Opposition Demands COI Updates, Emphasizing Public Accountability

Opposition Leader Inia Seruiratu has defended his request for updates regarding Commission of Inquiry (COI) files, emphasizing that his stance is rooted in public accountability rather than any intention to interfere. He recently criticized Acting Prime Minister Filimoni Vosarogo for misrepresenting his comments and role, diverting from the key issue of what occurs once a taxpayer-funded inquiry wraps up.

Mr. Seruiratu clarified that he was speaking in his official capacity as Leader of the Opposition, not merely as a member of a political party. He highlighted the Constitution’s mandate that the Leader of the Opposition must ensure the scrutiny and public accountability of independent constitutional offices, especially concerning national issues.

He expressed his respect for the constitutional independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), but underscored that this independence does not exempt the office from accountability. “Constitutional independence does not mean freedom from accountability,” he stated, emphasizing that such offices are designed to serve the public interest and must maintain public trust.

In response to allegations that his calls for updates could influence legal proceedings, Mr. Seruiratu clarified that he never sought specific charges or outcomes. He rejected claims that his requests constituted “pressure,” arguing instead that transparency within legal frameworks fosters greater confidence in public institutions.

The Opposition Leader voiced concerns about “prolonged silence,” stating that it erodes public trust, especially when serious allegations regarding high-ranking public officials, including government ministers, are examined. While acknowledging that delays do not automatically indicate failure, he maintained that prolonged and unexplained delays in significant national matters inevitably provoke legitimate public concern.

This stance reiterates the importance of transparency and accountability in governance, particularly regarding procedures that involve public funds and trust. The ongoing discourse could serve to enhance scrutiny of institutional actions, ultimately reinforcing public confidence in democratic processes.