	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Fiji

Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji

You are here: PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2017 >> [2017] FJHC 336

Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) v Laqere - Summing Up [2017] FJHC 336; HAC56.2014 (1 May 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 56 OF 2014

BETWEEN: FIJI INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST
CORRUPTION (“FICAC”)

COMPLAINANT

AND: 1. ANA LAQERE
3. AMELIA VUNISEA
4. LAISA HALAFI
5. VACISEVA LAGAI
6. VILISI TUITAVUKI
7. KINIVILIAME TAVIRAKI
8. SHELVEEN NARAYAN

DEFENDANTS

Counsel: Mr. R. Aslam, Ms. A. Lomani, Ms. L. Bokini – For FICAC
Mr. A. Vakaloloma – For 1^st Accused
Mr. A. Vakaloloma – For 3^rd Accused
Mr. A. Vakaloloma – For 4^th Accused
Ms. P. Lal – For 5^th Accused
Ms. N. Mishra – For 6^th Accused
Mr. A. Vakaloloma – For 7^th Accused
Mr. P. Niubalavu – For 8^th Accused

Hearing 23^rd, 24^th, 27^th and 28^th February 2017
1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, 13^th, 14^th, 20^th, 21^st, 22^nd, 23^rd, 24^th, 27^th, 28^th,
29^th, 30^th and 31^stMarch 2017
3^rd, 6^th, 7^th, 10^th, 11^th, 12^th and 13^th April 2017

Summing Up: 01^st May 2017

_____________________________________________________________________

SUMMING UP

_____________________________________________________________________

Madam Assessors and Gentlemen Assessors.

The hearing of this case has now reached to its conclusion. It is my duty to sum up the case to you. You will then retire to consider your respective opinions.
Our functions are different. It is my task to ensure that the trial is conducted according to law. As part of that, I will direct you on the law that applies in this action. You must accept the law from me and apply all directions I give you on matters of law.
You are to determine the facts of the case, based on the evidence that has been placed before you in this courtroom. That involves deciding what evidence you accept or refuse. You will then apply the law, as I shall explain it to you, to the facts as you find them to be, and in that way arrive at your opinion.
I may comment on the facts if I think it will assist you when considering the facts. While you are bound by directions I give as to the law, you are not obliged to accept any comment I make about the facts. Hence, it is entirely upon you to accept or disregard it unless it coincides with your own independent opinion. I say so because you are the judges of the facts.

You must reach your opinion on evidence, and nothing but on the evidence itself. Evidence is what the witnesses said from the witness box, documents and other materials received as exhibits. This summing up, statements, arguments, questions and comments made by the counsel of the parties are not evidence. The purposes of the opening address by the learned counsel for the prosecution it to outline the nature of evidence intended to be put before you. The closing addresses of the counsel of the prosecution and the defence are not evidence either. They are their arguments, which you may properly take into account when you evaluate the evidence, but the extent to which you do so is entirely a matter for you.

If you heard, or read, or otherwise learned anything about this case outside of this courtroom, you must exclude that information or opinions from your consideration. You must have regard only to the testimony and the exhibits put before you in this courtroom during the course of this trial. Ensure that no external influence plays a part in your deliberation. As judges of facts you are allowed to talk, discuss and deliberate facts of this case only among yourselves. However, each one of you must reach your own conclusion or form your own opinion. You are required to give merely your opinion but not the reasons for your opinion. Your opinion need not be unanimous. I must advice you that I am not bound by your opinion, but I assure you that I will give the greatest possible weight on your opinions when I form and deliver my judgment.
Moreover, I must caution you that you should dismiss all emotions of sympathy or prejudice, whether it is sympathy for or prejudice against the accused or anyone else. No such emotion has any part to play in your decision, nor should you allow public opinion to influence you. You must approach your duty dispassionately; deciding the facts solely upon the whole of the evidence. It is your duty as judges of facts to decide the legal culpability as set down by law and not the emotional or moral culpability of the action.

Burden and Standard of Proof

I now draw your attention to the issue of burden and standard of proof. The accused is presumed to be innocent until he/she is proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is in force until you form your own opinion that the accused is guilty for the offence based on the evidence presented during the course of this hearing.
The burden of proof of the charge against the accused person is on the prosecution. It is because the accused is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. Accordingly, the burden of proof rest on the prosecution throughout the trial and it never shifts to the accused. In other words there is no burden on the accused to prove his innocence, as his innocence is presumed by law.
The standard of proof in criminal trial is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. It means that you must be satisfied in your mind that you are sure of the accused person’s guilt. If there is a riddle in your mind as to the guilt of the accused after deliberating facts based on the evidence presented, that means, that the prosecution has failed to satisfy you the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If you found any reasonable doubt as to the commission of the offence as charged or any other offence by the accused, such doubt should always be given in favour of the accused person.

Information

Each of these six accused persons have been separately charged with one count of Abuse of Office, contrary to Section 139 of the Crimes Act, and multiple counts of Causing a Loss, contrary to Section 324 (2) of the Crimes Act. Apart from that, the fourth Accused has been charged with one count of Obtaining a Financial Advantage, contrary to Section 326 (1) of the Crimes Act. The particulars of the offences are before you, hence, I do not wish to reproduce them in my summing up. However, for the convenience I would explain you the number of counts of Causing a Loss, that each of the six accused persons have been charged with.
1. Ms. Ana Laqere : 35 counts of Causing a Loss,
2. Ms. Amelia Vunisea : 34 counts of Causing a Loss,
3. Ms. Laisa Halafi : 13 counts of Causing a Loss,
4. Ms. Vaciseva Lagai : 9 counts of Causing a Loss,
5. Ms. Vilisi Tuitavuki : 5 counts of Causing a Loss,
6. Mr. Kiniviliame Taviraki : 2 counts of Causing a Loss,
The prosecution alleges that the six accused persons have committed these offences of Abuse of Office, Causing a Loss and Obtaining a Financial Advantage while performing and discharging different duties and responsibilities at different stages in one hundred and one (101) transactions of purchasing stationery and hardware materials to the DECE.
During these one hundred and one (101) transactions, the Accounts Section of DECE had paid 60 cheques totaling the full amount of $362,944.37 to Shavel Stationery, OnTime Stationery and Phoenix Hardware, all of them owned by Mr. Shelveen Narayan,
Ms. Ana Laqere had signed all of these cheques as the counter signatory. Ms. Amelia Vunisea as the signatory had signed in fifty nine (59) cheques. The prosecution alleges that Ms. Laisa Halafi had checked and signed the Payment Vouchers pertaining to thirteen (13) transactions. Ms. Vaciseva Lagai had certified the payments in Payment Vouchers pertaining to nine (9) transactions, while Ms. Vilisi Tuitavuki had signed in the Payment Vouchers pertaining to five (5) transactions as “pass for payment”. The prosecution alleges Mr. Kiniviliame had raised requisition orders in two (2) of these transactions. Apart from that the prosecution alleges Ms. Vilisi Tuitavuki had issued number of manually written cheques in relations to some of these transactions. She has then entered wrong figures in the Payment Cash Book pertaining to two of these cheques. Ms. Vaciseva Lagai had signed and approved printed purchase orders when they were approved by Ana Laqere in FMIS.
As you see, the each of the six accused persons has been separately charged for one count of Abuse of Office. Moreover, each of these accused have been separately charged for multiple counts of Causing a Loss. The fourth accused is further charged for one count of Obtaining a Financial Advantage. It is your duty to consider separately on each of these counts and each of these accused persons separately. If you found an accused guilty for one count, that does not automatically make him or her guilty for the remaining counts for which he/she is charged with. Likewise, if you found one accused is guilty, that does not automatically make the remaining accused persons guilty.

Abuse of Office

I now kindly take your attention to the offence of “Abuse of Office”. Section 139 of the Crimes Act has defined the offence of Abuse of office’ as;

“A person commits an indictable offence which is triable summarily if, being employed in the public service, the person does or directs to be done, in abuse of the authority of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another”

Accordingly, the main elements of the offence of Abuse of Office are that:
1. The accused person,
2. Being employed in the public service,
3. Did or directed to be done arbitrary acts,
4. In abuse to the authority of his or her office,
5. Prejudicial to the Rights of another.
The Prosecution and the Defence have not disputed the identity of these six accused persons and their employment in the public service. Hence, you are allowed to consider that the prosecution has proven the first and second elements beyond reasonable doubt.

An Arbitrary Act

According to the legal definition, an arbitrary act is an unreasonable act, a despotic act, unaccountable act, an act which is not guided or founded by acceptable rules and regulations, or by correct reasons or by reasonable judgment, but by the personal whims and fancies of the accused.
Let me give you an example, which does not arise from the facts of this case. All the banks have certain procedures to be followed by bank staff. However, if one officer decided to lend money ignoring the established procedures of accepting of application forms, assessment of the creditworthiness and repayment ability of the customer, such acts constitute an arbitrary act. He did not follow the rules and procedures. His decision to act as such was not founded on proper and acceptable reasons and judgment as a bank officer. It was merely based on his own decision and plan.

Abuse of Authority

The accused has to commit an arbitrary act, while in abusing the authority of the position held. If the accused uses his position in the public service for the furtherance of an illegitimate agenda, based on a bad or dishonest faith or an improper motive that constitutes abuse of the authority of his position in the public service. In order to determine what is an abuse of authority of the office, it is required to consider the motive of the accused to act in such a manner. If you are satisfied that the accused has acted in some bad faith and has used his position to fulfill that motive, then this element is proven. In order to determine the state of mind of the accused, you have to take into consideration of all the evidence adduced in this hearing.

Prejudice to the Rights of Another

A person is prejudiced, if his or her interests are put at a disadvantage. It is a general phenomenon that all the public servants, government departments and ministries are expected to manage the government’s financial system in an efficient and accountable manner without waste and fraud. It is because the money involved in their transactions is public money. Hence, if you falsely make payment from the public funds in an arbitrary manner while abusing the authority of the office, it would prejudice the rights of the Government of Fiji and the public.
In this case, the prosecution alleges that all of the six accused persons have abused the authority of their respective positions held in the public service, by committing arbitrary acts in order to facilitate the process of false payments to three companies, namely Phoenix Hardware Engineering & General Supplies Ltd, OnTime Stationery Supplies and Shavel Stationery Supplies, thus prejudicing the rights of the Public Works Department.
Accordingly, you are required to consider and determine separately, whether each of these accused persons have acted in an arbitrary manner while abusing the authority of their respective positions in order to facilitate the said three companies, namely Phoenix Hardware, OnTime Stationery and Shavel Stationery to obtain a monetary gain. If you are satisfied is such, then you have to determine whether that arbitrary act, done with such a motive have prejudiced the rights of the Public Work Department.
If you are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven to you the above discussed elements of the offence of Abuse of Office, you then can find the accused guilty.

Causing a Loss

Madam and Gentlemen Assessors, I now kindly draw your attention to the offence of “Causing a Loss”.
Section 324(2) of the Crimes Act states that;

A person commits a summary offence if he or she-

Dishonestly causes a loss, or dishonestly causes a risk of loss, to another person, and
Person knows or believes that the loss will occur or that there is a

substantial risk of the loss occurring.

Accordingly, the main elements of the offence of ‘Causing a Loss’ are that:
1. A person,
2. Dishonestly causes a loss or dishonestly causes a risk of loss to another person, and
3. That person knew or believes that the loss will occur or that there is a substantial risk of the loss occurring.
The first element has not been disputed by the parties.

Loss and Dishonesty

If a person suffers detriments or incurs a disadvantage, it constitutes a loss to that person. In order to determine the second element, you have to consider whether the accused has dishonestly caused such loss to another person. “Dishonesty” is a state of mind of the accused. In order to determine whether the accused had a dishonest mind in causing such a loss, you have to adopt a two-tiers approach as follows:
First, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, you have to decide whether what was done by the accused was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails.
If it was dishonest by those standards, then you must consider whether the accused him/ herself has realized that what she/he was doing was dishonest by those standards. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the accused him/herself knew that he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for the accused to act in a way which he knows ordinary people consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as what he/she did.

Knowledge

I now take your attention to the third element, which the accused knew or believed that the loss will occur or that there is a substantial risk of the loss occurring. Knowing or believing is knowledge. Knowledge can either be direct knowledge or inferred knowledge.
In determining the knowledge, it is sufficient to have the necessary awareness or the understanding of the act and its consequences. However, in some instances, knowledge includes “willfully shutting one’s eye’s to the truth”. If a person deliberately or intentionally refrains from making an inquiry about the act or the consequence of it, that also falls with the meaning of “Knowledge”.
The prosecution alleges that these six accused persons have dishonestly and knowingly caused loss to the Public Work Department by falsely facilitating the process of payment of cheques to OnTime Stationery, Shavel Stationery and Phoenix Hardware. They have performed and discharged different duties and responsibilities at different stages in the process of these payments. While discharging such duties and responsibilities, they have dishonestly facilitated these 60 payments of cheques to the above mentioned three companies knowing that it would cause a loss to the PWD.

Obtaining a Financial Advantage

May I now draw your attention to the third count, that is Obtaining a Financial Advantage. Section 326 (2) of the Crimes Act has defined the offence of Obtaining a Financial Advantage as;

“A person commits a summery offence if he or she-

engages in conduct, and
as a result of that conduct, obtains a financial advantage for himself or herself from another person,

knows or believes that she is not eligible to receive that financial

advantage.

In this case, the allegation against the fourth accused is founded on the ground that she falsely facilitated the process of payment to the three companies, namely Shavel Stationery, OnTime Stationery and Phoenix Hardware in order to obtain a financial advantage amounting to $65,200 from the said companies and knew that she was not eligible to receive such financial advantages.
Accordingly, the main elements of the count of the Obtaining a Financial Advantage as charged are that;
1. The fourth accused person,
2. Engaged in a conduct, namely falsely facilitating the process of payments to the above three companies,
3. As a result of that, she obtained a financial advantage for herself from the said three companies,
4. She knew or believed that she was not eligible to obtain such a financial advantage.
Let me now draw your attention to the agreed facts and documents that the prosecution and the defence have agreed. You are allowed to consider them as proven facts beyond reasonable doubt.
Let me now remind you the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence during the course of the hearing.

The evidence of the Prosecution

Mr. Katarina Rainima

The first witness of the prosecution is Katarina Rainima. She was the Acting Executive Officer of Human Resource at the Divisional Engineer Office Central Eastern (DECE) in 2009 and 2010. She was in charge of the HR division of DECE. Ms. Rainima in her evidence explained the respective positions held by each of these six accused persons during the period of 2009 and 2010.
Ms. Rainima in her evidence explained the official responsibilities held by Ana Laqere as the Acting Senior Accounts Officer in the Accounts Section. She then explained the training and qualification that Ana Laqere has received. Ana Laqere had attended a conference in Boston USA to furtherance her qualification on prevention of fraud activities.
Previously Laisa Halafi was the typist to the Senior Accounts Officer. In 2010, the Senior Accounts Officer at the DECE was promoted and transferred to Headquarters. Laisa Halafi was also supposed to transfer to the Headquarters with the promoted Senior Accounts Officer. However, Laisa Halafi managed to remain in the Accounts Section at DECE. Ms. Rainima had advised Ana Laqere, on several occasions that Laisa Halafi should be transferred to Headquarters, but Ana Laqere objected to it. Ana Laqere and Laisa Halafi are step-sisters.
Usually, DECE holds monthly meetings with all the section heads. Sometimes they have to hold urgent meetings as well. The Divisional Engineer normally heads such monthly meetings and all head of sections are supposed to submit their respective reports. Accordingly, Accounts Section was also supposed to submit reports relevant to the accounting matters. Most of the time, Accounts Section failed to submit its reports. Ms. Ana Laqere was absent in most of these monthly meetings. The Divisional Engineer was not happy about the performance of the Accounts Section.
Mr. Nacanieli Baleirara, the Supervisor of the Government Building Section informed her that their job number had been used by the Accounts Section without their knowledge to purchase materials. She then went to the office of Ana Laqere to check the LPO register, which she found staying on the table of Ana Laqere. Ana Laqere refused to give Ms. Rainima the register, saying that she needs to do some bank reconciliation with the LPO register. Ms. Rainima then requested her to handover the register on the following morning. However, when she went to the Accounts Section on the following morning, she was informed by Ana Laqere that the register has been misplaced. Ms. Rainima felt suspicious and reported to the Divisional Engineer. He then called a meeting for the staff of the Accounts Section to discuss this issue. Since, no progress was made in finding the missing register, the Divisional Engineer informed the Permanent Secretary about the missing register in a memorandum. However, the missing register was never found.
Ms. Rainima in her evidence explained about the Financial Manual. She then explained the procedure as stipulated under the Financial Manual with regard to the Local Purchase Book. Ana Laqere did not publish the newspaper advertisement, stating the LPO numbers issued from the missing LPO register as required by the Financial Manual.
Ms. Rainima had ordered few cartridges for her printer and other stationeries. She could not exactly recall the number of cartridges that she requested, but could confirm that it was not more than three. One cartridge can be used for three to four months. Ms. Rainima in her evidence identified the Requisition Order which was raised in respect of this request. She had signed and approved the said Requisition Order. (Volume2, Tab 38). The date of the Requisition Order is 23rd of March 2010.
The requisition form is normally raised by the Storeman or the Accounts section upon receipt of the minute from the particular officer who makes the request. In respect of Ms. Rainima’s request, the requisition form had been filed by Laisa Halafi. Ms. Rainima then went on and explained the description of the items and amounts as stated in the Requisition form. She said that she only ordered one each. However, the quantity as written in the requisition form is not the correct quantity that she actually requested. Moreover, she said that the quantity and the amount as stated in the form had been changed after she had signed and approved it. If someone wants to change the information in the form, he or she must put his or her initials in the document.
Ms. Rainima could recall that the job number was not written in the document when she signed and approved it. The job number as written in the document is for the allocation for wages. According to her knowledge, the allocation for wages could not be used to purchase stationeries.
You may recall that Ms. Rainima was shown a payment advice by the learned counsel for the prosecution, (that is in the tab 38 of Volume 2 of the trial bundle of documents). The payment advice was made manually. The payment advice is required to make through FMIS system. The description of the items as written in the Requisition Order is different from the description written in the Purchase Order.
Madam and Gentlemen assessors, you may recall that the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th accused cross examined Ms. Rainima. I will now summarize you the evidence given by Ms. Rainima during this cross examination.
The HR section had to look after more than 100 staff members at the DECE. She could recall that she gave a statement to FICAC on the 25th of February 2015 in respect of this matter. Ms. Rainima was not aware whether Ana Laqere was on leave or not, when the Divisional Engineer issued a memorandum dated 6th of September 2010.
According to Ms. Rainima, one of her staffs had prepared the memorandum requesting for printing materials. She then signed it and forwarded it to the Accounts Section. The Accounts Section then made the Requisition Order. The required quantity and the type of the items were specifically stated in the memorandum. Laisa Halafi then brought her the completed requisition order, which she signed and approved. She said that she trusted that Laisa Halafi had filled the form with correct information. Ms. Rainima said that the job number had already been written in the order when it was brought to her for approval.
Ms. Rainima could not identify the signature that is found on the first stamp in the payment advice pertaining to count nine. She further said that she could not explain the purpose of the stamp as it was the responsibility of the Accounts Section. However, Ms. Rainima was able to identify the second stamp that had been placed in the payment advice.
Ms. Rainima said that the seventh accused, Mr. Kiniviliame Taviraki was the Senior Technical Officer. He is not an accountant based in the Accounts Section. If he wants to order some materials, he can do so according to the procurements procedure of the Building Department. The Building Department has its own Chief Clerk and Storeman.
Ms. Rainima stated that Laisa Halafi was a permanent government wage earner. She was a typist. Ms. Rainima had requested Ana Laqere to transfer her to a construction site. However, Ana Laqere did not implement that request. Amelia Vunisea was based at Mechanical division in the DECE. Amelia Vunisea and Ana Laqere had been given the authority to sign the cheque of DECE.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the second accused, Ms. Rainima said that she was not aware about that Tavenisa Tavaga had transferred to HQ during 2010. She had no knowledge that anyone apart from Tavenisa Tavaga had access to the username and password of the Divisional Engineer.
Ms. Rainima was then cross examined by the learned counsel for the fifth accused. The main HR Department is located at Nasilivata House. Vaciseva Lagai was a permanent staff of the DECE. She could remember Vaciseva Lagai was transferred to the HQ in 2010 for three months. It was a temporary transfer. In the meantime Vaciseva Lagai was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Ms. Rainima was not aware about the contract given to Ms. Lagai in respect of the promoted post. The contract should come from the HQ and not from the HR section at DECE.
Ms. Rainima in her evidence explained the terms and conditions of the appointment letter given to Vilisi Tuitavuki as a Temporary Relieving Clerical Officer. She then went on and explained the job description given to Vilisi Tuitavuki as the Revenue Collector. The letter came from HQ and it does not have the initials of the Divisional Engineer.
During the re-examination she said the supervising officer of Vilisi Tuitavuki was Ana Laqere. She further stated that Vaciseva Lagai was the Assistant Account Officer (Ledgers). It means she had to ensure that all ledgers were accurately reconciled.

