 |  |  Executive chairman Peter V'Landys (blue suit with Ausssie PM) in July at an NRL match |
The Fiji Police Force has confirmed that it received a report concerning sexual harassment allegations against a Fiji National Rugby League (FNRL) board member and that its investigation is continuing. The allegations have not been proven.
The board member has now responded publicly. Asked by The Fiji Times about concerns raised by FNRL founder and life member Culden Kamea, he said his lawyers would deal with Kamea and others over defamation. He also said an independent committee was in place and that due process should take its course. He did not directly answer the newspaper’s questions about the allegations.
Due process is precisely what this matter requires. It applies to the employee who complained, to the board member who must have a fair chance to answer, and to witnesses who should be able to give their accounts without pressure. The existence of a committee is a start. The question now is how it was established and whether its work can command confidence.
A letter in our possession, dated 16 September 2026, shows that the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) had already put the FNRL board on notice. Signed by executive chairman Peter V’landys, it describes a complaint by a current employee against a senior director, including allegations of non-consensual physical contact and inappropriate verbal conduct. It makes no finding about what occurred.
The ARLC says the investigation is ultimately FNRL’s responsibility. It expects the complaint to be handled promptly, thoroughly and independently, with protection against retaliation for the complainant and procedural fairness for both parties. By 18 September, it wanted to know who would conduct and oversee the investigation, how conflicts would be managed, what interim safeguards were in place and when findings might be expected.
The Fiji Times report gives those questions fresh force. Kamea wants to know who appointed the independent committee, who serves on it, what experience its members have in dealing with sexual harassment complaints and what its terms of reference are. He has also questioned the involvement of accountancy firm PHERRUS, which he says sponsors FNRL, and whether that relationship presents a potential conflict. These are Kamea’s concerns; the reported sponsorship and any resulting conflict should be established, not assumed.
There is also a question about the two investigations. Kamea has asked whether FNRL’s internal process should have been paused once police became involved, citing clause 12.3 of the FNRL Code of Conduct. The clause should be read in full before anyone states that it requires a pause. FNRL should explain what it has decided and how it will avoid interfering with police inquiries while still meeting its responsibilities to the people in its workplace.
FNRL’s relationship with Australian rugby league adds another dimension. Fiji joined the Pacific Rugby League Partnership in August. The Australian Government has committed A$250 million over ten years to the partnership across Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga. Its announced aims include stronger sporting bodies and safe school and community competitions. That figure is regional funding, not a sum earmarked for FNRL alone.
In a Facebook post, Charlie Charters argues that FNRL’s Code of Conduct expressly refers to standards expected by Australia’s National Rugby League. The ARLC letter refers to FNRL’s commitment to standards aligned with its own, including respectful behaviour and safe workplaces. Publication of the relevant Code provisions would clarify exactly what FNRL has undertaken to do and what role, if any, its Australian partner has in the complaints process.
An Australian partnership does not decide a Fiji workplace complaint. But the ARLC has made clear that it expects FNRL to account for the process it adopts. FNRL can answer many of the questions now being asked without disclosing confidential evidence: name the committee members, publish or describe their terms of reference, explain how they were chosen, address any conflicts and state how their inquiry will proceed alongside the police investigation.
It should also explain the interim arrangements affecting everyone involved. Kamea has raised concerns about the alleged suspension of his son Randall, who he says forwarded the complaint to the board, and has claimed that the board member entered FNRL’s office while suspended. Those claims require a response from FNRL; they should not be presented as established facts.
No one should pronounce the board member guilty on the strength of a complaint. Equally, asking how a complaint against a person in authority is being investigated is a legitimate question, not a verdict. It is especially important that public argument about the case does not become a substitute for hearing from the employee, the respondent and any witnesses through a fair process.
FNRL says it has an independent committee. It now needs to show what independence means in practice. With police investigating and the ARLC seeking answers, the ball remains in FNRL’s court.
The board member has now responded publicly. Asked by The Fiji Times about concerns raised by FNRL founder and life member Culden Kamea, he said his lawyers would deal with Kamea and others over defamation. He also said an independent committee was in place and that due process should take its course. He did not directly answer the newspaper’s questions about the allegations.
Due process is precisely what this matter requires. It applies to the employee who complained, to the board member who must have a fair chance to answer, and to witnesses who should be able to give their accounts without pressure. The existence of a committee is a start. The question now is how it was established and whether its work can command confidence.
A letter in our possession, dated 16 September 2026, shows that the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) had already put the FNRL board on notice. Signed by executive chairman Peter V’landys, it describes a complaint by a current employee against a senior director, including allegations of non-consensual physical contact and inappropriate verbal conduct. It makes no finding about what occurred.
The ARLC says the investigation is ultimately FNRL’s responsibility. It expects the complaint to be handled promptly, thoroughly and independently, with protection against retaliation for the complainant and procedural fairness for both parties. By 18 September, it wanted to know who would conduct and oversee the investigation, how conflicts would be managed, what interim safeguards were in place and when findings might be expected.
