On May 1, 1986, The Fiji Times reported on a statement made by Member of Parliament Irene Jai Narayan, who emphasized the need for a judicial inquiry to ascertain whether recent compensation payments to three individuals constituted an abuse of public funds.
The controversy arose after former Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale approved these payments, which sparked significant backlash from both the public and fellow lawmakers. Narayan highlighted the need for scrutiny, questioning the propriety of an out-of-court settlement authorized by the Attorney-General. The payments included $65,000 to piggery farmer Eliki Bomani, $20,721 to Alliance Party parliamentarian Akariva Nabati, and $12,000 to the estranged widow of seaman Jovilisi Matanisiga.
Narayan insisted that a judicial inquiry was crucial to revealing any potential misuse of public funds, as media reports had raised suspicions regarding the actions of the Crown Law Office and the Attorney-General. Bomani had sought $150,000 in compensation for alleged negligent advice from Ministry of Primary Industries officials, and the Crown Law Office settled on a payment of $65,000. It later emerged that Bomani was bankrupt, and a portion of the payment should have been directed to the Official Receiver.
Critics were taken aback by the size of the compensation awarded to Bomani, raising questions about the haste to settle the case and the legitimacy of the claims against the Ministry of Primary Industries. Narayan questioned why the case had not proceeded to court and why the Minister for Primary Industries had been left out of the loop.
Regarding the Nabati settlement, she mentioned that the payment stemmed from an accident involving a ministerial car, which many perceived as excessively generous. In the case involving Matanisiga’s widow, Narayan noted that the Ministry of Employment had advised against the compensation claim, stating that neither Matanisiga’s legal nor de facto wife was entitled to it.
In response, Bale expressed his opposition to the need for a judicial inquiry, arguing that all documentation related to the cases was available for scrutiny by authorized individuals. He insisted that the courts should only serve as a last resort for dispute resolution. Bale acknowledged that while some officials from the Ministry of Primary Industries had accepted partial responsibility for providing negligent advice, this acknowledgment was later denied.
Bale also addressed concerns about the timeline of the cases, asserting that they had been under review since 1983. He indicated that the notification of Bomani’s bankruptcy had occurred only after the case settlement. For both Nabati and Matanisiga’s cases, he expressed confidence that the settlements were appropriate and complied with existing regulations.