has has built up her legal career over 20 years and that statement alone has pretty much destroyed her career."
Ashton-Lewis said the evidence from cross-examination of Malimali and from the many who spoke against her showed she was "universally corrupt".
The main findings of the inquiry include:
Malimali has instructed Waqanika to write to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to complain about the Commissioner on the grounds of "misbehaviour".
According to Ashton-Lewis, Malimali was a pawn in the hands of devious members of government.
Photo:
X/Fiji Women
However, she was vague about the details, saying "misbehaviour" was a broad term but might include his "lack of credentials".
Waqanika also claimed the inquiry went outside its terms of reference and believes other lawyers involved in the investigation will try to have the report thrown out on this basis.
Ashton-Lewis, 75, was paid $AU2000 a day during the nine week hearing, which involved 35 witnesses . It took a total of six months to go through the material.
He handed the the 681-page report to Rabuka and President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu on 6 May, and said the terms of reference were strictly followed.
"The terms of reference were not only about Mallmali's appointment, they include the question of whether there was any undue interference in her appointment and I found there was," he said.
"We did our job correctly. They (Malimali and Waqanika) can yell as loud as they want, but I think any moves to have the report quashed will be lengthy, costly and unsuccessful.".
Ashton-Lewis said there were four attempts during the inquiry to shut it down, including a claim that it breached the constitution.
"We were appointed under the Commission of Inquiries Act, not the Constitution, so that was erroneous."
Ashton-Lewis said there were "discriminatory" attacks, suggesting that as foreigners they had no right to question Malimali.
Waqanika complained to the Prime Minister and the President, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, that Ashton-Lewis, an Australian, was "white".
She also questioned the suitability of barrister Janet Mason, his assistant. Ms Mason is a Fijian citizen who is part iTaukei and lives in Wellington.
"I wasn't expecting that kind of racism, I've never experienced that in all my years in the High Court," he said.
Waqanika claimed there was a lack of accountability and transparency during the inquiry, with only one commissioner and a media ban in place.
"Why wasn't it open to the public and the media? The optics for the coalition government are not good, especially with the general elections next year."
Ashton-Lewis said he was hand-picked by the Prime Minister.
"He (Rabuka) set this investigation up and it was his decision to have only one judge. He chose me because he wanted someone outside of Fiji who was not obligated to any tribal or cultural group."
"He knew there were crocodiles in the pond and he wanted them found", he said.
Meanwhile the anti-corruption agency is now investigating one of the deputy prime ministers, Manoa Kamikamica, for perjury.
Investigators from the anti-corruption agency issued a search warrant on Thursday and Kamikamica's cellphone was seized.
He told
The Fiji Times
that he assumed it was to do with the inquiry and would like to set the record straight
.
"There are some big gaps in that report, which is quite disappointing, they make allegations without any factual evidence," said Kamikamica, who is also the Minister for Trade.
"There are issues with the report, it's a very one-sided interpretation of facts, if you want to call them facts. As the commissioner said, its all hearsay on hearsay, are we now starting to accuse people based on rumour and innuendo?"
However, Ashton-Lewis said did not admit "hearsay on hearsay".
"I did not, I only ever made my findings on the basis of clear, direct oral evidence from witnesses," he said.
During the inquiry a former cabinet minister, Kalaveti Ravu, described Kamikamica as a "wannabe Prime Minister."
When RNZ Pacific questioned the deputy prime minister recently about Ravu's comment, he replied "stop bothering me".
Ravu was accused by the agency of interfering in a ministerial investigation into the suspected illegal trade of a banned species of beche-de mer (sea cucumbers).
However he was acquitted in the Suva Magistrates Court in February.
Fiji's opposition leader Inia Seruiratu last week demanded Ratu Naiqama suspend the Chief Justice Salesi Temo.
Seruiratu told
FijiLive
a tribunal should be set up to investigate Justice Temo's conduct.
"The Attorney-General (Graham Leung) has already been removed, a necessary first step, but not the final one. One cannot pull the matchstick and leave the fuel untouched," he said.
