 From “Dial-an-iTaukei” to “Hire-Your-Family”: The Nakarawa Tribunal Exposes the Rot Inside Fiji’s Public Institutions Under Rabuka’s Coalition Government |   |
The removal of Fiji’s Corrections Commissioner Dr Jalesi Nakarawa following the findings of a tribunal should alarm anyone concerned about the health of Fiji’s public institutions. The official statement issued by the Constitutional Offices Commission confirms what critics of the current system have been warning about for some time: the creeping normalisation of patronage inside state institutions.
According to the government’s own account, complaints against Nakarawa were first lodged in early 2025. The allegations were serious. They included nepotism in recruitment, abuse of office and improper handling of funds within the Fiji Corrections Service.
In response, the Commission established a tribunal comprising three High Court judges to investigate the matter. Over the course of the inquiry more than forty witnesses were called and numerous documents were presented. Nakarawa was represented by legal counsel and given full opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The Tribunal’s conclusions were devastating.
It found that Nakarawa had recruited his wife and stepsons into positions without following proper procedures. According to the findings, he even advertised a position tailored to his wife’s qualifications, disregarding medical expert advice and ignoring a policy decision of the Minister for Justice and Cabinet that positions should be based on an established job evaluation exercise.
The Tribunal also upheld allegations that he had abused his office in the treatment of staff, including demotions and dismissals carried out without proper notice or an opportunity for affected employees to respond. Although the Tribunal also examined allegations relating to the approval of funds for personal use, the most damaging findings centred on nepotism and abuse of authority. The judges concluded that Nakarawa’s conduct reflected poor leadership, amounted to misconduct and had undermined public confidence in the Corrections Service.
On the basis of those findings, the tribunal recommended that he be removed.
The Office of the President acted on that recommendation, formally terminating Nakarawa’s appointment on 26 February 2026. The position is now vacant, with Auta Moceisuva serving as Acting Commissioner. On its face, the process demonstrates that Fiji’s constitutional mechanisms can still function when serious misconduct is exposed. But the Nakarawa affair also raises a deeper and more troubling question.
How did such conduct occur in the first place?
The answer lies partly in the broader political culture that has taken shape since Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka formed his coalition government following the 2022 election. Over the past two years, critics have increasingly pointed to a pattern in which appointments to senior positions across state institutions appear to favour individuals drawn from particular ethnic, tribal, provincial and political networks.
The shorthand description circulating in political circles - “Dial-an-iTaukei” - captures the perception that ethnicity and traditional connections are increasingly treated as informal qualifications for office.
Once a system begins operating through networks of loyalty rather than merit, the descent into family patronage becomes almost inevitable. Nepotism is rarely the starting point. It is the logical end point of a patronage culture that has already abandoned strict adherence to merit and transparent recruitment.
The tribunal’s findings suggest that within the Corrections Service the boundaries between professional administration and personal influence had begun to blur dangerously. When a Commissioner can advertise a position designed specifically for a spouse, it signals that the safeguards meant to protect institutional integrity have already weakened.
The danger is not confined to one institution.
Across the public service, critics increasingly point to a pattern in which recruitment and appointments appear to flow through provincial loyalties, chiefly affiliations and political patronage networks rather than through open competition based strictly on merit. In such an environment, institutional safeguards, independent recruitment panels, transparent job criteria and proper oversight, begin to erode quietly.
Once those safeguards weaken, the temptation to favour relatives, allies or political supporters becomes harder to resist. What happened within the Fiji Corrections Service under Dr Jalesi Nakarawa therefore appears less like an isolated lapse in judgement and more like a symptom of a broader governance culture that has allowed patronage to seep steadily into the machinery of the state.
Across the machinery of government, perceptions of ethnic and provincial patronage have been reinforced by the revival of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) and by increasingly assertive political rhetoric coming out of the chiefs and framed in indigenous terms. While cultural recognition of i-Taukei institutions is legitimate and long overdue, the political atmosphere it creates can also embolden those who believe that state power should be distributed through identity and loyalty rather than competence.