Mr. Sen Jeet

The second witness of the prosecution is Mr. Sen Jeet. He is the Principle Accounts Officer at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport. I will now briefly summarize the evidence given by Mr. Jeet.
In his capacity as the Principle Accounts Officer, Mr. Jeet is responsible for the overall financial management of the Ministry, including formulation of budget, expenditure control, revenue collection, and supervising, guiding and training the staff. It is his duty to supervise the proper utilization of the budget allocations. Mr. Jeet stated that his supervisory duties did not limit only to the Headquarters but also to the divisions of the Ministry, including the DECE.
Mr. Jeet firstly explained the financial structure of the DECE. It has three main financial streams. The first is the Operating Funds Account (OFA). The second is the Trading and Manufacturing Account. (TMA). The third is the Standard Liability Group (SLG). The Operating Account has been divided into about ten activities. The money received by DECE by providing services to other governmental ministries and departments would go to the SLG account.
All the Departments and Sections under the Ministry are required to provide their program of activities for the coming year in order to determine their respective budgetary allocations. These proposals are then being taken into consideration in order to determine the scope and the cost attached to them. It will then go to the Divisional Engineer. He will forward it to the Management of the Ministry for consultation. Thereafter, the final submissions will be forwarded to the Ministry of Finance.
Every activity is undertaken by the DECE under the Operating Funds Account are budgetary allocation. The head of the Accounting Section is responsible for the supervision of the funds and money allocated for different projects and activities under the Operating Fund Account.
The TMA Accounts is a self-sustainable account. The TMA account is used for the manufacturing and trading of items. The proceeds from those trading are deposited in the TMA account. Operating Funds are not used for manufacturing and trading of items undertaken by the Plumber shop and the Joinery Shop. However, DECE could purchase items from Plumbing or Joinery workshops using funds from Operating Account. Mr. Jeet went further and explained that the TMA account has a ceiling limit. Any amount which exceeds the ceiling limit must be remitted back to the Ministry of Economy. The TMA account is also managed and supervised by the Head of the Accounts Section.
The Administration Section of DECE caters for payment of wages and salaries to the permanent staff and other operational cost of the division, such as payment of subsistence allowance, meal allowance, travel and accommodation, electricity and telecommunication bills and stationeries. Upon approval of the budget allocation, money is loaded into the Financial Management System (FMIS), which is a software for the expenditure of the DECE under various activities. Mr. Jeet explained this procedure with an example. If $1,000 is allocated by the budget for the purchase of stationery, that amount will be divided into twelve. The Section Heads within the DECE could make request for stationery by using the said allocation.
Any operational cost for the maintenance of TMA account must be funded by the TMA account. Operating Funds could not be used for that purpose. Accounts Section is divided into two parts. One part looks after the finance and the other part looks after the HR. Accounting Head and HR head have to report to the Divisional Engineer.
The accounting structure in DECE involves many types of expenditures. There is an accounting numbering practice with seventeen digits to identify each and every expenditure category. Each expenditure group has these seventeen digit identification code. Whoever works with the Accounts Section could understand the nature of the expenditure by looking at the said code. If the expenditure group is electricity, that fund could only be used for payment of electricity. If there is any funds left over in any particular expenditure group, that unused funds should be remitted back to the Ministry of Finance at the end of each financial year.
All the expenditure groups have been documented in a report, known as Composed Report. It shows the expenditure groups and money allocated for each of the groups in a particular financial year. Mr. Jeet explained the Composed Report for the Financial Year of 2009. It is listed under Tab 16 of the Volume 1 of Trial Bundle of Documents. He then explained the allocation number in detail. The first number stands for the mode of the account. Accordingly one (1) stands for Operating Funds Account (OPA). The next two numbers indicate the name of the Ministry. The fourth number stands for the Public Work Department. The fifth and sixth digits indicate the number of the activity. The next five digits stand for the cost center. The cost center indicates the geographical location of the cost allocation. Sometimes, one division could have few cost centers based on their needs and activities. The last six digits represent the Standard Expenditure Group (SEG).
Having explained the composition of the allocation number, Mr. Jeet stated that whole of the budgetary allocation first comes into the cost center of 83999. This cost center is managed by the HQ. Once the budget allocation is loaded into 83999, it will be distributed into the respective cost centers among each division according to their respective needs. 95211 is the cost center for the Administration and Accounts in DECE.
Mr. Jeet then explained the allocation and the actual expenditure incurred by DECE in respect of stationery and printing in the financial year of 2009. Accordingly $6000 was allocated for this expenditure group and DECE has actually spent $10,886.
During the initial implementation years of FMIS some sections had used the allocation given to other sections, though it was not a correct practice. Now, it is not allowed to exceed the given allocation. He explained that the HQ normally receives a bigger allocation for stationery.
Mr. Jeet then gave evidence regarding the Composed Report of 2011. According to the Composed Report of 2011, allocation for office stationery and printing for the Accounts and Administration Section in DECE was $6000. The actual expenditure incurred by the said section was also $6000.
Mr. Jeet then went on and explained the Budget Appropriations and Actual Expenditure Report of Ministry of Works for the year 2010. This is a special purpose report made from information obtained from the Composed Report. According to the said report, DECE was allocated $6000 for the office stationery and printing. However, the actual expenses incurred by DECE for the year 2010 for the office stationery and printing were $44,683.69. The DECE had exceeded their allocation by $38,683.69. In the same year, the HQ was allocated $30,000 for office stationery and printing and has spent only $27,713.31. Mr. Jeet stated that the DECE does not require more stationeries and printing material than the HQ. The funds allocated for wages of the staff and FNPF contribution could not be used for other purposes. It is the duty of the Head of the Accounts Section to make sure the appropriate funds are used for purchasing stationeries. In some extreme and urgent cases, the DECE could request the HQ to transfer funds for them to purchases items from the allocation given to the HQ.
Mr. Jeet then gave evidence about the TMA Cash Book of the DECE for the year 2010. That is listed under Tab 18 of Volume 1A. This report contains all the purchases and the payments that have been made from the TAM account for the year 2010. The funds from TMA account only be used for the purpose of TMA activities. The TMA funds can be used to purchase office stationeries and printing material in order to maintain and manage the TMA account. Normally the allocation for stationeries under TMA is also around $6000. According to the TMA Cash Book for the year 2010, OnTime Office Suppliers was paid $23,533.99 from TMA account to purchase stationeries. Moreover, Shavel Stationery was paid $39,108.35 to purchase stationery materials.
Mr. Jeet then went on to explain the procurement procedure of the government in details. The procedure of the procurement has been stipulated in the Financial Manual and the Standard Operating Procedures of respective government departments. The Financial Manual derives from the Finance Act. It provides the procedure of procurement for government institutions. It is a mandatory procedure that all the government institutions have to abide by.
It is the responsibility of the head of Accounts Section to maintain and the safe keeping of the Local Purchase Order Book. If the LPO book goes missing, the head of the Accounts Section is required to advertise on the two daily newspapers indicating the numbers of the missing LPO book, in order to prevent the further use of those PO.
The first step in raising a purchase order in a written memo sent to the Stores by the head of a respective section or the division, requesting for items they want. The requesting items should be listed out in detail in the said memo. Upon receiving the said memo, the Storeman should inform the relevant section about the availability of the requested items in stores. If the items are not available in stores, he should inform the relevant section that those items need to be purchased. The relevant section then makes the requisition order indicating the items to be purchased. The quotation clerk then calls for the quotations from the vendors. The purpose of calling quotations from suppliers is to maximize the value and quality of the items that the government is purchasing. The Financial Manual has provided the procedure that is to be followed in approving the quotations. The tender box is opened in the presence of two or three staff members. The quotations are first sent to the section’s head for verification and then forwarded to the compliance unit. The compliance unit does the final check and makes the recommendation. The Section head then endorses the recommendation made by the compliance unit. It is the official endorsement stating that these items need to be purchased. The compliance unit will do the second check on the requisition. Then the Accounts Section has to confirm the availability of the funds to purchase those items. Once the account section confirms the availability of funds, it is submitted to the Divisional Engineer to approve the purchase. The head of the Accounts section is required to check the availability of funds using the FMIS or their manual records.
Once the approval of the Divisional Engineer is given, the Purchase Order Clerk proceeds to raise the purchase order. Until then the entire process is based on paper work. The PO clerk will feed the information into the FMIS system to generate the PO. FMIS consists with different modules. The Purchase Order Module is used to generate the PO. Those who are authorized to access the PO Module could generate the PO in FMIS. The head of the Accounts Section has the authority to determine who should have the access to FMIS. In doing such, the head of the Accounts Section must ensure the segregation of duties among the officers. That means she should not delegate absolute authority to any particular officer in accessing and using of FMIS.
In order to generate the Purchase Order in PO module, the purchasing officer has to fill several panels. The purchase order number is generated by the system in a sequence. The person enters the data into the system is not able to pick the number. Once the PO is generated, it has to be marked for approved. Certain designated approvers are available in DECE. The clerk who raises the PO is required to take all the paper documents to the designated approver to check and approve the PO online.
Once the PO is approved and released online by the Approver, it is printed out. It is the first time the PO comes into physical existence. It is required to print two copies, one is the original and other one is the duplicate. Once it is printed, it will be forwarded to the same Approver with all the source documents for further verification and endorsement. Only the person who approved the PO online is allowed to endorse it at this stage. The PO is then registered or recorded and given to the respective section for them to acquire the items as requested.
Both copies of the PO will be given to the Vendor. It is the authority given to the vendor to deliver the items. Once the vendor delivered the items, he is supposed to provide the duplicate copy of Purchase Order, invoice and delivery docket. Once the items are delivered to the stores, the Store man must record them on appropriate stock cards. Thereafter the Store man forwards the documents to the requesting officer for verification and endorsement. Once he endorses and certifies it, the invoice and other relevant documents are sent to the compliance unit for verification and check. Upon satisfaction of the documents, the compliance unit then sends the invoice, PO and other documents to the Accounts Section to process the payment. The head of the Accounts Section is responsible for the payment.
The payment is made online using the FMIS. There is a special module for the payment known as Account Payable Module. (AP Module). In order to process the payment, it is required to fill certain panels in AP Module. Once it is filled, it confirms the receiving of the items. In the meantime a manual payment voucher is also made by the payment clerk. AP module generates a payment voucher number. The manual payment voucher has a separate number. The payment voucher is then checked by two persons. Then it goes to the Certifying Officer, who certified it at the bottom of the payment voucher. These three officers are required to check and verify all the source document before they check and forward the payment voucher to the next step. Once the Certifying Officer is certified the voucher, it is ready for the payment. The Certifying Officer has access to FMIS in order to check and verify the documents and all steps that have been taken place up to that stage. The head of the Accounts Section or a Senior Accounts Officer normally certifies the payment voucher.
The next step is to print the cheque. The cheques are made online. It is the responsibility of the Cashier. The Cashier enters the amount, the name of the vendor company, and the date on the cheque. The FMIS system does not allow to print a cheque without entering the details of the invoice into the system.
Mr. Jeet in his evidence explained that certain payments such as manual wages, meal allowance and subsistence allowance, can be made through FMIS without raising a PO. Such payments are called direct payments. Moreover, he said that the payment for purchasing stationery materials could also made without raising a PO, but it is not the correct procedure to do it.
Mr. Jeet then explained about the signatories who are authorized to sign cheques. Two authorized persons are required to sign a cheque. The first person is the signatory and the second person is the counter signatory of the cheque. Both of them are required to properly check the cheque with other corresponding source documents before they put their respective signatures.
You may recall that Mr. Jeet then went on to explain about few transactions that have been listed under Tab 37 to 67 of Volume 2. These transactions are related to count 8 to count 38. Mr. Jeet found many irregularities and breaches of Financial and Accounting regulations and instructions in these transactions. I do not wish to go through each and every transactions, but would summarize the irregularities and breaches identified by Mr. Jeet as follows:
1. Funds of other allocations, such as Standard Liability Groups, FNFP allocation, Un-Established Wage Earners’ allocation and Standard Expenditure Group of Capital Works, have been used to purchase stationery materials,
2. The same purchase order has been used to make more than one payments. If the first payment was made from OFA account, the second payment had been paid from TMA through a manually raised cheque and vice versa,
3. Number of cheques and purchase orders have been raised manually while FMIS was in operation,
4. Purchase orders have been raised after the receipt of invoices,
5. Ana Laqere had approved number of manually raised purchase orders, belong to the missing LPO book,
6. Same company had been paid through manual cheques as well as system originated cheques on the same day,
7. Some of the Purchase Orders have been raised in FMIS using OFA account, eventually the payments were made from TMA account and vice versa,
8. The job number belongs to the HQ has been used,
9. Direct payments were made without properly following the PO module in FMIS,
10. In some instances, the Purchase Order was raised in FMIS for one company, subsequently, the same purchase order number was used to make payment for another company,
11. In some instances, different Purchase Order Numbers and amounts have been used in one transaction,
12. In some transactions, the descriptions stated in the Purchase Orders and Payment Vouchers are different from descriptions given in Requisition Orders and Quotations,
13. Details and information have been erased or altered in some of the manual purchase orders without putting any signatures of the person who made such alterations,
Having given a detailed explanation about these transactions, Mr. Jeet said that the actual expenditure for the stationery at DECE could be much higher than the reported amount of $44, 683 in the Report of Budget Appropriations and Actual Expenditure 2010. It is because funds from other allocations have also been used by DECE to purchase stationeries.
Mr. Jeet then went on to explain the stipulated procedure for the procurement and expenditure in the Financial Manual. Moreover, he explained the duties of the Certifying Officer of the payment voucher and the Cashier in order to prevent double payments. The Cashier is required to enter details of all the cheques in the Payment Cash Book. Moreover, the Cashier has to maintain the expenditure ledger. All the payments made during the week must be stated in the expenditure ledger. End of each month, the ledger clerk must prepare an expenditure and commitment statement and submit to the Head of Accounts Section. Head of the Accounts Section then include that statement in the Monthly Management Report, which is later submitted to the Divisional Engineer. The Divisional Engineer then makes his report to the Permanent Secretary based on the Monthly Management Report.
According to the Payment Cash Book entries that have been listed under Tab 92, the amount paid by the cheque number 656825 was $4651.15. However, the actual amount paid through the cheque was $14, 651.15. If the Cashier accurately entered the details of the cheque into the Payment Cash Book, she would have seen the discrepancy. Apart from that, the Payment Cash Book entry stated that the amount paid by cheque 656829 was $4733. However, the actual payment made by the said cheque was $14,733. Apart from the Cashier, the Head of the Accounts Section is also responsible to maintain the Payment Cash Book.
Subsequent to the evidence in chief, Mr. Jeet was first cross examined by the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th accused persons. Mr. Jeet said that the PWD is a large institution and its accounting process involves with many officers. DECE constitutes two sections. The main office and the mechanical section. The Accounts Section of the DECE is located at Walu Bay. Mr. Jeet said that if any of the government’s asset or resources including money was not used for the actual purpose of the government, then it amounts to a loss. He further said that the process of purchase and payments, and the accounting system in all of the government departments are same. Hence, he can give evidence about these alleged transactions that took place at DECE in 2010, though he was serving at the Ministry of Transport at that particular time.
In cross examination, Mr. Jeet explained the purpose of the two stamps that can be found in the payment vouchers. The inspection of the payment voucher is done by the Compliance or Inspection team, which is appointed and authorized by the Head of the Accounts Section. They check all the documents pertaining to a particular transaction, and then stamped and confirmed it. Before that, one officer of Accounts Section has to check all the documents and sign the payment voucher as “checked by”. Subsequent to that, another officer will check the same document and signs on the payment voucher for “pass for payment”. Then the documents and the payment voucher go to the Inspection Team. After the inspection team stamped the payment voucher, it goes for the certification. Once the final certification is done by the Certifying Officer, the Cashier would proceed to print the cheque. The Cashier must have all the documents pertaining to the transaction when printing the cheque. For the signing process, the FMIS system generates a report stating the details of the cheque and it will forward to the two signatories.
Mr. Jeet further said that if the monthly reconciliations are done on time, any fraud or any discrepancies could have been detected.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the fifth accused, Mr. Jeet said that the Head of the Accounts Section can delegate certain duties, but she must maintain certain level of control mechanism in doing it. Final certification of the payment voucher should not be delegated to another officer by the Head of the Accounts Section. If the Head of the Accounts Section delegates such authority to an Assistance Accountant, still the final and overall responsibility is on the Head of the Accounts Section.
It is the responsibility of the Head of Accounts Section to check the availability of fund. Quotations are evaluated by a committee which includes the requesting officer as well. This process has been in operation even before 2010. If there is any issue or mismatch with the quotations and requisition order, the compliance committee would pick it. However, the mismatches of the quantity of the items are not important as some of the companies usually provide the price per unit.
Once the quotation is approved, it goes to the Divisional Engineer for his approval with the Request to Issue Purchase Order Form. It then comes to the Accounts Section for the first time to raise the purchase order.
Normally the Storeman receives the items. However, in some instances, the requesting officer has to receive and confirm it. While explaining the payment process, Mr. Jeet said that it involves with several officers. They all have to check and verify the payment process at different stages. Any mistake or discrepancies can be detected by these officers at these respective stages of the payment process. At the final certification, the Head of the Accounts Section has to check them again and should not presume the process is correct. He or she must ensure that all the process and the information are correct before the final certification.
I will now summarize the evidence given by Mr. Jeet during the cross examination by the learned counsel for the sixth accused. A temporary relieving clerical officer (TRCO) should not be delegated with the responsibility to check the “pass for payment” stamp in the payment voucher. If the Head of the Accounts Section delegates such duties on such an officer, she has to do it, otherwise it might constitute insubordination. Under such circumstances, the Head of the Accounts Section has the overall responsibility for that duty. Once the compliance team endorsed the payment voucher upon the inspection, it can be presume that the documents pertaining to the transaction are genuine. After the final certification, the cashier will print the cheque. It is not a duty of the Cashier to merely print the cheque.
Mr. Jeet in re-examination explained that the Cashier too as other officers can raise concern if there are some doubts on the particular transaction. Furthermore, Mr. Jeet explained that the Head of the Accounts Section should not delegate the responsibility of “pass for payment” to the cashier who finally prints out the cheque. If the Head of the Accounts Section delegates such authority to the Cashier and pressurized the Cashier to perform such responsibility, the final responsibility is on the Head of the Accounts Section.

