Opposition Member of Parliament Premila Kumar has strongly criticized Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s recent decision to expand his Cabinet, questioning the abandonment of the government’s pre-election promise to reduce both costs and the size of the administration. Kumar’s remarks come after Rabuka appointed seven additional ministers and assistant ministers, bringing the total to 34 members, which includes 22 Cabinet Ministers and 12 Assistant Ministers—marking one of the largest Cabinets in Fiji’s history.

Kumar expressed her discontent, stating, “What happened to their promise of reducing government size and cutting unnecessary costs?” She contends that instead of addressing inefficiencies or holding underperforming ministers accountable, Rabuka’s administration has opted for a decision she sees as a “bailout” for ineffective leaders. “This isn’t a reshuffle; it’s a bailout for underperforming ministers who continue to hold their positions, all at the expense of hardworking Fijians,” she added.

Furthermore, Kumar highlighted the financial burden this expansion places on taxpayers already struggling with high living costs. She questioned the government’s prioritization of political payoffs instead of addressing pressing national issues such as supporting families affected by recent floods, combating medicine shortages in hospitals, and repairing deteriorating infrastructure.

In contrast, Prime Minister Rabuka defended his Cabinet expansion as a necessary means to improve efficiency and service delivery, asserting that it is not an effort to consolidate power ahead of the 2026 General Election.

The political discourse emerging from this situation indicates a significant backlash from the public and other political figures, including former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, who have echoed Kumar’s concerns about the financial irresponsibility of the Cabinet enlargement. Critics argue it contradicts pre-election commitments and could divert critical resources from essential development projects, further straining public services.

Despite the criticism, this situation holds potential for governance reforms. Engaging public dialogue and emphasizing accountability could encourage the government to realign its focus on the needs of its citizens. Observers remain hopeful that the increased scrutiny will lead to meaningful changes in response to the pressing issues Fijians face, ultimately fostering a more effective and trustworthy administration.

In summary, while the Cabinet expansion has drawn significant backlash for perceived inefficiency and lack of accountability, it also offers a critical opportunity for reform. This moment may inspire discussions that prioritize the genuine concerns of the public, potentially reshaping governance in Fiji to better serve its citizens.