Christopher Pryde, the suspended Director of Public Prosecutions, has responded to allegations made by Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo, who accused him of misappropriating taxpayer funds in Fiji. Pryde characterized Temo’s claims as a “defamatory slur” on his character and emphasized that he would not let these accusations go unanswered.
In an interview, Pryde highlighted several key points regarding the actions of the Acting Chief Justice. He argued that Temo should be held accountable for:
– Failing to report the alleged theft to the relevant authorities, if he genuinely believed such an act had taken place.
– Making defamatory and baseless statements during the Tribunal proceedings.
– Advising the President to unlawfully suspend Pryde’s salary, which he perceives as contempt toward the Tribunal.
Additionally, Pryde revealed that in October, Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu had proposed a settlement to his legal team. However, Pryde rejected the settlement offer of an undisclosed amount, insisting instead on receiving a formal letter of exoneration from the President. This insistence led to the withdrawal of the settlement offer when the Chief Registrar declined Pryde’s request.
Pryde also expressed concerns over the Tribunal proceeding in his absence, which he claims was unjust. He argued that the lack of his presence means the statements made by the Acting Chief Justice were left unchallenged, creating a potential perception of truth regarding the unverified evidence presented. This absence of challenge contributes to what Pryde considers a significant injustice against him.
In a separate communication, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) reportedly offered Pryde $200,000 to resign from his position immediately, framing this as a final settlement to conclude the ongoing proceedings. Accepting this offer would also bar Pryde from pursuing any legal action against the JSC in court. This letter was dated October 7 and sent to Pryde’s lawyers.
This situation highlights the complexities and challenges within the Fijian judicial system, showcasing the need for accountability and fairness in judicial proceedings. As the investigation continues, there remains hope that a resolution can be achieved that upholds justice while also protecting the rights of individuals involved.
In summary, the ongoing dispute characterizes a significant clash within Fiji’s judicial landscape, raising critical questions about due process and the obligation of public officials to act with integrity. The forthcoming decisions may provide clarity and set important precedents in the realm of public service and accountability.
Leave a comment