News

Waqanika Stay Application Refused

Posted by Media Team 6 May 2026

The Suva High Court has dismissed the Application for a Permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings filed by lawyer, Ms Tanya Waqanika, in relation to charges brought against her by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).

Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull delivered the ruling this afternoon.

The Court found that Ms Waqanika’s application for a stay, based solely on the alleged invalidity of the appointment of FICAC Acting Commissioner, Ms Lavi Rokoika, and the consequent claim that the charges against the applicant were a nullity, had not been established.

Justice Bull stated that the applicant relied on the abuse of process limb of the test, arguing that Ms Rokoika’s appointment was unlawful and that she therefore lacked the authority to institute charges against her.

The Court also noted the respondent’s position that any challenge to the validity of Ms Rokoika’s appointment ought to have been brought through civil proceedings, rather than by way of a stay application.

Justice Bull further stated that the applicant contended that the de facto officer doctrine did not apply in Ms Rokoika’s case because Ms Rokoika knew, or by virtue of being a legal practitioner ought to have known, that her appointment was unlawful.

However, Justice Bull said the evidence did not persuade the Court that Ms Rokoika, more likely than not, knew or ought to have known that her appointment was unlawful, such as to defeat the respondent’s reliance on the de facto officer doctrine.

She added that the authorities are clear that the acts of a de facto public officer, carried out in the apparent execution of his or her office, cannot be challenged on the basis that the officer had no lawful title to the office, notwithstanding that the appointment may have been defective, expired, or even unlawful.

Justice Bull further stated that another reason why a stay application was not the appropriate forum to determine the validity of Ms Rokoika’s appointment was because other relevant parties, namely the President and the Prime Minister, were not before the Court in these proceedings.

The Court noted that the evidence showed Ms Rokoika was appointed Acting FICAC Commissioner by the President, and in her ruling, Justice Bull stated, “Since 29 May 2025, she has acted in the office to which she was appointed. She performed and continues to perform the functions of that office. All appropriate persons regard her as the Acting FICAC Commissioner. The Applicant (Waqanika) also refers to her as the Acting Commissioner. Ms Rokoika therefore is the de-facto Acting Commissioner”.

She added that, as the de facto Acting Commissioner, and pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine, all acts and functions performed by Ms Rokoika in that office, including all documents signed and charges instituted pursuant to section 56(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, were validly carried out, regardless of whether her appointment was ultimately found to be valid or not.

On that basis, Justice Bull refused the application.