Fiji’s suspended chief prosecutor, Christopher Pryde, has come forward with serious allegations against the government. He claims that he was secretly offered NZ$150,000 to resign and avoid an inquiry into supposed “misbehavior.” Pryde, a 59-year-old New Zealander, turned down the proposal, asserting that he could not financially support his defense in the matter.
In statements made to RNZ Pacific, Pryde expressed concerns over what he described as an ethno-national agenda by the Fijian government. He claimed that the indigenous Fijians (iTaukei) are being prioritized over foreigners and Indo-Fijians in government hiring practices, arguing that merit is not being considered.
The Judicial Services Committee (JSC) had initially extended the settlement offer two months ago, which would require Pryde to resign as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). This offer was intended to resolve his ongoing proceedings without court intervention. “Why should I resign when I haven’t done anything wrong?” asked Pryde, insisting that he desired a letter from the President affirming his innocence rather than a “grubby payout.”
Pryde’s suspension originated in April 2023, when he was reportedly charged after conversing with former Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at a public event. His communication with Sayed-Khaiyum raised concerns due to the possibility of discussing an active police investigation. Pryde has repeatedly denied having read the police file in question.
Worries about the fairness of the inquiry process have surfaced, with the Fiji Law Society expressing reservations about proceeding without Pryde’s representation. The society’s president emphasized the need for adherence to procedural fairness, highlighting that Pryde had only withdrawn legal counsel due to financial constraints following his suspension.
The tribunal is expected to provide its final recommendations to President Naiqama Lalabalavu by December 23. Meanwhile, Pryde anticipates his removal from office but is uncertain about his options for appealing the decision due to potential delays in the judicial review process.
This unfolding situation raises significant concerns about transparency and fairness in Fiji’s judicial system, urging a closer examination of the implications for governance and legal integrity within the nation.
In an optimistic light, this case could serve as an impetus for meaningful discussions about judicial independence and the importance of ensuring fair treatment for all individuals within the legal framework, helping to strengthen Fiji’s democracy in the long run.
Leave a comment