SUSPENDED Corrections Commissioner Dr Jalesi Nakarawa has rejected allegations of nepotism, insisting the appointments involving his wife and stepson were made through publicly advertised, merit-based processes and independently assessed without any personal involvement from him.
In his further supplementary affidavit before the tribunal, he described the claims of personal interest as “mislabelled” and part of a broader pushback against the structural reforms he introduced.
According to the affidavit, his wife’s appointment was processed entirely under the Open Merit Recruitment and Selection Guideline.
“The allegation of nepotism is legally unsustainable when viewed against the OMRS Guideline.”
He emphasised that he had removed himself from the process.
“As required by Section 7.3.8, I was entirely recused from the selection process for my wife… My wife, having scored 94 per cent, was the top-ranked candidate.”
Her application, he noted, was submitted through a publicly advertised vacancy and later cleared by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption.
“My wife’s affidavit confirms she applied through an open, competitive process advertised in The Fiji Times and was the most qualified candidate.”
He also addressed the appointment of his stepson. The affidavit indicates that the process took place under the new merit-based recruitment structure brought in to replace opaque temporary appointment practices.
“Mr Yavala’s recruitment was conducted under the new, advertised merit-based system I implemented.”
Official records, he said, showed his stepson had “met the requirements to proceed to the interview stage” and was selected by an independent panel.
Later testimony that contradicted those records, he argued, was a matter for the tribunal.
“The contradiction between Mr Biu’s current evidence and the official record he endorsed at the time is a matter for the tribunal’s consideration.”
He noted that performance standards were applied consistently.
“His eventual termination due to Absence Without Leave (AWOL) demonstrates unequivocally that even family members were held to the same strict standards of accountability and performance.”
Beyond the nepotism allegations, the affidavit expands into broader institutional issues, particularly what he describes as a decade of exploitation within the Temporary Relieving Correction Officer system (TRCOS).
TRCOS, who were intended as unestablished auxiliary staff, had been assigned long-term custodial and labour roles but paid significantly less than established officers doing identical work.
“I discovered that Temporary Relieving Correction Officers were paid approximately $11,000 per annum for custodial work, while established officers were paid approximately $19,000.”
Addressing that disparity, he said, was “a necessary correction of a decade-long injustice”.
His reforms included reserving entry slots for TRCOS in the basic recruit course and formalising their roles in line with transparent pay structures.
“My decision to regularise their status and pay them at least $19,000–$21,000 annually was not ‘irregular’.”
Attempts to cast these decisions as evidence of favouritism, he argued, overlooked the structural changes that were underway.
“This episode exemplifies how routine administrative actions are being retroactively weaponised.”
The affidavit paints a picture of an institution already under stress when he took office.
“I took command of an institution in a state of operational and ethical crisis.”
Temporary appointments in senior roles had become commonplace, creating instability and leaving opaque decisions unchallenged.
His attempts to standardise positions, realign duties and correct longstanding contract inconsistencies, he said, affected officers who had benefited from the old systems.
He described the morale concerns raised by some officers as predating his tenure and linked them to frustration with ad hoc arrangements that blocked progression.
His reforms, he said, were necessary to stabilise the organisation.
A major challenge outlined in the affidavit relates to drug trafficking within corrections facilities.
Intelligence assessments, he said, identified the movement of drugs into prisons through external escorts and officers.
“Intelligence gathered was that contrabands especially drugs was being transported into FCS facilities by both inmates and officers.”
The response involved a zero-tolerance approach, targeted searches and the testing of officers living in quarters where drug paraphernalia had been found.
The termination of an officer who returned a positive drug test was defended in the affidavit: “The presence of an illicit drug in the system of a corrections officer is fundamentally incompatible with their role and constitutes a grave breach of trust and security.”
Linked to the drug issue were the medical reforms introduced to reduce hospital escorts, which had become a security risk.
The creation of a nurse practitioner role, funded by trading off an unjustified senior medical post, was described as “a necessary exercise” aligned with approved guidelines.
Further into the affidavit, Dr Nakarawa turns to the constitutional questions arising from his suspension.
The Minister for Justice’s (Siromi Turaga) testimony that their working relationship had “irretrievably broken down” is central to this section.
According to the affidavit, that breakdown meant seeking agreement under Section 130(8) of the Constitution was no longer workable.
“I was faced with a constitutional duty … and the operational necessity to address critical security and integrity failures.”
He stated that he relied on direct powers provided under Section 130(7).
“My choice was … between allowing the FCS to remain in a state of crisis … or using the other powers vested in me.”
His affidavit emphasises that actions taken during this period were done in good faith and in accordance with his obligation under Section 130(5) to prevent paralysis of the service.
The final section addresses what he describes as direct ministerial interference. Emails included as annexures, he said, show attempts to influence recruitment, reinstatement, disciplinary outcomes and even the use of Fiji Corrections Service assets for private events.
“These communications demonstrate a pattern of direct ministerial interference in core operational functions.”
The affidavit states that this interference undermined the commissioner’s operational independence and contributed to the deterioration of the working relationship.
“This pattern … was a direct consequence of my insistence on upholding my constitutional duty.”
The affidavit ends by placing the allegations against him against the wider backdrop of reforms he says the service had long avoided.
Rather than evidence of wrongdoing, Dr Nakarawa characterises the complaints as “the predictable backlash from a system being forced to change.”
(This article is based on the first 50 pages of Dr Jalesi Nakarawa’s further supplementary affidavit, delivered during a special sitting of the tribunal on Saturday, 22 February 2025. Only pages 1 to 50 were read aloud. The remaining section of the affidavit was not read after the tribunal directed that all outstanding matters would instead be addressed during closing submissions.)