Mr. Navitalai Tamanitoakula

The third witness of the prosecution is Mr. Navitalai Tamanitoakula. He is an immunized witness. I will explain the meaning of immunized witness in a while in detail. Mr. Navitalai explained the nature of the immunity that he was offered by the prosecution and tendered the letter of immunity as prosecution exhibits 99. He then gave evidence about his career in the public service in detail. He was posted as the Senior Accountant at the DECE in the year 2007 to 2009. He then explained the scope of his work responsibilities as a Senior Accountant.
The DECE’s Accounts Section has two main parts. The first part is the payment section that deals with the payments. The second part is the ledger section that deals with the recording of all transactions and preparing of reconciliation of the records. The operational section is also functioning within the Accounts Section. The funds derive from two main sources. They are operational fund and TMA account. The Accounts Section is dealing with all the transaction done in DECE.
Mr. Navitalai in his evidence then explained the procedure of procurements of items by the DECE. Once the Storeman confirms the non-availability of the items, the Chief Clerk of the section has to check the availability of fund using the ledgers. After that, the storeman stamped the availability of fund and then proceeds to obtain approval. He then raises the purchase order and forwards it for approval.
He then explained the procedure of payment process. Once the payment voucher is raised by the invoicing clerk and signed it, it goes to the verification section for the inspection. Once the inspection is done, it goes to the Account Payable clerk to check and sign. Once he signed for pass for payment, the payment voucher then goes to the Certifying Officer for the certification. Then it passes to the Cashier to prepare the payment. The cheque generates through FMIS system. The Cashier is required to register the detail of the payment and the cheque in the Cash Register. The payment can be done either from Operational Account or from TMA account.
The Operational Accounts Funds derive from the allocation from the Ministry of Finance. The Operational Funds have been allocated under different SEG for different purposes. The funds in those different SEGs can be used only for its designated purpose. It is the responsibility of the Head of the Accounts Section to monitor and control the funds. The Accounts Section has to make fortnightly and monthly reconciliation. The monthly reconciliation is done by the reconciliation clerk. The figures of expenditures and commitments are normally obtained from the ledgers. At this point, the reconciliation clerk could find if the funds are over spent from a particular allocation. Once the figures are obtained, the Head of the Accounts Section compiled the monthly report and forwards it to the Principle Accountant. It does not go to the Divisional Engineer. Likewise, the TMA account is also reconciled on quarterly basis. If the funds in a particular allocation are fully spent, the Accounts Section could request more funds from the HQ. The Principle Accountant or the Permanent Secretary could approve such request.
Mr. Navitalai said that he was one of the authorized counter-signatories for the cheques. The requirement of the two signatories is a control mechanism. When the cheque is sent for counter signing, it must be accompanied by the payment voucher attached with all the source documents. The person who is responsible of counter signing must check them before he signs.
Mr. Navitalai then explained the discrepancies and mismatch found in the transaction pertaining to the count 21. The cheque number 656270 was signed by Ana Laqere and counter signed by Mr. Navitalai. Mr. Navitalai was at the Department of Water and Sewage at that time however, he had to sign the cheque as he was still an authorized signatory. The cheque came to him with all the required documents. He could recall that the cheque was brought to him by either Mrs. Laisa Halafi or Mrs. Vilisi Tuitavuki. The cheque was drawn from TMA account.
Having perused the payment voucher, requisition order and the purchase order in relation to the first transaction, Mr. Navitalai stated that the request was made by the Building Section for the quarters, which normally occupies by government officials. According to the description as written in the requisition order and the purchase order, Mr. Navitalai said that such toners are normally required for offices and not for the Quarters. The payment voucher was signed by Vaciseva Lagai.
In respect of the second transaction, Vaciseva Lagai has signed the purchase order and the payment voucher. The VAT has not been included in this payment.
Moving to the third transaction, Mr. Navitalai said that the amount stated in the payment voucher is different from the amount stated in the purchase order. Moreover, the job allocation on the requisition order states that the funds were allocated from Operation Account. According to the payment voucher the funds were coming from TMA account. Ms. Vaciseva Lagai has certified the payment voucher and also approved the requisition order. Mr. Navitalai stated that with these discrepancies on the source documents, he should have returned the cheque instead of counter signing it. He then explained the reasons why he counter signed this cheque. Mr. Navitalai further said that one person could not be allowed to sign requisition order, purchase order and the payment voucher. The purchase order can only be signed by the authorized approver.
Mr. Navitalai in his evidence stated that he had a meeting with the Storeman in January 2009. He had discussed with them about corrupt practices and advised them that the officers should not get involved in such activities. When he was transferred to the HQ, Ms. Ana Laqere replaced him at DECE as the Head of the Accounts Section.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the first, third, fourth and seventh accused, Mr. Navitalai said that only the post of Senior Accountant was moved to the HQ but the responsibilities and functions of the Head of Accounts Section remain with the DECE.
While explaining the procurements process during the cross examination, Mr. Navitalai said the Storeman has access to FMIS system and print the purchase order. The Chief Clerk has no access to the system. Different officers handle the different stages of the payment process. The payment process is regulated by regulations. However, sometimes they have to bypass them as officers make mistakes. It is the responsibility of the person who countersigns the cheque to personally check and verify whether authorized persons have signed the documents at various stages before he sign on the cheque.
Mr. Navitalai further said that he knew Ana Laqere was in the Accounts Section, but could not recall whether Amelia Vunisea was at Mechanical Section or not. They both had to check personally whether all the documents and signatures were in order before they sign the cheque. The stamp of “paid” is put in the requisition order only after the verification team inspects the documents and the Certifying Officer certifies it for payment.
He has signed the cheque pertaining to count 21 as it was within his authorized limit. He has only checked the payment voucher and no other source documents before signing the cheque.
The fourth accused Ms. Halafi was an unestablished staff. Normally unestablished staff members do various works from office assistant to typist. He could recall Ms. Halafi was a typist and also looking after the ledger at that time at DECE. They are also in the Civil Service. An unestablished officer could approve any documents or requirement at the Accounts Department.
Mr. Navitalai was then cross examined by the learned counsel for the fifth accused. I will now summarized the evidence adduced during the cross examination by the learned counsel for the fifth accused.
Ms. Vaciseva Lagai held a junior position to Mr. Navitalai at DECE when he was the Senior Accountant. The DECE is one of the largest divisions in the Ministry of Work, Transport and Public Utilities. It carries out many big projects; therefore the Accounts Section had to make a lot of payment on weekly basis. Those payments involve with signing of lots of cheques. He then explained the procedure of approval of the purchase orders online. If any discrepancy is found by the Head of the Accounts Section, she would not approve the Purchase Order. Once it is approved, it is presumed that the purchase order is in correct order. In respect of the payment voucher, it normally goes through two officers and the inspection team for checking and verification before it reaches to the Certifying Officer for the certification. Once it reaches to the certifying officer, she could form an inference that the process has been correctly followed as it has been checked by those two officers and the inspection team. However, the certifying officer should not reply on them, and is required to check the source documents before the certification.
Mr. Navitalai said that he signed the check upon satisfying that the payment voucher was in order and certified. The Head of Accounts Section could delegate duties but not the approval of Purchase Order and signing of cheques. The duties pertaining to payment voucher could be delegated to other officers by the Head of the Accounts Section.
In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the sixth accused, Mr. Navitalai said that once the payment voucher is certified, it means the payment has been authorized. The payment voucher with source documents then go to the Cashier to proceed with the payment. The Cashier has to ascertain the particular fund or the allocation from the allocation number given in the payment voucher.
During the re-examination Mr. Navitalai said that the safekeeping of the cheques is one of the duties of the Cashier. The last few numbers of the Purchase Order indicate the relevant SEG for the fund allocation. It is the responsibility of the Head of the Accounts Section to ensure that the relevant SEG has been used for the particular transaction. The Certifying Officer of the payment voucher has to check everything including whether the correct allocation has been used for the transaction before it is certified. He should not only rely on the signatures and stamps of the officers who checked and verified the process prior to the certification. Sometimes the officers at DECE have to bypass the regulations and procedures because they were busy. However, those bypasses or mistakes are not deliberate acts.

Ms. Diana Radrodro

The fourth witness of the prosecution is Ms. Diana Radrodro. She is an Accounts Officer at the Ministry of Economy. She is attached to the FMIS unit of the Ministry and deals with the Purchase Order Modules in FMIS system. Ms. Radrodro has approximately 30 years of experience in the civil service. She has been working in the FMIS Unit for the last 12 years. Since 2007, she has been attached to Purchase Order Module of the FMIS Unit. Apart from that she has been assisting other modules such as Account Payable Module (AP module), General Ledger Module and also Funds Module.
FMIS system was introduced and started in 2005. In the year 2007, it was fully implemented across all the government ministries and departments.
FMIS system looks after whole of the government payment, purchases and transactions. It includes the Government Ministries and Departments. The system has been decentralized to various Ministries and Departments. However, the policy guide and management of the system are done by the Ministry of Economy. Before the introduction of FMIS system, the government accounting system was done manually. One of the purposes of introducing the FMIS system was to improve financial reporting. It is an automated process and generate financial report expediently. It provides data security and transparency. The data and information in FMIS system can be easily retrieved than the manual process. Each Ministries and Departments have their own FMIS system and appointed user could use it for accounting and financial reporting. They have their own access to the system. The FMIS unit of the Ministry of Economy looks after the software of the FMIS system.
Head of the Accounts Department of the various Ministries and Departments have authority to decide who will have the access to FMIS system of their respective Ministries and Departments. The Head of the Accounts Department has to fill a specific form and sent it to the FMIS Unit to activate the access to their nominated user. The Unit then scrutinizes the form and enters the names of the proposed user and their requested access penal into the FMIS, giving access to those users. They are given their user ID and the system then generates them the password. It is a regulation that you could not share your user ID and password with anyone else.
The FMIS unit monitors the number of people who access the FMIS system. It can capture the users who enter information into the system. The FMIS system was upgraded in early 2010. She was provided training in using and operating of FMIS. Apart from that, the FMIS unit provides training for other users of the system. They conduct annual training for the government officers who use FMIS. In 2010, they had two training sessions. One was at the beginning of the year and the second one was at the end of the year. Ana Laqere was one of the participants of one of the training sessions. The training for the users is a mandatory requirement.
The FMIS system works hand to hand with manual system. The introduction of the FMIS system replaces the manual financial reporting system. However some stages of the purchase and payment process still involve with manually raised documents. The process of the Purchase Order Module starts with the manually made document of requisition order. The quotations and invoices are still done manually. They constitute the source documents. Without these manually made documents, FMIS system cannot proceed to the purchase and payment process.
Once the items were delivered, the Accounts Section enters the details in a manual voucher and also enters such detail online. The manual voucher is also a part of the source documents. Once the purchase and payment process is completed, the manual source documents are kept in the respective ministries or the departments. The data entered into the FMIS system are kept in a server for ten years. They can be retrieved at any time. In the absence of source documents, the data in relation to a particular transaction can still be retrieved from the system. It can still provide the detail of the person who approved the purchase order, purchase order number, the amount. Likewise AP module can retrieve the information such as cheque number, invoice number, voucher number, the amount paid and the name of the company.
Ms. Radrodro then explained about the request made by Ana Laqere and Vaciseva Lagai requesting to issue user access to certain officers at DECE. (Tab 12). Moreover, she said Vaciseva Lagai was given access to open vendors in the system. The access to create vendor accounts is given to the respective divisions of the Ministries and Departments. They could enter the details about the companies that they are dealing with into the FMIS system. It is done by the Head of the Accounts Section. In order to create vendor account, the Head of the Accounts Section must obtain the TIN letter, the name and physical address of the company, details of its bank account, business registration and licence. Without these details, no one can enter a vendor name into the FMIS system. The system could find the details of the person who enters the vendor into the system. Having referred to the document listed under Tab 14, Ms. Radrodro said that Ms. Ana Laqere has added Phoenix Hardware Company into the system on the 23rd of June 2010. Furthermore, Shavel Stationery Company was also added to the system by Ana Laqere on the 5th of February 2010.
Ms. Radrodro then explained the purchase process through FMIS system. Once the base documents like requisition order and quotations were raised and the vendor was selected, the designated officer of the Accounts Section will proceed to make the Purchase Order through the FMIS. The person who raises the purchase order is called as “buyer”.
The first panel in the PO module is Standard Order Entry. The buyer enters the required details into the penal. The PO Number generates by the system. The buyer has to enter the number for the division that represents the first five digits. The rest of the digits are generated by the system after the completion of the second penal. The ordered amount also calculated by the system once the buyer enters the cost of the items into the second penal. The buyer has to select the vendor in the system.
The second penal is Rapid Entry. In the second penal, the buyer enters the description of the items, quantity, the unit cost and the account number for the fund allocation. The unit cost usually enters as VAT inclusive price. The status of the Purchase Order at this stage is unreleased. The buyer then routs the Purchase Order for the approval. The buyer has to select the approver according to the amount. The buyer then informs the approver and provides the source documents.
The approver then checks the source documents and if satisfies, will approve the purchase order. The applicable panel for the approval is Order Header Option. Upon the approval, the status of the purchase order changes to “fully released”. Only the selected approver can approve the purchase order online, not anyone else. The buyer then prints out the purchase order. The purchase order can be printed out only after the approval. The printed purchase order is required to be signed by the same approver who approved it online. Then the purchase order is released to the vendor.
Once the items are physically delivered and acknowledged by the receiving officer with the invoice, delivery docket and the purchase order, he will forward the documents to the buyer to receive items online. The buyer then enters the information into the system. The receipt status would then charges to fully receive and the invoice status changes as fully invoiced. Then the purchase order releases to the Accounts Payable Module for the payment process.
The payable officer would first check all the source documents and the information in the FMIS and then proceeds to make the payment. The payable officer could check whether the purchase order or the invoice has already been paid.
The first panel in the AP module is Voucher Header Inquiry. The payable officer enters the details of the invoice. The system automatically captures the purchase order number. Moreover, the payable officer would enter the GL account number. That is the number for the relevant cost center and the job number for that particular transaction. Once the information of the invoice is entered, the system generates the voucher ID number.
The payable officer then selects the voucher for payment. He then makes the Cash Requirement Report. It is a mandatory report and without it, the payment process could not be proceeded. The Cash Requirement Report contains the details of the vendor, the amount, Voucher ID etc. Once it is generated through the system, the report together with the source documents would be forwarded to the Head of the Accounts Section for the verification and endorsement. Once the Head of the Accounts Section verifies and endorses, the Payable Officer or the Cashier would proceed to schedule the cheque. The Cashier has to verify and check the source documents again before the scheduling for cheque. Once the cheque is printed out, the Cashier has to go through the matching process, where he checks all the relevant details. The Cashier then forwards the cheque to the two signatories for their signatures. Once the cheque is released, it would hit the general ledger, which disperses the required amount to the relevant account.
The Head of the Accounts Section has the responsibility to monitor and make sure that every stages of the FMIS are being complied during the purchase and payment processes. The Accounts Head could check and monitor any discrepancies or fault of the process through the reconciliation process. It is a mandatory requirement to follow the correct and each step of the PO module and AP modules in purchasing materials. Once the PO module is correctly completed, it will automatically connect to the AP module for the payment process. However, the two modules can be separated and the AP module can only be used for the payments which do not require purchase orders, such as payment of utility bills. Such payments are known as direct vouchering process. The Direct vouchering process starts with AP module and does not require the PO module. However, the purchasing of materials, the both processes have to be followed. Meanwhile some could disregard the PO module and continuing from vouchering process, but it is not allowed. Such payment is not a proper payment.
Ms. Radrodro then explained the access authority given to Ana Laqere, Vaciseva Lagai, Vilisi Tuitavuki and Laisa Halafi to access various panels in PO module and AP module. Ana Laqere had access authority to cancel Purchase Orders. A Purchase Order can be cancelled on the grounds of errors, mistakes or wrong information. Once it is cancelled, it cannot be used for payment. Ana Laqere also had the aces authority to create vendor online.
You may recall that Ms. Radrodro then went on and explained about the irregularities and breaches of FMIS procedures found in all of these 101 transactions, they are that:
1. The VAT exemption has been used for many of these transactions.
2. In many transactions, the purchase order has been raised in FMIS, then it was cancelled without receiving any items or invoices. Then the payment was made through direct vouchering.
3. Ana Laqere has approved purchase orders online, but failed to sign the printed copy of the same purchase orders as required,
4. Numbers of cheques, purchase orders and payment vouchers have been made while FMIS was in operation.
5. All of these payments were made through direct vouchering without properly completing the PO module in FMIS.
6. Funds were used from other allocations.
7. Cost Center belongs to HQ has been used.
8. Some of the Purchase Orders were made for one company in FMIS, but the Purchase Orders Number was eventually used to make payments to another company through direct vouchering.
9. Some payments were made without raising any purchase orders.
10. The same invoice has been used to make more than one payment.
The Accounts Section is allowed to raise manual purchase orders or manual cheques only for urgent matters when FMIS was not in operation. If the purchase order was made manually, the relevant officer has to create a FMIS generated Purchase Order once the FMIS is restored. Then it should proceed to the payment in AP module. In this case, it had not been done.
In concluding her evidence in chief, Ms. Radrodro stated that all of these transactions have not been completed according to the correct procedure under FMIS.
Ms. Radrodro was cross examined by the learned counsel for the first, third, fourth and seventh accused. She explained about her educational and career background during the cross examination. The FMIS unit helps the users in operation of FMIS. If an issue occurs, the users normally inform the unit via email. They then could attend to the issue. Ms. Radrodro then explained about the trainings provide to the users by the FMIS unit. Ana Laqere was trained about the approval procedure in FMIS. The buyer can cancel the purchase order in FMIS. Ana Laqere, Taniela Railala and Laisa Halafi had access to cancel purchase orders online. If the Purchase Order is cancelled, they have to give reasons for it. No one had informed her unit about any issues that led to cancelation of purchase orders online.
Ms. Radrodro then explained about the super user of FMIS. The super users were trained and placed in different ministries as the first contact person for any issues relating to FMIS. They can cancel purchase orders online if they were given access to it. The super users are no longer available as they were only used during the introductory phases of the implementation of FMIS.
In respect of the direct vouchering, the head of the Accounts Section has the authority to approve the direct vouchering payment. The access of the users to different segments in FMIS is determined by the Head of the Accounts Section. Ana Laqere being the Head of the Accounts Section could nominate herself to be a user’s of FMIS. The authorization to access FMIS is given only for a year. At the end of the year, the authorization is deactivated. The Head of the Accounts Section then have to forward the new sets of names for the approval in respect of the next year.
When she was questioned about making of Purchase Orders manually, Ms. Radrodro said that it could only be done for urgent matters when the system is down. Urgencies are mostly with medical evacuation, oxygen tanks. Other activities such as stationeries have to wait until the system is restored.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the fifth accused, Ms. Radrodro once again explained the training programs they have given to the users of FMIS. She cannot recall whether the fifth accused, Vaciseva Lagai had participated in the training in 2010. Once the FMIS unit approved the authority to access, it will be conveyed to the Head of the Accounts Section. The Head of the Accounts Section then informs the relevant officer about the authorization. She is not aware whether Vaciseva Lagai knew that she has authority to access FMIS.
In the cross examination, Ms. Radrodro further said that the payment voucher is made either before the entering of information into the AP module or after the entering of information. The Purchase Order can be cancelled only when the PO module is not completed. The Purchase Order cannot be cancelled after the payment is made through the AP module.
You may recall that Ms. Radrodro was cross examined by the learned counsel for the sixth accused. During the cross examination, Ms. Radrodro said the issues relating to the functioning of FMIS is normally dealt by the FMIS Unit. The IT section deals with the issues relating to the system. Normally it would not take long to address any issues relating to FMIS. If one penal is not functioning, it would not be possible to go forward to the next relevant penal in order to complete the transaction.
Ms. Radrodro said that she does not know whether the sixth accused, Vilisi Tuitavuki knew that she has authorization to access FMIS system. Usually the Account Payable clerk has to enter the cheque details into the system before the cheque is being printed out.
The learned counsel for the sixth accused asked Ms. Radrodro to explain the purpose of the two numbers that have been stated in the payment voucher listed at page 14 Tab 37. She said that she has no idea about the two numbers.
Ms. Radrodro said Vilisi Tuitavuki was given access to AP payment, which allows her to print cheques online. The Cashier opens the folder where the cheque is generated. Then she checks all the source documents and relevant details. Then the Cashier would print the cheque.
During re-examination, she said the Cashier has access to FMIS in order to print the cheque. In doing that the Cashier has all the source documents before her and need to verify them before proceed to print the cheque.
Any issues relating to the function of FMIS system could be address within few minutes. Such technical issues do not occur often. Once the Accounts Payable Officer accesses the AP module, she can confirm whether the PO module has been properly completed and released to AP module.
Ana Laqere has the authority as the Head of Accounts Section to nominate herself as a user of FMIS. It is necessary for her to have access to FMIS as she is required to do reconciliation of the accounts. Computer literacy is one of the requirements in the government recruitment process.

