Public officials are supposed to safeguard public institutions, they are not suppose to misuse their power to get something that they are not entitled to and misuse their authorities by not following procedures.

These were the opening remarks made by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption Prosecutor Shalini Sanmogam in the trial against Olota Rokovunisei, a former General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF).

Rokovunisei faces one count of Extortion by Public Servant where it is alleged that while being employed as the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Fiji National Provident Fund in 2006 accepted $22,773.18 from FNPF for performance of his duties, a reward which was beyond his proper pay and emoluments.

On an alternative count of Abuse of Office, it is alleged that Rokovunisei abused the authority of his office in that he accepted a payment of $22,773.18 as responsibility allowance from the FNPF, without the authority of the Board of FNPF and the Higher Salaries Commission.

On the second count, Rokovunisei is also charged with Abuse of Office and is alleged to have abused the authority of his office in 2005, in that he authorized the payment of a responsibility allowance of $20,000 per annum to Foana Nemani (the then Deputy CEO FNPF) without the authority of the Board of FNPF and the Higher Salaries Commission, an arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of the said Fiji National Provident Fund.

PW 1 - Himmat Lodhia

The first prosecution witness to take the stand was Himmat Lodhia, the Director of Lords Jewelers and President of the Fiji Retailers Association.

He told the Court that he was a Board member of FNPF in 2002 2006. He was appointed by Ratu Jone Kubuabola, former Minister of Finance.

He confirmed that the FNPF Board had appointed Olota Rokovunisei as the Chief Executive Officer and Foana Nemani as his Deputy. He said that contracts for the duo were prepared by attorneys, endorsed by the Board upon confirmation of the terms and conditions of their employment. He then added that the Board sets the salaries but the Higher Salaries Commission must endorse this before it is confirmed.

The witness also informed the Court that the Board had approved $150,000.00 per annum in basic salaries for Rokovunisei.

Lodhia said that the role of the Board was to look after the fund of the members and employers and employees that contribute to the fund. He said that apart from this, the Board also sets guidelines and policies for FNPF for example passing of the Human Resources Manual in 2004.

The witness however clarified that the HR Manual was only applicable for staff within the grade one to four pay scales. He said that the manual did not apply to Rokovunisei or Nemani as they were executives. He also stated that only Nemani reports to Rokovunisei and only Rokovunisei reports directly to the Board.

Lodhia was asked if there were any clause in the manual that referred to responsibility allowances to which the witness answered no. The witness was then asked if there were any clauses in the employment contract of Rokovunisei to state that he was entitled to a responsibility allowance amongst other allowances that can be given to a CEO. Lodhia answered no to this question.

Sanmogam asked why this was not included in the contract of the accused to which Lodhia answered that as the CEO, he was expected to perform duties and serve faithfully as the General Manager and CEO overseeing all of the responsibilities.

The witness was then asked about Neale Wright, an Australian who was appointed as the Chief Investment Officer. The witness could not recall his date of appointment but stated that he had resigned in 2006. Lodhia also stated that after Wright had resigned, Rokovunisei took over to oversee the Investment Department till a new appointment was made.

A Board minute dated 2 December 2005 stated that the CEO would oversee however there is no mention of a responsibility allowance in the Board minute.

The witness was then shown the employment contract of Foana Nemani dated 29 June 2009. There was also no mention in her contract about a responsibility allowance as the responsibilities she had came with the position and was included in her salary. Lodhia also stated that there were no Board discussions on awarding Nemani any other allowances.

Sanmogan then asked Lodhia if it was possible for an FNPF CEO to approve payment not included in his employment contract to which the witness answered no.

Cross-examination

Rokovunisei's lawyer Samanunu Vaniqi advanced the point that the Human Resources Manual did not bind her client as he fell within the grade six pay scale. She also stated that Management was not bound by the manual.

She stated that FNPF was a billon dollar company and that the CEO implemented what the Board wanted on the ground level.

In regards to the salary of her client, she said that the Board could create any salary they wanted as long as it as approved by the Higher Salaries Commission.

Vaniqi then asked Lodhia about the restructure of FNPF that was approved by the Board in 2005 through the help of a New Zealand based Consultancy Company. However, the witness could not recall this.

The defence then sought Lodhia's confirmation of the tremendous growth of FNPF from 1966 to 2004 to which the witness affirmed. She said that initially, the CEO handled all investments but the growth and scale of FNPF required the appointment of a Chief Investment Officer in 2001.

Vaniqi submitted that the restructure in 2006 was basically a green light to the CEO to implement the restructure which was crucial as FNPF had grown.

Vaniqi also questioned the witness as to why the Chief Investment Officer position had been left vacant for seven months. The witness said that he presumed that at the time, the Board was trying to recruit someone suitable to occupy the position.

The defence stated that it was the CEO who carried this post for seven months.

She said that it was also during this period that FNPF was facing media criticism of the Momi Bay and Natadola projects. However, the witness stated that he was not sure if the media hype and the vacant position happened at the same time.

Vaniqi also spoke of two other executives on grade five pay that had also left FNPF in 2006. She said the CEO had to carry the responsibilities of these two executives who also left another gap in the investment division.