Former CEO Matafeo Responds To PSC Investigation Report, 22 Nov. 2021, On ex-ACEO Alvin Onesemo – Border Operations Of Customs Service, Ministry of Customs and Revenue.
The former CEO has officially requested a copy to the Prime Minister and the PSC and has not received any response nor an official report yet to date.
Matafeo, however, has responded below to contents of the PSC investigation report published in the Samoa Observers issue of 13 March 2020.
- “Scope of Investigation” (paragraphs numbered 17 and 18)
para 17.
This investigation primarily focused on the respondent’s conduct as alleged in the Charge Sheet. The allegations were mostly made-up of accusations raised by the Ministry in a report that was provided to the Commission on 17 June 2021 in determining whether the respondent breached the Code, the investigation sought answers to two key questions:
a. Whether the respondent committed the acts as alleged in the Charge Sheet.
b. If so, whether the said act breached the public service code of conduct.
RESPONSES
a. It is unfortunately that I (former CEO) or the Ministry was never
been copied with the Charge Sheet which was prepared and issued by the Commission’s Delegate Charging Officer (‘CO’), Taaseuga Jason Hisatake, ACEO-Senior Executive Services. Hence, it is uncertain from our side if the alleged breaching acts by the respondent which I had reported to the Commission in my letter of 17th June 2021 were the same issues he was charged with.
b. In the absence of any copies of the Charge Sheet issued by PSC Delegate ‘CO’ to the respondent, for the Ministry’s record as required and for the CEO’s confidential information, I had trusted in good faith that the breach of the code of conduct and conflict of interest at hand were being investigated and had expected a constructive report based on facts. Unfortunately, the ‘author’ of the PSC report had throughout his comments deflected blame from the respondent to the Ministry and myself (as former CEO) with allegations of political motivations and political interference. Allegations that I for one refuted with absolute conviction and with the same conviction, in the absence of interviews, factual statements or information gathering from the MCR, dispute that there was an investigation done by IO Fesili.
para 18.
Whilst this report was not required to investigate the conduct of the consignee and the Hon. Toelupe, it nonetheless found that there was insufficient evidence to support any wrongdoing:
a. Despite the Ministry’s position in their reporting that the consignee of the container in dispute is “Pou Onesemo”, the report finds on the balance that the consignee of the container is Wellbeing Community Solutions (Samoa), a non-government organization seeking to address the needs of people with disabilities, children and young persons who are at risk of harm.
b. The logistics and documentation of the said container were primarily handled by a representative of Wellbeing Community Solutions and Pelton Customs Agent. There was insufficient evidence to suggest that the Hon. Toelupe and/or Wellbeing Community Solutions received any special/preferential treatment by the respondent; and
c. There was no evidence to suggest that the Hon. Toelupe committed any illegal activity relating to this matter and the CEO’s letter to Police Commission can be instructive
“So far with our investigation into the importer’s consignment, we have yet to find any illegal or criminal actions done as he had imported legitimate secondhand goods and paid his full duty and tax…”
d. There was also no evidence to suggest any criminal actions such as bribery, forgery, or collusion to smuggle prohibited goods. I again refer to the CEO’s correspondence on 1 July 2021:
“We have yet to find any criminal actions such as bribery, forgery or collusion to smuggle (prohibited) goods after we obtained the shipping loading instructions from the shipping agent and taking photos of the listed goods and particularly the vehicle secondhand spare parts (chassis and engine) which took place at the importer’s place on Tuesday…”
RESPONSES
a. In the Bill of Lading Cargo Manifest document, the consignee is stated to be Wellbeing Community Solutions (‘WCS’) at Leufisa. This is a trade name of the business activity that is legally owned by “Poumulinuku Onesemo” and his wife, and registered in the business license database of Revenue Management System (‘RMS’) administered by the IRS, with a unique tax identification number, and business activity of management consultancy he had registered way before he became the Hon. Minister of MCIT in July 2021.