"Three of the country's highest legal officers remain in place, their credibility compromised, their accountability unresolved. This is not a call for vengeance, its a call for justice."
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka sacked Leung on 30 May after a version of the report was leaked to the public.
Sitiveni Rabuka said in a government statement that inquiry's findings had made it "evident" that Leung's position in his Cabinet was now "untenable."
Leung last week slammed the report.
He
told
local media that the report's findings were "the trumph of media prattle and lazy legal guesswork".
"There's an allegation that I conspired with others to appoint Malimali's appointment. I reject that categorically," Leung said.
But Ashton-Lewis replied: "I never said he conspired with anyone, Graham Leung simply failed to carry out his job as Attorney General during the appointment."
"Both Leung and Temo knew Malimali was being investigated for abuse of office, but they failed to stop her appointment.
He said they should have investigated further, but did not.
Charlie Charters, whose mother-in-law was the son of the late former opposition MP (SOLDEPA) Adi Mere Samisoni, said in a blog there was "no need to import a fancy white man" to head the hearing.
"We look like real
kaicolo
(highland) jungle bunnies, waiting to be told the good and the bad among us, by someone who is happy to laugh in private at our primitive bow-and-arrow ways," he wrote.
"It's hard not to reflect on how this whole fiasco has diminished Fiji," he wrote.
Ashton-Lewis laughed, saying he was known for his stylish three-piece suits.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Defence spending is like insurance – how will NZ pay the higher premiums?
By Stephen Hickson* of NZ Army Bushmaster 5.5 armoured vehicles. Photo: Supplied/ NZ Defence Force Analysis : Defence spending is like insurance - you have to pay for it but you hope you never have to use it. And the higher the risk you face, the higher your premium will be. New Zealand has now committed to paying those higher defence insurance premiums. The government's 2025 Defence Capability Plan , released in April, includes NZ$9 billion in extra funding over the next four years. That's a sizable increase on a current annual budget of just under $5 billion. Read more: The multibillion-dollar boost for New Zealand's military: What you need to know New Zealand is not alone, of course. Driven by geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump's demand that other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on defence, global military spending rose for the tenth year in a row to US$2718 billion (NZ$4530b) in 2024, with huge increases in Europe and the Middle East. How much "insurance" a country should buy in the form of defence spending will vary. Too little, and it cannot respond when it needs to; too much, and resources are needlessly wasted. For New Zealand, it is a matter of finding the right balance. The country needs to find the right balance for its spending on defence. Photo: Supplied/ NZ Defence Force Economically, however, defence spending is more complicated than simply buying weapons and recruiting more personnel. There can be benefits beyond basic security considerations. One involves what economists call "technology spillovers". Past innovations developed for military use - such as jet engines, GPS and the internet - often found important civilian applications. The challenge is to design defence investments to deliberately build skills and technologies with wider economic benefit: advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity or clean tech. New Zealand's defence plan includes this kind of spending, including between $100 million and $300m on cybersecurity. On the other hand, promises of new jobs from large projects are often overstated, with New Zealand's best known example being the "Think Big" policy of the 1970s. Rather, there can be job substitution as people move from civilian roles into military ones. A NZ Defence Force Vector Scorpion drone. Photo: You Tube / NZ Defence Force In the end, of course, increased defence spending must be funded - through higher taxes, more debt or reduced spending on other items. Higher GDP growth would make the expenditure more affordable, but even then we face the same tradeoffs. It's not possible to have lower taxes and debt as well as higher government spending. Most of the expenditure set out in the defence plan will be on equipment. But any increase in the output of the defence industry will likely crowd out other consumer and investment goods. While clearly an extreme example, one only has to look at how defence spending rose during WWII. The increase in military output came at the expense of other goods, leading to shortages and rationing. New Zealand doesn't face that scale of change, but there is still likely to be some shift in production from "butter to guns". We might also see a shift in how businesses spend their research and development money, towards military and away from civilian applications. New Zealand does not have a large defence industry and will need to import much of the new