The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) finds itself in a delicate situation, asserting that the legality of Lavi Rokoika's appointment as the Acting FICAC Commissioner is a matter currently under the scrutiny of the High Court. But here's where it gets controversial: any attempt by the JSC to publicly explain, defend, or justify its actions could potentially disrupt the justice system.
The JSC is adamant about preserving the integrity of the judicial process. With public discourse and media inquiries swirling around Rokoika's appointment, the Commission emphasizes its constitutional role. It highlights that its duty is to advise the President, in collaboration with the Attorney General, as outlined in the Constitution and relevant laws.
And this is the part most people miss: the JSC firmly believes that public legal debates and media adjudication are not within its purview. Instead, it stands by its commitment to fairness, independence, and the rule of law.
The JSC argues that public trust in the judiciary is fostered not by commenting on ongoing cases but by allowing the courts to make impartial decisions, free from external pressure. The Commission vows to uphold its constitutional duties with integrity and without interference.
In a related development, the JSC previously announced it would make decisions by the end of March regarding Barbara Malimali, whose removal as FICAC Commissioner was deemed unlawful by the High Court. This raises questions about the JSC's approach to handling such sensitive matters and whether its silence on certain issues is a strategic move or a potential hindrance to transparency.