Mr. Eparama Racumu

The fifth witness of the prosecution is Mr. Eparama Racumu. He was the storeman at the Building Section of DECE in 2010. Initially he was also charged in this matter. The FICAC then offered him immunity, which he accepted. The letter granting the immunity is tendered as prosecution exhibit No 100. Mr. Eparama in his evidence explained the working scope of the storeman and also the working scope of the Building Section. He then explained the procedure of ordering material for the Building Section. He enters details of the items into the requisition registry upon the instruction from his Supervisor. The Supervisor is the in-charge of the job. He orders materials for the projects. Mr. Eparama reported to Building Supervisor.
The Supervisor gives him the material schedule, which he enters into the requisition register. After that, he would look for quotations. Once the quotations are received, he starts to evaluate them. During the evaluation, they normally go for the cheapest. Then they order the material. The supervisor who requested the material normally approves the requisition form.
Mr. Eparama is familiar with the type of projects and the materials they have ordered for the Building Section. He then explained the transaction relates to count 28. The relevant documents have been listed under Tab 57. The requisition form was made by Mr. Eparama. This requisition form was made in order to purchase 38 cartridges for Adi Cakobau School’s building maintenance project. He said cartridges were not required for this project as the scope of the project was to maintain the buildings of the school. The requisition was approved by Kiniviliame Taviraki, who was the Senior Technical Officer at that time. He did not make any inquiries when he approved it. Mr. Eparama then selected the company to purchase these materials. He knew the owner of the company. He is Shalvin Narayan. He came to know about Mr. Narayan as he was introduced to him by Laisa Halafi. He then raised the Purchase Order through FMIS. He selected VAT exemption in order to avoid the rejection by the system. The Purchase Order was approved by Ana Laqere. She did not make any inquiries about this purchase. Once he printed the Purchase Order, Ana Laqere signed in the printed copy as well. He then gave it to Mr. Narayan.
Mr. Narayan did not deliver any of those items. He only brought the invoice. Upon receiving the invoice, he forwarded the documents for payment process. Mr. Eparama did this false purchase as he had financial and family commitment and wanted to gain some money. He spoke to Laisa Halafi, Vilisi Tuitavuki and Vaciseva Lagai to get the payment done. He got $1000 from Mr. Narayan from this Transaction. Shalvin Narayan normally divides the amount paid to him into two parts. He then keeps one part and gives the other part to Mr. Eparama. Mr. Eparama then distributes that money among other officers who had helped him to make the payment fast. They were Ana Laqere, Laisa Halafi, Kiniviliame Taviraki, Vilisi Tuitavuki, Tavenisa and Kathy Serevi. As he recalls, each of them got $150.
As the Storeman he could remember the companies that the Building Section usually purchases materials. They are Vinod Patel, Carpenters Hardware, RC Manubhai, Kasabia, Sun Court hardware. He knows the owner of Shavel Stationery, Shelveen Narayan. He did not supply any hardware materials. Mr. Eparama does not know whether he had a hardware company. He did not know about Phoenix Hardware.
Mr. Eparama could recall that the former Head of Accounts Section Navitalai Tamanitoakula had a meeting with the Storeman and raised a concern that the payments of big companies were being held, while payments of smaller company were paid. Mr. Eparama said the reasons for that, as smaller companies give them financial advantages when they make their payment fast.
Mr. Eparama said that he had done this kind of false transactions more than once.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the first, third, fourth and seventh accused, Mr. Eparama said that he was given the immunity letter by a FICAC officer. He took it and after a week, he read it and then signed it. He said that he gave his statement to the FICAC before he signed the immunity letter.
He further said during the cross examination the Senior Technical Officer Mr. Taviraki asked him to make this order for ACS maintenance. He then wrote the requisition form. He was instructed by Mr. Taviraki to order the materials as written in the requisition order. Mr. Taviraki requested and approved these materials in the requisition order. He further said that the requisition order was not his idea. The officers at the Accounts Section have asked him the money. They used to ask him for money. Therefore, he has given them the money. He said that he is not making up this story because of the immunity given to him.
The learned counsel for the fifth accused informed the court that she does not wish to cross examine the witness.
The learned counsel for the sixth accused then cross examined the witness. In the cross examination, Mr. Eparama said that usually the companies follow up with the Store man for the payment. The Storeman then follows it up with the Cashier as she is the one who print the cheques. Vilisi Tuitavuki did not know about his financial commitment. He went to Vilisi in order to check whether the cheque was ready. Mr. Eparama said Vilisi used to ask him for money.
During the re-examination Mr. Eparama said that he gave money to Vilisi and Tavenisa. He made his statement to the FICAC before he was granted immunity by the FICAC. He wanted to clear his name that was the reason he told the FICAC the truth about this matter.
He further said that Kiniviliame was aware about the items written in the requisition order when it was taken to him for approval. He knew the items were not used for ACS’s maintenance.

Ms. Alfreda Waqanisau

The sixth witness of the prosecution is Alfreda Waqanisau. She was a member of the Inspection Team at the Accounts Section of DECE in 2010. She has nearly 20 years of experience in the PWD and has held many positions. In 2010, she was informed to form an inspection team at the Accounts Section. The inspection team consisted with Katherine Serevi, Rajendra Govind and Ms. Waqanisau. They were based on the same floor as of the Accounts Section at DECE. They were not properly handed over the duties and responsibilities. They had many difficulties in forming and functioning as the inspection team at the Accounts Section. The Senior Accounts Officer was Ana Laqere. She had a separate room inside the Accounts Section. The Secretary to the Senior Accounts Officer was Laisa Halafi. She was sitting close to the Senior Accounts Officer’s office.
The three members had discussed about their work and decided their respective responsibility in the inspection. They had to check and inspect all the documentation pertaining to the purchase and payments of DECE. Ms. Waqanisau was tasked to look after the purchase and payments in relation to the Government Building and Building Sections. Katherine looked after Plumber Shop and Joinery Shop. Rajend was assigned to look after Electrical Section.
All the documents pertaining to the purchase and payments must go through the inspection team. Once they inspect the documents, the team would stamp it with the signature of the officer who inspects it. The stamp states “DECE Inspection, Passed for payment”. Without the signature of the officer, the stamp of the inspection team could not be placed in any documents. By looking at the document, she could confirm whether that document had actually gone through the inspection team or not.
She further explained that the Senior Accounts Officer did not officially call the team and explain the duties and responsibilities of the inspection team. The Inspection team get involves with the purchase and payment process at two stages. The first stage is before the procurement. At the first stage the inspection team receives internal memo, requisition and quotations for the inspection.
The second stage is at the payment process. Once the payment voucher is raised, all the documents pertaining to that particular transaction would come to inspection team for the inspection. It includes purchase order, invoices, delivery dockets and payment vouchers. They have to check all these documents and stamp with the signature on all the documents.
Ms. Waqanisau said that they have never physically checked whether the purchased materials have actually received or not. They were not given permission to check it physically. Therefore, they have not attempted to do it.
She said that sometime they do not get all the relevant documents for inspection, which did not allow them to carry out their duties properly. Usually the documents were brought to them by the purchasing officers. They are the officers who have access to FMIS. Laisa Halafi was one of them who brought documents to the inspection team. If the documents were not completed, they give it back to them for the completion. However, in some cases, due to the urgency they proceeded with the available documents as missing documents will bring as soon as they have them available.
Ms. Waqanisau explained about two instances, where she had to deal with incomplete documents. One of such instances, where Eparama Racumu, who was a Store man of Building Section, brought some documents incomplete. He wanted them inspected at the earliest, which she turned down to proceed. He then went to Laisa Halafi and had a discussion. The second incident is that Laisa Halafi brought her photocopies of a purchase order and an invoice to be inspected. It was stamped and certified with a foot note that the items had been received and the payment has not been made. Laisa Halafi said that this payment had to be made as the items had already been received. She then signed it and placed the stamp.
Having gone through the source documents pertaining to the transactions in relation to the counts 8, 9, 12, 23, 26, 36, 39, 40, respectively, Ms. Waqanisau observed that some of the documents have the stamp of the inspection team but no signatures. Some documents had the stamp with a signature; however, the signature does not belong to Katherine Serevi or any other member of the team. She further said the signature in some of the purchase orders does not belong to Mr. Sesero Tupou, though his name was written therein. There is no consistency of stating the name of Mr. Sesero Tupou, as some instances it was written as Sesero T and sometimes as S. Tupou. She identifies that it was not Mr. Sesero Tupou’s signature. She said that the inspection team not only put the stamp but also put the respective officer’s signature on it. They do it not only in one document, but stamp and sign each and every documents pertaining to a particular transaction.
Ms. Waqanisau in her evidence said that each of the members of the team had two stamps. She lost one of her stamps as it went on missing. She kept them in her drawer under lock. She never found it again.
She knew the owner of Shavel Stationeries, Mr. Narayan. She met him once at the office where he came and enquired from her about the office of Laisa Halafi. She then came to know that he came to meet Laisa Halafi. She directed him to Halafi’s office. She knows that Ana Laqere was brought up by Laisa Halafi’s family.
On three different occasions Laisa Halafi gave Ms. Waqanisau three envelopes, asking her to pass them to Ana Laqere. At one occasion she gave Ms. Waqanisau an envelope at the main gate of PWD yard and other two occasions at the back of the office. During that time, Laisa Halafi was not in the office. Ms. Waqanisau gave these envelopes to Ana Laqere as requested by Laisa Halafi. At one occasion, she had just flipped the corner of the envelope to check what was inside. She found it contains money in hundred dollar notes. She opened it as she wanted to check what was inside the envelope. Laisa Halafi had given her those envelopes after the working hours.
Ms. Waqanisau had borrowed money from Laisa Halafi. Laisa Halafi, Vilisi and Vaciseva Lagai had a club where they lend money to other staff members.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the first, third, fourth and seventh accused, Ms. Waqanisau said that each officer of the inspection team had two stamps. One of them was used at the first stage of the inspection, that was before the procurement. The second stamp was used at the second stage, that was during the payment process. She said that she informed Laisa Halafi about the missing stamp as she was the purchasing officer of stamps. Ms. Waqanisau said that she could confirm that the documents that she had observed during the evidence in chief did not go through the inspection team. She further said that she could confirm that the signature found on the stamp of the inspection team in some of the documents was not actually belonged to Katherine Serevi.
In the cross examination, Ms. Waqanisau further said that the Certifying Officer could have noticed that those documents did not actually come through the inspection team. The Certifying Officer at that time was Assistant Accounts Officer Vaciseva Lagai. She should have seen that only the stamp was placed and no signature on it.
Ms. Waqanisau was not cross examined by the learned counsel for sixth accused.
I will now briefly summarized the evidence adduced by Ms. Waqanisau during the cross examination by the learned counsel for the fifth accused.
Ms. Waqanisau said that Rajendra Govind was replaced by Iowane Baba. She then explained that the source documents come to them for inspection at two different stages of purchase and payment process. At the second stage, they check and inspect all source documents with the information contain in the payment voucher. Once they are satisfied with the inspection, they put the stamp and sign it. Then the payment voucher together with other source documents go to the Certifying Officer. It was Vaciseva Lagai, who was the immediate supervisor of the inspection team. She then certifies the payment advice upon noticing the sign and stamp of the inspection team.
Ms. Waqanisau then said that the funds from the allocation for wages had been used in the payment voucher pertaining to the count 8 (tab 37) and the payment voucher pertaining to count 29 (tab 58). She had put her signature and stamp on these two payment vouchers. She said wages allocation is not allowed to use to purchase stationery materials.
Vaciseva Lagai was notified by Ms. Waqanisau about the duplicate purchase order brought by Laisa Halafi for the inspection. It had been discussed. However, she finally put the stamp and signed on it as they agreed that the payment had to be done. Vaciseva Lagai did not take any other steps. Ms. Waqanisau did not inform Divisional Engineer about this incident. She said that she signed and stamped the photocopied duplicate purchase order on the instruction of Vaciseva Lagai. She knew it was wrong to do it. Ms. Waqanisau said that even she informed the Divisional Engineer, the payment would have proceeded, as it was the Divisional Engineer who had approved the purchase order online. They have discussed such issues during their staff meetings mostly headed by Vaciseva Lagai in the absence of Ana Laqere.
Ms. Waqanisau in her cross examination further said that they had no access to FMIS in order to clarify the fund allocation. Though, they were given the task to inspect the documents, they had no authority in purchase and payment process.
In respect of the club that Laisa Halafi, Vilisi and Vaciseva Lagai had, Ms. Waqanisau said that she was not aware that it was just a tea club that sells tea and coffee. What she knew that she had to pay the money she borrowed from Laisa Halafi with interest.
During the re-examination, Ms. Waqanisau stated that the two purchase vouchers that are related to count 8 and 29 respectively came to her at once. She did not stamp and sign it on two different dates. She further said that in 2010, she had no clear understanding of job allocation numbers. They had no access to FMIS in order to determine the correct allocation number.
The inspection stamp only passes the documents for the payment. The certification by the Certifying Officer certifies the correctness of the payment. It is in Government printed statutory form. The inspection stamp is not in such a statutory form.
In respect of count 8, Vaciseva Lagai has signed the purchase order and also certified the payment voucher.