When that mentality takes hold, the slide from ethnic patronage to tribal patronage and finally to family patronage becomes a short one.
The Nakarawa tribunal therefore represents more than the downfall of a single official. It is a warning about what happens when meritocratic standards inside public institutions begin to erode.
Public trust in the justice system, the civil service and law-enforcement bodies depends on the belief that positions are earned through ability and integrity. Once citizens conclude that recruitment depends instead on kinship networks or political loyalty, confidence in the entire system begins to collapse.
Fiji’s modern history offers repeated reminders of how fragile institutional credibility can be. Restoring that credibility requires more than simply removing one official after misconduct has been exposed.
It requires a renewed commitment to merit, transparency and independence across every public appointment.
The revival of the Great Council of Chiefs has added another dimension to the debate. While many welcomed the restoration of the traditional body as an important cultural institution, some of its recent pronouncements, framed strongly in indigenous political language, have raised concerns about the direction of national politics.
For critics, the Council’s increasingly assertive rhetoric risks being interpreted as a charter for i-Taukei political primacy, reinforcing the belief that key levers of state power should naturally remain within one community. When cultural revival merges with political patronage, the line between indigenous recognition and ethnic entitlement becomes dangerously blurred.
What makes the current moment particularly troubling is that the erosion is occurring not through coups or constitutional upheaval but through incremental institutional capture - appointment by appointment, board by board, position by position.
No country can sustain law and order if the institutions responsible for enforcing the law are weakened by patronage networks and identity politics. The rule of law depends not on ethnicity but on the credibility and independence of the people entrusted to uphold it.
The real casualty of ethnic patronage is not any particular community. The real casualty is the state itself.
Unless merit once again becomes the sole and unquestioned criterion for public office, the perception will persist that whenever an important vacancy appears somewhere in Fiji’s national machinery, someone simply reaches for the mobile phone and dials an i-Taukei.
And with every such call, the rule of law loses a little more ground.
Fiji’s modern history offers repeated warnings about where such thinking can lead.
The coups of 1987, the upheaval of 2000, and the military takeover of 2006 were each justified, in different ways, through narratives about protecting indigenous political control. Each time the outcome was the same: weakened institutions, damaged investor confidence and a justice system struggling to reassert its independence.
Fiji should remember the dangerous mythology that once elevated George Speight into an iTaukei “saviour” in 2000. When ethnic entitlement becomes the organising principle of both politics and public-sector recruitment, institutions inevitably begin to collapse.
According to the government’s own account, complaints against Nakarawa were first lodged in early 2025. The allegations were serious. They included nepotism in recruitment, abuse of office and improper handling of funds within the Fiji Corrections Service.
In response, the Commission established a tribunal comprising three High Court judges to investigate the matter. Over the course of the inquiry more than forty witnesses were called and numerous documents were presented. Nakarawa was represented by legal counsel and given full opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The Tribunal’s conclusions were devastating.
It found that Nakarawa had recruited his wife and stepsons into positions without following proper procedures. According to the findings, he even advertised a position tailored to his wife’s qualifications, disregarding medical expert advice and ignoring a policy decision of the Minister for Justice and Cabinet that positions should be based on an established job evaluation exercise.
The Tribunal also upheld allegations that he had abused his office in the treatment of staff, including demotions and dismissals carried out without proper notice or an opportunity for affected employees to respond. Although the Tribunal also examined allegations relating to the approval of funds for personal use, the most damaging findings centred on nepotism and abuse of authority. The judges concluded that Nakarawa’s conduct reflected poor leadership, amounted to misconduct and had undermined public confidence in the Corrections Service.
On the basis of those findings, the tribunal recommended that he be removed.
The Office of the President acted on that recommendation, formally terminating Nakarawa’s appointment on 26 February 2026. The position is now vacant, with Auta Moceisuva serving as Acting Commissioner. On its face, the process demonstrates that Fiji’s constitutional mechanisms can still function when serious misconduct is exposed. But the Nakarawa affair also raises a deeper and more troubling question.
