On May 1, 1986, The Fiji Times reported that Parliament member Irene Jai Narayan emphasized the need for a judicial inquiry to determine whether payments made to three individuals constituted an abuse of public funds. The payments, approved by then Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale, sparked public outrage and concern among lawmakers.
The article highlighted Ms. Narayan’s appeal for a judicial inquiry into the propriety of an out-of-court settlement reached by the Attorney-General. The payments included $65,000 to piggery farmer Eliki Bomani, $20,721 to Alliance Party parliamentarian Akariva Nabati for an accident involving a ministerial car, and $12,000 to the estranged widow of seaman Jovilisi Matanisiga.
Ms. Narayan stated in the House of Representatives that a judicial inquiry would clarify whether public funds had been misused. She noted that media reports had raised doubts regarding the operations of the Crown Law Office and the Attorney-General’s role in these settlements.
Eliki Bomani, represented by his lawyer Iqbal Khan, had sought $150,000 in compensation from the Government for alleged negligent advice by officials at the Ministry of Primary Industries. The out-of-court agreement resulted in a $65,000 payout, though it was later revealed that Bomani was bankrupt, and the initial $10,000 should have gone to the Official Receiver.
Ms. Narayan questioned the necessity and timing of the out-of-court settlements, asking why the claims were not taken to court and why the Minister for Primary Industries had not been informed. Regarding the settlement with Nabati, she expressed that public perception was that the compensation was excessively high.
Concerning the payment to the widow of Mr. Matanisiga, she highlighted conflicting advice from the Ministry of Employment and Industrial Relations, which determined that no compensation was due to either of Mr. Matanisiga’s partners.
In his response, Mr. Bale asserted that he believed a judicial inquiry was unnecessary, as all relevant files and documents were available to those with proper authority. He maintained that courts should be a last resort for resolving disputes and stated that some responsibility for negligent advice had been acknowledged during meetings with the ministry, even if later denied by officials.
Mr. Bale refuted claims that the cases had been hurried to resolution, noting that Mr. Bomani’s claim had first been presented to the Government in 1983. He expressed a desire to address the matter promptly once pressured by Mr. Khan in late 1985. Additionally, he clarified that the notification of Bomani’s bankruptcy came after the settlement was reached.
For the Nabati settlement, Mr. Bale confirmed that he found the conclusion appropriate, while he also emphasized that the payment made to the widow of Mr. Matanisiga was in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act.