Ms. Katherine Serevi

The seventh witness of the prosecution is Ms. Katherine Serevi. She has been in the civil service since 1998. During her career in the civil service she has worked in the DECE as a cashier and then in the Accounts Section. She was transferred back to DECE in 2010 in order to be a member of the inspection team. When she joined the inspection team, she had a fair idea of the functioning of DECE. The inspection team consisted three officers. Iowane Baba and Alfreda Waqanisau were the other two members of the team. It is the duty of the inspection team to check and inspect all the documentation pertaining to purchase and payment in the DECE. She was not formally inducted by the Senior Accounts Officer when she came to the inspection team.
Ms. Serevi in her evidence explained that the inspection team checks the relevant documents at two stages during the procurement process. The first stage is before the procurement. At that stage the inspection team inspects the request, standard requisition form and the quotations. The second stage is the payment process. The inspection team receives the copy of purchase order, payment voucher, invoices, delivery docket together with the documents that they have inspected at the first stage.
The three members of the team made an arrangement to divide the responsibilities among themselves. Accordingly, Iowane Baba was looking after the Mechanical Section. Alfreda was in charge of the Buildings Section and Ms. Serevi looked after the TMA transactions. Under TMA transactions, she has to deal with the Plumber shop and Joinery shop. The Plumber and Joinery shops get their money from the trading. They have their separate bank accounts. Both of these two bank accounts come under the Trade and Manufacturing Account (TMA).
The inspection team has to inspect the document, and then stamp them with the signature of the respective officer who stamped the document. They have to stamp and sign all the documents pertaining to a particular transaction. Ms. Serevi used to put her short signature; it comprises letters of “K’ and “S”. There is no one in the team who used the same letters and style as of her signature.
Ms. Serevi in her evidence then went through all the documents pertaining to the transactions in relation to counts 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 36, 39, 40, 41 and 42 ( the relevant Tab are 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97).
Having gone through the documents, she found that the signatures that had been placed on the stamp of the inspection team are not belonged to her. She said that it is not her signature and those documents did not go through the inspection team. She found that some of the documents had both the stamp and the signature, while some documents had only the stamp but no signature. Some documents neither had the stamp nor the signature.
Apart from that she found that the payment made in relation to count 11 was facilitated from the drawing account. She only looked after the transactions stem from TMA account. Hence, the signatures on these documents are not belonged to her.
Moreover, Ms. Serevi found the payment voucher pertaining to the transaction listed under Tab 74, (count 40) has the first stamp of verification, which is used at the first stage of the inspection. The payment voucher is raised after the delivery of items and comes to the inspection team at the second stage of the inspection. Hence, it is not possible to have the first stamp of verification on the payment voucher. She said the person who put the stamp had no knowledge of the inspection procedure.
Ms. Serevi knew about the Phoenix Hardware, but did not know the owner of it. She was the Cashier when she was working at the Mechanical Division of DECE. The Cashier usually put the “paid” stamp on all the relevant documents pertaining to a particular transaction before the making of the cheque. The Cashier then makes the cheque and takes it together with payment voucher and all other relevant documents to signatories for their signature. The signatory must check the documents.
Ms. Serevi could recall that twice one of their stamps went on missing. However, on both occasions, they managed to find it in the cubical usually used by Laisa Halafi. She had nothing to do with the stamp of inspection team. When they inquired it, Laisa Halafi said that the stamp was with her.
The inspection team sought permission to physically check the items in order to confirm whether they have actually received it. However, the Senior Accounts Officer did not permit them to go out to the sites and check them physically.
Ms. Serevi knew the Storeman of the Plumber shop and Joinery shop. Taniela Railala was the Storeman for Plumber Shop and Bimal was the Storeman for Joinery Shop. Eparama was the Storeman for Building Section. She had normal work related relationship with them. She had borrowed money from Eparama, Taniela and Laisa when she wanted some money. She did not borrow as such often. She has paid some of them back. They did not ask her to pay them back.
You may recall that Ms. Serevi was cross examined by the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 7th accused. She said during the cross examination that they assumed that the items have been delivered when they inspect the document at the second stage. They were allowed to check the documents and also check the items physically. However, the Senior Accounts Officer, Ana Laqere did not permit them to physically check the items. She said K and S are her initials, but the signatures found similar to that on the documents were not belonged to her. Those documents did not come for inspection at that time.
The room of the inspection team was locked at all the time. However, the key was available at the office, hence, everyone had access to it.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the fifth accused, Ms. Serevi said that she was fully aware of the job allocation numbers. They have not changed since 1998 to 2010. She could not remember the time of losing one of their stamps. Ms. Serevi was not aware about any tea club in the Accounts Section.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the sixth accused, Ms. Serevi said that sometimes she had printed the cheques when Vilisi Tuitavuki was away for her service exams. Ms. Serevi said the Cashier is required to put the “paid” stamp on the documents before the cheque is printed.
During the re-examination Ms. Serevi said there were no changes made to the first few digits of the allocation number. However, last few digits could change according to the nature of the project.

Ms. Lusiana Tomuse

The next witness of the prosecution is Ms. Lusiana Tomuse. She was an attaché to the Accounts Section in the DECE in 2010. She had worked there in that capacity until August 2010. According to her evidence, she was tasked to do the filling of the documents pertaining to the purchase and payments in the Accounts Section. Her supervisor was Amelia Vunisea. Sometimes they got documents from Laisa Halafi. Sometimes they found the documents were not completed. There were missing documents pertaining to the transactions. They were purchase orders, payment vouchers and invoices. She had to look for them in the office. However, she did not find them. Hence, they had to continue the filing process without those documents.
Laisa Halafi had asked her to go and collect quotations from the companies. Laisa Halafi had already contacted the companies and informed them about the quotations. She had only to go and pick them. When she brought them to Laisa Halafi, she used to give her money. Laisa Halafi told her not to tell anyone about that she was giving her money.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th accused, Ms. Tomuse said that Laisa Halafi gave money to her in order to thank her for bringing the quotations. She was not paid by PWD during her attachment period.
Ms. Tomuse was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the 2nd accused, 5th accused and the 6th accused.
In the re-examination, she said that she was an attaché to the PWD and not to Laisa Halafi.

Ms. Vasemaca Raicebe

The ninth witness of the prosecution is Ms. Vasemaca Raicebe. She was the cleaner at the Accounts Section of DECE in 2010. Vaciseva Lagai is her sister in law. Apart from cleaning, she was asked by Vaciseva Lagai to do binding of the documents. There were more than 10 staff members working at the Accounts Section at that time. She had to bind the documents pertaining to the payments. She was asked to do the binding work because they were short of staff. Her reporting officer was Ana Laqere. Vilisi Tuitavuki gave her the documents to bind. She checked whether all the documents were there before the binding. Sometimes some documents were missing. She noted down the missing documents on the top of payment voucher and told Vilisi. Sometimes Vilisi found some of the missing documents and sometimes not. At such instances, she had to continue with the binding without those missing documents.
Apart from the binding of documents, Vilisi Tuitavuki had given her cheques to be taken to Amelia Vunisea in order to take Amelia’s signature. Those cheques were not accompanied by other source documents. On two or three occasions, she has taken the cheques to Amelia’s house at Nadali, Nausori. Vilisi had asked her to go to Amelia’s house. She was accompanied by Sereana to go to Amelia’s house.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd,4th and 7th accused, Ms. Raicebe said that she was not paid any extra money by PWD for the binding work. She did that as most of the time she was free. She went to Amelia’s house with the cheques because Amelia was attending her mother’s funeral.
Ms. Raicebe said during the cross examination by the learned counsel for the fifth accused, that she was a government wage earner and paid by PWD. She was employed by the PWD. She was asked to do the binding job as she had more free time during the day. There were some attachés at the Accounts Section during this period.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the sixth accused, Ms. Raicebe said the documents were given to her by Vilisi for binding. They were left on cubicles and the tables. She said that Ana Laqere instructed her to take the cheques to Amelia’s house. That’s why Vilisi gave those cheques. She cannot recall the dates and the time of such visits she made to Amelia’s house. The signing of the cheques was urgent. She cannot remember whether the cheques were for wages.
Ms. Raicebe said that by looking at the cheques she could not tell the purpose of the payment. Nobody informed her that the payments in those cheques were urgent. She started the binding in August 2010. Vaciseva Lagai told her about the vacancy that’s why she applied for this cleaning post at DECE.

Ms. Sereana Tuniamoala

The tenth witness of the prosecution is Ms. Sereana Tuniamoala. She was an attaché at the Accounts Section in DECE in 2010. Her supervisor was Vaciseva Lagai. She was asked by Vaciseva Lagai to bind the documents pertaining to the purchases. Apart from that she took cheques to the designated signatories for their signatures.
She could recall that she took some cheques to Amelia’s house in Nausori in order to get Amelia’s signature. She was given those cheques by Vilisi Tuitavuki and Laisa Halafi. They asked her to take them to Amelia’s house. They were blank cheques. Neither the amount nor the names of the company were written on them. On that day, Amelia had a funeral at her house.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th accused, Ms. Tuniamoala said that she could not remember how many cheques that she took to Amelia’s house. She could recall that they were blank and had more than one cheque. No signatures were on any of the cheques. Ms. Raicebe accompanied her to go to Amelia’s house.
This witness was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the 5th accused.
In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the sixth accused, Ms. Tuniamoala said that Vilisi Tuitavuki gave her those blank cheques on the directives given by Ana Laqere.
During the re-examination she said that she only knew that she was taking these cheques to get Amelia’s signature.

Mr. Lepani Tikomailautoka

The eleventh witness of the prosecution is Mr. Lepani Tikomailautoka. He was the supervisor of the Plumbing Section of DECE in 2010. He joined the PWD in 1980 and became the Supervisor in 2009. Prior to that he had been working as the Foreman of the Plumbing Section for two years.
The supervisor is the in-charge of the Plumbing Section. Mr. Lepani in his evidence explained the works carried out by the Plumbing Section in detail. The funds for their works are coming from TMA account. The supervisor of the Plumbing Section decides the materials that they want to purchase for their respective jobs. The Storeman accordingly makes the requisition order. It will be signed by the supervisor. The Construction Engineer is the head of the Plumbing Section. Mr. Lepani could remember the companies from which the Plumber Section used to purchase materials. He could not recall that the Plumbing Section was buying materials from Phoenix Hardware. When he was not at work, his Foreman looked after his duties.
Mr. Lepani said that the Storeman fills the requisition order. He then signs on the “requested by” column. The Construction Engineer then signs on the “Approved by” column. He does not just write down his name on the “requested by” column. He always put his signature.
Mr. Lepani then explained that if the third, fourth and fifth digits of the job number represent 256, then it belongs to the Plumber Section. He then went through the requisition orders, payment vouchers, invoices and quotations pertaining to the transactions that have been listed under Tab 70 to 78, 80, 82, 83, 86,87,89,91, 92, 95 and 96 respectively. Having done so, Mr. Lepani said that none of the requisition order has his signature. He further said that the signatures found in those requisition orders were not belonged to anyone from the Plumber Section. He further found that most of the items that had been ordered in these transactions are not used in the Plumber Section. Some of these items are used by the Plumber Shop for its projects, but the quantity that they have ordered was too much. Moreover, Mr. Lepani pointed out that at some instances, they have put higher prices for the items.
Mr. Lepani pointed out that almost all of the transactions pertaining to the above mentioned tabs were below $3,000. It is an unusual pattern as sometimes the Plumber Section purchases items worth of $10,000 or more and sometimes it goes low as $100.
During the cross examination of the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th accused, Mr. Lepani explained the hierarchy within the Plumbing Section. It starts with the Divisional Engineer, and then the Construction Engineer. The Senior Technical Officer comes next and followed by the Supervisor. He then explained the procedure of making of orders to purchase materials. The Senior Technical Officer or the Construction Engineer should not approve the requisition without the signature of the supervisor or the officer who is in charge of that particular job. The Construction Engineer is the authorizing officer. In his absence, the Senior Technical Officer could do it. They should not sign and approve any requisition order without the signature of the Supervisor.
The Plumber Section cannot make orders to purchase material for other sections. It does the maintenance of plumbing works only. The plumber section now does not use iron water tank instead they now use plastic or fiberglass water tanks. They do not store raw materials other than what they are required for the existing projects. The Chief Clerk allocates the job numbers in the requisition order. As the supervisor, Mr. Lepani monitors the use of the job number of the Plumbing Section.
Mr. Lepani was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the fifth and sixth accused persons.

Ms. Timaleti Koroi

The twelfth witness of the prosecution is Timaleti Koroi. She was the Chief Clerk at the Plumber Section from September 2009 to April 2010. She was then transferred to the Accounts Section. As the Chief Clerk of the Plumbing Section, she looked after all the administration works therein. She had to look after the wages and all the reconciliation of the accounts. In reconciliation, she has to check all the payments and purchase made through the Plumbing Section’s accounts. All the purchase requests must have gone through the Chief Clerk as she had to commit the vouchers.
The Plumber Shop has its own account and job allocation number. She has to reconcile her records of purchases with the payment vouchers maintained by the Accounts Section in the reconciliation. The payment vouchers come with all relevant source documents. Since she commits all the vouchers, all the purchase made by the Plumbing Section have been recorded in her records. All of these records must tally with the records kept at the Accounts Section in the reconciliation.
During the reconciliation, she found there were plenty payments had been made through the Plumbing Section’s accounts without her knowledge. She did not find the details of those payments in her records. She has not put her commitment in any of those payments. Hence, it was not possible to have such payments to be made without the Chief Clerk’s commitment. Because of this reason, she could not properly reconcile the accounts.
The head of the Accounts Section was Ana Laqere. She knows her as they have worked together previously. Ms. Koroi normally did her reconciliation at the Accounts Section. During the reconciliation, Taniela Railala, the Storeman of the Plumbing Section came to her. She told him about that plenty payments have been made without going through the Chief Clerk. From the reaction shown by Taniela, she knew that something was wrong. She then went to her office in order to check her liabilities in the LPO Register. All the LPO are recorded in the LPO Register. It is a part of the reconciliation process. She found the LPO Register inside the drawer of the table belonged to Taniela. When she took it out from the drawer, she found three batches of used payment vouchers inside the drawer. She asked him about it and he said that he does not know about it. On the following day, she went again to look for these three batches of payment vouchers, but they were all gone by then.
Ms. Koroi went and informed Ana Laqere, the head of the Accounts Section about the discrepancies she found in the reconciliation. Ana Laqere said that she will check it. But Ms. Koroi did not hear her again in respect of this issue. A month later, Ana Laqere transferred Ms. Koroi to Accounts Section, stating it was a reshuffle of officers. However, only Ms. Koroi and the officer who replaced her at the Plumbing Shop were transferred under these reshuffle. She was not given any specific duties in the Accounts Section. Even she was not asked to do binding works as it was done by the cleaner and two attachés.
Ms. Koroi further said that although Taniela came under her supervision, he always spent his time in the office of Ana Laqere. He closely associated Laisa Halafi as well. She was not given any reasons for her transfer. Ana Laqere is responsible for the allocation of duties in the Accounts Section.
During the cross examination, Ms. Koroi said that the chief clerk allocates the job number. She said that her records did not reconcile with the payments made because of the facts that those payment vouchers were made inside the Accounts Section. Taniela had told her that he was making LPO inside Ana Laqere’s office. She did not make her complain about the discrepancies in reconciliation in writing. She informed Ana Laqere verbally.
She was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the fifth and sixth accused person.
In re-examination Ms. Koroi said that the batches of documents that were found in the drawer of Taniela were not the only reason that affected her reconciliation. Apart from that, she found some of the source documents pertaining to the transactions were also missing. That was also affected the reconciliation.

Mr. Walesi Dakuroko

The thirteenth witness of the prosecution is Mr. Walesi Dakuroko. He was the Acting Foreman at the Plumber Section at DECE in 2010. He is presently based in Lautoka as the Foreman. As the Foreman at the Plumber Section he had to look after all the works that had been done by the Plumber Section. Apart from that, he had to request materials if they need them for their projects. The Storeman is responsible to buy material for the Plumber Section. The Storeman prepares the requisition form. Then it comes to him for the approval. He then signs the requisition order.
Taniela was the storeman for the Plumber Section. Mr. Dakuroko had borrowed money from him. He had given him $50 or $100. Sometimes he had given him money weekly. Mr. Dakuroko does not know from where Taniela got money. However, he always had money in his hand. Taniela was supposed to be based at the Plumbing Section. However, he always goes to the Accounts Section and stayed inside Ana Laqere’s office.
Mr. Dakuroko in his evidence said that he does not talk to Laisa Halafi due to the traditional ties they have. He could remember that one day Taniela came and told him that a special task force from the Head Quarters has come to observe their works. He then asked him to hide the tally cards. They were inside his office. Mr. Dakuroko then hid them inside the septic tank. He did it for Taniela as they had worked together for long time.
He met Taniela again when he was inside the workshop. This time he came with Laisa Halafi. They came hurriedly. She was carrying a box. They came from the Accounts Section. Laisa Halafi looked scared and talked to him irrespective of their traditional ties. She asked him to keep and hide the box. Mr. Dakuroko refused to do it. They then left the box on the pipe track. He did not know what was inside the box. Taniela later told him the box had source documents.
On the following day, Taniela called him on the phone and told that he had loaded one sack at the back of the twin cab. He then asked Mr. Dakuroko to take it and burn it at the Government Building.
In the cross examination Mr. Dakuroko said that he signed the requisition form only when his Supervisor was away in Samoa for a training. Otherwise, the Supervisor signs the requisition form.

Ms. Delores Racaca

Ms. Delores Racaca is the fourteenth witness of the prosecution. She was a clerk at the Building Section of the DECE in 2010. The supervisor of the Building Section was Mr. Nacanieli Baleirara at that time. She was asked to go to the Accounts Section in order to reconcile the payments of the Building Section in August 2010. She had to do it by checking the source documents pertaining to the payments done on behalf of the Building Section. While she was going through some of the source documents, she found two suspicious requisition orders that had the job allocation number of the Building Section. Neither of them had the signature of the supervisor of the Building Section. It had only the name of the supervisor. She had noted down the number of the said requisition orders and the numbers of purchase orders and the payment vouchers pertaining to said two requisition orders.
Ms. Racaca did not inform anyone at the Accounts Section and went back to her office at the Government Building. Her supervisor was not at work on that day. Hence, she informed him on the following day. The Supervisor then advised her to go back to the Accounts Section with the Chief Clerk and obtain copies of those documents. Accordingly she went to the Accounts Section and looked for them at the same place where she found those documents on the previous day. However, she failed to find them. She told the Chief Clerk about it and tried to locate them with the help of requisition order number and the purchase order number which she had noted down on the previous day. They have asked one officer who was at the inspection section. She checked her records and informed them that she could not find these documents.
Ms. Racaca then went back to her office and informed the Supervisor. She does not know what the supervisor had done thereafter in this regards. Sometimes later, she received a memorandum from Ana Laqere requesting her to provide an explanation about those missing documents as she was the last person who had seen them. She sent her response to V. Lagai as requested in that memo.
During the cross examination Ms. Racaca said that her duty was to look after the pay roll. The reconciliation was not a part of her duty at the Building Section. She was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the 2nd, 5th and 6th accused.

