On May 1, 1986, The Fiji Times reported on a statement made by Member of Parliament Irene Jai Narayan during a parliamentary session, where she asserted that a judicial inquiry was necessary to determine if payments made to three individuals constituted an abuse of public funds. These payments had been approved by then Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale, eliciting criticism from both the public and other members of Parliament.
The report detailed Ms. Narayan’s demand for a judicial investigation into the appropriateness of out-of-court settlements authorized by the Attorney-General. The payouts included $65,000 in compensation to piggery farmer Eliki Bomani, $20,721 to Alliance Party parliamentarian Akariva Nabati for an accident while traveling in a ministerial vehicle, and $12,000 to the estranged widow of seaman Jovilisi Matanisiga.
Ms. Narayan pointed out that a judicial inquiry could clarify whether public funds had been misappropriated, arguing that recent media disclosures had sown distrust regarding the operations of the Crown Law Office and the Attorney-General’s decisions related to the settlements.
Eliki Bomani, through his attorney Iqbal Khan, initially sought $150,000 from the government due to alleged negligent advice from Ministry of Primary Industries officials. The Crown Law Office eventually settled with him for $65,000; however, it was later disclosed that Bomani had been declared bankrupt, and part of the settlement should have been paid to the Official Receiver.
Contemplating the circumstances leading to the large sum paid to Bomani, Ms. Narayan questioned why the case was settled without proceeding to court and noted the absence of involvement from the Minister for Primary Industries.
Regarding the settlement for Akariva Nabati, Ms. Narayan remarked that public opinion viewed the amount awarded as excessive. She also criticized the $12,000 payment made to the estranged widow of Matanisiga, questioning the Crown Law Office’s action against the recommendations from the Ministry of Employment and Industrial Relations, which found no basis for compensation claims from either of Matanisiga’s partners.
In defense, Mr. Bale expressed his belief that a judicial inquiry was unnecessary, asserting that all relevant files were accessible to authorized individuals. He maintained that litigation should be a last resort for dispute resolution and noted that officials from the Ministry of Primary Industries had acknowledged some responsibility for providing negligent advice during discussions with the Crown Law Office, albeit later denied their accountability.
Mr. Bale also refuted claims of an expedited settlement, elucidating that the case had been presented to the government in 1983, and further emphasized that the bureaucratic process moved rapidly only after Mr. Khan pressed for resolution in December 1985. He clarified that the notification of Mr. Bomani’s bankruptcy occurred well after the settlement was finalized.
On the matter of the Nabati settlement, Mr. Bale affirmed that he was satisfied with the resolution reached by his office. He explained that the payment made to Matanisiga’s widow was compliant with the Workmen’s Compensation Act provisions.