The Suva High Court heard arguments today over the legality of former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s pension calculation, focusing on whether the pension was pegged to the full Prime Ministerial salary or to the reduced salary that resulted from a 20 percent pay cut approved for all Members of Parliament during the 2019–2020 financial year as part of COVID-19 cost-saving measures.
Court documents show that when Bainimarama applied for his pension and gratuity on January 4, 2024, the matter was referred to the Solicitor-General’s Office for review. The advisers instructed that the pension should be calculated using the salary earned in each year, and it was confirmed that the 20 percent reduction for the Prime Minister and other ministers remained in effect at the time of his retirement, with the possibility that the original higher salary had not been restored. The Head of Corporate Services noted they had sought legal guidance from the Solicitor-General’s Office and that the instruction was to apply the formula laid out in section 4(b) of the Prime Minister’s Pension Act.
Under that formula, for Prime Ministers who served more than ten years, the first two years use 20 percent of the salary actually used, the next three years 10 percent, and the following five years five percent. A 75 percent pension cap applied for the period from 2007 to 2017. The court’s focus included whether Bainimarama’s role extended beyond his Prime Ministership, noting that he also held the title of Commander during the interim government in 2007. Defense lawyers said they are working to clarify which salary was used in the calculation.
Three witnesses appeared as the court examined whether the pension was calculated in a lawful and transparent manner. Justice Daniel Goundar gave both the State and the defense 21 days to submit their legal arguments. Bainimarama is claiming a remaining gratuity of $337,211.12, a fortnightly pension of $7,112.37, prejudgment interest at 13.5 percent, post-judgment interest, and full legal costs.
The case continues to unfold as both sides press for clarity on the precise salary basis used for the pension calculation and how the applicable provisions of the Prime Minister’s Pension Act were applied during and after the COVID-19 pay-cut period.
Fijian Summary
Na iVolavola ni veivakadonui ena Suva High Court e baleta na i tukutuku ni paseni kei na gratuity ni a mai vakavulici o Bainimarama. E baleta na salasaga me kila na ivakarau ni vakadonuya na paseni me mai mai na lawa ni Prime Minister, se na ilavo e vakacerekitaki ena vakacacagi ni 20% ena COVID-19 ka a tuva me vaka ena 2019-2020. E tukuna na iwi vakailavo ni cakacaka ni wiliki na ilavo sa vakarautaki kina na kena vakayagataki na ilavo era caka vakalailai kina na yabaki kece. E vakadinadina tiko na kena i sau ni 75% na paseni ena kena gauna mai 2007 ki 2017. E vakaraitaki tale ga na mataivalu ni taudua na 2007 ena itu ni Commander. E vakabibitaki na veika nimadi kei na so na i vola me balavu na ivakata waqa me ra volavola na ivakarau ni veivakadonui. Na vakadidike e curu mai e tolu na ivakatawa, ka na tiko e 21 na siga me vakadikevi na lawa. O Bainimarama e vakataki na kena sa caka na gratuity me balavu ki $337,211.12, na pension ni ivalu veidokadokado ki na 7,112.37 me dua na waitaki, kei na i lavo ni vakadidike ni veiqaravi me rawa ni levu ka taleitaki.
Additional notes and context:
– The case continues to hinge on how the post-pandemic salary adjustments interact with long-standing pension formulas. The court has signaled a careful review of the definitions of “salary used” and how the Prime Minister’s Pension Act is applied over multiple years, including years when interim arrangements or cost-cutting measures were in place.
– This dispute highlights broader questions about transparency and consistency in how public officials’ retirement benefits are calculated, especially during periods of economic strain.
Negative sentiment evaluation: None
Leave a comment