Former Manager sues Gov for $1.07 million, over unlawful termination/defamation

The former Manager for the Fire and Services Authority, Fa’afetai Alisi has sued the FESA, Office of the Ombudsman; Ministry of Finance and Public Enterprises for $1.07 million tala over unlawful termination and defamation.

In December last year, Alisi was initially placed on suspension pending an investigation however her contract was then terminated, over allegations relating to misappropriation of public funds and claims of misconduct.

Alisi is represented by Drake Law firm and in her statement of claim filed with the Supreme Court, indicated that around March 2020, the Commissioner verbally informed the Plaintiff she was under investigation by the Ombudsman.

“The Commissioner did not provide any particulars to the Plaintiff of any allegations or accusations such that the Plaintiff was reasonably informed of what allegations or accusations had been made against her, nor by whom.   

“In or around November 2020, FESA informed the Plaintiff that she was required to attend an interview with the Ombudsman in relation to the said investigation, however again failed to inform her as to any particulars of the said investigation.

“Again FESA did not inform Plaintiff of what the allegations or accusations were, nor did FESA inform Plaintiff of the identity of the complainant.”

In December 2020 Alisi was suspended.

According to the statement of claims, the Ombudsman failed to provide her with a copy of its report, despite there impliedly being an adverse finding against her that it caused FESA to suspend her.

Alisi’s statement of claim, says that comments made by representatives of MOF and MPE the allegations of misappropriation of funds arose from her being paid overtime which they claimed Alisi was not entitled to under the FESA Human Resources Manual.

HoweverAlisi at all times referred to the provisions of her contract and informed MOF and MPE that overtime was stipulated in her contract and furthermore, approved by the Commissioner.

In August, Alisi’s employment was terminated. 

In her statement, Alisi claims breach of contract and claims loss and damage. She asked for her full pay and benefits and that her suspension and subsequent termination on the grounds of misappropriation of funds was therefore without foundation or basis and consequently unlawful, and a breach of the Plaintiff’s contract of employment.

She sought the court for judgement in the amount of $436,403.08 as her entitlement to expect employees to be continued until she reached the retirement age of 55 years; pay $39,276.58 for her SNPF; aggravated damages in the amount of $300,000 and exemplary damages $300,000 which amounts to $1.07 million tala.

According to the statement of claims says MOF and MPE claim Alisi had misappropriated public funds.

“The MOF’s report stated that there was a misappropriation of public funds in the amount of $42,957 of which $19,640 was paid to the [Alisi] and recommended disciplinary action against [Alisi].

“MPE’s Report stated that the Plaintiff had taken advantage of the On-Call allowance and was not entitled to request, claim and receive overtime and allowance payments and therefore found the Plaintiff to have breached her contract and recommended the Plaintiff’s Contract of Employment be terminated immediately.

“Both MOF and MPE sent their respective Reports to FESA and provided copies to the Prime Minister and the Minister of their respective Ministries.”

Alisi claims the MOF and  MPE have defamed her good name and argued that payments were approved by the Commissioner based on recommendations she made as Manager.

“Alisi as the Manager for CSU has a responsibility as a Controlling Officer to control and monitor the personnel’s actual spending.

“Regardless of her responsibility, Alisi went ahead and claimed payments for herself, signed off in payments for the respective staffs recommended for the former Commissioner’s approval, led to causing a significant loss to SFESA.”

The published statements by both MOF and MPE claim that over the course of 13 months, covered in the period under investigation, Alisi allegedly misappropriated a total of $19,640 paid to herself as compensation for administration work carried out during overtime hours.

“Based on observations and findings, there is a clear indication that Alisi had misused the performance of administration work after normal working hours to give personal benefits by compensating herself with overtime and on-call allowances throughout every pay period from 18 November 2019 to December 2020.”

The published statements by both MOF and MPE in their natural and ordinary meaning are: the Plaintiff has acted corruptly and dishonestly in claiming overtime and On-Call Allowances when she was (purportedly) not entitled to; the Plaintiff misappropriated public monies; the Plaintiff acted corruptly and dishonestly using her position as Manager Corporate Services to recommend to the Commissioner that she be paid overtime and On-Call Allowances; the Plaintiff is corrupt and dishonest and her employment should therefore be terminated.”

Alisi claims her reputation has been harmed and injured by the said false and defamatory statements published by MOF and MPE.” 

The statement of claims is outlined printed in part below on what Alisi is seeking the court’s indulgence and consideration.

Against FESA WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays judgment against the First Defendant:

1. the sum of $436,403.08;
2. an Order directing the First Defendant to pay the sum of $39,276.58 to the National Provident Fund to the credit of the Plaintiff;
3. aggravated damages in the amount of $300,000;
4. exemplary damages $300,000;
5. the costs of these proceedings;
6. such further or other order as the Court in the circumstances deems just

Against Ombudsman WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays judgment against the Second Defendant:

1. in the sum of $303,542.58;
2. aggravated damages $300,000;
3. exemplary damages $300,000;
4. the costs of these proceedings;
5. such further or other order as the Court in the circumstances deems just;

Against MOF WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays judgment against the Third Defendant:

1. for damages in the sum of $303,542.58;
2. aggravated damages in the sum of $300,000;
3. exemplary damages of $300,000;
4. the costs of these proceedings;
5. such further or other order as the Court in the circumstances deems just;

Against MPE WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays judgment against the Third Defendant:

1. for damages in the sum of $303,542.58;
2. aggravated damages in the sum of $300,000;
3. exemplary damages in the sum of $300,000;
4. the costs of these proceedings;
5. such further or other order as the Court in the circumstances deems just;