Chief Justice Salesi Temo criticized the legal advice given to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu regarding the extension of a Commission of Inquiry, warning that lawyers failed to examine statutory powers. According to Justice Temo, the oversight resulted in wasted public funds and actions declared null and void by the High Court.
High Court Ruling Invalidates Commission Extension
President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu lacked the legal authority under the Commission of Inquiry Act to extend an investigation into the appointment of former FICAC commissioner Barbara Malimali, according to a High Court judgment delivered by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere. Justice Temo stated that overseas-hired lawyers failed to properly read the legislation, leading to the invalidation of all subsequent work. The oversight meant the commission continued hearings without valid legal backing, according to court findings.
Chief Justice Warns New Lawyers on Statutory Limits
Addressing newly admitted lawyers, Justice Temo used the presidential inquiry case to highlight the necessity of understanding legislative boundaries and avoiding costly mistakes. He described the outcome as wasted money, placing responsibility squarely on legal counsel rather than clients. “We’ve got to work and find out what are the parameters of your power to continue with that legal work,” Justice Temo told the new practitioners, emphasizing that attorneys must thoroughly dig into legislation to determine their clients’ legal limits.
Did You Know?
Statutory Authority: Under the Commission of Inquiry Act, the High Court judgment found that the President did not have the power to extend the inquiry beyond the statutory period. When advisory teams miss these boundaries, work can be ruled ultra vires and null and void.
Judicial Appointments Scrutiny and Future Implications
While Justice Temo serves as chairman of the Judicial Service Commission—the body handling key judicial appointments, including the position of FiCAC Commissioner—he declined to comment when approached separately by The Fiji Times regarding the appropriateness of Ms Malimali’s appointment. Instead, he directed questions to Justice Dane Tuiqereqere who delivered the judgment. Concluding that the proceedings suffered from bias and violated natural justice principles, Justice Tuiqereqere struck down the commission’s conclusions as invalid, while pointing out that Ms Malimali was unsuitable for the position due to a Tuvalu incident and an ongoing criminal inquiry.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who criticized the legal advice given to the President?
Chief Justice Salesi Temo criticized the legal advice provided to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
What did the High Court decide about the Commission of Inquiry?
Justice Dane Tuiqereqere concluded in his High Court ruling that the Commission of Inquiry Act did not grant the President authority to prolong the investigation past the permitted timeframe, thereby declaring all subsequent activities ultra vires, null and void.
Who was the subject of the Commission of Inquiry?
The inquiry examined the appointment of former FICAC commissioner Barbara Malimali.
What are your thoughts on this legal development? Share your perspective in the comments below, or subscribe to our newsletter for more updates on Pacific legal news.