equipment. This implies a need for higher exports to pay for those imports, meaning fewer goods for New Zealanders to consume. A New Zealand Defence Force plane arrives in the Middle East earlier this year during the Iran-Israel conflict. Photo: Supplied / New Zealand Defence Force Most countries are understandably reluctant to cut spending on health, education and other things voters care about in order to boost defence. Hence, governments can be tempted to label new expenditures as "defence" when it could otherwise be classified as "updated infrastructure". Spending on dual-purpose capital works is likely to increase, therefore, with projects earmarked for defence more likely to be funded. The New Zealand defence plan already allows for housing, airfield and port facilities that can all have multiple uses. There are also ethical considerations. Many consumers prefer not to invest in the arms trade, but components used in weapons manufacture often have non-military uses as well. Similarly, many consumer items, such as phones, vehicles and food, can be purchased by the military but clearly have non-military uses. We may see more of the output of companies that also produce non-military items directed into defence. All of this can make it difficult to classify a company as a defence contractor, and may be challenging for large investors (such as superannuation funds) with ethical investment policies. At the same time, the cost of not investing in defence firms might also rise as demand for their products or services increases and they become better investments. Like people in general, countries prefer lower insurance premiums. But when risks increase, so too does the price of insurance. Voters will disagree on how much should be spent on defence, but that is largely a political question. What economics teaches us, however, is that if you want to reduce your insurance premium, then reduce your risk. And that is something easier said than done. *Stephen Hickson is a Lecturer in Economics and Director, Business Taught Masters Programme, University of Canterbury. This article was originally published by The Conversation .
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern to give evidence to Covid response Inquiry
Former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern. Photo: 2021 Getty Images Former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern will provide evidence to the Royal Commission investigating New Zealand's Covid-19 pandemic response. The inquiry is looking into the government's response to the pandemic and its effects. This week's hearings have concentrated on the impact of the extended lockdown in Auckland and Northland in 2021 and on vaccine mandates and safety. RNZ previously reported that the commission had requested Ardern to give evidence at a public hearing in August. But the commission said no decisions had been made about who would appear. "The witness list is still under consideration, and it is not appropriate to make further comment about it at this stage," they said in a written statement. "The Inquiry will share the witness list and more information about the planned August public hearing in due course." A spokesperson for Ardern said she will provide evidence to assist the commission meet its terms of reference and are in discussions about the best way for that to happen. She provided testimony to the first, non-public, phase of the Inquiry, the spokesperson said. The impact of the extended lockdown in Auckland and Northland in 2021 has been the main topic of discussion at this week's hearings. On Tuesday, Dr Antje Deckert told the Inquiry that 63,000 lockdown breaches were reported to police by citizens during levels 4, 3 and 2. Police road stops were also counterproductive because officers were often unclear on how to enforce lockdown rules, she said. Deckert said people found it difficult balancing government messaging of being kind while also enforcing lockdown rules. Representatives from the disabled community have revealed they were often a target of abuse during lockdowns. A Pasifika health expert said the Pacific population was over-represented in all aspects of the pandemic. Auckland Council disability advisory group co-chair Barry De Geest said because disabled people were often mask or vaccine exempt, it led to cases of discrimination. "The number of people we had crying because they'd been uptown or done something and they were being abused by people saying you know 'put your mask on', you know 'think of us', you know so there was so much of that." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rainbow Warrior bombing 40th anniversary: Advocates warn of expanding nuclearism in Pacific
