The only body in the nation that deals with human rights, corruption, good governance and the practices of maladministration of government agencies lacks teeth.

The Office of the Ombudsman is nothing but a toothless tiger. It can take a complaint and investigate government officials but lacks the power to take them to task. It can merely make recommendations.

In the case of Taikerise Moe, the longest-serving staff member of the Legislative Assembly who was allegedly dismissed after lodging a complaint against the Clerk Satama Leatisa Tala with Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa, the Office of the Ombudsman can only make recommendations.

It can only investigate the legality of the termination and not the alleged behaviour of the clerk as alleged in the complaint. This is a predicament. This office needs to be independent if it deals with good governance and maladministration. Instead, this entity is tied up with bureaucratic rules that are limiting its functions and at the same time making it powerless to have an impact.

There were no referrals from the Prime Minister on that letter of complaint, so their inquiry was restricted to the dismissal of the complainant. This is a major roadblock, stopping the Office of the Ombudsman from carrying out its full potential.

Even if the Ombudsman finds that the clerk was erroneous, they can only recommend what action is to be taken, and it is up to the Legislative Assembly whether to accept the recommendations or not.

"We do not have enforcement powers in the Ombudsman like the court when it makes orders. But if a Ministry refuses to enforce our recommendations we then write directly to the responsible Minister,” said Acting Ombudsman, Maualavaivao Pepe Seiuli.

"If that fails we then write to the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the last resort is to table the findings in Parliament where it will be deliberated on…we rarely had cases that escalate that far.”

An investigation from the Ombudsman’s office is instigated through a referral from the Prime Minister, a complaint submitted at the office and a referral from the Parliamentary Select Committee.

There is a need to empower the Office of the Ombudsman and give it teeth. There is a need to make this particular office independent and ensure it is free from political influence. It should be able to take people to court.

If there is abuse of office, corruption, maladministration and violation of human rights, the Office of the Ombudsman should have enough powers to follow through. A change in law is required to make it possible.

If the government is willing to rid of corruption and maintain good governance in its offices, then this has to be done. The anti-corruption policy was launched earlier this year and there were talks of forming an anti-corruption agency.

Why is there a need to replicate the roles and have two bodies doing the same thing? A simple act of parliament can empower the Office of the Ombudsman to do much more than it can. The people of this nation will have a watchdog against maladministration and corruption which can actually bite and not just bark.

Corruption, maladministration, abuse of office and violation of human rights erode trust, weaken democracy, hamper economic development and further exacerbate inequality, poverty, social division and the environmental crisis.

Changing the laws and giving more power to the Office of the Ombudsman will also show the government’s commitment to being transparent and accountable. If the office had powers, a lot of abuse in government could have been prevented.

It is still not too late, give the Office of the Ombudsman the bite it lacks.