Dear Editor,The application that was reported in the media for the Attorney General's Office to strike out Member of Parliament Lealailepule's application for a judicial review raises important questions that extend beyond the interests of any individual litigant. What is at stake here is public confidence in the administration of justice and the right of members of the public to seek judicial scrutiny of decisions made by the courts if they feel their constitutional rights were breached due to an error in law or process in the decision.The judicial review concerns a District Court decision by Judge Talasa Saaga arising from criminal proceedings relating to allegations of a conspiracy involving the former Minister of Agriculture, a former MP, a Police Inspector and 3 other defendants. The matter is connected to the investigation of the tragic 2021 hit-and-run death of a university student where one of the defendants who is an ex-prisoner falsely accused MP Lealailepule as the suspect and strongly supported by other defendants where they ended up being charged with conspiracy, fabrication of evidence, harassment using electronic means, defamation and insulting words.The decision is very controversial in the views of many members of the public, including legal experts due to a lot of inconsistencies.The decision acquitted the former Minister who is now the current Prime Minister and two other defendants, while three others were convicted. The allegations by the defendants are very serious against the MP and a judicial review to challenge aspects of that decision should be given an opportunity by the supreme court. It's an opportunity as well to substantiate the decision by the District court to further clear the PM and his other two co-defendants. The MP and his family have been unfairly targeted, humiliated and threatened on social media even up to this date because of this matter even though the court found three defendants guilty.The circumstances also seriously raises legitimate public discussion about the independence of our institutions. The current Attorney General previously acted as defence counsel for the current Prime Minister during that case before being appointed as AG by his government. That fact alone by itself, establishes a massive impropriety or conflict of interest if she was the one who instructed the strike out application. She should remove herself completely from this matter to avoid any conflict of interest. It inevitably places a greater responsibility and accountability on her office to demonstrate impartiality, transparency, and independence in proceedings involving matters connected to the Prime Minister. In such circumstances, public confidence depends not only on fairness but also on the appearance of fairness. The question that needs to be asked is why her office is fighting to stop the judicial review? Is there something we are not aware about?Equally concerning and very interesting is another defence counsel who was working with the AG on this same case, who is still representing the other 5 defendants for the judicial review while the AG's office is now acting for the PM. Was this the plan all along? This matter was held before Laaulialemalietoa became the PM and is not related to any Government issue. In my humble view, a private lawyer should act on his behalf and not the AG's office.Proceeding with a judicial review is not a determination of guilt or innocence. Rather, it is a legal mechanism through which the courts examine whether decisions were reached lawfully, fairly, and according to established legal principles in accordance with the evidence already presented. It is an important safeguard in any democratic society governed by the rule of law.For that reason, any attempt to have such an application struck out before its substantive issues are heard is likely to attract significant public interest. While strike-out applications have a legitimate place in legal procedure where claims are legally unsustainable, courts must also be mindful that matters involving serious allegations, public officials, and the integrity of the justice system deserve careful judicial consideration.This is in particular where the proceedings have concerned issues that have generated widespread public debate especially where the PM was involved. Public confidence is strengthened when legal challenges are determined on their merits wherever possible, rather than being dismissed on procedural grounds unless the law clearly requires that outcome.Ultimately, the courts alone will decide whether the judicial review is properly before them. Whatever the outcome, the overriding objective should be to ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.Transparency, accountability, and equal application of the law remain the foundations of public trust in our legal system. It is therefore humbly requested for the Supreme court to seriously consider granting a judicial review for this case.Yours faithfully,Auapaau Logoitino FilipoFormer Commissioner of Police and Prisons