Former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has initiated legal proceedings against the Government and the Attorney-General, asserting that he has not received the complete pension and gratuity benefits to which he is entitled.
During a hearing at the High Court in Suva, Bainimarama’s attorney, Fatima Gul, outlined the case. Bainimarama, who held the position of Prime Minister from 2009 to 2022, claims he is owed 75% of his annual salary for pension purposes along with a gratuity payment. He contends that his full pension should amount to $246,562.50 based on his annual salary of $328,750, although the Government has reportedly adjusted this figure to $184,921.87.
In addition, Bainimarama claims he is due a one-time gratuity of $770,507.87, but states that he has only received $433,296.75, resulting in an outstanding balance of $337,211.12.
His legal team is seeking various remedies, which include:
– Payment of the remaining gratuity balance ($337,211.12)
– Adjustment of his fortnightly pension payments to $7,112.37
– Entitlements under the Prime Ministers Pension Act of 1994
– Benefits based on the Parliamentary Remuneration Act
– Prejudgment interest at a rate of 13.5% per annum and ongoing post-judgment interest until full payment is made
– Full solicitor-client indemnity costs
On the other hand, the Government has refuted Bainimarama’s claims, asserting that his benefits have been properly paid according to the Prime Ministers Pension Act. They argue that he is entitled to 80% of a salary specified in the Parliamentary Remuneration Act, which totals $263,000, and maintains that all benefits due have been disbursed accordingly.
The court has instructed Bainimarama to submit additional filings by November 19, with the Government’s response expected by December 3. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for January 7, 2025, and the next hearing is set for February 5, 2025. It’s important to note that failing to comply with court orders could result in a fine of $2,000.
This legal battle highlights the complex nature of pension entitlements for former leaders and raises critical questions about financial obligations of public offices to their past officials. As the case unfolds, it may bring to light broader issues regarding governmental accountability and the administration of pension systems in the region.
In a hopeful perspective, the proceedings could encourage more transparency and clarity in how pension entitlements for public officials are calculated and managed, leading to improved systems in the future that better serve all parties involved.
Leave a comment