Fiji’s chief prosecutor, Christopher Pryde, recently disclosed that the government proposed him NZ$150,000 to resign quietly and avoid an inquiry into allegations of misconduct. Pryde, who is from New Zealand, declined the offer and opted not to participate in a hearing addressing the matter last week, citing financial constraints that hinder his defense.
Pryde alleged that this move is part of a broader “ethno-national agenda” by the government, claiming that non-indigenous individuals are being systematically replaced at various levels of power within the country. He expressed concerns about the government’s commitment to merit-based hiring practices and suggested that they prioritize indigenous Fijians for leadership positions.
The Judicial Services Committee had extended the settlement offer to Pryde two months ago, which included terms for his immediate resignation as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Acceptance of this deal would prevent him from pursuing any further legal action against the committee. However, Pryde contended that he would not resign, emphasizing his belief that he has done nothing wrong. He sought a formal letter from the President clearing his name instead of accepting what he referred to as a “grubby payout.”
Pryde has been suspended since April 2023 after a conversation with former Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum raised suspicions. The government’s actions towards him intensified when he faced charges related to receiving superannuation payments without the appropriate approvals. Following this, his salary and benefits were abruptly cut off.
The Fiji Law Society expressed concerns about the inquiry process, stating that it should not proceed without Pryde’s presence. They highlighted potential fairness issues and emphasized Pryde’s right to a fair process under the constitution.
As the tribunal moves forward, it is expected to present its recommendations to President Naiqama Lalabalavu by December 23. Despite believing he will be dismissed, Pryde remains steadfast, asserting he has no viable options for appeal within a reasonable timeframe.
This situation underscores ongoing tensions within Fijian governance and raises broader questions about justice and equality in the country’s legal and political systems.
In summary, the claims made by Pryde bring attention to significant issues of fairness in the inquiry process and the potential biases influencing governance in Fiji. It is hoped that in the future, the focus can shift towards fostering an inclusive and transparent system that emphasizes justice for all, irrespective of ethnicity or background.
Leave a comment