Why Some Cases Have Names Specified and Others Do Not
Procedures for Concluding Cases and Anonymity of Names
A report by the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights has shed light on the procedures followed by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) in concluding cases and recommending closure due to “insufficient evidence”.
During a meeting with FICAC representatives, the committee sought clarification on various issues, including the procedures for concluding cases and the anonymity of names in certain cases.
Investigation Procedures
According to FICAC, when investigating complaints, they take them as is, with names or without, and put them through their investigation procedures. This means that some cases may have names specified, while others do not, depending on whether the complainants chose to remain anonymous.
The “Good Kiddo” Programme
The committee also sought information on the “Good Kiddo” programme, a development initiative aimed at informing children of FICAC’s functions and teaching young citizens about good values and how they can contribute to being good citizens. The programme has been adopted from a Brunei concept and has been successfully implemented in 32 schools over the past two years.
Recommendations for Improvement
The committee noted that while FICAC has achieved some positive developments, there is still room for improvement. As such, it made several recommendations:
- The position of Commissioner should be substantively filled.
- The Deputy Commissioner should be appropriately remunerated for carrying out the work of the Commissioner in his absence.
- FICAC should seriously consider developing home-grown development programmes that take into account Fiji’s unique cultural, family, and religious setup.
- Additional funds should be provided for staff and resources for the Northern and Western offices.
Commendation and Call to Action
The committee commended FICAC’s annual reports for 2016 and 2017 and urged Parliament to consider its recommendations.