Former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has initiated legal proceedings against the Fijian Government and the Attorney-General, claiming they have not fulfilled their obligations regarding his pension and gratuity payments. Bainimarama’s attorney, Fatima Gul, presented the lawsuit at the High Court in Suva.
The legal claim centers around Bainimarama’s assertion that he is owed 75 percent of his annual salary as a pension, along with a gratuity payment. He states that this obligation amounts to $246,562.50 based on his annual salary of $328,750, while the Government has allegedly reduced this figure to $184,921.87. Bainimarama is also seeking a one-time gratuity payment of $770,507.87, alleging that the Government has only disbursed $433,296.75, resulting in an outstanding balance of $337,211.12.
His legal team has outlined several key requests, including:
– Payment of the outstanding gratuity balance of $337,211.12
– Correct fortnightly pension payments of $7,112.37
– Full entitlements under the Prime Ministers Pension Act of 1994
– Pension and retirement allowances based on the Parliamentary Remuneration Act
– Prejudgment interest at a rate of 13.5 percent per annum as well as post-judgment interest until the full amount is settled
– Coverage for legal costs on a full solicitor-client indemnity basis
In response, the Government contends that Bainimarama’s entitlements have been appropriately administered according to the Prime Ministers Pension Act. They assert that he is eligible for 80 percent of the salary specified in the Parliamentary Remuneration Act, amounting to $263,000, and maintain that all due benefits have been provided.
The court has instructed Bainimarama to submit necessary filings by November 19, with the Government’s response required by December 3. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for January 7, 2025, and the case is adjourned until February 5, 2025. Noncompliance with court orders may incur a $2,000 penalty.
This situation highlights ongoing debates over pension entitlements for former leaders, underscoring the importance of clear guidelines and adherence to legal frameworks. As the case unfolds, it may set a precedent for how similar matters are addressed in the future, potentially improving transparency within government processes. The positive aspect here could be an eventual resolution that clarifies the pension and gratuity policies for former officials, benefitting public service accountability.
Leave a comment