Tag Archives: news

FIJI TIMES OPINION | Fiji government betrayal of 2012 pensioners and rule of law Features By PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY AND DANIEL FATIAKI

22 Sunday Feb 2026

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By: Mick Beddoes.

A week ago, the newly appointed Minister of Finance, Esrom Immanuel, out of the blue, issued a “Government statement on 2012 FNPF Reform” (communicated to the 2012 pensioner’s core group Chairman Ross MacDonald).

This statement represents firstly, a horrendous betrayal of the 2012 pensioners who had suffered the robbery of their property (i.e. irrevocable pensions) by the Bainimarama military regime and who have struggled for restitution after the Rabuka Coalition Government took office at the end of 2022.

Secondly, the MoF statement is also an egregious betrayal of parliamentary “rule of law” by explicitly using as a justification, the imposed dictates of the 2013 Constitution which has never been ratified by any Parliament or referendum, but instead, was unilaterally imposed on Fiji by the unelected Bainimarama/Sayed-Khaiyum military regime.

Sadly, this MoF statement is thereby also implicitly justifying the treasonous overthrow in 2006 of the democratically elected Qarase Government and all the illegal decrees that came after and were entrenched in the 2013 Constitution.

Can Fiji afford to give the message that “crime pays”.

Not ‘reform’ but robbery

THE personal pain and suffering of the 2012 pensioners have been frequently described in the media by letter writers such as Ronnie Chang, Rick Rickman, Dewan Chand, Colin Deoki, Libby Reade-Fong and many others who continue to write every week.

We remind that the reductions imposed on the 2012 pensioners by the military decrees was not any “reform” as euphemistically claimed, but a blatant robbery of their lawful property.

In 2012, the Bainimarama regime and FNPF broke the irrevocable contracts which had been offered to pensioners by FNPF on its own 9NOP forms.

These forms specified a pre-quantified pension payable per month (in dollars) for life, in return for FNPF taking over their accumulated lump sums at age 55.

The form specifically stated that no changes by the pensioners would be allowed. Neither did FNPF’s 9NOP Form permit or authorise FNPF to unilaterally change, amend, or alter its solemn undertakings given under it.

Through FNPF’s illegal breaking of contracts (which its consultants Promontory had specifically advised against) FNPF forced the 2012 pensioners to accept one of several options offered:

• accepting a reduced pension; or

• withdrawing their original lump sums; or

• adopting some combination of the two; or

• taking an annuity.

All options inevitably led to financial loss for the 2012 pensioners in the long term, with all their foregone entitlements being enjoyed by FNPF. It is a fundamental foundation of all good legal systems that wrong-doers should never be allowed to benefit from their wrong doing!!

The unelected Bainimarama/Sayed-Khaiyum regime also issued unratified Decree No.51 that illegally reduced pensions and stopped the lawful challenge of the late David Burness which was already being heard in the High Court. They thereby denied the 2012 pensioners their basic international human right to take their legitimate grievances to court for redress.

This statement by the new Minister of Finance is a sad reversal of the position adopted by his predecessor (Professor Biman Prasad) who, in his 2024 budget speech, had labelled this unilateral breaking of the pensioners’ contracts as “illegal”.

Using taxpayer funds, Prof Prasad had prospectively restored the pensions of those who had accepted reduced pensions, but he did not address the others who had also lost out, nor was there any settlement of back-pay.

So why, did the current Minister of Finance in his statement call the 2012 robbery of property belonging to the 2012 pensioners a “reform” as FNPF had tried to call it in 2012 ?

Who indeed are the people who drafted the minister’s statement which was allegedly approved by Cabinet?

The MoF statement merely states that “Cabinet has made the decision that there will be no backdated reinstatement of these pension payments… The total estimated cost is about $582 million, including about $372 million in backdated payments and a further $210 million in future liabilities.”

While we can accept these numbers for the moment, importantly, the rest of the MoF statement is full of erroneous misstatements and outright lies which have been perpetuated for more than 15 years by FNPF managements and boards.

Let us focus on the outright lies before we come to the “rule of law” betrayals which are the “elephants in the room” with significant long-term implications for Fiji.

