The Chief Executive Officer of the Fiji National Provident Fund Aisake Josua Taito was the third prosecution to take the stand this morning in the trial against the former FNPF CEO Olota Rokovunisei.

Taito told the Court that he was appointed to the position of CEO and General Manager in 2008 which was the position he was acting in since April 2007.

The Witness stated that as CEO he is responsible to oversee the efficiency and effectiveness of administration of the fund as per the FNPF act. To provide strategic leadership and direction in the implementation of the strategic act of the fund and ensure that the board gets information and advise through his reporting.

Upon FICAC Prosecutor Shalini Sanmogam's questioning, the witness told the Court that he was appointed as CEO by the FNPF Board and that the Minister for Finance appoints the Board members.

Witness confirmed that it is the board with the approval of Higher Salaries Commission that determines the salary of the CEO. He also stated that he reported to the board as it is part of his contract to do so.

The witness clarified that a responsibility allowance is one in which a person was asked to be in a position and the salary of the person is higher than the base salary of the position that he or she is going to act on. It is in this instance when a responsibility allowance is applicable.

Conversely, an acting allowance is given to staff or management if she or he has to act in a position for 10 consecutive working days. That is when an acting allowance is to be applied which is 95% of the difference in base salary.

The Court then heard of a board paper that had a discussion concerning how the formula at the time was not working for acting allowances. Witness then told the Court that a decision had been made on this issue. The board approved payment of a responsibility allowance where the acting allowance formula does not work. It was then categorised as grade 3 - $3000 per annum, grade 3b - $4000 per annum, grade 3c - $5000 per annum, and grade 4 - $7000 per annum. Whereby, grade 3 was for principal officers and grade 4 was for managers.

Sanmogam then asked the witness where in the board paper is the provision for grade 5 and 6 which the witness answered that he could not find in the document before him and agreed that they were excluded from this.

Taito was then asked of the procedure of operation if a subordinate executive resigned or retired. He informed the Court that under his delegated authority, he would either make recommendations for someone to act on that post or since he oversees the entire fund, he would take that responsibility himself.

Sanmogam then questioned Taito if he was aware of any payment done to executives in the past. Taito responded saying it was his understanding that if it is in an officer's delegation of authority then they would be able to approve and endorse payment as it would be within their power of approval.

Witness then submitted that it is part of his contract to report to the board for the approval of any matter. He also stated that the board determines the salary of the executives after the approval of HSC and it has been the procedure that has been followed from before Independence till 2011.

Witness was questioned whether any allowance which is not part of the contract could have been paid before 2007. Witness reiterated that payments for executive salaries and allowances will only be made within what their contract states and anything beyond that requires the approval of the board.

It was then put to the witness, if his subordinate could approve any payment to him that is not part of his contract. Witness stated that the only authority that has the power to do that is the Chairman of the board through the board.

Witness then informed the Court that when the CEO of the fund is not following procedures with the finances then members would lose out.

Cross Examination

Upon cross examination Defence Counsel Samanunu Vaniqi confirmed with the witness if the responsibility allowance policy was born in 2007. Witness confirmed saying that as far as he could remember it had.

Vaniqi then put to the Court if it would be fair to say that the policy of 2007 was created because there was a need for one to which the witness affirmed.

Prosecution Witness 4

It follows that Melaia Cokanasiga Bai was the next witness called to take the stand. Bai who is currently employed at the FNPF, works in the Investment Department.

The examination in chief began with Sanmogam tendering documents to help the witness identify the processed payments made to former FNPF Deputy General Manager (DGM) Foana Tukana Nemani.

The documents had hand written notes from Rokovunisei to Nemani concerning the payment of the responsibility allowances. Witness affirmed that the Memo had the approval of Rokovunisei.

Sanmogam then submitted a payment voucher that the witness identified that she had prepared in regards to a responsibility allowance. She also identified a cheque that was payable to Foana Nemani the DGM at the time also concerning a responsibility allowance. This was also reflected in Nemani's Calculation Sheet which contains a payment regarding a responsibility allowance and an Australian and New Zealand Bank (ANZ) cheque for the sum of $5991.18.

Furthermore, the Court was then shown an email from Rokovunisei to Nemani with the subject of the responsibility allowance which was approved by Nemani. The allowance mentioned in the email was for the CEO Rokovunisei.

Witness was then shown another voucher which she identified was for a responsibility allowance from December 2005 to August 2006 with the sum of $22,773.18 that was received by the board secretary at the time Suliano Romanu.

Sanmogam then tendered the Calculation Sheet for Rokovunisei which stated a payment of responsibility allowance from 1 December 2005 to 31 December 2005 with a net pay of $22,773.18. This was under the Management of Epenesa Motokula the then Investment Manager and Romanu uplifted the cheque that was to be deposited into Rokovunisei's account.

Another ANZ cheque was put before the witness which she identified as a cashed cheque she prepared for Rokovunisei for the payment of $22,773.18 on 6 September 2006. Witness was then asked what was the first thing she would check for before preparing the payments. She responded saying that she would check for the approval first as the procedure and basis of such preparation is upon approval.

Cross examination

Vaniqi in reference to the memo from the GM asked the witness if she agreed Nemani was asking for a responsibility allowance to which the witness agreed.

Vaniqi also put to the Court that with reference to the email, addressed to Acting GM Nemani that when her client did that he was also referring to her as the Acting CEO. The witness answered vaniqi saying that she would not really know.

Defense counsel also questioned that Nemani may have been acting CEO because her client was studying overseas leaving the post empty in his absence. The witness could not recall.

Vaniqi then submitted if it was fair to say that if Nemani was acting as CEO she would be given powers to be chairman. The witness again stated that she would not know.

Vaniqi then had the witness agree that all the money in the payment voucher and all other vouchers for the month, of money coming in and going out would be in the monthly financial report.

Defence counsel then sought clarification if the financial reports of each month were prepared so that the board can have knowledge of where the money is going. Witness responded to this saying that reports of payments made are sent to their financial team and everyone. Whether it is sent to the board is something she does not know.

To conclude cross examination Vaniqi asked the witness had there been any problems with the payment vouchers, her manager would have informed her. The witness agreed to this.

Re-examination

Sanmogam asked the witness that during the cross examination she stated that she does not know what happens at the executive level which the witness agreed to.

The witness also agreed to Sanmogam's question that she would not know if the approval was legally correct.

The matter is adjourned to Monday 16 April 2012.