On May 1, 1986, The Fiji Times reported member of Parliament Irene Jai Narayan as saying in Parliament that only a judicial inquiry would determine whether or not payments made to three individuals were an abuse of public funds.
It was reported that then attorney-general Qoriniasi Bale had approved the payout to these individuals, triggering a backlash from the public and members of Parliament.
An article published by The Fiji Times highlighted Ms Narayan’s call for a judicial inquiry on the propriety of an out-of-court settlement made by the A-G. These were payouts of $65,000 in compensation to piggery farmer Eliki Bomani; a $20,721 compensation payment to Alliance Party parliamentarian Akariva Nabati and a $12,000 payment to the estranged widow of seaman Jovilisi Matanisiga.
Ms Narayan had told the House of Representatives a judicial inquiry would reveal whether there had been abuse of public funds. She said the press disclosures had cast doubts and suspicions on the workings of the Crown Law Office and the role of the Attorney-General in approving these out-of-court settlements.
Piggery farmer Eliki Bomani, through his lawyer Iqbal Khan, had claimed $150,000 in compensation from the Government for negligent advice from officials of the Ministry of Primary Industries. In an out-of-court settlement, the Crown Law Office agreed to pay Mr Bomani $65,000 in compensation. It was later revealed Mr Bomani had been declared bankrupt and that an initial payment of $10,000 of the agreed compensation should have gone to the Official Receiver.
Ms Narayan said people believed the payment had been made and were amazed at how such a big sum could be paid to a piggery farmer who was making such an obvious case of negligence.
She asked why an out-of-court settlement had been made and why there was such a rush in reaching a settlement. She had also asked why the claim was being negotiated when it was doubtful that the officials of the Ministry of Primary Industries would accept liability.
“Why was the matter not taken to court,” she said. “Why had the Minister for Primary Industries not been informed of the case?
“On the Nabati settlement, the $20,721 was paid to Mr Nabati for an accident he had while travelling in a ministerial car.”
Ms Narayan said the spontaneous reaction of people was that he had been paid an excessive sum.
She said the payment of compensation for injury had become a joke. In the case of the payment of $12,000 to the estranged widow of Mr Matanisiga, Ms Narayan asked why the Crown Law Office had gone against the advice of the Ministry of Employment and Industrial Relations in making the payment.
Her information was that the Ministry of Employment had investigated the matter and found that neither Mr Matanisiga’s legal wife nor his de facto wife were entitled to any compensation.
“Any compensation to be paid should have gone to an adopted daughter, but only if the girl could be legally adopted.”
In response, Mr Bale said he personally did not think a judicial inquiry was necessary.
He said files and documents on all three cases were available for scrutiny by any person with the proper authority to do so.
“Nevertheless, for my own part, I have an objection to any inquiry for the purpose of determining government liability and the quantum of compensation to be paid,” Mr Bale said.
He said he had always held the firm policy that courts should only be used as a last resort in settling disputes. Mr Bale added it was his understanding that officials of the piggery section of the Ministry of Primary Industries had claimed some responsibility for negligent advice.
This had come through in the series of meetings the Crown Law Office held with the officials. He said he knew this had later been denied by officials of the ministry, but records of these meetings were kept by the Crown Law Office.
Mr Bale also denied there was a rush to settle the case. He said the case had first been brought to the Government in 1983, and when in December 1985, Mr Khan pressed for it to be settled, he felt “a little embarrassed” because it had been in the Government system for a long time.
“I, therefore, felt that we had to come to a decision on this case,” he said.
Mr Bale said the notification of Mr Bomani’s bankruptcies had not been made to the official receiver until well after the case had been settled.
On the Nabati settlement, Mr Bale said he was satisfied that the conclusion drawn by his office was proper and that he had approved it.
In the settlement to the estranged widow of seaman Matanisiga, Mr Bale said the amount paid was allowed for under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. || parliament || abuse of power
