Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Pryde has formally rejected the suspension of his salary and benefits, arguing in an August 4, 2025 letter to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu that the action is unlawful and unconstitutional.
In the letter, Pryde says the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has failed to perform its constitutional disciplinary role by not determining complaints made against him. He maintains that, under the Constitution, the JSC must either dismiss complaints as lacking merit or advise the President to establish a tribunal. Pryde says the JSC has done neither, instead delegating its role to “another agency charged with investigating criminal offences,” a step he calls unconstitutional and a breach of the JSC’s legal duties.
Pryde told the President that this failure to act is the reason he has not resumed his duties as DPP since his reinstatement in January 2025 after a tribunal cleared him of earlier allegations. He rejects any suggestion that his absence breached his Agreement of Service, saying he needs assurance from the JSC that complaints will be handled through the constitutionally prescribed procedures before returning to work.
He also invoked section 117(5) of the Constitution, arguing there is no provision allowing his pay to be reduced to his disadvantage and describing previous JSC recommendations to suspend his pay — once in 2024 and again now — as legally flawed and a breach of natural justice. Pryde added that it is unprecedented in Fiji for senior judicial or state officers to remain in office on full pay while being formally named in a judicial inquiry and subject to police investigations, and stressed the importance of the President being seen as above “political scheming” to preserve public confidence in the rule of law.
Context and related developments
– The President’s office issued a correspondence on July 25, 2025 placing Pryde’s salary and benefits on hold after the JSC referred complaints to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). Reports indicate Pryde has been residing in New Zealand during this period.
– Some reports say FICAC has filed formal charges linked to an investigation into alleged abuse of office; Pryde disputes the process by which the JSC moved matters toward that investigative path instead of completing its own constitutional assessment.
– Pryde says he remains ready to resume duties as soon as the JSC acts on the complaints in accordance with its constitutional mandate.
Logical explanation
The dispute highlights a jurisdictional and procedural tension: the JSC’s constitutional function is disciplinary review of complaints against senior judicial or quasi-judicial officers, while an investigative agency like FICAC handles criminal matters. Referral to an investigative agency can be appropriate if criminal conduct is alleged, but doing so without the JSC first determining whether disciplinary action or a tribunal is warranted raises constitutional and procedural questions about which body should take the lead and when. That ambiguity can delay resolution and leave constitutional safeguards — such as protections against adverse variation of pay — in dispute.
Summary
Christopher Pryde has rejected the suspension of his pay, accusing the Judicial Services Commission of failing to fulfil its constitutional duty to assess complaints against him and of improperly delegating that role to a criminal investigative agency. He says he will only return to work once the JSC follows the constitutionally required process.
Hopeful outlook
This disagreement could prompt clearer rules and stronger procedural safeguards for handling complaints against senior legal officers — including clearer delineation of the JSC’s disciplinary role versus criminal investigations by agencies like FICAC, and improved conflict-of-interest and recusal processes for advisers. Clarifying these procedures could strengthen public confidence in Fiji’s justice system and ensure more timely, transparent handling of future cases.
Suggested follow-ups for reporting
– Seek an official response from the President’s office on Pryde’s August 4 letter and the legal basis cited for the July 25 suspension.
– Ask the JSC to clarify why it referred matters to FICAC rather than first dismissing complaints or advising a tribunal, and whether Pryde’s claim about unpaid gratuity is correct.
– Confirm whether FICAC has filed formal charges, and if so, the nature and status of those charges.
– Obtain comment from independent constitutional or administrative law experts on the interpretation of section 117(5) and the JSC’s duties in disciplinary matters involving senior judicial officers.
Leave a comment