b. That is also the same TIN and name which is registered in the ASYCUDA World system administered by the Customs Services. It is not registered as an NGO but a regular importer of containers from Sydney Australia, and personal effects of secondhand items with secondhand vehicles and spare parts were imported in his past containers and the AW system has a record on this importer. Maybe a representative of the WCS had primarily handled the documentation and clearance of the container but confirmed the services of the Pelton Customs Agent and the Swire Shipping Agent for the said container.
c. However, the Ministry does have sufficient evidence that Hon. Toelupe Poumulinuku Onesemo and/or the WCS did receive special/preferential treatment from the respondent when we conducted our own investigation on the consignee under the requirements of the Customs Act 2014, on Tuesday 29th and Wednesday 30th June 2021. After our two site-inspections, we found more items been consigned in the 40ft container, and not 22 items/pieces as stated in the manifest and in the CER done by the respondent. From my recollection, the undeclared items included additional secondhand vehicle parts and furniture items which were then valued by our Customs team, with one declared item to increase its valuation. Understandably, the respondent did not record the surplus undeclared items as there was no physical examination done before. For the record, it is an offence under relevant provisions of the Customs Act 2014 in relation to undeclared dutiable goods.
d. We did meet with Hon. Toelupe P. Onesemo in my office on Tuesday 29th June 2021, the day our team went to seize the container with our Seizure Notice issued under section 269 Customs Act. During our meeting, the Hon. Minister strongly voiced his concern of political motives but I had advised him otherwise, but our evidence that the respondent allegedly did not act with care and diligence in assessing the contents of his container, nor took reasonable actions to declare his conflict of interest to his Honorable but did some questionable acts which was then investigated by the PSC. After meeting, we came to agree not to seize but do site investigation to confirm the contents of the container. We made two separate inspections due to discrepancies in vehicle parts found by our team. From our team’s site inspection, one vehicle spare part was at his mechanical workshop at Togafuafua, household furniture items were inspected at his Vaivase-uta residential place but the missing secondhand vehicle spare parts were at his cousin’s place at Nu’u. Our letter of 05th July 2021 did formalize matters discussed in the said meeting and our findings with resulted in valuations on some of the ‘undeclared items’, the revaluation of one item, imposing very lenient penalties, after that further investigation. The IO Fesili would have known of these matters if he had done our interviews and did his full investigation as required.
e. Our letter of 01 July 2021 as mentioned by IO Fesili in (c) and (d) of this part of his report was addressed to the Police Commissioner, not to the respondent (Mr. Alvin Onesemo) or to legal owner of consignment (Hon. Toelupe P. Onesemo). As I was the writer of the letter, it was to advise Police Commissioner that the case was already handled by the PSC and best for them to wait and if any criminal findings by PSC, then they can proceed on that.
2. “Matters of Concern” (paragraphs numbered 19 to 22)
para19.
Alvin Onesemo’s case was treated differently compared to other cases handled by the Commission and the Ministry. In this case, the Ministry’s internal investigation was conducted at a record pace without allowing the respondent to formally respond to any of the allegations. The CEO also referred the case to the Police without the Commission’s determination.
RESPONSES
a. The respondent’s (Alvin Onesemo) case was not treated differently in any way as it was submitted to PSC on the 17th June 2021 after our preliminary checks and interviews done which confirmed my opinion that there was alleged breached of the MCR’s and PSC’s values and code of conduct. As the case involved a contract officer, I immediately referred it to (former) CEO of PSC under covering letter of 17th June 2021 in view of sections 17 and 19 of the PS Act 2004 and pursuant to clause 19 of the Contract of Employment for Contract Officers. I understood that the Commission will thereon carry out the requirements of clause 19(a) of the contract and those of section 32 of PS Act 2004 which required the PSC to perform all steps of the full investigation into irregularities and alleged misconduct of a contract officer as it is their sole jurisdiction and certainly not the CEO’s. If compared to similar case done by PSC on another contract officer of MCR in 2015, the same process and requirements were applied.
