Christopher Pryde, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has formally contested the suspension of his salary and benefits, calling the action “unlawful and unconstitutional” in a letter to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
In his correspondence, Pryde argues the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) failed in its constitutional duty by not properly addressing complaints against him and by effectively delegating its disciplinary responsibilities to another agency. He says that delegation left the matter unresolved for more than six months and that the JSC has not paid his contractual gratuity, which he alleges breaches his service agreement.
Pryde also disputes the constitutional basis advanced for his suspension, saying the provision invoked has been misinterpreted and that his pay cannot be reduced to his detriment. He raised further concerns that senior legal advisors, including the Chief Justice and the Acting Attorney-General, may have provided legal advice while themselves subject to investigations — a point he highlights as potentially compromising the process. Pryde says the delay in addressing the complaints and the suspension of his salary could be tactics intended to pressure him into resigning.
The President issued a letter dated July 25 that immediately suspended Pryde’s salary and benefits. That step followed a Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) investigation into alleged abuse of office linked to Pryde’s handling of certain files. The JSC recommended the suspension after Pryde failed to return to work by agreed deadlines: he missed a January 20, 2025 return date and again did not resume duties by May 9, despite having received full pay during that period. The JSC says it is awaiting the outcome of the FICAC investigation before taking further action.
Separately, related reports indicate that FICAC has filed formal charges against Pryde, and that Pryde has been staying in New Zealand. Pryde has made his correspondence public and reiterated that he is willing to return to work once the JSC carries out what he describes as its constitutional duties. Questions based on Pryde’s claims have been sent to the President’s office; no response has been received to date.
Additional context and commentary
– The core dispute mixes disciplinary, administrative and potentially criminal elements. The JSC’s decision to refer matters to FICAC and to pause action pending its findings suggests the commission treated aspects of the complaints as potentially criminal rather than purely disciplinary. That distinction can affect which body has primary jurisdiction and the timing of any tribunal or disciplinary hearing.
– Pryde’s complaints about unpaid gratuity and alleged improper delegation by the JSC are procedural issues that, if substantiated, could shape how future complaints against senior judicial officers are handled.
– Allegations that senior legal advisors gave advice while under investigation raise conflicts-of-interest concerns; independent, external legal advice or clear recusal processes are typical safeguards to preserve impartiality in such situations.
Brief summary
– Pryde contests the suspension of his pay as unlawful and unconstitutional.
– He accuses the JSC of failing to address complaints properly and of delegating its disciplinary role.
– The President suspended his salary on July 25 after a FICAC probe into alleged abuse of office; related reports say formal charges have been filed.
– Pryde says his gratuity remains unpaid and that he will return once the JSC fulfils its constitutional duties.
Hopeful outlook
This dispute, while contentious, could prompt clearer rules and improved transparency around handling complaints involving top legal officials — including better-defined roles for the JSC versus investigative agencies like FICAC, and stronger conflict-of-interest safeguards for advisers. Clarifying those procedures can strengthen public confidence in the justice system and ensure fairer, more consistent treatment of future cases.
Suggested follow-ups for reporting
– Obtain a response from the President’s office and from the JSC about the delegation decision and the unpaid gratuity claim.
– Confirm whether formal charges by FICAC have been filed, and if so, the nature of those charges and any scheduled proceedings.
– Seek comment from independent constitutional or administrative law experts on the interpretation of the constitutional provision cited for the suspension and on the JSC’s duties in such matters.
negative
Leave a comment