Why the Burness/Shameem case is not likely to be heard
Professor Wadan Narsey February 2012
In August 2011, upon request by lawyer ShaistaShameem for the David Burness case, I provided a statement of my assessment of the proposal of the Fiji National Provident Fund Board to reduce the annuity rates of existing pensioners.
Despite being postponed from last year to February 8 of 2012, the legal case has not been heard, and no date is being set for the hearing- no doubt a consequence of the FNPF Transition Decree (see the last section of this article).
The pensioners may as well have an idea of what was presented in that Statement for the Burness/Shameem case, as it may explain why the legal case is not likely to be heard: the FNPF Board does not have a legal leg to stand on, whatever may be the horrendous legal and consultants’ fees they are paying, using our savings.
There were four questions pertinent for the Burness/Shameem case, which I attempted to answer in my Statement:
Question 1 Can FNPF pensions be legally reduced?
To read the answer and the whole paper click on the following link:
Fiji Pensioners 
project freedom said:
Hello there, just became alert to your blog via Google, and located that it’s truly informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I’ll be grateful should you continue this in future.
Lots of other people shall be benefited out of your
writing. Cheers!