On May 1, 1986, The Fiji Times reported that Member of Parliament Irene Jai Narayan called for a judicial inquiry in Parliament to assess whether payments made to three individuals constituted an abuse of public funds.
The controversy arose after then Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale approved the payouts, which led to public and parliamentary backlash. Narayan urged for an investigation into the propriety of an out-of-court settlement arranged by the Attorney-General. The settlements included $65,000 in compensation for piggery farmer Eliki Bomani, $20,721 for Alliance Party parliamentarian Akariva Nabati, and $12,000 for the estranged widow of seaman Jovilisi Matanisiga.
In her address, Narayan emphasized that a judicial inquiry would illuminate potential misuse of public funds. She expressed concerns over the transparency of the Crown Law Office and questioned the rationale behind the Attorney-General’s approvals for these settlements.
Bomani’s claim against the government amounted to $150,000 due to alleged negligent advice from the Ministry of Primary Industries, leading to the agreed settlement of $65,000. It later became clear that, due to his bankruptcy, an initial payment of $10,000 should have been directed to the Official Receiver.
Narayan expressed disbelief that such a substantial amount could be awarded to a piggery farmer with evident negligence. She questioned the motives behind the quick out-of-court settlement and why Minister for Primary Industries was not informed about the case.
Regarding the Nabati settlement, Narayan noted public concern over the $20,721 compensation granted for an accident occurring while he was using a ministerial vehicle. She remarked that the public reaction indicated it was seen as an excessive payment.
On the matter of the widow’s $12,000 compensation, she asked why the Crown Law Office disregarded advice from the Ministry of Employment and Industrial Relations, which concluded that neither Matanisiga’s legal wife nor de facto wife was entitled to compensation.
In defense, Bale stated he did not believe a judicial inquiry was necessary and highlighted that all files related to the cases were available for authorized scrutiny. He expressed his long-standing policy that courts should be a last resort for dispute resolution and mentioned meetings where officials from the Ministry of Primary Industries acknowledged some liability for negligent advice.
Bale refuted claims of rushing to settle the cases, noting that Bomani’s case had been under government consideration since 1983. He mentioned feeling pressured to make a decision in late 1985 due to the prolonged duration of the claim.
Regarding the settlements, he affirmed their appropriateness, asserting they complied with the Workmen’s Compensation Act and clarified that the notification of Bomani’s bankruptcy occurred after the settlements were concluded.