How did such conduct occur in the first place?
The answer lies partly in the broader political culture that has taken shape since Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka formed his coalition government following the 2022 election. Over the past two years, critics have increasingly pointed to a pattern in which appointments to senior positions across state institutions appear to favour individuals drawn from particular ethnic, tribal, provincial and political networks.
The shorthand description circulating in political circles - “Dial-an-iTaukei” - captures the perception that ethnicity and traditional connections are increasingly treated as informal qualifications for office.
Once a system begins operating through networks of loyalty rather than merit, the descent into family patronage becomes almost inevitable. Nepotism is rarely the starting point. It is the logical end point of a patronage culture that has already abandoned strict adherence to merit and transparent recruitment.
The tribunal’s findings suggest that within the Corrections Service the boundaries between professional administration and personal influence had begun to blur dangerously. When a Commissioner can advertise a position designed specifically for a spouse, it signals that the safeguards meant to protect institutional integrity have already weakened.
The danger is not confined to one institution.
Across the public service, critics increasingly point to a pattern in which recruitment and appointments appear to flow through provincial loyalties, chiefly affiliations and political patronage networks rather than through open competition based strictly on merit. In such an environment, institutional safeguards, independent recruitment panels, transparent job criteria and proper oversight, begin to erode quietly.
Once those safeguards weaken, the temptation to favour relatives, allies or political supporters becomes harder to resist. What happened within the Fiji Corrections Service under Dr Jalesi Nakarawa therefore appears less like an isolated lapse in judgement and more like a symptom of a broader governance culture that has allowed patronage to seep steadily into the machinery of the state.
Across the machinery of government, perceptions of ethnic and provincial patronage have been reinforced by the revival of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) and by increasingly assertive political rhetoric coming out of the chiefs and framed in indigenous terms. While cultural recognition of i-Taukei institutions is legitimate and long overdue, the political atmosphere it creates can also embolden those who believe that state power should be distributed through identity and loyalty rather than competence.
When that mentality takes hold, the slide from ethnic patronage to tribal patronage and finally to family patronage becomes a short one.
The Nakarawa tribunal therefore represents more than the downfall of a single official. It is a warning about what happens when meritocratic standards inside public institutions begin to erode.
Public trust in the justice system, the civil service and law-enforcement bodies depends on the belief that positions are earned through ability and integrity. Once citizens conclude that recruitment depends instead on kinship networks or political loyalty, confidence in the entire system begins to collapse.
Fiji’s modern history offers repeated reminders of how fragile institutional credibility can be. Restoring that credibility requires more than simply removing one official after misconduct has been exposed.
It requires a renewed commitment to merit, transparency and independence across every public appointment.
The revival of the Great Council of Chiefs has added another dimension to the debate. While many welcomed the restoration of the traditional body as an important cultural institution, some of its recent pronouncements, framed strongly in indigenous political language, have raised concerns about the direction of national politics.
For critics, the Council’s increasingly assertive rhetoric risks being interpreted as a charter for i-Taukei political primacy, reinforcing the belief that key levers of state power should naturally remain within one community. When cultural revival merges with political patronage, the line between indigenous recognition and ethnic entitlement becomes dangerously blurred.
What makes the current moment particularly troubling is that the erosion is occurring not through coups or constitutional upheaval but through incremental institutional capture - appointment by appointment, board by board, position by position.
No country can sustain law and order if the institutions responsible for enforcing the law are weakened by patronage networks and identity politics. The rule of law depends not on ethnicity but on the credibility and independence of the people entrusted to uphold it.
The real casualty of ethnic patronage is not any particular community. The real casualty is the state itself.
Unless merit once again becomes the sole and unquestioned criterion for public office, the perception will persist that whenever an important vacancy appears somewhere in Fiji’s national machinery, someone simply reaches for the mobile phone and dials an i-Taukei.
And with every such call, the rule of law loses a little more ground.
Fiji’s modern history offers repeated warnings about where such thinking can lead.
