A court ruling in favour of Fiji’s dismissed anti-corruption chief has “embarrassed” Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, a New Zealand-based Fiji politics academic says.

University of Canterbury distinguished professor Steven Ratuva told RNZ Pacific Waves that while the Fiji High Court decision on Barbara Malimali offered “clarity” on the separation of powers, it added “to the weight of responsibilities” piling up under Rabuka’s leadership.

On Monday, the court ruled that Malimali’s dismissal was unlawful — a decision she said “vindicated” her. Rabuka immediately announced that he would be appealing the decision, but later told local reporters that he would “consider” resigning if the appeal failed.

“[Resignation] is an option,” he said.

Despite this, Rabuka’s Information Minister Lynda Tabuya told reporters on Tuesday that the prime minister had the full support of the cabinet.

“It was a resounding sentiment in cabinet that we would not accept his resignation,” she said in a post-cabinet press briefing on Tuesday, adding that Rabuka had “unanimous support . . .  to continue to lead this country and continue to lead us.”

Rabuka had not admitted to any wrongdoing and reports in the media “need to be corrected,” Tabuya said.

Fiji military commander Major-General Jone Kalouniwai also weighed in on the turn of events, telling local media that the army is maintaining “a [situational] awareness of what is happening” given that the country was heading into an election period.

“It’s important for us to understand what’s happening. Looking at it from a security perspective, things can cascade into a different situation,” he told The Fiji Times.

Dr Ratuva said all the issues Rabuka was having to deal with were “leading him to breaking point”.

“The fact that he has signalled his willingness to resign if the appeal doesn’t come through, is something which only [Rabuka] himself will have to decide,” he said.

“A lot of people have been asking for his resignation in the last few months for different reasons, particularly in relation to the way some of these complex challenges have been handled by the government.

“So it depends very much on what’s going to happen after the appeal, and the process might go on for some time . . .  even the election might come in between.”

Fiji is expected to head to the polls anytime between August 7 (earliest) this year and 6 February 2027 (latest).

Dr Ratuva said Fijian opposition parties will try to use some of these issues faced by Rabuka as part of campaigning.

“Anything can be leveraged as a means of manoeuvring your opposition, so certainly it is something which will arise during the election campaigns,” he said.

He said other issues such as the cost of living, health, infrastructure, rising crime, drugs, would become campaign issues during the election.

The government under Rabuka, he said, would be on the defensive in terms of making sure that they would be re-elected.

“But then that depends very much on how they are able to handle these issues, and of course, the choice of the voters ultimately,” Dr Ratuva said.

“The number of scandals and the number of crisis, which have defined the rule of this particular coalition has diverted attention away from the real issues on the ground, so they have to live with it and the consequences are going to be felt in the next election.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Politicians can respond to the political rhetoric but claims that the new Fiji government has broken the law are a more serious matter, says prominent Suva lawyer Richard Naidu.

Reacting to FijiFirst general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s claims that there have been a number of incursions into the separation of powers since the government came in, Naidu said Sayed-Khaiyum had made no specific allegations that the People’s Alliance-led coalition had breached the “separation of powers”.

“In layman’s terms, ‘the separation of powers’ means only that the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Cabinet and civil servants) and the judiciary (judges and magistrates) should each ‘stay in their lanes’,” he said.

“They should not interfere in each other’s functions.

“Aiyaz has made no specific allegations that the new government has breached this concept. What law does he say has been broken?”

Naidu also questioned the procedures that were taken to set up the 2013 Constitution.

“Aiyaz’s FijiFirst party government applied the constitution as it suited them.

“It never set up the Accountability and Transparency Commission that the Constitution required (s.121); it never set up a Ministerial Code of Conduct as the Constitution required (s.149); it never set up a Freedom of Information Act as the Constitution required (s.150).

“This was, after all, his own government’s constitution.”

Rakesh Kumar is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A former president of Kiribati warns the crisis involving the island nation’s government and the courts has left the country with a “dysfunctional judiciary” and put a question mark over its democratic system.

The Kiribati government suspended its chief justice in July and last Thursday immigration and police detained and attempted to deport High Court Judge David Lambourne.

They were unsuccessful after the country’s highest court ordered the Australian-born judge to be released.

The Court of Appeal stopped the government from deporting Lambourne pending a further hearing expected to be held this week, escalating further acrimony between the executive and judicial arms of the state.

Anote Tong, who was president of Kiribati from 2003 to 2016, says the issue of Judge Lambourne has clear “political connotations” because he is married to the leader of the opposition.

But, he said, the actions of President Taneti Maamau’s government bordered on contempt of court.

“The deportation order by the president [Maamau] is really in direct contravention to the decision by the court. So, whether the government is now in contempt of court is the question that really needs to be addressed,” Tong told RNZ Pacific.

“To be in direct conflict with the decision of the court here, I think we know what that means.”

‘Abiding by the laws of Kiribati’
In a statement, the government maintained that Judge Lambourne had breached his visa conditions and national laws and raised concern “by the overreach of the Court of Appeal” to issue an injunction to prevent his deportation.

The government said it “abides by the laws and the Constitution of Kiribati … to protect the interest of the people of Kiribati”.

It blamed “neocolonial forces” for “weaponising the laws enacted to protect” the i-Kiribati people “to pursue their own interest and suppress the will of the people”.

But Tong said the separation of powers is a fundamental principle of a democratic society.

“We have a constitution. We have the laws in place, and we have a court. The question is: are we adhering to these legal provisions?,” he asked.

“It looks like the government is crossing that boundary and delving into the purview of the judiciary.”

Tong said the problem between the government and Judge Lambourne began after the 2020 elections when his wife, Tessie Lambourne, was elected as leader of the opposition.

“There is no question about it,” he said, adding it did not “give an excuse for the government to ignore a court decision”.

He said until Kiribati amended its laws and constitution “to recognise that the separation of powers is fundamental to its democratic system of government, everything else that has been done will become illegal”.

International condemnation
The Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA), the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA), and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) have all raised concerns and said they were “alarmed” at the situation.

The associations have urged the Kiribati authorities to respect the rule of law and comply with orders of the courts.

“The associations are alarmed that the tribunals set up to investigate alleged misbehaviour by Judge David Lambourne and the Chief Justice William Hastings have yet to report on any findings,” they said via a joint statement.

“The associations are further alarmed that there has been an attempt to deport Judge Lambourne without due process being followed and he has subsequently now been arbitrarily detained by the authorities in Kiribati.”

CMJA, CLEA and CLA are urging the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to consider the actions of the Kiribati government as a matter of urgency.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz