Prosecutor’s Battle: Will Pryde Attend His Own Tribunal?

Christopher Pryde, the suspended Director of Public Prosecutions, has publicly stated that he will not resign or attend the tribunal hearing set for December 2. Pryde claims that the suspension of his salary has created an unfair situation, preventing him from hiring legal representation to defend himself adequately at the tribunal.

In a letter dated November 21, Pryde argued that a hearing cannot be just and fair if he is deprived of the resources to defend his case. He referenced International Labour Organisation conventions that Fiji has ratified, which he believes prohibit such actions.

Pryde expressed strong disapproval of the actions taken by Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) that resulted in the suspension of his salary in July. He accused them of interfering with the tribunal process and labeled their actions as contemptuous. Furthermore, he mentioned that Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has publicly supported his claim for salary reinstatement, suggesting that public sentiment may be on his side.

Determined to uphold his rights, Pryde declared that he would not be intimidated into resigning. He emphasized the importance of having the opportunity to defend himself and labeled it a breach of natural justice to deny him this right. He stated that he would be willing to return to the tribunal once his salary is reinstated, allowing him to engage legal counsel for a robust defense.

In response, Mr. Temo declined to comment further on the situation, emphasizing the tribunal’s sensitive nature.

This scenario highlights the ongoing challenges within the judicial system and raises questions about fair representation and justice. While tensions run high, there is optimism that resolving these issues could lead to a more equitable treatment of public officials, ultimately fostering a stronger legal framework in Fiji.

In summary, Christopher Pryde’s stance against his suspension and his appeal for fair treatment underscores the ongoing discourse around justice and accountability in public office, setting the stage for potential reforms in how such cases are managed in the future.