The coups of 1987, the upheaval of 2000, and the military takeover of 2006 were each justified, in different ways, through narratives about protecting indigenous political control. Each time the outcome was the same: weakened institutions, damaged investor confidence and a justice system struggling to reassert its independence.
Fiji should remember the dangerous mythology that once elevated George Speight into an iTaukei “saviour” in 2000. When ethnic entitlement becomes the organising principle of both politics and public-sector recruitment, institutions inevitably begin to collapse.
In 2000 Speight coup, the Cakaudrove commoner Sitiveni Rabuka was Chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs
*Rabuka said he had known Speight and had played golf with him and knew of his commitment to indigenous rights. However, he did not agree that Speight represented the ‘soul’ or the ‘voice’ of the indigenous people, or the i-Taukei. "Why should he consider himself the voice of the iTaukei? His grandfather was a European. The military has only [negotiated with] Speight because of the security of the hostages."
Blood and Hypocrisy: George Speight's 'iTaukei Purity' Collapses in His Own Naivicula Village |  |
In Naivicula, two iTaukei women carried daughters fathered by two of my maternal uncles from Korovou, Tailevu, and another iTaukei woman had raised a son by yet another uncle of mine, the son who later held senior economic positions in government, served with distinction, and today stands as a respected member of the Tailevu Provincial Council and a dairy farmer - living proof that life, love, and lineage have never followed the rigid slogans of political opportunists.
All of this unfolded while the failed businessman George Speight was preaching racial absolutism to a divided nation. These two daughters and the son were grown up women and men at the time of his 19 May 2000 bogus ethno-nationalist coup.
While Speight was busy drawing imaginary bloodlines for political theatre, real families in his own community were quietly demonstrating what Fiji has always been: intertwined, plural, and resistant to simplistic slogans. His ideology demanded separation, village life delivered connection. His politics were fiction. The lived reality was not, for it was interwoven by family, love, and shared history.
My nephews, nieces, and cousins, come from Rotuman, Chinese, Indo-Fijian (including Gujarati merchants), and the iTaukei backgrounds, a truly rainbow family embodying the cultures, languages, and religions of Fiji.
That is precisely why appeals to “indigenous rights” in Fiji often ring hollow when they are used to justify ethnic patronage, political privilege and the erosion of meritocratic institutions.
All of this unfolded while the failed businessman George Speight was preaching racial absolutism to a divided nation. These two daughters and the son were grown up women and men at the time of his 19 May 2000 bogus ethno-nationalist coup.
While Speight was busy drawing imaginary bloodlines for political theatre, real families in his own community were quietly demonstrating what Fiji has always been: intertwined, plural, and resistant to simplistic slogans. His ideology demanded separation, village life delivered connection. His politics were fiction. The lived reality was not, for it was interwoven by family, love, and shared history.
My nephews, nieces, and cousins, come from Rotuman, Chinese, Indo-Fijian (including Gujarati merchants), and the iTaukei backgrounds, a truly rainbow family embodying the cultures, languages, and religions of Fiji.
That is precisely why appeals to “indigenous rights” in Fiji often ring hollow when they are used to justify ethnic patronage, political privilege and the erosion of meritocratic institutions.
September 2024: George Speight receives his pardoned notification from the now sacked Commissioner for Prisons Dr Jalesi Nakarawa
Nakarawa: "After all the prisoners were locked up in their cells, Dr Bavadra was the last man up to his cell. When I was locking him up, a lot of prisoners in their cells were making a lot of noise because by then they knew what was happening. To be frank, I never forgot the anguish on Dr Bavadra's face. As I was about to lock the door, he actually grabbed my boots and requested me for assistance, basically saying what about these people shouting at him. So I had to stand there and give him a bit of comfort. I told him, "Sir, take a bit of rest, and when I lock this door, it will not open until tomorrow morning." So, when I was standing there, I was thinking, what a dilemma: from Prime Minister's Office one day, to maximum security prison cell the next day. I guess that is where my interest in politics started."
