Day two of the FICAC trial against the former Chief Executive Officer of the Fiji National Provident Fund began this morning with the defence continuing cross-examination of the first state witness.

Samanunu Vaniqi questioned Himmat Lodhia, a former Board Member of FNPF on the restructure of the organisation. She stated that it was due to this restructure new posts and divisions were created and that under this new structure, the Deputy General Manager Foana Nemani would now be head of employees, members and customer services among other significant changes within FNPF.

She suggested if the witness agreed that the new structure brought about Corporate Services, a new creation as a result of restructure, to which the witness disagreed saying that it was just a reallocation of duties.

The defence also asked the witness if the restructure caused the Board to delegate powers to the CEO to which Lodhia answered that the CEO already had powers.

Vaniqi said that the Board's main purpose was to set goals and that it was for management to achieve. She also stated that board members like Lodhia were busy business people who did not have the time to spend on every aspect of what was going on at FNPF. It was on this note that she said that the CEO could not keep going to the Board for every little detail of operations. The witness responded that if he did not have time to run to the Board, he could have sent flying minutes or followed up on Board papers for decisions.

Vaniqi then clarified that the CEO would only consult the Board on policy matters not management or administrative matters.

She then stated that since her client was an executive, he would only report to the Board and that if a duty allowance were to be granted, it would be the Board members that would decide this.

Before concluding cross-examination, Vaniqi stated that according to the FNPF Human Resource Manual, an individual that carries the duties of another is entitled to claim 95% of the difference in salary. In regards to the responsibility allowance, she also stated that the CEO's contract was silent regarding responsibility allowances and according to the HR Manual, if a contract is silent then the HR Manual applies.

However,Lodhia said that executives are excluded from that provision as the manual only applies to grades one to four.

Under re-examination by FICAC Prosecutor Shalini Sanmogam, the witness clarified that the CEO was not officially appointed to the position of Chief Investment Officer. However, he said that there was a reference in the board minutes suggesting that the CEO would oversee these duties until another appointment was made to fill the vacant position. Witness also stated that it was possible to do acting appointments.

Sanmogam also stated the CEO did not carry all the responsibilities of the investment division as there was a fully established team in this division that would perform these tasks that he was to oversee. She also stated that prior to the appointment of the Chief Investment Officer; the CEO had carried this portfolio and duties. She submitted that there would not be much difference as it used to be his job initially before the appointment of Neale Wright in 2003.Lodhia agreed that CEO would be overseeing the Investment Division as it was part of his duties to oversee.

The witness was then asked if the CEO could make any payments of allowances which were not approved by the Board and Higher Salaries Commission. Lodhia answered that it was dependent on who the remuneration was for as the CEO had limited powers in this area. He stated that if the payment was for an executive level staff then the matter needed to be put before the Board for approval.

Sanmogam then asked the witness the definition of Acting Allowance to which Lodhia responded that it was for employees that acted in higher graded positions.

The day's proceeding concluded at 4.00pm and is adjourned to continue 9.30am tomorrow.