Mr. Nacanieli Balairara

The fifteenth witness of the prosecution is Mr. Nacanieli Balairara. He is presently working as an Acting Senior Construction Engineer at the DECE. He was the Supervisor at the Government Building Section in 2010. Mr. Balairara in his evidence explained the working scope of the Government Building Section. It gets its funds from the Capital Funds Allocation. The Government Building Section has its own job number. It is the responsibility of the Supervisor to properly monitor the use of its job number. The Chief Clerk and the Storeman look after the accounting matters in the Section. The payment process is done by the Accounts Section at the DECE.
Mr. Balairara recalls that he found from the weekly reconciliation report that the spending of the funds allocation of the Government Building Section was very high. They gets a small amount and it was easy for him to detect the over spending of the funds. It had already been spent over 5 to 6 thousand dollars more than what he had expected to spend. He asked Ms. Delores to go to the Accounts Section and do reconciliation with the documents in order to find out the reason for this over spending. She came out with the information that two requisition forms had been used without his signature for purchase items. Mr. Balairara said that it is a requirement that the Supervisor has to sign the requisition form. He normally signs it and does not merely write down his name. Ms. Delores brought him the relevant numbers of the said two requisition orders and the numbers of other relevant documents. He then directed her on the following day, to go and get the copies of those documents. She came back and informed him that they were no longer to be found at the Accounts Section.
Mr. Balairara then wrote a memo to the Senior Accounts Officer, requesting an explanation about the use of their job number in those transactions. However, the Senior Accounts officer Ana Laqere did not respond to his memo. Just before he wrote this memo, he received a call from the Divisional Engineer, asking him about the over spending of funds to purchase stationeries. When he was informed by the Divisional Engineer about the items that have been ordered, he requested him to cancel the order as it was not originated from his Section. In a while he received another call from Laisa Halafi informing him that it was a mistake of stating his job number on the requisition form. He was happy with the explanation as he was concerned about using his name on these requisition orders.
During the cross examination Mr. Balairara said that Ms. Delores brought him evidence as she captured the numbers of the requisition order and the cheque. He did not inform any other officer about the use of their job number apart from Ana Laqere, as she was the person who could provide him an explanation.
Mr. Balairara was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the 5th and 6th accused persons.

Mr. Samuela Tamani

The next witness of the prosecution is Mr. Samuela Tamani. He was transferred to Accounts Section at DECE in early September 2010 to work as Acting Senior Accounts Officer. Prior to that, he was working as an Assistant Accounts Officer at the Divisional Engineer Northern. There was no proper handing over of work when he came into DECE. The existing staffs were asked to relocate to the Ministry. He was given a new staff.
According to the evidence given by Mr. Tamani, the Accounts Section was not properly managed and administered by his predecessor Ana Laqere. The records were not properly kept and some of the documents from transactions were missing. Documents were just lying on the tables.
Mr. Tamani recalls receiving of directives from the Chief Accountant of the Ministry of Finance to completely stop of making manual cheques from 1st of August 2010. These directives were sent to them via an email on the 30th of July 2010. It was copied to Ana Laqere and Amelia Vunisea too.
During the cross examination, Mr. Tamani said that Ana Laqere did not report to work after he came to DECE.
He was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the 5th and 6th accused persons.
The prosecution then presented the affidavit of Mr. Nimesh Raniga of Westpac Banking Cooperation and the affidavit of Ms. Mere Vuniakelo of Bank of South Pacific. Both of the affidavits contain evidence of bank transactions of OnTime Stationeries, Shavel Stationeries and the Phoenix Hardware. Moreover, the affidavits provide the evidence in respect of the banking transactions of the account belonged to the husband of Laisa Halafi. The affidavits and its annexure are not being disputed by the defence and admitted as agreed facts and documents.

Mr. Shelveen Narayan

The seventeenth witness of the prosecution is Mr. Shelveen Narayan. He lives at Dogo Place, Kinoya. He has been a taxi driver since 2011. Before that, he had been doing a stationery business. He had three companies; two of them were on stationery business. They were Shavel Stationery and OnTime Stationery. The third company was Phoenix Hardware Ltd.
His business was located at the same address as of his residence. His office was at the bottom floor of his house. He started the stationery business with his uncle in 2001. Uncle is Vijay Anand Prasad. He first started the Shavel Stationeries. They were dealing with computer products, cartridges, office chairs and other stationeries. They had business from government departments too. He then registered the second stationery company, OnTime Stationeries. He could not recall the date and the year of the registration of the second company. It was not actually operating till 2010. He had registered this second company due to the issues he had with his business partner. He wanted to have the second company as a cover up plan. He kept OnTime Stationary as an alternative to continue his business if he has to break away from his business partner in Shavel Stationery.
In 2010, both of the companies were registered and had its own respective bank accounts. Though he had two stationery companies registered in 2010, he actually had only one stationery business. Both of the companies had the same staff, same office space and same management. He opened the bank account for the OnTime Stationery on 5th of March 2010 with the Westpac Banking Cooperation. He had to open the bank account for OnTime Stationery because at that time he was dealing with the Work Department of PWD at Walu Bay and they wanted him to provide three quotations.
Mr. Narayan in his evidence said that he was directly dealing with Laisa Halafi and Dan at the Work Department in respect of these transactions. Dan’s real name was Taniela Railala. He has passed away. Both of them were purchasing officers at PWD. He was introduced to them by his business partner Sunil Devendra Raj, who was a former PWD employee. Mr. Narayan had met them at the PWD office.
Mr. Narayan in his evidence further stated that Laisa Halafi and Dan used to call him and asked for quotations for stationeries to purchase it from his company. He received many orders from PWD during early stages of 2010. They asked for three quotations. He used one or two of his companies with another company name in order to forward them three quotations. He had quotations from Mass Stationeries, Crazy office Supplies and Quality Business Stationeries to provide quotations.
He kept copies of those quotations at his office. He handed over all the copies of these quotations to FICAC officers when they came for the investigation. Laisa Halafi and Dan used to call and tell him what kind of items and information that he needs to write in the quotations. He then filled that information in the quotations. He always makes sure to quote the cheapest price in the quotations belonged to his company in order to get the order. Laisa and Dan told him always to put a price just below $3000 as it can be approved by the PWD staff. The prices above $3000 had to go through the tender board.
When the quotations are ready, Mr. Narayan usually gives them to Laisa Halafi. Then he waits for the purchase order. Once it is ready, Laisa Halafi will call him. Sometimes he goes and picks them or they call and tell him the purchase order number. He then prepares the invoice and hands it over to Laisa Halafi or Dan.
Mr. Narayan in his evidence said that he did not actually supply any items to PWD pursuant to these invoices. At the beginning, four or five times, he actually supplied items, but that was also in less quantities than what he had written in the documents. After those first few instances, he provided them plenty invoices without actually supplying any stationery materials. Laisa Halafi usually contacted him, asking to provide invoices without any items being actually supplied. He could not recall how many quotations and invoices he had provided without supplying anything. He only could say that he provided plenty of such quotations and invoices.
According to the evidence given by Mr. Narayan, he was not aware about the payment process in the PWD. When the cheque is ready, Laisa Halafi used to call him. He then picks the cheque from the Cashier. He received such orders frequently, sometimes 4 or 5 orders per day. He received cheques either on Shavel Stationery or OnTime Stationery.
In 2010, he has registered another company under the name of Phoenix Hardware. Laisa had told his business partner that they cannot give orders for stationeries anymore as too many invoices had already been given to them. So she had advised them to register a limited liability company for hardware materials. Accordingly, he registered Phoenix Hardware. Prior to the registration of the company, he had a meeting with Laisa Halafi, Dan and his business partner Sunil at the PWD’s office.
Mr. Narayan stated that he had no genuine intention to open or to deal with hardware business. He further said that he was greedy at that time and that was the reason he did this. Laisa Halafi, Dan and Sunil came up with this idea of hardware business.
Subsequent to the registration of Phoenix Hardware, he received a call from Laisa Halafi requesting three quotations for hardware materials. He made one quotation from Phoenix Hardware, one from CM Builders, a company owned by his uncle and one from Optimal, a business of one of his friends. He has never actually operated a hardware company. Neither he had stores of hardware materials nor supplied any such materials to PWD.
Mr. Narayan could not recall how many such invoices he had given to PWD as it was handled by Sunil. The details of the materials and quotations were given to them by Dan over the phone. Sometimes they provided the quotation and invoice on the same day. When the payment was ready, Laisa Halafi used to call them.
Mr. Narayan was the only signatory for the bank account for Phoenix Hardware. When they receive cheques from PWD, they deposit them into their bank account with special answer. The special answer means, the bank would provide the cash for these cheques on the same day. During his evidence Mr. Narayan identifies the three bank statements pertaining to his three companies. The bank account pertaining to OnTime Stationery was opened on the 5th of March 2010. He said that all the money deposited in the bank account that belonged to Phoenix Hardware came from PWD payments.
He then explained what he had done with the money he received from PWD. He first deposits the cheques in one of the three bank accounts and then cash them on the same day through special answer mechanism. He then deducts VAT and the balance would divide into two equal parts. He then gives one part to Laisa Halafi. The remaining part would be divided equally between himself and his business partner Sunil. He has given money in this manner to Laisa Halafi for each and every invoice he provided to PWD. Sometimes he gave Laisa Halafi cash and sometimes he had deposited her share of money into the bank account belonged to her husband. The details of her husband’s bank account were given to him by Laisa Halafi. He knew it was her husband’s bank account. He has neither met husband of Laisa Halafi personally nor done any business with him. Once he deposited the money, he called and informed her. He could not recall the number of times he had deposited money into her husband’s account, but he could say he did that plenty times.
Apart from depositing in the bank account, Mr. Narayan had given Laisa Halafi money in cash. Sometimes he had given her $10,000 to $15,000. The amount depends on how much he received in the cheques. He usually met her outside the PWD to give her money. He put the money inside a Westpac Bank’s envelop and handed over to her. Sometimes he had met her at one Chinese Restaurant at Cummings Street during her lunch time to hand over her money.
Having gone through the affidavits of two bank officers and the summary of the transactions deposed in the two affidavits, Mr. Narayan said that he received $86,319.04 from PWD for Shavel Stationery and OnTime Stationery. He further said that he received $276,625.33 from PWD for Phoenix Hardware, making the total amount as $362,944.37. He explained that sometimes Laisa Halafi used to ask him for more money. So he had to pay them as requested in order to secure the next order. Sometimes he had deducted such extra payments from the next order given to him.
Mr. Narayan in his evidence then explained the summary of the information of bank deposits, that was provided by the prosecution in detail. He said the total amount deposited in Laisa Halafi’s husband’s bank account is $65,200. All of this money came from PWD payments. He said that he had to give Laisa Halafi, her share from each and every cheque he received from PWD. According to his evidence, Mr. Narayan had given Laisa Halafi, her share from $362,944.37, either by way of bank deposits or in cash. Laisa Halafi has told him that she had to share this money with the staff. She did not tell him the name of the staff members with whom she was sharing the money. He said that he always gave her money on time and never delayed it.
Moreover, Mr. Narayan said that when he went to collect cheques, Vilisi Tuitavuki the Cashier used to ask him her lunch money. Accordingly he had given her lunch money on several occasions.
Apart from that, he had deposited $400 into Ana Laqere’s account on the request of Laisa Halafi on the 5th of June 2010. Moreover, he could recall that Laisa Halafi requested him $5000 saying that they were having a stall at the Hibiscus Festival in 2010. Accordingly, he gave her $5000 as requested. After that, he did not receive any orders from them. He tried to contact Laisa Halafi, but she did not answer him. He then tried to meet her at PWD and found that she was not there by then. When he met Dan, he said that he doesn’t know anything.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th accused persons, Mr. Narayan said that he paid his uncle $500 and removed him from Shavel Stationery. He started his partnership with Sunil Divendra Raj in 2010. He started getting business from PWD in 2010. He registered his companies by himself. He further said that he was not aware of the purchasing process of PWD. He said that he knew that giving money to Laisa Halafi was wrong. He said that he made a mistake.
Mr. Narayan was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the fifth accused.
In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the sixth accused, Mr. Narayan said that he made a statement to FICAC on the 8th of February 2017. He said that he forgot to tell the FICAC that he gave money to Vilisi, the Cashier on her request. He further said that he did not see Laisa Halafi was sharing money with the staff.

The Evidence of the Defence

At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the accused persons were explained about their rights in defence. The first, third and seventh accused opted to give evidence, but did not call any other witnesses for their defence. The fourth, fifth and the sixth accused neither gave evidence nor called any other witnesses for their defence.