b. The preliminary findings of the case matter were compiled and written up by the ACEO-Internal Audit based on system records and manual records collected from the Risk and Compliance team, from the Border Operation teams and also based on verbal interviews that I had done with the respondent (Alvin Onesemo), Simati Tiaua (Assistant Customs officer), Rodney (ACEO-Risk & Compliance) and Luaiva (Principal Officer of Cargo unit), and it was not our usual internal audit investigation. I had advised ACEO-IA to write up our report as to accompany my letter to PSC and PSC would do all steps of the full investigation process. Therefore, our preliminary report did not require a long process nor a long period to write up given that it our report of preliminary findings of “suspected” or “alleged” misconduct. I had my meeting with former Minister Hon. Tialavea Hunt on Monday 14th June 2021 and the letter and report was sent to PSC on the 17th June 2021. This case is not to be compared with recent investigation cases done by our IAD on permanent staff issues and all had taken many months to finalize due to the thorough investigation actions done in accordance with the steps in the PS Act 2004.
c. The allegation that I as CEO referred this matter to Police first is strongly refuted as it is a lie, because I had referred the matter to the PSC only, on the 17th June 2021. Somehow, former Police Commissioner must have heard of the same rumor or been informed too by his former Minister and he called me first to discuss. I met with him at his office few days later with my advice that this case was already with PSC but he insisted for his team to come over to our office to investigate on their own given their own view that there was a criminal factor, a request that I had denied verbally. I later sent him a copy of the same report by email on the 24th June 2021, that was given to PSC to prove my point but he wasn’t satisfied and insisted in his letter of 30 June 2021 for me to provide all those records he had listed. This matter that caused the differences in opinion between us and he even went to my former Minister Tialavea Hunt with his hope, I believed, that former Minister would direct me. Our former Minister did not direct but asked for us to work together, as a team. I formally replied in the next day in my letter of 01st July 2021 for the MOP to hold off on any criminal charges and allow the usual process by PSC to proceed first. Should there be any criminality identified in the PSC investigation then PSC will make their referral based on the outcome of their investigation. The Samoa Observer somehow got hold of my letter to former Commissioner and twisted the intention of that letter and reported that the CEO was trying to cover up wrong doings of our staff because I refused to hand over the matter to Police despite the former Commissioner’s insistence.
The MCR has the full file of all those original signed letters that were sent out to the Police Commissioner and copied former PM, our former Minister, and former PSC Chairman, as to clarify my position then.
d. I further clarify that the former Hon. Minister Tialavea Hunt did not direct me but rather informed me on Monday during my weekly meeting with him on Mondays, of the rumor going around regarding a 40ft container imported by Poumulinuku Onesemo (importer) and cleared by Alvin Onesemo (the respondent, former ACEO-Border Operations). I did not seek to know of the informer at the time as this is normal public issues from the Minister that I always note for my checks after meetings then provide update to him later in next meeting. But if it was something urgent then I provide memo report either by email or telephone call to his office before the next meeting. After my meeting with Minister on this day, I asked my Executive Assistant to call in Alvin but was told he was on leave that day. I then asked our ACEO-Risk & Compliance (Rodney Lui Yuen) to check the AW system if there was a recent container imported by Poumulinuku Onesemo. He did confirm from system and provided to me records that Alvin did clear and released Hon. Toelupe Poumulinuku Onesemo’s container a week before. Most if not all of our senior management team know of Alvin’s close relationship to Hon. Toelupe P. Onesemo and he should have declared his conflict of interest given his close relationship and his ACEO position and pass it to any one of his three very capable senior Principal Customs Officer.
e. In view of the information that was relayed to me by my former Hon. Minister Tialavea Hunt, and the perception that it was political motivated, is not true as those kinds of conversations do happen between Ministers and their CEOs, and verbal reports from the public received by Ministers are referred to CEOs for review particularly if issues raised have cause for concerns. It was certainly NOT an exemption to the rule, nor a rare incident that warrants any special attention other than a public rumor discussed during my Ministerial updates for the CEO to check. There was no witch hunt nor an intention of being one during the investigation of Alvin’s case. The current Hon. Minister of MCR can confirmed those kinds of conversations as he also had brought up a lot of such public concerns and issues for the CEO to act and report on when I was recently on board as the MCR’s CEO.
para 20.