Outright lie No.1: Ignoring the Pension Buffer Fund (PBF)

The MoF statement claims that: “Reinstating pensions backdated to 2012 would undermine (FNPF’s) sustainability and would require either the use of other members’ funds to subsidise previously high and actuarially unsustainable pension rates or significant additional fiscal resources beyond Government’s financial capacity. FNPF does not have the capacity to absorb this cost without compromising member balances and future returns.” This is a blatant outright lie.

The FNPF has always had the ability to pay for the lawfully contracted pensions because the democratically elected Parliament under the able leadership of the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, established a Pension Buffer Fund (PBF) in 1975 precisely to pay for these pension liabilities.

All FNPF members at the time including most of the present aggrieved pensioners were required by a law of Parliament, to inject 2 cents in the dollar into the PBF between 1975 until 1998, when the cash injection was stopped by a similarly elected Parliament (as also was its sovereign right).

The law also provided a Government loan guarantee that could be resorted to whenever FNPF was unable to meet its financial commitments.

Inexplicably, however, in 2000 without any explanation by FNPF in its annual reports, the parliamentary established Pension Buffer Fund was absorbed into the General Reserve. Who in FNPF authorized this move which undermined an Act of Parliament?

The account was still maintained in name by FNPF and received all the lump sum balances of members who chose the pension option and from which was paid out, the contracted pensions.

But the FNPF Board omitted (or perhaps refused) to pay interest into the Pension Buffer Fund even though (as part of all FNPF Reserves) also invested to earn income. That interest income from the PBF was then improperly credited to the benefit of all members, but not the pensioners.

We say that a statute that provides inter alia for the payment of interest generally and which does not expressly exclude or prohibit the payment of interest to a specified account, is obliged to pay interest to the unspecified account.

Had the Buffer Fund been credited with the interest all other funds were being credited with, even in 2011 when the robbery took place, Narsey has estimated that the Buffer Fund would have amounted to a massive $877 million.

This figure far exceeds the $582 million supposedly required to pay for the full restitution of the 2012 pensioners’ irrevocable contracts (the MoF statement informed that the $582 million comprised $372 million for backpay and $210 million to be paid for future pensions).

Narsey has estimated that by 2025 the Pension Buffer Fund receiving its due interest income, receiving new pensioners’ lump sums on retirement and paying pensions, would have a credit of $1,382 millions (more than a billion).

In other words in paying what is due to the wronged 2012 pensioners, FNPF would today still have a surplus of $800 million in the Pension Buffer Fund, if it had been properly credited with interest as it should have been.

Contrary to claims in the MoF statement, full restitution to the 2012 pensioners can be made without any need for subsidies from General Members who would indeed still be profiting by $800 million. There would certainly not be any need whatsoever for any subsidy from Government.

If the backpay is done in three installments (as Narsey has previously suggested in his The Fiji Times article of December 13 2025: The 2012 FNPF Pensioners’ Robbery: the way forward”), only $132 million per year would be required for the backpay (and only for the first three years), and perhaps a mere $20 million annually for continuing pensions (currently paying $23 million annually).

Given the buoyancy of FNPF annual financial flows according to it’s annual reports, FNPF can easily accommodate restitution to the 2012 pensioners, as even greater adjustments were made during the recent COVID period.

But the Coalition Government, the Fiji Parliament and Fiji should note the far more dangerous long term implications of the MoF statement for Fiji’s Rule of Law and Parliamentary Democracy.

A brutal dagger into the Fiji’s rule of law

Soon after the Fiji Government had changed, there was a light satirical piece by lawyer Richard Naidu “Rule of law – Maybe a time for Aiyaz to reflect” (FT Jan 28 2023). More on Richard Naidu below as he is currently a legal adviser to FNPF.

Readers would be better off reading a far more serious article Narsey wrote on the universal principles of good “rule of law” (FT 16 March 2024: “The rule of law cancer in Fiji”) when he had called on the Rabuka Government to urgently address unresolved constitutional issues in its term in Parliament.

One essential cog in the rule of law “wheel” Narsey had pointed out was that laws must be made and changed in an open and transparent way by the people and all decisions must be made by a representative elected Government.

In complete contrast, no one knows to this day who were responsible for the drafting of the 2013 Constitution, which was never passed by an elected Parliament or adopted in a public referendum.

