Just as we can have no confidence that Christopher Pryde will be reinstated as DPP after he was reportedly exonerated by the Tribunal investigating him for misbehaviour (see previous story), we can have no confidence that we will ever know the results of the current inquiry into the allegedly “rotten” circumstances of Barbara Malimali’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner.
Why? Because the decision to release the result of both inquiries rests with the politically compromised President and Head of State, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu – the convicted criminal and alleged child abuser who occupies State House at the pleasure of his chiefly subject and patron, the Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka.
As Grubsheet reported yesterday, Ratu Naiqama is sitting on the findings of the Pryde Tribunal in direct defiance of the terms of the Constitution. Why? Because the report is said to be highly embarrassing for the State, which has evidently failed in its attempt to nail the DPP after keeping him waiting for 21 months for a hearing and cutting off his salary for the past seven months.
As we watch the parade of witnesses now appearing before the Ashton-Lewis hearing into “Barbara-gate”, we need to ask ourselves this: If the President is prepared to defy the Constitution that stipulates that he must release the Pryde report and reinstate the DPP, what hope do we have of him releasing the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Barbara Malimali?
Because here’s the thing, Fiji. Not only is the Malimali Inquiry being held in secret, it will be up to the President when Justice David Ashton Lewis reports its findings at the end of the month whether to make them public. According to both the Judge and the Prime Minister, it will be totally at the discretion of Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu whether the report will be made available. No law will compel him to do so as in the case of the Constitutional requirement he is defying to release the Christopher Pryde findings.
So what do we think is going to happen, Fiji? Easy. Because the man has form. We can expect the President will do everything he can to protect the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, Salesi Temo, the Attorney General, Graham Leung, and everyone else involved in this squalid affair. If the law is being shamelessly broken in the Pryde matter when there is a means of legal enforcement through the Constitution, how much more will the President be able to withhold the Malimali findings when there is no law to require him to make them public.
On the first day of the Malimali Inquiry yesterday, some striking and deeply troubling things took place. We have an account today in the Fiji Sun that the Prime Minister faced a “grilling” – “intense questioning” – over the processes that led to Barbara Malimali’s appointment. But the whole story is supposition – guesswork – because we have no way of knowing what happened in the courtroom. It is closed to the media and the public and the proceedings are being held in secret.
The Sun reporter, Jone Salusalu, doesn’t know what actually happened because he wasn’t allowed in. So how could he possibly know that Sitiveni Rabuka was “grilled”? He doesn’t, aside from second hand accounts. In fact, Justice Ashton-Lewis himself has given us a very different account of the Prime Minister’s appearance – and one that is deeply troubling in itself.
“The Prime Minister acted commendably”? Seriously? It is not for the investigating judge in an inquiry of this kind to praise one of the witnesses in comments outside the court. And especially the Prime Minister, on whom the entire debacle of the Malimali affair ultimately rests.
Rather than bolstering public confidence that this whole process is one of integrity and independence, Justice Ashton Lewis has heightened existing suspicions about the nature of his relationship with Sitiveni Rabuka – reportedly members of the same prayer group and fellow parishioners at Butt Street Methodist Church.
The point is that even if there is no question about the Judge’s integrity, the fact that this inquiry is being held in secret is a big impediment to convincing the Fijian people that it is being conducted properly. Because it is not in the least bit transparent. And there is no guaranteed accountability because it will be up to a man with form in suppressing the result of an inquiry – the President sitting on the Pryde report – whether you and I get to see the Barbara Malimali findings.
It was also troubling to see the man who we pay to keep the bastards honest – the Opposition leader, Inia Seruiratu – supporting this inquiry as a “good thing”, secrecy and all. It raises fresh questions about Seruiratu’s judgment.
Hello? There is no guarantee that we will “know the truth” because we won’t hear the evidence. It is secret. And the convicted criminal and alleged child abuser who occupies the presidency and is sitting on the result of another inquiry doesn’t have to release the Ashton-Lewis report if he doesn’t want to release it. I repeat: Whether it is made public is solely at Ratu Naiqama’s discretion.
Once again, the Opposition leader completely misses the point and doesn’t seem to understand the issues, which gives us precious little confidence about his ability to take on the government at the next election and have any chance of winning.
Memo Inia: Please read Naisa Koroi‘s editorial in today’s Fiji Sun. You will learn something about proper process in a democracy that seems to have escaped your attention. Wake up!
Naisa Koroi is spot on. There was no need to declare this inquiry secret. If there were matters involving criminal behaviour that are currently under investigation, then by all means close the court and hold an “in camera” hearing for that portion of the evidence.
But the hearing as a whole should have been open to both the media and the public. Why? Because when it comes to allegations of “rotten” processes and claims and counterclaims of wrongdoing by the protagonists, the evidence the world over is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The rot not only has to be cleaned but seen to be cleaned for public confidence to be retained in any democracy’s institutions.
It is an outrage that something as important as the appointment and conduct of our anti-corruption watchdog should be examined in secret, with the decisions resting with one judge and his assisting counsel. And even more of an outrage that the convicted criminal who is our Head of State gets to decide whether the findings are released when he is utterly compromised politically and is already sitting on one important case.
Justice Ashton Lewis might think he had a good first day. But for the rest of us, it was a disaster in terms of confidence in the process. Another nail in the coffin of public confidence in the criminal justice system in Fiji and in the integrity of the State.
————–
Today’s Fiji Sun front page. Pure supposition based on second hand accounts.
And today’s coverage in the Fiji Times on the “veil of secrecy” over the Malimali Inquiry. Andrew Naidu‘s description is dead right.
UPDATE: Tuesday AM:
We can’t lift the veil of secrecy but we can tell you who the witnesses are and when they are appearing.
Those yesterday and those to come are a “who’s who” of the establishment. No wonder they wanted to keep it secret.
Talk about an Opposition Leader Lite. A disturbing image from yesterday’s hearing that might well explain Inia Seruiratu’s praise for the process.
Whose side are you on, Inia? Rabuka’s or the people’s? Because if you don’t provide the electorate with an alternative, what’s the point? The big new salary? The new house?
And why haven’t you demanded the release of the Christopher Pryde findings? Your silence on that is deafening. Start opposing or get out of the way.
The post # THE SECRET INQUIRY WHOSE FINDINGS WE MAY NEVER KNOW (UPDATE: THOUGH WE KNOW WHO’S APPEARING AND WHEN) first appeared on grubsheet.