Respectfully, in matters concerning serious allegations and consequences against an employee including a contract employee, it is a prerequisite that a Ministry conducts a thorough investigation before making any 11 BOE at page 28. 12 BOE at page 79 decision that could adversely affect an employee’s career and his family (directly or indirectly).
This concept is generally referred to as “procedural fairness”.
RESPONSES
a. I totally agreed with the general concept of “procedural fairness” as the PSC investigation process is required under sections 32, 44, 44A, 45, 46 and 47 of the PS Act 2004 and relevant regulations of the PS Regulations to carry out all those steps on the respondent or the Contract officer. The CEO was only required under section 32 of the PS Act 2004 to report the “suspected” breach of code of conduct, etc, by the contract officer and then for the Commission to perform those functions. I was copied with the PSC letters of 25th June and 29th June 2021 to respondent, and the latter had advised for the respondent to respond to those allegations. Hence, I am at loss with this allegation towards the CEO/Ministry when it was the Commission Delegate’s responsibilities as per his TOR to ensure all requirements of the legislation are met.
b. I again advise that the preliminary findings of the case matter we had submitted with my covering letter on 17th June 2021 was not an internal audit investigation full report. Sadly, the PSC-IO Fesili is fully aware of the concept of “procedural fairness”, but he did not apply it to MCR staff and on the (former) CEO.
para21.
As such, it may warrant that this report is read in the context of the political situation that Samoa was in at the time as there were decisions that were made that did not conform with well-established processes as observed by the Legal and Investigation division in the previous cases.
para22. For example, but not limited to the following:
RESPONSES
a. As advised above, there was no political motive behind my actions to refer the case to PSC but the understanding that any suspected breach of the code of conduct by contract officers (CEO, DCEO and ACEOs) is the sole jurisdiction of the PSC. I also did not refer the matter to PSC because of any political motive, neither was there any mention of such matter, but because of my understanding that Alvin had breached our conflict of interest framework, did not act impartial with his relative’s consignments, had done the CER himself from his desk without physical examination that is normally done by duty officers before the Principal Officer (Luaiva) or ACEO (Alvin) checks and estimated valuations of goods, did not have the authority to release the container without any physical examination at the Customs CCA at the back yard. It is important to note that all containers with claims of personal effects and car parts, are required to be examined in the Customs yard, unless prior approval is granted by the CEO. And although Alvin has the authority to value examined cargo items in the absence of a commercial/tax invoice, his authority is limited to that and not on vehicles as those matters are submitted to the CEO, especially if a manager has a conflicting interest.
b. Although the consignee had paid the assessed duty by Alvin of about ST$900 for the contents of the 40ft container, he did not have the authority to allow the container without examination, without a Customs seal if approved, to be checked outside of the Customs CCA, at another registered CCA or at the individual owner’s premises. The container was taken to an unoccupied land at Nu’u, not at Togafuafua (mechanical workshop) or Vaivase uta (where Hon. Toelupe P. Onesemo resides).
c. The respondent Alvin was the subject of the PSC investigation and he was not a political figure to warrant this perception that there were political motives. If the Hon Minister was the subject of the PSC investigation, then maybe that perception would be applicable.
3. “Handling of respondent’s case was not consistent with other cases” (paragraphs numbered 23 to 28)
para23.