The Fiji Times report gives those questions fresh force. Kamea wants to know who appointed the independent committee, who serves on it, what experience its members have in dealing with sexual harassment complaints and what its terms of reference are. He has also questioned the involvement of accountancy firm PHERRUS, which he says sponsors FNRL, and whether that relationship presents a potential conflict. These are Kamea’s concerns; the reported sponsorship and any resulting conflict should be established, not assumed.
There is also a question about the two investigations. Kamea has asked whether FNRL’s internal process should have been paused once police became involved, citing clause 12.3 of the FNRL Code of Conduct. The clause should be read in full before anyone states that it requires a pause. FNRL should explain what it has decided and how it will avoid interfering with police inquiries while still meeting its responsibilities to the people in its workplace.
FNRL’s relationship with Australian rugby league adds another dimension. Fiji joined the Pacific Rugby League Partnership in August. The Australian Government has committed A$250 million over ten years to the partnership across Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga. Its announced aims include stronger sporting bodies and safe school and community competitions. That figure is regional funding, not a sum earmarked for FNRL alone.
In a Facebook post, Charlie Charters argues that FNRL’s Code of Conduct expressly refers to standards expected by Australia’s National Rugby League. The ARLC letter refers to FNRL’s commitment to standards aligned with its own, including respectful behaviour and safe workplaces. Publication of the relevant Code provisions would clarify exactly what FNRL has undertaken to do and what role, if any, its Australian partner has in the complaints process.
An Australian partnership does not decide a Fiji workplace complaint. But the ARLC has made clear that it expects FNRL to account for the process it adopts. FNRL can answer many of the questions now being asked without disclosing confidential evidence: name the committee members, publish or describe their terms of reference, explain how they were chosen, address any conflicts and state how their inquiry will proceed alongside the police investigation.
It should also explain the interim arrangements affecting everyone involved. Kamea has raised concerns about the alleged suspension of his son Randall, who he says forwarded the complaint to the board, and has claimed that the board member entered FNRL’s office while suspended. Those claims require a response from FNRL; they should not be presented as established facts.
No one should pronounce the board member guilty on the strength of a complaint. Equally, asking how a complaint against a person in authority is being investigated is a legitimate question, not a verdict. It is especially important that public argument about the case does not become a substitute for hearing from the employee, the respondent and any witnesses through a fair process.
FNRL says it has an independent committee. It now needs to show what independence means in practice. With police investigating and the ARLC seeking answers, the ball remains in FNRL’s court.
FNRL safeguarding inquiry: the Board must now answer the questions its own report raises
A preliminary safeguarding report delivered to the Fiji National Rugby League board on 24 September raises a question larger than the allegation that prompted it: does the organisation have a reliable way to receive a complaint, protect those involved and reach a fair decision?
The report does not answer whether misconduct occurred. Its authors describe their work as an advisory fact finding exercise, and a central interview had yet to take place when they submitted it. The person facing the allegation denies inappropriate conduct. Those limits matter. Neither the board nor the public should turn an unfinished inquiry into a verdict.
What the report does describe is an organisation struggling with its own procedures. It identifies uncertainty over working arrangements, gaps in written documentation and no sufficiently clear route for staff to raise safeguarding or harassment complaints independently of management. It also records concerns about control of electronic signatures and delegated authority.
These are governance questions in their own right. A person entering a workplace should know who supervises them, what rules apply and where to take a complaint. The person complained about should know precisely what is alleged and have a proper opportunity to respond. The board should be able to establish who authorised a document and when. According to its preliminary advisers, FNRL needs to strengthen each of these foundations.
The report also considers the place of familiar joking in the office. Workplace banter may be ordinary to those who have worked together for years. That does not settle how a remark or gesture is experienced by someone else. Equally, an allegation cannot be decided by assuming that an informal office culture proves wrongdoing. The task is to examine the particular evidence, with care for everyone concerned.
Fair procedure will be especially important in the next stage. The report says further evidence must be gathered before a final finding is possible. If that evidence supports a possible breach, it recommends a formal notice setting out the case and time for a response under the FNRL code. It also urges the board to settle questions about the inquiry’s independence and the participation of external observers before deferred interviews resume.
There is a separate police process. The internal inquiry and any criminal investigation have different purposes, and the board must handle their timing under its own rules. That does not relieve it of the immediate duty to maintain appropriate safeguards, protect confidentiality and prevent pressure or retaliation while the matter remains unresolved.
The board has been given practical recommendations: independent support, clear interim boundaries, written terms for people working within the organisation, tighter document controls and a dedicated safeguarding policy with a reporting route outside executive management. It should say which recommendations it has adopted and who is responsible for carrying them out. It can do so without publishing private testimony or prejudging the allegation.
FNRL’s response will be measured by the fairness of the process it now completes and by the protections it puts in place afterwards. The preliminary report has identified weaknesses. The board must show how it intends to remedy them.
The report does not answer whether misconduct occurred. Its authors describe their work as an advisory fact finding exercise, and a central interview had yet to take place when they submitted it. The person facing the allegation denies inappropriate conduct. Those limits matter. Neither the board nor the public should turn an unfinished inquiry into a verdict.
