Former Fiji anti-corruption chief seeks nearly US$1.4m compensation from government

The sacked head of Fiji's anti-corruption agency wants nearly US$1.4 million (FJ$3m) from the government plus her job back.

The Fiji High Court ruled on Monday that Barbara Malimali's dismissal was unlawful, a decision believed to have "embarrassed" Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Rabuka immediately announced he would appeal the decision or resign if an appeal failed.

Fiji's President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu initially suspended Malimali in May 2025 and subsequently revoked her appointment a month later.

He acted on the advice of Rabuka, following a damning Commission Inquiry (COI) into her appointment as commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) last year.

Fiji government's information director Samisoni Pareti told RNZ Pacific that Rabuka would spend the next few days deciding what options to pursue.

"During a briefing by Fiji's Solicitor-General Ropate Green at Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, a number of legal options were presented," Pareti said.

Prime Minister nearing 'breaking point'

University of Canterbury Distinguished Professor Steven Ratuva told Pacific Waves that the decision added to the pressure piling up under Rabuka's leadership.

"This is probably something which is leading him towards breaking point, and the fact that he has signalled his willingness to resign If the appeal doesn't come through, is something which only he himself will have to decide," Ratuva said.

The coalition government is already negotiating a secret deal with the country's highest-ranking judge after he was accused of corruption during the COI.

Chief Justice Salesi Temo was part of a high-profile clique the inquiry found to have allegedly lied under oath, and obstructed and perverted the course of justice. There were six members of government and four lawyers implicated in the investigation.

The inquiry, headed by Justice David Ashton-Lewis, found that Malimali's appointment to Fiji's Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) was "legally invalid, ethically reprehensible and procedurally corrupt."

The Australian judge described her as "universally corrupt" during the nine-week inquiry.

"She was a pawn in the hands of devious members of government, who wanted any allegations against them or others thrown out," the judge previously told RNZ Pacific.

Malimali's lawyer,Tanya Waqanika, told RNZ Pacific at the time that his public remarks had destroyed her client's legal career.

Rabuka released a redacted version of the judge's report, weeks after leaked copies had been circulating.

Janet Mason, a part-iTaukei lawyer who assisted Ashton-Lewis during the investigation, said she would be "appalled" if Malimali was awarded FJ$3 million.

"(As a Fiji citizen) I think I would be appalled that somebody whose appointment was revoked, based on legal opinions and advice ... would benefit in a way that they wouldn't otherwise have if they had retained the position." Mason said.

Malimali's career 'destroyed'

Waqanika told RNZ Pacific again on Wednesday that her client's reputation as a lawyer had been destroyed in Fiji and the wider Pacific.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) - not the prime minister - was the rightful body to recommend the appointment and removal of her FICAC's commissioner, she said.

Outside the court in Suva, Malimali told reporters: "I had some really good lawyers."

"For those of you who prayed and all of that, thank you so very much, I'm very grateful. To those of you who hate me, thank you, you kept us fighting and we've been vindicated."

Malimali is now seeking compensation for damages and wages owed since she was dismissed last June.

Waqanika said this was based on a previous case involving the former solicitor-general, Sharvada Sharma, who was dismissed by Frank Bainimarama's administration in 2021. Sharma was awarded a similar amount, however that was now under appeal, she said.

"If you compare the two cases, no-one got vindicated (in Sharma's case), defamed, and maligned on social media like Ms Malimali was, to the extent that she went through cyber-bullying, it was terrible.

"If he (Rabuka) had taken good solid advice this would not have happened in the first place. He relied on advice from Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason (who assisted during the COI) and see what it's cost the nation. It's also cost him as well, I mean it doesn't look good politically," she said.

Last April, public prosecutors cleared Malimali of an allegation of abuse of office while she was chair of the country's Electoral Commission.

"She's been cleared (of any criminal charges), the COI report is now before the court, we are seeking to have it quashed, so we don't see any reason why she should not be reinstated back to her position," Waqanika said.

Cabinet backs Rabuka

Information Minister Lynda Tabuya told reporters on Tuesday that the prime minister had the full support of the Cabinet and tried to walk back his public comments admitting he's made the wrong decision.

"So at this point he has not admitted that. I think the media or what is being put out needs to be corrected," Tabuya said.

"If you look at his statement yesterday (Monday), he did refer to the appeal process and if at the end of it he certainly was wrong, in law, he would consider resigning."

Mason said Justice Dane Tuiqereqere did not make any decision on damages on Monday, did not agree with what was sought and had sent the matter back to the JSC.

The JSC has decided to meet with Malimali, Waqanika, Solicitor-General Ropate Green and Rabuka's lawyer to discuss how to proceed.

She said that during the COI Bainimarama's administration was criticised for using FICAC to hunt out its foes and to assist friends.

"We heard about politicians weaponising FICAC. What's really disappointing is that we thought that this attitude would change, but I don't know that it has," she said.

Mason believes the report will be ditched unless there is an appeal, because there is no political will to implement its recommendations.

"People are asking why Rabuka decided to hold an inquiry at all," she said.

When asked if she was disappointed, she said: "No one wants to work and spend time on something (the inquiry) that doesn't come to fruition or is ignored."

Malimali's appointment 'flawed'

Mason doubts Malimali will be reinstated, given the inquiry's findings.

"The report was quite clear that it wasn't appropriate that she hold that role, because the appointment process was so flawed."

She said the report was based on evidence given by witnesses and since then, those adversely named in it wanted it shelved.

Last month public prosecutors threw out twelve police investigations arising from the probe, due to insufficient evidence.

Asked how she felt about that, Mason said: "While the COI's standard of proof was not the criminal standard of proof, (on the balance of probabilities) we concluded that those implicated needed to be investigated by the police, she said.

"We had hoped that the government would look at changing the way the public service was run, in particular that people took conflicts of interest seriously," she said.

The report concluded that the JSC should not have appointed Malimali, based on an opinion by Professor Philip Joseph KC of Canterbury University. However the High Court did not accept Joseph's opinion.

"Our recommendation was that it was really not ideal for the head of the judiciary to do this because judges should stay away from politics, its a basic concept in terms of the separation of powers," she said.

Mason said she the investigation had been difficult, given the high-profile people involved.

"There was certainly a feeling (during the inquiry) that we were foreigners, and we shouldn't be there inquiring into the affairs of senior members of the public service and the judiciary".