The CEO referred the matter to the Police before the PSC could complete its investigation and determination. As mentioned above, it is a standard procedure that in matters calling into question the conduct of a CEO or ACEO, it is the Commission who handles disciplinary actions including investigations into allegations of wrongdoing. This procedure has been consistently applied in the past and was also observed in a similar case involving the former ACEO of Border, Rima Ulu, PSC v Fepuleai Rima Ulu (2015) – PSC CASE FILES, inter alia. In s32 of the Public Service Act 2004:
“32. Suspected breach of Code of Conduct etc. by the contract employees – (1) Where the relevant CEO: (a) Becomes aware that a contract employee has been charged with having committed an offence (other than an offence under the Road Traffic Ordinance 1960 which is not punishable by imprisonment); or (b) Suspects that a contract employee may have breached the Code of Conduct, the CEO must provide a report on the matter to the Commission. (2) Sections 45, 45, and 47 and the associated regulations apply to a contract employee subject to the Commission performing the functions of the relevant CEO under the applied sections and regulations.”
para24.
The case of Bourkey v State Service Commission (1981) 1 NZLR 633 is the authority for the proposition that if a statute is clear then it must be followed and there is no room for engrafting upon legislation a new and improved system. In a Board of Appeal case, Lussick ACJ applied Bourke in Sanerivi v Public Service Commission (1992). There is nothing in the Act that compels the CEO to refer the matter to the Police pending the outcome of the Commission’s investigation. That is the function of the Commission upon its inquiry.
para25.
After the Commission’s investigation, the same would then decide whether charges are proven or not. If the charge is proven, the Commission would advise the Cabinet of an appropriate penalty before referring the matter to the Attorney General for further inquiry if criminal charges are warrant or not. The Attorney General would then handle the matter with the Police thereon.
para26.
This author acknowledges that there are times where a member of the public may take their grievance or complaint directly to the Police. The Police would then handle the matter under their respective laws, parallel to the Commission’s investigation – such was the case of PSC v Lupeimanu (2020) – PSC CASE FILES.
RESPONSES
a. As stated above, this statement by the PSC-IO Fesili is an outright lie when there was evidence to confirm our position that we did not refer this case to the Police. As the CEO, I knew of the PSC requirements and I was also familiar with the background and facts of the investigation that was done by PSC on the case of Fepuleai Rima Ulu (former ACEO-Border) back in June 2015 when Ms. Ulu had also breached the code of conduct when she released an importer company’s container(s) without proper authority by the CEO (former CEO Pitolau Lusia Leau). As a consequent and result of the actual well based investigation done, she was terminated outright by the PSC. Strangely, the PSC-IO Fesili just mentioned the case but he did not advise further on the facts and result of this PSC investigation and it is my humble understanding that this similar case had set the precedence. (MCR and PSC hold the relevant records of the investigation and findings.)
b. In this case, where the respondent Alvin had solely and favorably assessed and released the container of a closely related relative (second cousin) without proper authority, a much bigger scale of breach of code of conduct by a public servant, the respondent got a stern warning and a $1,000 penalty.
c. I have no comment on the other legal cases quoted by PSC-IO Fesili. The most relevant investigation done by PSC which is similar to Alvin Onesemo’s case is that of Fepuleai Rima vs PSC (2015). The precedence for our Ministry was set from that case. I had clearly followed the required process of the law in submitting the report of alleged breaches to PSC by the contract officer and did not proceed to investigate in detail as that is the PSC’s jurisdiction, on suspected contract officer(s).
d. Again, I strongly advise that MCR has evidence to confirm that I did not refer the case to MOP but to PSC. And there was definitely no political motive or pressure on me to quickly do an investigation on the respondent, Alvin. All the evidence presented in our preliminary report did contain sufficient evidence to prove that Alvin did not act honestly and impartial and without the proper authority. He took matters in his own hands and did the whole process as stated in our report to clear a personal effect container, all by himself without any approval from the CEO, or even the DCEO who is between the CEO and his position as the ACEO. The fact that he had completely the CER himself should provide sufficient evidence that he had falsify the signature as to mislead the CEO. The CER is the vital evidence as it also contained the signature of the officer who presumedly had conducted the examination. The signature on this form during our preliminary investigations, is deemed invalid as it did not belong to any officer authorized to conduct physical examination. It is therefore an act to mislead and presumed to be made up by Alvin himself as he had done the report.
