RSIPF clarify issue on imprest holder publish on Solomon Star

The Royal Solomon Island Police Force (RSIPF) again wished to clarify the Imprest issue raised on the front-page of Solomon Star newspaper on 15 November 2022 on the subject ‘Who is the Imprest Holder?’

The article made a comparison to try and emphasise their point. RSIPF would like to clarify that the comparison amount mentioned in the article about RSIPF Commissioner Mr. Mostyn Mangau on his recent business trip to India with the amount of USD $10,000.00 is misleading and inaccurate. It shows that the author(s) have not done proper research and acquired inaccurate information without verifying before publishing.

There is no reason to ask the question of who is the Imprest Holder because every member of the delegation knows who is the imprest holder. There is no excuse to hide behind the article because the old school tricks are a thing of the past. The article claims that there are two imprest drawn for the China trip is false and grossly misleading with intention to draw attention of the public and undermine the RSIPF Executives.

Only SBD $50,000.00 Special Imprest is drawn to support the RSIPF delegation for the China training seminar. The Finance Circular was very clear on special imprest requirements. All public servants know it is the responsibility of the imprest holder to retire it. The imprest as everyone knows is not for personal use but must be used for the reason that it was applied for and it is the responsibility of the imprest holder to assess and account for the imprest on what and how it should be used but again guided by the imprest rules. It is not for sharing with members for their personal use whatsoever.

There is nothing to hide, part of this imprest was used to buy gifts and not only shell necklace was purchased but other important gifts from Solomon Islands and whilst in china the imprest was used for communication (top up) expenses for all members, paid for specific items of the cultural event, used for procurement of equipment for participating RSIPF Units, etc. It is too early to question what the imprest is used for when the imprest is yet to be retired. However, any officer who is concerned about the imprest is welcome to examine the documents when the imprest will be retired.

There is no witch-hunt at all and no plan to interrogate any officer by Executives as claimed in the article. The meeting held at that time is for the debriefing of the training. Even during that debriefing session, the officers are given opportunity to raise any issues or questions about anything and no single question was raised related to the imprest. Until today, no officer has come forward to ask any hard questions as claimed. The RSIPF Executive is always available, open and transparent should anyone have any question to ask.

The RSIPF Executive also denies any Executive members carrying large shopping items; there is no truth about this claim. Such could only be assumed by greedy people who may have misused imprest for such shopping things in the past and expect the imprest to be given to them anyhow.
The RSIPF Executive is very concerned about such media reporting when there is no single truth about these claims and encourage fair reporting, well researched and balance reporting before publishing a story.