Here’s a bold statement: The appointment of Lavi Rokoika as Acting FICAC Commissioner has sparked a legal battle that’s now in the hands of the High Court. But here’s where it gets controversial—while the case is ongoing, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), led by Chief Justice Salesi Temo, refuses to publicly defend or justify its decision, citing the risk of interfering with the administration of justice. This move, though principled, has left many questioning the transparency of the process.
The JSC is crystal clear: it won’t compromise the integrity of the judicial process. And this is the part most people miss—the Commission’s role, as outlined in the Constitution, is to recommend appointments to the President after consulting with the Attorney General. It’s not a public debate forum, nor does it settle disputes through media headlines. Instead, the JSC emphasizes its unwavering commitment to fairness, independence, and the rule of law.
Public confidence in the judiciary, the JSC argues, isn’t built by commenting on ongoing cases but by letting the courts decide matters impartially, free from external pressure. This stance, while commendable, raises a thought-provoking question: Does silence in the face of public scrutiny strengthen or weaken trust in judicial institutions?
Meanwhile, the JSC has confirmed it will address Barbara Malimali’s case—whose dismissal as FICAC Commissioner was deemed unlawful by the High Court—by the end of March. This adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing saga, leaving many wondering how these decisions will shape the future of Fiji’s judicial landscape.
What’s your take? Does the JSC’s refusal to comment publicly protect the integrity of the judicial process, or does it leave room for speculation and mistrust? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a constructive debate!