Yet somewhat ironically, to change a sentence in the 2013 Constitution, the draftsman demanded that there must be a three quarters majority vote in Parliament followed by a three quarters “yes” vote in a referendum of all the registered voters in Fiji (not voters actually voting), a virtual impossibility.

With far reaching implications for the rule of law are sentences in the MoF statement that use as justification for Government’s impotence and inertia, the provisions of the 2013 Constitution. These sentences plunge a dagger into the heart of the Constitution as a “living document”.

The MoF statement thus asserts: “The 2013 Constitution of the Republic of Fiji provides clear legal guidance on this matter. Section 173(3) expressly prohibits Parliament or Government from enacting any law that would retrospectively alter the legal effect of the 2012 FNPF reforms. This means Government cannot undo past decisions, restore old pension rates from 2012, or authorize compensation, damages, or backdated payments arising from those reforms. Any such action would be unconstitutional.”

How extraordinary that the MoF statement asserts that in resolving the case of the 2012 pensioners, the elected Coalition Government must strictly abide by a self-proclaimed Constitution that begins with a blatant untruth : “We , the people of Fiji …..hereby establish this Constitution…”.

What is more, the same document has never been accepted in a national referendum nor has it been scrutinised, debated and passed by an elected Fijian Parliament despite the Bainimarama Government being in effective control from 2006 to 2022 and despite it winning 2 parliamentary elections.

Undermining sacred principle of parliamentary democracy

How utterly extraordinary that the unknown, nameless, and faceless individuals who drafted the 2013 Constitution can with the stroke of disingenuity, insert a clause that boldly asserts that no future Parliament can enact any law that would retrospectively “alter the legal effect of the 2012 FNPF reforms”.

We have no hesitation in rejecting such an unprecedented wholesale trashing of the long established doctrine of “parliamentary supremacy” which declares that a democratically elected Parliament must have absolute sovereignty and can make or unmake any law it chooses.

This also means some unnamed creator of the 2013 Constitution cannot bind or hamstring a future democratically elected Parliament, as all democratically elected Parliaments have the same unlimited legislative powers to enact laws for the peace, order and good government of Fiji and its people at any point in time.

How extraordinary also that the MoF statement ignores a recent Supreme Court opinion that was sought by the Coalition Government itself where the court opined inter alia that the amendment provisions of the 2013 Constitution were not set in stone, but that two thirds of the elected Parliament and a simple majority in a referendum would be enough to change elements in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court also declined to recognise the validity of parts of sections 173 which is referred to in the MoF’s ‘Statement’.

Ignoring “property” rights of the 2012 pensioners

It is extraordinary that The MoF statement asserts “Section 26 of the Constitution protects property rights. The retirement savings of FNPF members constitutes their private property. Using those funds to finance retrospective reinstatement would amount to taking members’ property without consent and would expose Government and FNPF to significant legal challenge”.

Pray, what about the even earlier and similar property rights of the 2012 pensioners? Aren’t they also entitled to the same protection?

Their property rights were forcibly taken and altered without their consent by a military regime and without any compensation in the 2012 robbery.

Indeed, the restitution that the 2012 pensioners have called for would come completely from the PBF, not the General Members’ balances or property rights.

Note that the PBF surpluses which strictly belong to pensioners have instead been used for the benefit of the General Members for more than twenty and they continue to rise annually even now.

Why is it that the legal advisers of the MoF and FNPF so brazenly ignore the property rights of the robbed 2012 pensioners?

Who are FNPF’s legal advisers?

We have no idea if there was any input of FNPF lawyers into the MoF statement.

But we do know that in a meeting that the core group of the 2012 pensioners had with the FNPF Board a few months ago (with Narsey attending by zoom from Melbourne), Richard Naidu was present and spoke as FNPF’s lawyer.

Astonishingly Naidu lectured us at length on the need for FNPF to follow the “law” as it stood. He repeated over and over that the 2011 Decrees stopped the FNPF from addressing the 2012 pensioners’ grievances.

Richard Naidu made no mention of the dastardly origins of the 2013 Constitution as opposed to the 1997 Constitution which had been approved by both Houses of the Fiji Parliament yet treasonously trashed by the Bainimarama Government.

