A SENIOR Legal Officer with the Fiji Corrections Service testified board members had complied with suspended Commissioner Dr Jalesi Nakarawa’s directives, or face demotion or transfer.
Kesaia Balewai claimed a culture of compliance existed in all commissioners.
Testifying before the tribunal inquiring into Dr Nakarawa’s alleged misconduct, Ms Balewai recalled that senior accounts officer, Helen Koi, was terminated without cause by Dr Nakarawa. Ms Koi was an outspoken person who would raise questions concerning the use of the services Welfare and Sports Fund.
Ms Balewai said initially, Ms Koi was issued a variation notice reducing her base salary, followed by another notice demoting her to accounts officer.
She said the notice did not outline reasons for the change, only stating it was made under the commissioner’s constitutional authority and by reference to Circular 7 of 2024, a written instruction concerning the rollout of the Job Evaluation Exercise (JEE) salary payments.
Despite the reference to constitutional powers under Section 130(7A)(b)(d), she said there were no annual performance reviews conducted to justify the changes, and officers’ performance and qualifications were not assessed in line with the JEE recommendations that salary be based on post rather than rank.
She testified that Ms Koi, who held a Diploma in Accounting, had served as a senior accounts officer since 2016 and possessed extensive experience, had written a letter of redress on December 23 last year, raising issues with her demotion and salary reversion.
After reviewing Ms Koi’s redress, she recommended that FCS provide a written explanation for the reversion and demotion, ensure all variations aligned with due process and contractual rights, consider reinstatement or fair compensation if due process was breached, and strengthen policies for transparency and accountability.
Despite this, Ms Koi was terminated.
In her view, Ms Koi’s direct redress to Dr Nakarawa was inappropriate because the commissioner himself failed to follow due process, such as conducting an annual performance review, verbal or written warning, and documented reasons for variation or demotion.
As such, the disciplinary process — though not expressly applicable — would have provided a fairer framework and should have been followed.
Ms Balewai also testified that the appointment of Aquila Namakadre and the termination of Salesia Racaca occurred without due process.
Mr Namakadre, she said, was appointed as Assistant Commissioner for Corrections (administration), replacing Salesia Racaca, who was reassigned multiple times before being terminated.
She also mentioned that James Koroituba, who has yet to be admitted to the Bar or did not hold a practicing certificate, was appointed as legal analyst — a post created specifically for him.
She believes there “is no such thing as a legal officer analyst”.
She told the tribunal that he was also granted a lodging allowance, which applies only to married officers, and after this was raised, a variation notice dated July 25, 2024, removed that benefit.
She said on March 12 this year, he was again promoted to personal staff officer / international relations officer with the rank of chief corrections officer, attracting a salary of $35,357.
Regarding the use of the FCS Welfare and Sports Fund, she was also a board member when payments were approved for furniture at the commissioner’s residence and for the FCS Wives Volleyball Tournament.
She said the board did not meet to deliberate either request, but instructions were received verbally from Dr Nakarawa through the welfare officer, and members were directed to sign the minutes to facilitate the processing of transactions.
As a board member, she said she had no option but to sign.
Although the policy provides that the commissioner has discretion, she said in practice, the board existed in name only since all final decisions rested with the commissioner.
She said the FCS Welfare Board lacked independence, and that the fund’s management and expenditure required urgent review to ensure compliance with governance standards.
Another officer, who faced demotion, was staff officer, Corrections Ilisoni Ratunaikoro, who testified that while on leave in August 2024, he came to know through his subordinate that he had been demoted to logistics officer, and another officer was promoted to his former position as chief logistics officer.
“To date, I have not been given any notice as to why I was demoted,” he said.
“All I received was a posting letter from the Commissioner, Dr Nakarawa, informing me of my new appointment and instructing me to hand over my responsibilities.”
Mr Ratunaikoro said normal practice dictated that if a senior officer is to be demoted, there should be monitoring and evaluation to determine if the officer has breached duties or committed misconduct.
“As a result of this demotion and the way it was conducted, I suffered great emotional distress.
“I felt degraded and fearful of losing my job altogether.”