Ms. Ana Laqere

The first witness of the defence is Ana Laqere. In her evidence, she first explained about the background of her career in the public service. She had joined the public service in 1992 as a clerical officer. Having served in various positions in the public service, she was promoted to the position of Assistant Accounts Officer in 2009. She was then appointed as the Acting Senior Accounts Officer at DECE on 3rd of August 2009.
Ms. Laqere then explained about her educational and professional qualifications. She had gone through various training programs, both locally and overseas. When she resumed her duties as Acting Accounts Officer in the Accounts Section, she was assisted by Mr. Navitalai Tamanitoakula. She then explained about the two main accounts of the DECE.
She has received training on FMIS in respect of Purchase Order Module, Approve Orders Online and Fund Accounting Module. When she was promoted, she was given to carry out the following three main duties, they are:
1. To approve orders online with the limit of $3000.
2. To certify payment vouchers.
3. To sign cheques.
She then explained how to approve purchase orders online in FMIS system. She has delegated the authority of certifying the purchase vouchers to Ms. Vaciseva Lagai in order to preserve the transparency and accuracy of the process. She was one of the authorized signatories to countersign cheques of DECE. While explaining her duties, Ms. Laqere explained the procurement procedure of DECE.
First she has to check the source documents before she approves the purchase order online. Once she approves it, she puts her initials on the source documents in order to confirm that she checked them. She would check the details in FMIS only if the approval is rejected by the system. If she approves the purchase order online, she must then sign the printed copy of the purchase order. Once the purchase order is approved online, she cannot cancel it. If any of source documents are missing, she would return to the person who raised the order to rectify it.
Most of the time in 2010, especially in the months of April and June, FMIS system was mostly down. Hence, she had spoken to the Chief Accountant and raised the purchase orders manually.
Ms. Laqere then explained that she was authorized to countersign cheques pertaining to three bank accounts of the DECE. One of her other duties is to compile and submit reports to the Principle Accounts Officer and the Divisional Engineer on weekly and monthly basis. She usually sends those reports to the Divisional Engineer via email.
Ms. Laqere was not aware about the Financial Manual. She has not seen any Financial Manual at DECE.
She has never received any complain in respect of any incomplete transaction in FMIS from Ms. Radrodro or any one from the FMIS unit. Ms. Laqere further stated that she never received any envelope from Alfreda. She found no other person who signs using the letters of “K” and “S” beside Katherine Serevi in the inspection team. Ms. Timaleti Koroi, the Chief Clerk of the Plumber Shop had never discussed with her about using of their job number by the accounts section. The Supervisor of the Plumber Shop had raised this issue when he attended a meeting with the Divisional Engineer at her office.
According to her evidence she had never received a letter from Mr. Balairara, the Supervisor of the Government Building Section, requesting for an explanation for using their job number without their knowledge. She admitted that she used Vasemaca Raicebe to do the binding job and sent her to Amelia Vunisea’s house to get Amelia’s signature on cheques. Ms. Laqere said that they always had problems with the Divisional Engineer and other cheque signatories as they were always busy hence, she had to send cheques to Amelia’s house to get her signature.
Mr. Taniela Railala had to be in the Accounts Section as most of the time he wanted to access FMIS. Ms. Laqere related to Laisa Halafi. She had asked money from Laisa Halafi when she wanted. She had to ask for money on one particular occasion from Laisa Halafi for a family matter. Laisa Halafi had then told her that she will deposit that money into Ms. Laqere’s bank account. She did not know that it was Mr. Narayan who actually deposited the money into her bank account. She did not know Mr. Shelveen Narayan, the owner of Shavel Stationery, OnTime Stationery and Phoenix Hardware. She only came to know about him when she was charged with these offences by FICAC.
Ms. Laqere was then cross examined by the learned counsel for the fifth accused. Ms. Laqere said that the fifth accused Ms. Vaciseva Lagai was the Assistant Accounts Officer at the Accounts Section. She has delegated one of her duties, that is to certify the payment voucher to Ms. Lagai in order to maintain the transparency in the process. She then explained the purchase and payment procedure. After the inspection team inspects the documents and stamp on them, the documents go to Ms. Lagai for certification of the payment voucher. She further said that the final authority of certification or approving of the payment lies on her shoulder. She said that if there is a mismatch, she would not allow the payment to be proceeded.
Ms. Laqere further said that it was her responsibility to keep the LPO book under her possession. If the LPO book goes missing, it is the responsibility of her to take relevant steps according to the Finance Manual. She has informed Mrs. Sainimili when the LPO book went missing. Ms. Laqere said that Ms. Lagai has never attended any training on FMIS system. Mr. Laqere had requested the FMIS unit to provide Ms. Lagai to access the AP module in FMIS. However, she could not remember whether she received a confirmation for it or she conveyed the confirmation to Ms. Lagai. She neither heard that Ms. Lagai had access to AP module, nor has seen Ms. Lagai using AP module at the office. At two particular occasions, she could recall asking Ms. Lagai to sign the printed purchase orders on her behalf as she was away at HQ. Ms. Laqere had authorized Ms. Lagai to sign on her behalf on those two occasions.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the sixth accused, Ms. Laqere said that she could not remember, whether Vilisi Tuitavuki attended any training in FMIS in 2010. She thinks Vilisi never received any formal or official training on her duties as the Cashier. She further said that Vasemaca and Luisa took cheques to Amelia’s house on the authority given by her. However, she did not authorize Vilisi to release blank cheques to be taken to Amelia’s house.
In 2010, the accounts section had a shortage of staff. Hence, she had to delegate extra duties on the staff apart from their designated duties. Accordingly, Ms. Laqere had delegated the duty to Vilisi to do the “pass for payment” check on payment voucher. They have raised manual cheques during the break down of FMIS system in 2010. Ms. Laqere has given her authority to Vilisi as her supervisor to raise those cheques manually.
You may recall that Ms. Laqere was extensively cross examined by the learned counsel for the prosecution. I will now move onto briefly summarize the evidence given by Ms. Laqere during the cross examination by the prosecution.
Ms. Laqere initially said that she was the Acting Accounts Officer and denied that she was the Acting Senior Accounts Officer. However, she said that she supervised and monitored the Accounts Section of DECE. During the process of cross examination by the prosecution, she admitted that she had signed and had been referred as the Acting Senior Accounts Officer in certain documents pertaining to these transactions involved in this case. She had passed all the service exams including the exams on government accounting system. Prior to her promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer, she had mostly worked in the salary section, initially as a clerical officer and then as a senior clerical officer. She was in the inspection section of DECE for two years.
Ms. Laqere in her evidence stated that the service exam tests the knowledge on Finance Act and the General Orders. To be an Assistant Accounts Officer, she has to pass “U” exams, which is based on the government accounting system. It includes the Financial Instructions and Financial Regulations. However, she said that she was not aware that her department had the Finance Manual. Then she agreed that she studied the Finance Manual in order to face the service exams, especially “U” exam. Apart from that she had a certificate on Civil law and Post Graduate Diploma in International Relations. She has later obtained a Master’s Degree in International Relation from the University of Fiji. She has no professional qualification in Accountancy apart from the work experience and service exams in government accountancy.
Ms. Laqere said that she received training on FMIS. She had access to FMIS since 2007. Even before she became the head of the Accounts Section, she had access and experience in FMIS system. The FMIS brought changes to the government account system, but still they have to maintain certain source documents pertaining to the procurements.
She then explained her duties and responsibility as the head of the Accounts Section. It was her duty to control and maintain the proper accounting practice in the Accounts Department. She has to abide by the Finance Regulations and Financial Instructions. Having explained about the two main accounts, the OFA and the TMA accounts, she said that it was not allowed to mix the funds of these two accounts. Apart from her main three duties, she had to send weekly and monthly reconciliation reports to relevant authorities.
In respect of purchase and payment process, she said that she had the authority to approve purchase orders online. Once she approves it online, she cannot let another person to sign in the printed copy of the purchase order. The purchase order is issued first, then the invoice comes from the vendor when the items are delivered. Ms. Laqere is involved in one particular transaction of procurement at three different stages. First she has to approve the purchase order online. She then signs the printed purchase order. The third involvement of her is the counter signing of the cheque. She has to check all the source documents at each of these three stages. Accordingly, she has checked and involved 303 times in these 101 transactions pertaining to count 8 to 42.
She delegated the authority to Ms. Lagai to certify the payment vouchers in order to maintain the transparency. In doing so she wanted to make sure that someone else has also checked the documents further before she finally checked and signed the cheques. It was a check and balance mechanism. She believed that she had authority to delegate the authority as such.
Ms. Laqere knew the scope of the responsibility of certifying the payment voucher. The Certifying Officer confirms that the incurred expenses and the payment are correct. He/she further confirms that the funds are stemmed from the correct account allocation. She then said that she has less knowledge in AP module. She knew Ms. Lagai had a computer and was doing Job Record Sheet. The Job Record Sheet means that she receives monthly allocation from the head office. She then reallocates them to the respective sections within DECE.
Ms. Laqere agrees that it was her duty to make sure that the officers who work under her had sufficient training. They had a super user of FMIS system, who could assist her staff in operating FMIS. Vilisi Tuitavuki was trained by the previous Cashier but not by the FMIS team.
Ms. Laqere had sent a memorandum to the Permanent Secretary requesting to give access to Ms. Lagai to open vendor account in FMIS on the 6th of August 2010. She has stated the name of Ms. Lagai and her FMIS username in the memorandum. At that time Ms. Lagai had FMIS username for her. She received a confirmation that Ms. Lagai was given access to open vendor account in FMIS via an email from Mr. Filipe Rabou. However, she cannot remember whether she informed Ms. Lagai about the confirmation. She requested the access to Ms. Lagai to open vendor account in FMIS as no one in the account section had access to this section in FMIS. She did not know whether she had access to this section in 2010.
Apart from sending her weekly and monthly reports via emails, Ms. Laqere had provided the Divisional Engineer, Mr. Tupou printed copies of those reports as he hardly used his email. He was a very tough boss for her. In respect of administration matters, she was reporting to the Divisional Engineer, but for financial and accountings matters, she reported to the Principle Accounts Officer.
In respect of signing of cheques, Ms. Laqere said that she always checks the source documents and does not only reply on the payment advice, which comes with the cheque. The payment advice is an important document as it captures important details of the payment. She further said that someone does not need to access FMIS in order to read and check the details in the payment advice.
Laisa Halafi is her adopted sister. She was the secretary to the previous Senior Accounts Officer. When she resumed her duties as Acting Senior Accounts Officer, Laisa Halafi was already sitting at her secretary post. Ms. Laqere said that she never wanted a secretary as she usually did her work by herself. However, Laisa Halafi remained in the DECE as the Secretary and purchasing officer. Laisa Halafi lives close to her house in the same area. It takes about 20 minutes to reach to Halafi’s place by Taxi from her house.
The DECE is also paying VAT to FIRCA. The VAT segment usually comes separately in the payment. It is the duty of the Head of the Accounts Section to make sure the VAT is correctly and accurately paid for all purchases done by the DECE. Ms. Laqere had followed training in VAT, conducted by Training and Productivity Authority of Fiji, which helps her in her duties as the A.S.A.O.
Moreover, Ms. Laqere was a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners in Fiji. Through it, she was nominated and sent to take part at a conference on Fraud Examiners in Boston, USA in 2009. She was interested in detecting fraud and other related matters in fraud detection. Upon her return from the conference, she had submitted a report in recommending solutions to implement better and effective fraud detection mechanism in the department. Furthermore, she said that she cannot keep a blind eye when she detects any fraud or irregularities taking place in her Department. Through her experience in the PWD, she is familiar with the job numbers and SEG numbers of the PWD.
Ms. Laqere admitted that she filled a staff report on the 29th of March 2010, stating her responsibilities and experience which she had gained from the Accounts Section. In that report she had stated her duties in the Accounts Section, which I reproduce as follows, that:
1. To overseas the Financial Regulations are observed,
2. Monitor the preparation and accuracy of weekly, monthly and quarterly reconciliation finance reports,
3. To ensure the due dates of the reports are made, and
4. To advice the management of any irregularities, issues to be address urgently.
It was her duty to address immediately if she finds any irregularity with the work.
You all have observed that Ms. Laqere went on and explained about all of these hundred and one transactions that are involved in this case. She admitted that all of these transactions were not accurate as they have many irregularities, and violations of Financial Instructions, Regulations and directives. In order to assist you to remind yourself of all of these irregularities and violations of instructions, which Ms. Laqere admitted, I would list few of them as follows:
1. Ms. Laqere had approved certain Purchase Orders but did not sign the printed copy of it,
2. Certain Purchase Orders have been issued after the receiving of invoices,
3. Have used wrong and restricted fund allocations to purchase stationeries and hardware materials,
4. Certain Purchase Orders has been used to make more than one payment,
5. Has counter signed cheques without any Purchase Orders,
6. Cheques and Purchase Orders were raised manually when FMIS was in operation,
7. The signature of late Mr. Sesero Tupou had been forged in some documents,
8. Have used HQ job number,
9. No VAT was paid,
10. Have raised manual cheques after the 1st of August 2010, violating the directives of Chief Accountant dated 30th of July 2010,
11. Certain payments had been made from OFA account after making the purchase order using TMA account,
12. Some payments had been made to a different company after rising the purchase orders for another company,
13. Many of the requisition orders have no fund commitment stamp of the Chief Clerk,
14. Many documents have no stamp and signature of the Inspection Team or have only stamp of the Inspection Team without signatures,
15. Payment advice with many visible irregularities,
16. Undated invoices and delivery dockets,
17. Many invoices have no signature of the receiver.
Ms. Laqere admitted that almost all of these transactions were just below $3000, which is unusual. She said she did not blindly sign the cheques. Moreover, she said that she did not deliberately ignore those irregularities. She said that she did not think them as irregularities at that time. She admitted that all of these irregularities and violations could have been detected easily within a short period of time. It does not require a great amount of knowledge in accountancy to detect them. However, she said that she did not know that by signing the cheques with these irregularities, she was causing a loss.
Ms. Laqere in her evidence further admitted that by overlooking these irregularities, she had violated and breached the financial instructions. She was aware of the Finance Act. The Financial Regulations derives from the authority given under the Finance Act. Hence, the breaching of those regulations amount to a breaking of law. She knew it is a law that she has to abide by.
Ms. Laqere said that she was not properly handed over the responsibility and duties of the post of Senior Accounts Officer at DECE. She further said that because of these difficulties, she had applied for re-grading in 2009 and 2010. However, she had neither stated about such difficulties nor the dissatisfaction she had in her letter dated 7th of September 2009, requesting for re-grading. Actually she has stated it otherwise and claimed that she is specially interested in fraud risk management. In her staff report dated 29th of March 2010 she has claimed that she has been properly performed her duties in the Accounts Section. Ms. Laqere further admitted that she was sent to Boston, USA for the Fraud Examiners Conference from the tax payers money.
Ms. Laqere during her cross examination further said that she does not dispute the evidence given by Mr. Narayan in relation to the fact that he never supplied any of those items stated in all of these transactions. She has neither physically checked nor directed an officer to go and check whether the requested items were actually received or not before signing these cheques. She further agrees with the learned counsel for the prosecution that it was her responsibility to provide proper guidance to the Inspection Team in order to perform their duties. She had no mechanism to check whether the items were actually delivered or not.
Ms. Laqere in her evidence said that the person who has given the authority to sign the cheque carries a greater responsibility and higher authority. It is a position of trust. The government had trusted the person that he would properly perform his duties in order to properly and accurately utilize the public money. It was her duty as the signatory to uphold such duties.
In respect of the issue relating to sending cheques to Amelia Vunisea to get her signature while she was at home. Ms. Laqere said that she had to do it as other signatories were busy and not available to sign the cheques. However, she admitted that Amelia Vunisea was not allowed to sign cheques when she was not at official work. She said Mr. Tupou was not interested in signing cheques and always refused to do so. However, having seen the authority letter for the signatories, she admitted that Mr. Tupou had no authority to sign cheques until he was given such authority on the 13th of August 2010. She said that she cannot remember sending blank cheques to Amelia Vunisea.
Ms. Laqere admitted that she manipulated with the FMIS procedure and the tax system in the county by signing and authorizing the payment without proper VAT calculation. She could remember that Timaleti Koroi, the Chief Clerk of the Plumber Section informed her that plenty payment had been made from the fund allocations of the Plumber Shop without properly going through the system. If the weekly and monthly reconciliations were properly done, these irregularities and breaches could have been detected. The annual budget allocation of the DECE for stationery was $600. She agrees that she has entirely failed in performing her duties.
During the cross examination Ms. Laqere further admitted that this is a scam which took place while she was supervising the Accounts Section, which could have been prevented if she had properly performed her duties and responsibilities.
Ms. Laqere denies that she entered the Shavel Stationery and Phoenix Hardware into FMIS system as vendors on the 5th of January 2010 and 23rd of June 2010 respectively. She said that someone had used her password and username in FMIS to enter these two companies as vendors in FMIS. However, she said that she never shared her password with anyone as it was prohibited. She came to know about Phoenix Hardware for the first time only when she signed the cheques for them. She said that the purpose of putting a price just below $3000 in every transaction could have been to avoid the requirement of Permanent Secretary’s approval.
Ms. Laqere has received an email on the 30th of July 2010 with the direction of the Chief Accountant of the Ministry to stop making of manual cheques from 1st of August 2010. However, she admitted in her evidence that she has signed and approved number of manually raised cheques after the 1st of August 2010 in violation of the said directives.
Ms. Laqere said that she wrote to Delores asking an explanation about the missing documents, as she was the last person who saw them at the Accounts Section. She only came to know about the using of the job number of Government Building Section when the investigation team came to investigate it.
In respect of Laisa Halafi depositing money into her account, Ms. Laqere said that Laisa Halafi could have come to her and given the money as they live close by, instead of banking them.
During the re-examination Ms. Laqere said that her duty was just only to sign cheques.

Ms. Amelia Vunisea

The next witness of the defence is Amelia Vunisea. During the evidence in chief she explained about her working experience in the public service. She had joined the public service in 1991. In 2009 and 2010, she was an Assistant Accounts Officer based at Mechanical Section of DECE. Her office was not based at the Accounts Section of the DECE. She said that she was one of the authorized signatories to sign cheques for DECE. It was an extra job for her apart from her work at the Mechanical Section. She explained the procedure of signing of cheques. The cheques that belong to DECE always come with the signature of Ana Laqere, so she just signs them and does not check the source documents. It was her part to sign as Ana Laqere had already signed the cheques. She further said that sometimes they brought cheques to her house when they really needed her signature to make the payment. She said that she checked the documents before singing the cheques at home.
Ms. Vunisea was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the fifth accused person.
During the cross examination by the leaned counsel for the sixth accused, Ms. Vunisea explained the procedure of printing of cheques as she had also worked as a cashier in her career. She then said that on few occasions, she had signed the blank cheques for DECE.
In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the prosecution, Ms. Vunisea admitted that all of the transactions pertaining to the counts of causing a loss were not properly done. She agrees that all of them are irregular and have breached the regulations and instructions.
She further said that she was given the responsibility of signing the cheques as it required an experienced and matured person as it carries a lot of responsibilities. It is a position of trust. She said that she failed to perform such responsibilities with care. She said that she signed the cheques as her boss Ana Laqere had already counter signed it. She knew it was a wrong procedure as she is required to sign before the signature of the counter signatory. Ms. Vunisea said that she was busy with her other work and had no time to properly check the source documents before signing the DECE cheques.
Ms. Vunisea further said that she mainly relied on the payment advice when she signed the cheques for DECE. Having gone through the payment advices, she admitted that all of these payments advices were defective and if she properly performed her duties she should not have signed those cheques. She admitted that by doing this, she had caused a loss and abused her authority given to her.

Kiniviliame Taviraki

The last witness of the defence is Mr. Kiniviliame Taviraki. He was the Acting Senior Technical Officer at the Building Section in 2010. He has requested and approved the requisition order pertaining to the first transaction of count 21 and the requisition order pertaining to count 28. He admitted that the items requested in both of the requisitions were not building materials. He further admitted that the Building Section is not allowed to TMA funds.
I have summarized the evidence presented during the cause of this hearing. However, I might have missed some. It is not because they are not important. You have heard every items of evidence and reminded yourselves of all of them. What I did only to draw your attention towards the main items of evidence and help you in reminding yourselves of the evidence.

Analysis and Directions

The prosecution adduced the evidence of seventeen witnesses and tendered 103 documentary exhibits. The first, third and seventh accused gave evidence, but did not call any other witnesses for their defence. Meanwhile, the fourth, fifth and sixth accused neither gave evidence nor called any other witnesses for defence.
In view of the evidence presented during the course of the hearing, the prosecution alleges that the six accused persons, while performing and discharging different duties and responsibilities at different stages in these one hundred and one (101) transactions of purchasing stationery and hardware materials to the DECE, have committed these offences of Abuse of Office, Causing a Loss and Obtaining a Financial Advantage.
During these one hundred and one (101) transactions, the Accounts Section of DECE had paid 60 cheques, totaling to the full amount of $362,944.37 to Shavel Stationery, OnTime Stationery and Phoenix Hardware, all of them owned by Mr. Shelveen Narayan. In the meantime Mr. Narayan had given the fourth accused, Ms. Laisa Halafi a sum of $65,200. The said money had been deposited into the bank account of her husband by Mr. Narayan.
The prosecution presented evidence of Mr. Narayan, claiming that he had never supplied any stationery or hardware materials pursuant to these transactions. He had paid half of the money that he received from these payments to the fourth accused after deducting the amount for VAT.
Mr. Sen Jeet, Ms. Diana Radrodro, Mr. Navitalai Tamanitoakula, Ms. Katherine Serevi, Ms. Alfreda Waqanisau, Mr. Lepani Tikomailautoka, and Ms. Timaleti Koroi gave evidence for the prosecution, explaining the government procurement procedure in details. They explained about the different stages of the purchase and payment process. They further explained about the operation of FMIS system. Moreover, these witnesses adduced evidence identifying and specifying, the irregularities, breaches of regulations and instructions, and violations of procedures in each of these transactions and payments.
The first and third accused in their evidence admitted the irregularities and breaches of finance and accounting regulations and instructions in all of these transactions. They further admitted that none of these transactions and payments should have been made due to these irregularities. Both of them found none of the payments were properly made. Both of them in their evidence said that they did not think or identify these irregularities and violations at that time.
The defence did not challenge or suggest otherwise the evidence given by Mr. Narayan particularly that neither him nor any of his three companies actually supplied any stationery and hardware materials to PWD pursuant to these payments made to him.
The defence in their respective cross examinations neither challenged nor denied the evidence presented by the prosecution in relations to these false and irregular payments.
The first, third and seventh accused persons in their respective evidence claimed that their respective actions in these transactions was neither arbitrary nor performed in abusing of the authority of their respective offices. They further denied that they performed or discharged their duties and responsibilities in order to facilitate these three companies to obtain a gain thus, prejudicing the rights of the PWD.
The fifth accused in her defence suggested through the cross-examination that she merely relied on the confirmation made by the Inspection Team and other two officers, who checked and signed the payment vouchers before the confirmation. The sixth accused suggested that she merely acted on the direction given by the Senior Accounts Officer.
None of the accused persons denied their respective roles in these transactions. Moreover, they did not deny or challenge the responsibilities and duties that they carried out in performing their respective duties in the procurement process.
Accordingly, the main disputes in respect of the offence of Abuse of Office are:
1. Whether each of the accused persons have violated the financial and accounting instructions and regulations, if so, would it amount to an arbitrary act,
2. Whether they have abused the authority given to them by virtue of their respective position held in the public service,
3. Whether they did that arbitrary act in order to facilitate these companies to obtain a gain.
In respect of the offences of Causing a Loss, the main dispute is whether each of the accused persons performed their respective duties dishonestly. If you are satisfied with it, then you have to determine whether each of them had the knowledge that their respective dishonest actions could cause a loss or cause a substantial risk to cause a loss.
As I explained you before, the issues of abusing the authority of the office, dishonesty, and the knowledge are mainly related to the state of mind of a person. The state of mind of a person can mainly be determined by making inferences. In order to do so, you have to consider all the evidence adduced during the hearing.

