On May 1, 1986, Irene Jai Narayan, a member of Parliament, stated in the House of Representatives that only a judicial inquiry could establish whether payments made to three individuals constituted an abuse of public funds. The attorney-general at the time, Qoriniasi Bale, had authorized these payments, which led to significant public and parliamentary dissent.
The Fiji Times reported Narayan’s request for a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of an out-of-court settlement facilitated by the attorney-general. The payouts included $65,000 to piggery farmer Eliki Bomani, $20,721 to Alliance Party parliamentarian Akariva Nabati for an accident while using a ministerial vehicle, and $12,000 to the estranged widow of seaman Jovilisi Matanisiga.
Narayan argued that a judicial inquiry was necessary to clarify suspicions surrounding the Crown Law Office and the attorney-general’s role in these settlements. Bomani’s claim stemmed from alleged negligent advice from officials in the Ministry of Primary Industries. The Crown Law Office settled with him for $65,000, even though he had been declared bankrupt, which raised further questions about the management of public funds.
Narayan expressed public outrage over the significant compensation amounts, questioning why an out-of-court settlement was pursued instead of a court case. She highlighted that the compensation for Nabati seemed excessive and questioned the rationale behind the payment to Matanisiga’s widow, given that investigations by the Ministry of Employment determined that no compensation should be awarded to either of his partners.
In defense, Bale disagreed with the necessity for a judicial inquiry, asserting that the files pertaining to each case were available for review by authorized individuals. He maintained his belief in resolving disputes outside of court whenever possible. Bale also noted that there had not been a rush to settle Bomani’s case, which dated back to 1983, and clarified the timeline regarding notifications of Bomani’s bankruptcy.
He affirmed the appropriateness of the settlements for Nabati and Matanisiga’s widow and pointed out that the payments were compliant with the Workmen’s Compensation Act.