e. And even if there was a perceived perception of political element at any stage of our reporting process, it does not remove the glaring facts that Alvin had breached the Ministry’s code of conduct as well as those of the PSC’s. And even if the duty of the container was paid before clearance, he does not have the legal authority to do what he did by allowing the container to be taken out of the Custom’s yard, its CCA. The duty paid on this container is also believed to be based on fictitious values and items as Alvin did not physically see the items, nor had the required list of contents and had only used the two general descriptions of items that were on the bill of lading, to assign the valuations. With many years of technical services at the Customs Services, and as a manager or ACEO, Alvin absolutely knows and understand our Standard Operational Procedures (‘SOP’) to clear containers of commercial and personal effects nature, from commencement to final step. I therefore cannot comprehend how he maintained to claim that all his actions done very not faulty and were within our code of conduct. Or that the lies or mistake he had done was a ‘simple honest mistake’. Especially the PSC-IO Fesili’s views and conclusion that the error done by the manager, the respondent, was an “honest mistake”!
d. Unfortunately, if PSC-IO Fesili’s report remained to be enforced and final, then Alvin’s actions done in this case will definitely be a precedent for other CONTRACT officers to follow and get away with just a stern warning and monetary penalty.
para27.
However, in this case, there was no official complaint from a member of the public of the Ministry or the PSC, nor did a member of the public complain, it was the Ministry who took the matter to the Police.
RESPONSES
a. As advise in my other similar responses above, I was informed by my former Honorable Minister Tialavea Hunt during my weekly update meeting with him and it was a normal meeting. That was a report in itself from my perspective as the CEO as I always got this kind of verbal reports or information from our Minister. During most of our meetings, the Minister usually raised or informed me of public concerns that were relayed to him, for the CEO to check and take immediate actions where necessary or made proactive strategies to reduce and eliminate the negative issues from the public. It was all to do with improving the public services of our Ministry but especially, to encourage our Ministry’s clients to voluntarily comply in meeting their tax and duty obligations. I normally do not question the Minister at this stage until I had done my usual checks and research with respective ACEO who is responsible with the issue of concern. Later in next meeting I provide updates of those concerning issues but if urgent issues, I either submitted via internal memo or by email report.
b. With this case, Alvin’s actions done was my foremost concern and not the consignee or the legal owner of the consignment who was the Hon Minister Toelupe P. Onesemo, the politician. If there was political motive, would not that be directed to the Hon Toelupe P. Onesemo and not Alvin? The investigation was on the breach of the code of conduct in whatever form and not on any political motive.
para28.
There was also a direct involvement by Mr. Hunt (i.e. instructing the CEO to investigate the respondent, and holding a private meeting with the CEO and the Police Commissioner to halt the Police investigation). Rarely, a member of parliament or a cabinet minister is directly involved in the procedure of managing misconduct or determining the issue of parallel investigation.
RESPONSES
a. If PSC-IO Fesili had thoroughly checked out all the physical evidence that were in our files, interview both myself and former Police Commissioner, and our respective staff, he would know that I was never directed by our former Honorable Minister Tialavea Hunt to investigate the respondent.
b. There was also never any ‘private meeting’ between myself, Police Commissioner and the former Minister but official meetings. Our official meeting was held at the Minister’s office on 01 July 2021 and he ended up to be the ‘mediator’ as both of us CEOs were on the verge of an argument due to differences in views relating to Alvin’s case. Without my quoting or paraphrasing specific paragraphs of the letter, MCR can provide all evidences that have been in their file throughout our own process. I strongly refute the IO’s allegations that the former Minister had been directly involved in any of our investigation processes that was done on the consignee and the respondent.
