Oversight and scrutiny remain the bedrock of any functioning democracy, yet in Fiji, questions are resurfacing about whether the existing framework is adequately serving the public.
While Parliament retains the constitutional responsibility to hold the executive to account, its work has traditionally been reinforced by independent institutions such as the Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Auditor-General. Together, these bodies form a system intended to safeguard transparency, accountability and efficiency in governance.
However, for many taxpayers, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
From long queues at health facilities to bureaucratic delays in government offices, inefficiencies in public service delivery have become a daily frustration. This persistent gap between expectation and experience has reignited debate about the need for a robust, independent watchdog, empowered not only to investigate complaints but also to drive systemic reform.
At the centre of this discussion is the office of the Ombudsman.
Oversight
Fiji’s first Ombudsman, the late Sir Moti Tikaram, set a formidable precedent when he assumed office in 1972 following the country’s independence.
Appointed by then Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Justice Tikaram brought both legal expertise and local understanding to the role which are qualities seen as essential for an office designed to act as a “watchdog” over the civil service.
His tenure, which lasted until 1987, remains one of the longest in the world for an ombudsman.
From the outset, the office was envisioned as a bridge between the public and the State. Its primary function was to investigate complaints against the civil service and recommend corrective action. Where recommendations were ignored, the Ombudsman had the authority to escalate matters to Parliament.
Yet even in its early years, limitations were evident.
Justice Tikaram himself pushed for greater transparency, advocating for the power to publish reports beyond the annual submissions to Parliament. He argued that doing so would help close the information gap between his office and the public, countering perceptions of inactivity.
He also highlighted jurisdictional constraints. Many complaints fell outside the Ombudsman’s remit, particularly those concerning statutory bodies and boards, leaving citizens without recourse in significant areas of public administration.
Modern gaps, old questions
Fast forward to today, and similar concerns persist.
Although the Coalition Government led by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has taken steps to strengthen oversight, notably with the appointment of Wati Seeto as Financial Services Ombudsperson, the scope of that role remains limited to the financial sector.
This leaves a broader vacuum in monitoring and addressing inefficiencies across the wider public service.
Critics argue that the absence of a fully empowered, central Ombudsman has weakened accountability mechanisms at a time when public expectations of service delivery are rising. Unlike the private sector, which is driven by competition and customer satisfaction, the civil service lacks consistent external pressure to improve performance.
Ironically, while the private sector is often expected to model itself on the discipline and standards of the public service, the reverse appears to be happening in Fiji — with government agencies struggling to meet even basic service benchmarks.
A case for reform
The re-establishment or strengthening of the Ombudsman’s office is increasingly seen as a necessary step in restoring public confidence.
Advocates argue that a modern Ombudsman must go beyond passive investigation. It should have the authority to publish findings, enforce recommendations, and expand its jurisdiction to include statutory bodies and state-owned entities.
Such reforms could also be considered by the newly formed Constitutional Review Commission, offering an opportunity to reimagine the role within Fiji’s evolving governance framework.
At its core, the issue is not merely institutional but democratic.
Taxpayers fund the machinery of government and are entitled to efficient, responsive services. Without a strong and independent mechanism to hold that machinery accountable, inefficiencies risk becoming entrenched.
More than five decades after Fiji appointed its first Ombudsman, the question remains whether the country is prepared to reinvest in one of democracy’s most vital safeguards, not as a symbolic office, but as an active force for accountability and reform.