The Rainbow Warrior was bombed in Auckland Harbour, New Zealand, in July 1985. Photo: Greenpeace / John Miller As Thursday marks 40 years since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, anti-nuclear advocates warn the Pacific region is facing expanding nuclearism through developments like the AUKUS pact. On 10 July 1985, French agents bombed the Greenpeace protest ship while it was moored at Marsden Wharf in Tāmaki Makaurau. Crew member and photographer Fernando Pereira was killed. At the time, the ship was preparing to confront French nuclear testing in French Polynesia's Moruroa atoll. Hilda Halkyard-Harawira, one of Aotearoa's leading anti-nuclear advocates in the1980s, was on board the Rainbow Warrior a day before it was bombed. "Ngāti Whātua [and] Joe Hawke invited my mother-in-law and myself to go on board to welcome the Rainbow Warrior into the harbour in Tāmaki. "They took us around and showed us and I can remember thinking: 'Wow, these fellas have got automatic washing machines and … dryers on their on their boat'." The next day, while driving up north, Halkyard-Harawira heard news of the overnight bombing. "We were just stunned really. "It really was a statement about the impact that Greenpeace had on shaming France over the nuclear testing in the Pacific." Listen: The attack thrust the region's Nuclear-Free and Independent movement into headlines around the world. It also proved pivotal for Halkyard-Harawira and other advocates in Aotearoa because it turned public sentiment against nuclear regimes, particularly those of the US and France which were testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific. "I think that the best thing was that the New Zealand government exposed it ... [because] you know, that was an international terrorist attack on Aotearoa. "And I think the really good thing was the stamina of Greenpeace and other activists to get back up and carry on." Two years later, New Zealand cemented its nuclear-free stance through the 1987 Nuclear-Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act. The policy was implemented against the wishes of the US and the UK, which were both nuclear weapon states. Now, these countries, alongside Australia, have formed the AUKUS security pact. The pact was set up in 2021 to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. Currently, the New Zealand government is considering whether to participate in "pillar two" of the pact. It has said this aspect of the pact is an "advanced technology-sharing partnership" that has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Pacific historian Marco de Jong from AUT's law school said AUKUS - pillar one and two - was a prime example of developments that undermined Aotearoa and the wider region's nuclear-free stance. "There's a question as to the extent in which the two pillars can be disentangled. And certainly we see AUKUS set a number of nuclear-proliferation precedents - the first by which Australia, a non-nuclear weapon state, is set to receive highly-enriched uranium. "Beyond … pillar one and two, the joint-interoperability implications of the de-facto stationing and more permanent rotation of US and UK nuclear-capable assets [bomber planes] through the north and west of Australia has implications for the Treaty of Rarotonga," de Jong said. The 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga established the South Pacific as a nuclear-free zone. Thirteen Pacific nations signed it, including Australia and New Zealand. De Jong and Greenpeace Aotearoa said New Zealand's interest in pillar two of AUKUS went against the spirit of the Treaty. Specifically, de Jong said it added to a "new nuclearism" facing the region. "We should be clear that nuclear powers have exposed affected communities in places like Australia, Kiribati, Māo'hi Nui [French Polynesia], the Marshall Islands to the harmful effects of ionising radiation . "Now, a new generation has to contend with what I would term a new nuclearism in the Pacific. "We're confronted by emergent threats like the Fukushima discharge and AUKUS, and they really risk compounding unaddressed legacies of nuclear harm." Russel Norman, executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa, said New Zealand's participation in AUKUS, even under pillar two, was incompatible with being nuclear-free. Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman. Photo: Greenpeace "At its heart are nuclear-propelled submarines with cruise missiles on board that can be nuclear-armed ... and for the New Zealand government to sign up to any part of that, I think, is certainly in breach with the spirit of nuclear-free New Zealand, if not a technical breach," Norman said. A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters disagreed. He said in a statement that both pillars of AUKUS had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. "AUKUS pillar two is an advanced technology-sharing partnership. It is not an offensive defence agreement or treaty. "AUKUS pillar one, involving the UK, US and Australia … relates to nuclear-powered submarines, not precluded by the Treaty of Rarotonga." The spokesman also highlighted two "pre-conditions" for New Zealand's participation in pillar two of AUKUS. "First, New Zealand would have to be invited. "Second, the New Zealand government would then have to weigh up the costs of pillar two and decide whether participating in AUKUS pillar two is consistent with, and advances, our national interests." A dawn service was being held by Greenpeace in Auckland on Thursday to commemorate the Rainbow Warrior bombing. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
