Former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has initiated legal action against the Government and the Attorney-General, alleging they have not fulfilled their obligations regarding his pension and gratuity payments. The case was brought before Acting Master Liyanage Kashyapa Wickramasekera at the High Court in Suva.
Bainimarama, who held the office of Prime Minister from 2009 until 2022, asserts that he is entitled to 75 percent of his annual salary as a pension, which he claims totals $246,562.50 from his $328,750 yearly earnings. This amount is reportedly contested by the Government, which has reduced it to $184,921.87. In addition, Bainimarama is seeking a one-time gratuity payment of $770,507.87, claiming he has only received $433,296.75, leaving a balance of $337,211.12 owed to him.
His legal representatives have requested several remedies, including:
– The outstanding gratuity balance of $337,211.12,
– Adjusted fortnightly pension payments amounting to $7,112.37,
– Entitlements as stipulated under Section 9 of the Prime Ministers Pension Act of 1994,
– Pension and retirement benefits in line with the Parliamentary Remuneration Act,
– Prejudgment interest at a rate of 13.5 percent per annum, and post-judgment interest until the full amount is disbursed,
– Legal costs covered on a full solicitor-client indemnity basis.
The Government’s position counters Bainimarama’s claims, arguing that his pension entitlements have been properly calculated according to the Prime Ministers Pension Act. They assert that he is eligible for 80 percent of the salary defined in the Parliamentary Remuneration Act, amounting to $263,000, and maintain that all owed benefits have been provided.
The court has set deadlines for filings, with the Plaintiff’s submissions expected by November 19 and the Government’s response due by December 3. A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for January 7, 2025, with the case adjourned until February 5, 2025. It’s important to note that non-compliance with court orders could result in a $2,000 penalty.
This legal dispute highlights the complexities surrounding entitlements for public officials and the importance of clear communication and adherence to legal frameworks governing such matters. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to observe how both parties navigate their claims and evidence in court, potentially setting precedents for future pension-related disputes in the governmental context.
In a positive light, this case could initiate a necessary dialogue about the transparency and fairness of pension distribution for public servants, ultimately leading to reforms that better protect the financial rights of former officials.
Leave a comment