Direct, Circumstantial and Documentary Evidence

You may recall that reference has been made in the respective closing submissions of the learned counsel to the type of evidence which you have received in this case, as direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and documentary evidence.
Sometimes you may find that some facts have been proved by direct evidence. For example, if there is reliable evidence from a witness who actually saw the accused committing a crime; if there is a video recording of the incident that plainly demonstrates his guilt; or if there is reliable evidence of the accused himself having admitted it, these would all be good examples of direct evidence against him.
On the other hand it is often the case that direct evidence of all the elements of a crime are not available, and the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove certain elements. In this case, the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove the mental elements of these offences. That simply means that the prosecution is relying upon evidence of various circumstances related to the crime and the accused, which the prosecution says, when taken together will lead to the sure conclusion that it was the accused who committed the crime.
Circumstantial evidence can be powerful evidence, indeed, it can be as powerful as, or even more powerful than, direct evidence, but it is important that you examine it with care, as with all evidence, and consider whether the evidence upon which the prosecution relies in proof of its case is reliable and whether it does prove guilt, or whether on the other hand it reveals any other circumstances which are or may be of sufficient to cast doubt upon or destroy the prosecution case.
Finally, you should be careful to distinguish between arriving at conclusions based on reliable circumstantial evidence, and mere speculation. Speculating in a case amounts to no more than guessing, or making up theories without good evidence to support them.
I now draw your attention to some of the circumstantial evidence that the prosecution relies upon, they are:
1. Refusal of the request of Ms. Rainima to transfer Ms. Laisa Halafi by Ms. Ana Laqere,
2. The evidence of Mr. Narayan stating that he deposited $400 into the account of Ms. Laqere on the request of Ms. Laisa Halafi,
3. Ms. Ana Laqere has entered Shavel Stationery and Phoenix Hardware into FMIS as vendors,
4. Ms. Timaleti Koroi, the Chief Clerk of the Plumbing Section was transferred to Accounts Section after she made an inquiry about the use of Plumbing Section’s job number,
5. The evidence of Ms. Rainima that Ana Laqere refused to hand over the LPO book when she requested it,
6. The same LPO book has gone missing on the following morning, when

Ms. Rainima requested it again,

Ana Laqere did not respond to the explanation requested by Mr. Nacanieli Baleirara in respect of the two suspicious transactions found by Ms. Delores Racaca,
Seeking an explanation by Ana Laqere from Ms. Delores Racaca regarding the two missing documents instead of conducting an investigation on the issue raised by Ms. Delores,
The evidence of Mr. Samuela Tamani, the successor of Ana Laqere regarding the status of Accounts Section when he resumed duties,
Evidence of Alfreda Waqanisau that Laisa Halafi requested her to pass three envelopes with money to Ana Laqere in three different occasions,
Laisa Halafi gave Lusiana Tomuse money, when she went to collect invoices from the companies,
The evidence of Mr. Walesi Dakuroko that Laisa Halafi tried to hide some documents pertaining to purchase,
The evidence of Ms. Katherine Serevi that one of the stamps that belonged to the Inspection Team was found inside the cubicles of Laisa Halafi,
Laisa Halafi and Vaciseva Lagai were lending money to the other staff members,
The evidence of Sereana Tuniamoala that Laisa Halafi and Vilisi Tuitavuki gave her blank cheques to be taken to Amelia’s house,
Evidence of Eparama that Laisa Halafi introduced him to Mr. Shelveen Narayan,
Evidence of Alfreda Waqanisau that Mr. Shelveen Narayan came to meet Laisa Halafi in her office,
Evidence of Alfreda Waqanisau, that Laisa Halafi brought her photocopied Purchase Order to get her signature. She had to sign and stamp it on the direction of Vaciseva Lagai.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is your duty to examine the evidence presented by the prosecution and decides whether you accept them or not. The learned counsel for the prosecution and the counsel for the defence proposed you in their respective closing submissions what inferences you should form from particular parts of these evidence. Drawing of inference is a process by which you find from evidence which you regard as reliable, that you are driven to a further conclusion of another fact.
Let me give you an example of drawing or forming an inference or a conclusion, which does not arise out of the facts of this case, but will illustrate the need of care in judging whether the facts proved supports the inference of guilt. If my finger print is found in the living room of my neighbour’s home, it is a sound inference that at some stage I have been in his living room. It would not, however, support an inference that I was the burglar who stole his DVD recorder from his living room. If you accept my neighbour’s evidence that I have never been invited into his home, then, in the absence of some acceptable explanation from me, you might infer that at some stage I had been in my neighbour’s home uninvited. You may or may not be driven to the further conclusion that I was the burglar. But, if you also accept that there was a second fingerprint of mine found at the point of entry or, that in my shed there was a DVD recorder found, which my neighbour recognizes as the one stolen from his living room, you, would, no doubt, conclude for sure that I was the burglar. You will notice how the inference of guilt becomes more compelling, depending upon the nature and number of the facts and incidents proved.
What conclusion or inference you reach from the evidence is entirely for you to decide. However, in considering what inference you should draw or what conclusion you should reach, it is important to be mindful that speculation has no part in this process. The inference must be the only and certain rational conclusion or inference of the guilt of the accused persons. If the evidence that you accepted or considered as reliable that suggests you some other probable inferences or conclusions, which show the innocence of the accused or create a doubt as to the guilt of the accused, you are then not entitled to draw any inference or form any conclusion of guilt of the accused person.
The evidence presented in the form of documents is documentary evidence. Accordingly, you can consider the contents and information in these documents as evidence.

Evaluation of Evidence

Ladies and Gentlemen assessors, I now kindly request you to draw your attention to the directions on evaluation of evidence. It is your duty to determine this case based on the evidence. In doing that, you are required to evaluate the evidence in order to determine the credibility, reliability and truthfulness of them. That will assist you to determine what evidence you may accept and what part of the evidence you may refuse. In doing that, you may accept or reject such parts of the evidence as you think fit. It is for you to judge whether a witness is telling the truth and is correctly recalling the facts about which he or she has testified.
In assessing evidence of the witnesses, you must consider whether the witness had the opportunity to see, hear and or feel what the witness is talking in the evidence. You should then consider whether the evidence presented by the witness is probable or improbable considering the circumstances of the case. Apart from that you are required to consider the consistency of the witness not only with his or her own evidence but also with other evidence presented in the case.
It is your duty to consider the demeanour of the witnesses, how they react to being cross examined and re-examined and were they evasive, in order to decide the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. Moreover, you have to consider the knowledge of the witness on the facts that he or she was testifying, his disinterestedness, his integrity, and his veracity in order to determine the credibility of the witness and his evidence.
Moreover, you must bear in your mind that a witness may tell the truth about one matter and lie about another; he or she may be accurate in saying one thing and not accurate in another thing.
In the adversarial system, all the parties who are involved in the hearing are given an opportunity to present their respective case through the evidence, to challenge the credibility, reliability and truthfulness of the evidence adduced by the other parties and suggests their position to the other parties. You can take into your consideration whether the evidence presented by a particular witness was challenged, discredited or suggested otherwise by the opposing parties, in order to evaluate the credibility, reliability and truthfulness of the evidence.

Evidence of accomplice witnesses

You may recall that the Prosecution presented two witnesses Mr. Navitalai Tamanitoakula and Mr. Eparama Racumu as accomplices of this incident. They have been granted immunity by the prosecution, which is the prerogative right of the prosecution. The prosecution tendered the two letters of immunity given to Mr. Navitalai and Mr. Eparama as exhibits of the prosecution.
In the meantime, the learned counsel for the sixth accused in her closing submissions suggested Mr. Shelveen Narayan, who is the eight accused of this matter, need to be considered as an accomplice.
An accomplice means a person who has participated in the alleged crime either as a principal or an accessory. The prosecution has a prerogative power to grant some of the accomplices’ immunity on certain conditions. In this case, Mr. Navitalai and Mr. Eparama were granted immunity on the condition that they will give true evidence on behalf of the prosecution. In some instances, a co-accused who pleaded guilty to the offence may be called by the prosecution to give evidence for the prosecution. Such witnesses are not given any conditions as of the witnesses who were given immunity. These two categories of witnesses are known as accomplice witnesses. In this case, you can consider Mr. Navitalai, Mr. Eparama and Mr. Shelveen Narayan as accomplice witnesses.
In some instances, the court has experienced that accomplice witnesses may have some adverse or personal motives in giving evidence on behalf of the prosecution. You can rely and act upon on the evidence of the accomplice witnesses, but I must caution you that it may be dangerous to do so in the event that their evidence have been shown or suggested by the defence as unreliable or tainted with adverse motive. Under such circumstances, you should not reply or act upon on such evidence of the accomplice witnesses unless their evidence is collaborated by other evidence adduced in the hearing.
Accordingly, you are first required to consider whether the evidence adduced by Mr. Navitalai, Mr. Eparama and Mr. Narayan have been challenged or shown as unreliable. Moreover, you have to consider whether it was suggested by the defence that their respective evidence was founded on adverse ulterior motives. If you are satisfied positively into that effect, you must then look whether there is evidence that could support or collaborate the accounts given by these accomplice witnesses in their respective evidence. This evidence of collaboration could be presented by way of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence or documentary evidence.
You may recall that during the cross examination by the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 7th accused, suggested to Mr. Eparama that he gave evidence for the prosecution because he was granted immunity. Mr. Eparama said that he gave his statement to the FICAC before he signed and accepted the letter of immunity.
The issue of evaluating the evidence adduced by accomplice witnesses leads to another important matter, which I must now direct you. As you could recall, the learned counsel for the sixth accused in her closing address in an eloquent manner urged you to consider the fact that Ms. Alfreda Waqanisau admitted in her evidence that she put the stamp of the Inspection Team and her signature on few source documents pertaining to two counts of causing a loss. Having said that, learned counsel invited you to consider why she has not been charged while these accused are facing the charges.
I must direct you that there is no evidence adduced to establish that Ms. Alfreda Waqanisau have participated in any of these alleged crimes. Hence, she is not an accomplice. I further direct you that whether or not other people were guilty of this crime, or are implicated in participating in it is not a matter for you to consider. The only concern you have in this matter is to consider whether the prosecution has proven each and every element of each of the offences that have been charged against these accused.

Evidence of Co-accused who is pleaded guilty for the offence

You heard that the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 7th accused in his cross examination asked Mr. Narayan whether he is an accused of this case and pleaded guilty for the offence that he is charged with. Mr. Narayan answered affirmatively. However, you should not adversely consider the fact that Mr. Narayan has already pleaded guilty for this offence against these six accused. The fact that Mr. Narayan has already pleaded guilty does not automatically make the remaining accused guilty for these charges. As I directed above, you have to evaluate the evidence presented in this hearing in respect of each counts and each accused separately.

Evidence of Un-Charged offence

The learned counsel for the sixth accused in her closing address, proposed you to disregard the evidence adduced by the prosecution that Ms. Vilisi Tuitavuki received money from Mr. Eparama and Mr. Narayan, on the ground that Ms. Vilisi has not been charged for Obtaining any Financial Advantage. The learned counsel urged that this evidence is related to uncharged offence, hence should not be given any consideration.
It is an evidentiary rule that evidence of uncharged act is permissible to adduce if only it has a more positive and probative value than of suggesting the propensity of the accused to commit crimes in this nature.
Accordingly, it is your duty to consider whether this evidence of Vilisi receiving money from Mr. Eparama and Mr. Narayan has any probative value and relevancy to the facts in issue in this matter. If you determine as such, then you are allowed to consider these evidence in your deliberation. If you decide otherwise, you should not take this evidence for your consideration.

Inconsistency and omissions

You may recall that the learned counsel for the sixth accused questioned Mr. Narayan in her cross examination about the inconsistent nature of his evidence given in court and the statement made to the FICAC during the investigation. He said in his evidence in chief that he gave money to Vilisi on several occasions as she asked him for her lunch money. However, he has not stated that in his statement given to FICAC.
If you find any inconsistency or omission in the evidence given by a witness with the statement that he had made previously on the same issue, it is necessary to decide firstly, whether it is significant and whether it affects adversely to the reliability and credibility of the issue that you are considering. If it is significant, you will next need to consider whether there is an acceptable explanation for it. If there is an acceptable explanation, for the change, you may then conclude that the underlying reliability of the evidence is unaffected. If the inconsistency is so fundamental, then it is for you to decide as to what extent that influences your judgment of the reliability of such witness.
In doing so, you must take into consideration that most of the humans do not have a photographic memory. Memory is fallible. A person could not be able to remember each and every piece of detail.

Evidence that were not adduced in the hearing

Mr. Vakaloloma, the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th accused in his closing address, suggested that the late husband of Ms. Laisa Halafi and Mr. Narayan had some personal dealings by themselves. However, there is no such suggestion or questions put to Mr. Narayan in cross examination by Mr. Vakaloloma. Hence, I direct you to disregard that proposition suggested by Mr. Vakaloloma in his closing address.

Brown’s Rule

Ms. Ana Laqere in her evidence stated that she did not receive the memorandum sent by Mr. Nacanieli Baleirara, seeking an explanation about the use of the job number of Government Building Section without their knowledge. However, such a proposition was not put or suggested to Mr. Nacanieli when he gave evidence by the counsel of Ms. Ana Laqere.
It is a rule of evidence in criminal trials that if one party is going to present a different version of events from the other, witnesses for the opposing party who are in a position to comment on that version should be given an opportunity to comment on them. The failure to such questions could be used to draw an inference that the accused did not give that account of events to his counsel. That in turn, may have a bearing on whether you accept what the accused said on that particular point or event. However, before you draw such an inference you should consider other possible explanations for the failure of counsel to put questions about such different versions.
In preparation of the trial, usually the counsel would be given instructions by his client, that is, what his client has to say about the matter in written form or in oral form or both. The counsel then uses that information from his client to ask questions of the opposing side’s witnesses. However, communication between individuals is seldom perfect; misunderstandings may occur. The counsel may miss something that his client has told him. Amidst the pressures of a trial, counsel may simply forget to put questions on an important matter. You should consider whether there are other reasonable explanations for the failure to ask the victim about such different versions. You should not draw any adverse inference against the accused’s credibility unless there is no other reasonable explanation for such failure.

Evidence of Defence

I now kindly draw your attention to the evidence adduced by the defence. Firstly, I will discuss the evidence given by the first, third and seventh accused. They elected to give evidence on oath. The accused persons were not obliged to give evidence. They were not obliged to call any other witnesses. They do not have to prove their innocence. They do not have to prove anything.
However, these three accused persons decided to give evidence. Accordingly, you have to take into consideration the evidence adduced by them when determining the issues of fact of this case.
Ana Laqere and Amelia Vunisea admitted that all of these transactions were irregular. All of them have breached financial and accounting instructions and regulations. However, both of them said that they did not know it was wrong. They were not aware that such actions have caused a loss.
It is for you to decide whether you believe the evidence given by the two accused. If you consider that the account given by Ana Laqere is or may be true, then Ana Laqere must be acquitted.
Likewise, if you considered that the account given by Amelia Vunisea is or may be true, then Amelia Vunisea must be acquitted.
Meanwhile Kiniviliame Taviraki in his evidence admitted that he signed the two requisition forms pertaining to count 21 and 28. However, he denied that he acted in an arbitrary manner in abusing the authority of his position. He further denied that he caused a loss.
It is for you to decide whether you believe the evidence given by Mr. Taviraki. If you consider that the account given by him is or may be true, then he must be acquitted.
But even if you entirely reject the account given by the first, third and seventh accused, that would not relieve the prosecution of its burden of making you sure by evidence that these three accused persons guilty for each counts that they have been charged with.

Evidence of the Co-Accused

You may recall that the third accused, Ms. Amelia Vunisea in her evidence said that most of these cheques came to her with the signature of Ana Laqere as the counter signatory. She knew that it was wrong as she has to sign first before the counter signatory’s signature. Amelia Vunisea further said that she had signed blank cheques sent to her by Accounts Section for her signature.
The evidence of an accused is evidence in the case. I have already explained you that you should examine the case of each accused separately. When you are considering the case of first accused, evidence given by the second accused will be relevant and vice versa. You must assess the truth of each accused’s evidence as you would do regarding the evidence of any other witness, but when you do that, bear in mind that each of them has their own interest to consider when giving evidence in her own defence.
The fourth, fifth and the sixth accused opted neither to give evidence nor call any other witness for their defence.
The accused does not have to give evidence. They are entitled to sit in the dock and require the prosecution to prove its case. You must not assume that the accused is guilty because he/she has not given evidence. The fact that the accused has not given evidence proves nothing, one way or the other. It does nothing to establish his/ her guilt. On the other hand, it means that there is no evidence from the particular accused to undermine, contradict or explain the evidence put before you by the prosecution. However, I must emphasis you that you still have to decide whether, on the prosecution‘s evidence, you are sure of the accused’s guilt
The learned counsel for the fourth, fifth and sixth accused have put forwarded and suggested their respective defences to the witnesses of the prosecution. It is your duty to consider whether there is evidence to support the proposition forwarded by each of these three accused persons. In doing so, you must be mindful that the questions and suggestions put forward by the counsel of these respective accused persons during the cross examination are not evidence, unless they were admitted or accepted by the respective witnesses. If you satisfy there are evidence to that effect, then you can consider whether you find them true or may be true. If then, you have to find the accused not guilty.
The prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of Mr. Narayan in order to prove the offence of Obtaining a Financial Advantage. Mr. Narayan in his evidence explained about the false transactions that he carried out with the assistance and guidance of Laisa Halafi. In return, he had deposited a sum of $65,200 into the bank account of Laisa Halafi’s husband. The prosecution then tendered two affidavits of two bank officers, to confirm those alleged transactions.
Having separately considered the evidence adduced against each and every accused person during the course of this hearing in respect of each counts of Abuse of Office, if you find that each of these accused or few of these accused, or one of these accused not guilty for the offence of Abuse of Office, you must find them or she/him not guilty for the offence of Abuse of Office.
Likewise, after consideration of the evidence adduced against each and every accused person during the course of this hearing again, if you find that each of these accused or few of these accused, or one of these accused guilty for the offence of Abuse of Office, you must find them or she/him guilty for the offence of Abuse of Office.
If you are not satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Ana Laqere, the first accused to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Ana Laqere not guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
If you are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Ana Laqere, the first accused to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Ana Laqere guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
Likewise, If you are not satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Amelia Vunisea, the third accused to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Amelia Vunisea not guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
If you are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Amelia Vunisea, the third accused to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Amelia Vunisea guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
Moving to Ms. Laisa Halafi, if you are not satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Laisa Halafi to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Laisa Halafi not guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
If you are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Laisa Halafi to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Laisa Halafi guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
If you are not satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Vaciseva Lagai to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Vaciseva Lagai not guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
If you are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Vaciseva Lagai to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Vaciseva Lagai guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
In the same note, If you are not satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Vilisi Tuitavuki to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Vilisi Tuitavuki not guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
If you are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Ms. Vilisi Tuitavuki to be guilty for each of the counts of Causing a Loss, or some of the counts of Causing a Loss or one of the counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find Ms. Vilisi Tuitavuki guilty for each of, or some of, or one of the counts of Causing a Loss.
If you are not satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Mr. Kiniviliame Taviraki to be guilty for each of the two counts of Causing a Loss, or one of the two counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find him not guilty for each or one of the two counts of Causing a Loss.
If you are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Mr. Kiniviliame Taviraki to be guilty for each of the two counts of Causing a Loss, or one of the two counts of Causing a Loss as charged, you must find him guilty for each or one of the two counts of Causing a Loss.
In respect of the count of Obtaining a Financial Advantage, If you are not satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Laisa Halafi to be guilty for the count of Obtaining a Financial Advantage as charged, you must find her not guilty for it.
If you are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven Laisa Halafi to be guilty for the count of Obtaining a Financial Advantage as charged, you must find her not guilty for it.
Madam and Gentlemen assessors, I now conclude my summing up. It is time for you to retire and deliberate in order to form your individual opinions. You will be asked individually for your opinion and will not require to give reasons for your opinion. When you have reached to your opinion, you may please inform the clerks, so that the court could reconvene.
Learned counsel of the prosecution and the accused, do you have any redirections to the

assessors?

R.D.R.T. Ragasinghe

Judge

At Suva
01^st May 2017

Solicitors
Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption for the FICAC
Vakaloloma and Associates for Accused 1
Vakaloloma and Associates for Accused 3
Vakaloloma and Associates for Accused 4
Office of Legal Aid Commission for Accused 5
Office of Legal Aid Commission for Accused 6
Vakaloloma and Associates for Accused 7
Oceanica Intellectual Property for Accused 8

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2017/336.html