*Nakarawa claimed that after the encounter with Bavadra in the prison cell, he developed an interest in politics and went on to study at USP and in New Zealand, and ended up at the FNU. Now, Nakarawa has been appointed the new Commissioner of Prisons for the next five-years.
*Ironically, very recently he was questioning the legitimacy of the 2013 Constitution in an opinion piece in the media, the very Constitution under which he has been selected as the new Prisons Commissioner.
The Constitutional Offices Commission (COC) received complaints regarding the Commissioner of Fiji Corrections Service (Commissioner), Dr Jalesi Nakarawa in early 2025.
Allegations included biased recruitment of family members (nepotism), abuse of office, and improper handling of funds.
In April 2025, the COC convened a Tribunal to investigate the complaints against Dr Nakarawa, advise His Excellency the President on their findings, and recommend whether Dr Nakarawa should remain in his role as Commissioner.
The Tribunal, comprised three High Court Judges, conducted a thorough and independent inquiry. More than 40 witnesses were called and numerous documents presented. Dr Nakarawa was afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegations and was represented by legal counsel, submitting evidence in his defence.
The first set of complaints concerned the recruitment of Dr Nakarawa’s wife and stepsons, without adherence to established procedures. Dr Nakarawa was alleged to have advertised a position tailored to his wife's qualifications, disregarding medical expert advice and contrary to a policy decision by the Minister for Justice and Cabinet on established positions based on a Job Evaluation Exercise.
The second group of complaints pertained to abuse of office, including unfair treatment of staff within the Fiji Corrections Service, such as demotions or terminations without adequate notice or the chance to respond. The third set of complaints alleged that Dr Nakarawa had approved funds for personal use.
After its investigation, the Tribunal found the allegations of nepotism and abuse of office to be substantiated. They concluded that Dr Nakarawa's actions reflected poor leadership and amounted to misconduct, undermining public confidence in the Fiji Corrections Service and brought disrepute to the institution.
In its report to the President, the Tribunal recommended Dr Nakarawa’s removal from his role as the Commissioner for Corrections.
The Office of the President subsequently issued a letter terminating Dr Nakarawa’s appointment on 26 February 2026. As a result, there is now a vacancy for the substantive Commissioner’s role, with Mr Auta Moceisuva currently serving as Acting Commissioner.
Allegations included biased recruitment of family members (nepotism), abuse of office, and improper handling of funds.
In April 2025, the COC convened a Tribunal to investigate the complaints against Dr Nakarawa, advise His Excellency the President on their findings, and recommend whether Dr Nakarawa should remain in his role as Commissioner.
The Tribunal, comprised three High Court Judges, conducted a thorough and independent inquiry. More than 40 witnesses were called and numerous documents presented. Dr Nakarawa was afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegations and was represented by legal counsel, submitting evidence in his defence.
The first set of complaints concerned the recruitment of Dr Nakarawa’s wife and stepsons, without adherence to established procedures. Dr Nakarawa was alleged to have advertised a position tailored to his wife's qualifications, disregarding medical expert advice and contrary to a policy decision by the Minister for Justice and Cabinet on established positions based on a Job Evaluation Exercise.
The second group of complaints pertained to abuse of office, including unfair treatment of staff within the Fiji Corrections Service, such as demotions or terminations without adequate notice or the chance to respond. The third set of complaints alleged that Dr Nakarawa had approved funds for personal use.
After its investigation, the Tribunal found the allegations of nepotism and abuse of office to be substantiated. They concluded that Dr Nakarawa's actions reflected poor leadership and amounted to misconduct, undermining public confidence in the Fiji Corrections Service and brought disrepute to the institution.
In its report to the President, the Tribunal recommended Dr Nakarawa’s removal from his role as the Commissioner for Corrections.
The Office of the President subsequently issued a letter terminating Dr Nakarawa’s appointment on 26 February 2026. As a result, there is now a vacancy for the substantive Commissioner’s role, with Mr Auta Moceisuva currently serving as Acting Commissioner.