4. The respondents right to a fair process was not adhered to by the Internal Audit and Ministry.
para29.
This matter could have been better handled by the CEO at the Ministry level. The report by the Ministry was incomplete and biased. The report did not conform to the principles of due process or procedural fairness.
The respondent was not afforded the opportunity to respond to any of the allegations in the report.
RESPONSES
a. We maintained our position that the PSC Delegate should have done the whole and full investigation process under the afore mentioned provisions of the PS Act 2004. The respondent was not a permanent officer for the CEO and the Internal Audit unit to conduct our usual and normal investigation process on. As advised afore, clause 19 of the employment contract document and section 32 of the PS Act 2004 states these requirements of the process.
b. There was no biasedness in our action to report the matter to PSC for them to investigate further given the immediate findings that the respondent had done all those alleged actions. There was also the verbal and written statement from the Assistant Customs Officer (Simati Tiaua) who was directed by the respondent Alvin. The PSC-IO Fesili did not even make any reference to any statement of officer(s) he had been able to obtained that could contravene what the respondent may had said. There was also the full search of our attendance registers at the Customs office as to find a match of the signature of the duty officer’s sign off on the CER form but no match was found. The fact that the respondent or Alvin had completed the valuation part of the form and the report was evidence enough that he did it. He even admitted verbally to me, the DCEO-Customs, ACEO-RCD, etc. but sadly for him, he changed his statement later on. Simati’s statement and perhaps the Quarantine officer who went with Simati, should be strong valid evidence against the respondent’s story.
para30.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, it is concerning that the Ministry did not invite the respondent to submit a written response to the allegations.
This err in judgement, in my respectful opinion, may have resulted in allegations being blown out of proportion and out of context.
RESPONSES
a. We maintain our position that the PSC-IO Fesili should have done the whole and full investigation process under the afore mentioned provisions of the PS Act 2004. The respondent, Alvin Onesemo was a contract officer and not a permanent officer for the CEO and the Internal Audit unit to conduct our usual and normal investigation process on.
b. It is also my view that the PSC letter of 29th June 2021 to the respondent, had invited him to respond to those allegations. If the respondent did not respond as required then I am not sure who is at fault in this phase of the process.
para31.
For example, the MCR Report alleged that the respondent “presented information knowing them to be false.” However, the respondent was not allowed to respond to the allegations, nor did the Ministry present evidence that was compelling to prove that the respondent ‘knowingly” presented false information. It is difficult to comprehend how such a statement can be made in the report and subsequent correspondence without even asking the respondent as the allegations required some form of the intent.
a. We maintain our position that the PSC-IO Fesili should have done the whole and full investigation process under the afore mentioned provisions of the PS Act 2004. The respondent was not a permanent officer for the CEO and the Internal Audit unit to conduct our usual and normal investigation process on.
b. Our preliminary report was brief and we had expected to provide all system and manual evidence on our findings if the PSC-IO Fesili had come around to do his full investigation procedures.
5. The Lack of good faith observed in the Ministry’s Report provided to the Commission:
para32.
Similar to the allegations above, there was a lack of good faith in the handling of the respondent’s case at the Ministry level.
The respondent alleged that the Ministry’s report to the Commission was conducted without his knowledge. The Ministry did not inform him that the matter was also going to be referred to the Police.
RESPONSES
a. The respondent is sadly not telling the truth and I did tell him that his case was referred to PSC as it is not under my responsibilities but the jurisdiction of PSC to investigate breaches alleged to be committed by any contract officer; and he was quite happy about it but I hid my confusion as I had expected him to be worried! Unfortunately, I did not give him any written advice that the case was referred to PSC as I thought PSC will handle that part which they did in their first two letters as mentioned afore.
b. I maintain my advice that I did not refer this case to Police and therefore, there was nothing to advise the respondent on.
(Continue To Part 2)