Bribery Allegations In Fiji

Show Psychological Aspects

EVIDENCE heard before the Commission inquiring into allegations of bribery concerning the Fiji Police has suggested that among the Indians in Fiji, as among most Asiatic peoples, bribery is regarded as a natural concomitant of business, especially when business is to be done yith officials in subordinate posts.

f For example, an Indian witness told the Commission that when he took a lorry to the Police Station to secure a certificate after »xa ruination of the vehicle, he ilso took £lO to expedite matters.

He admitted that the policeman joncerned had not asked for money, nit said that the £lO had been landed over. i Explaining this alleged trans ition, the witness said: “The lergeant makes a lot of fuss md trouble and points to all orts of things that have to be lone. To-day he says this thing rants fixing. When it is fixed next lay, he says that another thing iceds replacing, and on the third lay he finds something else. He 5 a good man, so I give him £lO. could see he was playing up with le. These things have to be done a the dark. Then he makes more uss and bother, so I give him lore.”

After mentioning with commisera ion that the policeman had a irge family to support, the witness dded that his lorry was a good ehicle and did not require so lany improvements.

“Good?” commented Mr. D. M. f. McFarlane, one of the Com lissioners. “You bought it from le New Zealand Army nine years go, and I would like to see a ood truck after the Army has one with it!”

At times during the inquiry it as become clear that while some I the allegations against the Police raffic Department may or may ot be true, others appear to be tade by transport proprietors who ave failed to get service licences r to have their vehicles passed, ome of these people seem to regard le giving of evidence before the ommission as a help in that irection, VHEN Commissioners asked Acting Assistant Police Com missioner H. Halstead what as the attitude of the ex-Com issioner of Police (Mr. E. K. iws) in regard to bribery allega ons, Mr. Halstead replied; “He ist did not want to discuss it.”

The Acting Crown Solicitor (Mr.

Lewis) asked if the ex-Com issioner had taken the line of ast resistance. Mr. Halstead plied: “Yes, he did not want any cubic.” He himself had reopened ie investigation when the ex-

Commissioner was on leave.

He told the Commission that he believed that when the allegations of bribery were coming in. Inspector R. B. Winthrop, who had been in charge of the Traffic Office, should have been transferred, not only in the interests of the Police Depart-

ment, but also in the interests of Mr. Winthrop himself.

At another stage of the inquiry, Superintendent B. F. Hooper told the Commission that Mr. Winthrop had been transferred at his own request following an interview with a visiting Inspector-General from the Colonial Office.

IN the early part of the inquiry, a bright note was given to pro ceedings by an Indian bus proprietor who, after stating that (a) he had not heard of bribes being paid, (b) he had no com plaints to make against the Trans port Board, and (c) he had never given a bribe to anybody, added after reflection that he had once bribed a constable.

It was, he alleged, in 1926, when

tie had been “booked” for not laving a rear light on a vehicle. constable had said that the iffence would be worth £3 in Sourt, but that he would accept :i Further inquiries disclosed that he constable had retired many rears ago and was probably dead, ["he Commission left it at that.

Bribery allegations have ranged rom £lOO to a few shillings and iave included such items as dinners rith “plenty of liquor,” radios, free lilk for a policeman, rice, a ooster and three rums.

For the most part such allegations ave not been supported by solid pidence, and, apart from evidence f departmental disputes and ifficulties, much of the inquiry has insisted in effect of one man’s ord against another’s.

Many witnesses have admitted mt “Suva gossip” was the source [ their information, and refusals \ give answers to questions and inflicting evidence have at times inctuated the hearing. [THEN the first part of the T Commission’s hearing ended at Suva on November 24 (after hich the inquiry moved to Ba), e general feeling seemed to be at nothing of a really conclusive iture had been produced.

The evasiveness and self ntradiction displayed at times by me of the witnesses plainly bore

out a remark by Superintendent J. Colclough during the hearing.

He said that some of the people whose stories had been related or quoted “could not tell the truth, even if they wanted to.”

The Commission will resume its Suva hearing after Christmas.