Fiji’s suspended chief prosecutor, Christopher Pryde, has disclosed that the government proposed a secret payment of NZ$150,000 for his resignation to prevent an inquiry into allegations of “misbehaviour.” Pryde, a 59-year-old New Zealander, rejected the offer and did not attend a recent hearing regarding the matter, citing his inability to financially defend himself.
Pryde expressed concerns that the government’s motives are driven by an “ethno-national agenda,” suggesting that foreign nationals and Indo-Fijians are being systematically replaced by iTaukei individuals (indigenous Fijians). He criticized the hiring practices in Fiji, claiming they prioritize ethnicity over merit, asserting that the government prefers to have iTaukei individuals in leading positions.
The Judicial Services Committee (JSC) had sent an official offer to Pryde’s lawyer on October 7, providing a settlement in exchange for his immediate resignation. This settlement would also prevent him from pursuing any legal claims against the JSC. However, Pryde has stated that he refuses to accept a “grubby payout” and instead desires a formal acknowledgment from the President clearing him of any wrongdoing to preserve his reputation.
Pryde was appointed director of public prosecutions in November 2011 but was suspended in April 2023 amid allegations of misconduct related to a conversation he had with a former Attorney General at a public gathering. He has denied any misconduct, insisting that he had not reviewed relevant police files before the interaction.
Currently, the Fiji Law Society has raised concerns regarding the fairness of the inquiry process, particularly given Pryde’s absence and lack of representation due to his financial situation. The tribunal is expected to submit its final recommendations to President Naiqama Lalabalavu by December 23, with Pryde anticipating his removal from office.
This situation highlights broader issues of governance and the dynamics of ethnicity in Fiji’s political landscape, which could have lasting implications for the integrity of its judicial system. There is potential for a positive outcome if the discussions around this case lead to a more fair and transparent process in the future, ensuring all individuals, regardless of ethnicity, receive equal treatment under the law.
The ongoing developments serve as an important reminder of the need for procedural fairness in judicial matters and the significance of preserving the integrity of legal institutions in Fiji.
Leave a comment