THE Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption and its Acting Commissioner Lavi Rokoika have not provided clarification on a series of questions raised by The Fiji Times regarding a January 13 letter clearing the Fiji Sports Council CEO, Gilbert Vakalalabure, of abuse of office.
Ms Rokoika is the sister-in-law of Mr Vakalalabure and, in the letter obtained by The Fiji Times, she states that a formal declaration of a conflict of interest was made by her.
The letter, addressed to Minister for Youth and Sports Jese Saukuru, concluded that the criminal threshold for corruption offences had not been met in relation to allegations involving the Fiji Sports Council.
“I also formally declared and managed a conflict of interest,” Ms Rokoika wrote in the letter outlining the commission’s process and final determination.
Following the letter’s circulation on social media, The Fiji Times submitted detailed questions to FICAC seeking clarification on several aspects of the decision, including the nature of the conflict, how it was declared, and how it was managed to ensure impartiality.
“In your letter you say that you ‘formally declared and managed a conflict of interest’. In relation to that — what was the conflict of interest, how was the conflict declared, to whom was the declaration of the conflict of interest made; and how did you ‘manage’ the conflict of interest which you say you did?” The Fiji Times queried.
“In your letter, you say that no ‘delegation instruments’ or ‘governance documents’ were disclosed that defined the specific limits of the CEO’s authority in relation to operational decisions. So in FICAC’s view, did this give the CEO an unlimited right to act as he wished?”
The Fiji Times also asked whether the allegation against the CEO involved payments made and whether they were apparently initiated by him for the benefit of the Minister for Youth and Sports or his wife.
Neither Ms Rokoika nor FICAC responded to these queries.
The Fiji Times also asked whether she considered relevant provisions of the Prevention of Bribery Act (POBA) to ascertain any wrongdoing on the part of Mr Vakalalabure.
“In your assessment, did you consider that a payment to the Minister and/or his wife can amount to offering an advantage or providing a benefit?”
This newspaper also queried whether “by receiving the benefit and/or advantage from the Sports Council, the Minister, who is a public servant and a ‘prescribed officer’ under POBA, received an ‘advantage’ as defined in POBA?”
The Fiji Times further pointed out that the Minister for Sports is a “public official” under the Crimes Act who may have received a “benefit” as defined in that Act.
“A benefit/advantage may have been conferred on the Minister to maintain a good relationship since the Minister is directly responsible for FSC under the Fiji Sports Council Act 1978 — and whether such an action could be an offence?”
“Were the transactions in favour of the Minister and/or his wife approved by the Council members?”
