The High Court has declared the Commission of Inquiry report into the appointment of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali null and void.

Judge, Justice Dane Tuiqereqere ruled that the inquiry continued unlawfully after its legal mandate expired and was affected by apparent bias and procedural unfairness.

In a detailed judgment of 154 pages, Justice Tuiqereqere found that while the Commission of Inquiry had raised legitimate concerns about Malimali’s appointment process, the inquiry itself was conducted in a manner that rendered its report legally invalid.

The judge adds that the work of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption is vital to the economic and social integrity of Fiji and acknowledged that the establishment of the inquiry served a useful purpose.

He accepted that issues surrounding the Tuvalu matter and the fact that a FICAC investigation into Malimali was ongoing at the time of her appointment were relevant to her suitability for the position and should have been disclosed to the Judicial Services Commission.

However, the court found that the Commission was required to complete its work and deliver its report by 31 January 2025, but failed to do so.

Justice Tuiqereqere ruled that the President did not have the legal power under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to extend the Commission beyond that date and that any alteration required a fresh commission to be established.

As a result, he found that the Commission’s work from 1st February 2025 onwards, including the report dated 1st May 2025, was ultra vires, meaning beyond its legal authority.

The judge also found that there was more than ample evidence to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Commissioner.

He said that statements made during and after the hearings, together with the contents of the report, would cause a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that the Commissioner had not approached the inquiry with an open and impartial mind.

The judgment further held that the applicants were denied natural justice.

Justice Tuiqereqere found that they were not given proper notice of the allegations against them, were not informed of draft adverse findings, and were not provided with a sufficient opportunity to respond before the report was completed.

He said the procedural unfairness was particularly significant because the report carried serious reputational and vocational consequences.

The court also ruled that the President and the Prime Minister failed to observe procedural fairness before the report was released publicly.