What the report does describe is an organisation struggling with its own procedures. It identifies uncertainty over working arrangements, gaps in written documentation and no sufficiently clear route for staff to raise safeguarding or harassment complaints independently of management. It also records concerns about control of electronic signatures and delegated authority.
These are governance questions in their own right. A person entering a workplace should know who supervises them, what rules apply and where to take a complaint. The person complained about should know precisely what is alleged and have a proper opportunity to respond. The board should be able to establish who authorised a document and when. According to its preliminary advisers, FNRL needs to strengthen each of these foundations.
The report also considers the place of familiar joking in the office. Workplace banter may be ordinary to those who have worked together for years. That does not settle how a remark or gesture is experienced by someone else. Equally, an allegation cannot be decided by assuming that an informal office culture proves wrongdoing. The task is to examine the particular evidence, with care for everyone concerned.
Fair procedure will be especially important in the next stage. The report says further evidence must be gathered before a final finding is possible. If that evidence supports a possible breach, it recommends a formal notice setting out the case and time for a response under the FNRL code. It also urges the board to settle questions about the inquiry’s independence and the participation of external observers before deferred interviews resume.
There is a separate police process. The internal inquiry and any criminal investigation have different purposes, and the board must handle their timing under its own rules. That does not relieve it of the immediate duty to maintain appropriate safeguards, protect confidentiality and prevent pressure or retaliation while the matter remains unresolved.
The board has been given practical recommendations: independent support, clear interim boundaries, written terms for people working within the organisation, tighter document controls and a dedicated safeguarding policy with a reporting route outside executive management. It should say which recommendations it has adopted and who is responsible for carrying them out. It can do so without publishing private testimony or prejudging the allegation.
FNRL’s response will be measured by the fairness of the process it now completes and by the protections it puts in place afterwards. The preliminary report has identified weaknesses. The board must show how it intends to remedy them.
 |  Rajesh Singh |
The Fiji National Rugby League (FNRL) board and staff are committed to taking the sport to greater heights.
This was told to SUNsports yesterday (22 September) by FNRL executive chairman Rajesh Singh, who said they had no room to entertain people trying to bring instability to the organisation.
“The FNRL is not the place for people to come and make a living out of it,” he said. “I’ve got the A-team working with me. They are committed and we’ll try to set the financial records straight as we’ve to be accountable to all our funders, clubs and everyone involved in the sport.
“Also, we want to see our match officials, medics and coaches get accredited.”
Singh highlighted that rugby league had become a career opportunity for most young people and local-based players.
He said players such as Sisa Waqa, Viliame Kikau, Semi Radradra, Tui Kamikamica and Marika Koroibete were local players who had made it big in the NRL (National Rugby League).
Singh said there were also local players contracted to and playing for clubs in the New South Wales and Queensland Cup competitions.
“We are fortunate to have someone like the Fiji Bati head coach Mick Potter with us, who is assisting us to create a pathway for our local players.”
Singh said the focus right now was on the Vodafone Cup finals set for Saturday at Churchill Park in Lautoka and next month’s Rugby League World Cup (RLWC) in Australia.
“This is an opportunity for local players to impress the selectors on Saturday as we’re selecting a Fiji Residents team to tour Australia, probably early next year. Negotiations are going on for the Residents to play three matches against clubs playing in the Queensland Cup competition.”
Singh said the Residents would be coached by Vula Dakutioga, with Vela Tawake as the assistant coach.
Singh said details concerning player selection and team training for the RLWC would be answered by Potter.
This was told to SUNsports yesterday (22 September) by FNRL executive chairman Rajesh Singh, who said they had no room to entertain people trying to bring instability to the organisation.
“The FNRL is not the place for people to come and make a living out of it,” he said. “I’ve got the A-team working with me. They are committed and we’ll try to set the financial records straight as we’ve to be accountable to all our funders, clubs and everyone involved in the sport.
“Also, we want to see our match officials, medics and coaches get accredited.”
Singh highlighted that rugby league had become a career opportunity for most young people and local-based players.
He said players such as Sisa Waqa, Viliame Kikau, Semi Radradra, Tui Kamikamica and Marika Koroibete were local players who had made it big in the NRL (National Rugby League).
Singh said there were also local players contracted to and playing for clubs in the New South Wales and Queensland Cup competitions.
“We are fortunate to have someone like the Fiji Bati head coach Mick Potter with us, who is assisting us to create a pathway for our local players.”
Singh said the focus right now was on the Vodafone Cup finals set for Saturday at Churchill Park in Lautoka and next month’s Rugby League World Cup (RLWC) in Australia.
“This is an opportunity for local players to impress the selectors on Saturday as we’re selecting a Fiji Residents team to tour Australia, probably early next year. Negotiations are going on for the Residents to play three matches against clubs playing in the Queensland Cup competition.”
Singh said the Residents would be coached by Vula Dakutioga, with Vela Tawake as the assistant coach.
Singh said details concerning player selection and team training for the RLWC would be answered by Potter.