The MoF statement also totally ignored that the core group in its submissions to Government and the FNPF Board had included, with the assistance of former chief justice Daniel Fatiaki, a draft Bill which would set aside the FNPF Act 2011 and the FNPF Transition Act 2011.

Most pensioners have had the greatest of respect for FNPF’s lawyer Richard Naidu, as an ethical and courageous opponent of military coups, illegal governments and media censorship, despite his persecution by military regimes.

Just three years ago when the Bainimarama Government tried to criminalise him over a trivial social media post, Professor Narsey wrote an article defending Naidu, published internationally by Asia Pacific Review (15 October 2022 “Shameful silences at another unfolding tragedy in Fiji”).

The 2012 pensioners would like to hope that ethical FNPF’s lawyers, including Richard Naidu, would have some professional sympathy for the 2012 Pensioners whose lawful irrevocable contracts were trashed by FNPF, their property stolen, and their lawful case in court thrown out, denying them their fundamental human right to go to court.

The 2012 pensioners hope that the legal justice of their case and avenues for lawful solution, are recognised by FNPF’s ethical lawyers who could then ethically advise FNPF to seek a lawful and just settlement, especially as the 2012 pensioners are prepared to consider compromises to enable speedy resolution.

Sadly, their numbers dwindle by the week.

Qarase the Pensioner

26 Monday Jan 2026

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

FNPF pension dispute – Qarase verdict

By Dewan Chand

I have written at length about the 2012 illegal and damaging pension plan hatched
by the Bainimarama-Sayed-Khaiyum dictatorship and supported by the Fiji
National Provident Fund.

In this article I will share strong criticism of this notorious scheme by one of Fiji’s
most famous sons. The late Laisenia Qarase, who served twice as elected Prime
Minister of Fiji, wrote scathingly on what he described as “pension aggression”
unleashed on elderly innocents. He was not complimentary about the role of the
FNPF.

Mr Qarase’s description of what happened is in Part 111 of his biography Prisoner
302 under the heading Pension Malice and Punishment. I have read the book
which has an important place in the story of Fiji.

For context, I include some of my own comments on the ongoing and still
unresolved pension saga. After that I will quote from Mr Qarase’s condemnation
of the then government and his view of the role of the FNPF in the scandal.

The victims were hit with an unexpected loss of income – in some cases above 60
per cent – and a nightmare of uncertainty.

2

For good measure the dictators denied us the right of seeking justice through the
courts.

That was a protective benefit for the FNPF which it appears to be relying on to this
day.

As all this crashed down on us, we asked ‘what will happen to us now?’ We knew
what occurred was unprecedented and wrong. Those representing us made our
opposition known publicly at the time. This was risky given the regime’s
intolerance of dissent.

Throughout the years that went by, the flame of justice flickered in our hearts.
There was, however, little prospect of relief until democracy returned. That
happened when the Coalition Government came to power at the start of 2023.
We began to organise again and to communicate our case for restitution. About
1500 of us have survived. With our numbers continuing to decline we are still
asking: How long will it be before justice is finally done?

We have received no assurances and support from the FNPF. We believe the Fund
has totally abandoned its duty of care to us, its fiduciary responsibilities.

In one article, I accused the FNPF of being in a state of “stubborn denial” and
afflicted by “wilful blindness”. This was because the financial giant with money
coming out of its ears, has steadfastly refused to settle the debts it owes to us.

3

I drafted another broadside about the untold human cost involved. There were
letters from me touching on many other facets of this unprecedented and cruel
episode in the history of the FNPF. For instance, under duress, some of the
casualties decided to withdraw partial or full amounts from their contributions to
the Fund. These lump sums of course were not pensions. Penury eventually
followed.

The reason for the pension reduction was because the Fund allegedly could not
afford to pay us. This was never proven.

A central issue is that the pensions violated were protected by irrevocable
contracts. The FNPF didn’t hesitate to break those contracts.

And so it is that several thousand innocent pensioners endured a retirement
nightmare instead of enjoying their final years in security, peace and happiness.

A ray of light came in the June 2024 Budget when then Minister of Finance,
Professor Biman Prasad, announced the Coalition Government would take
responsibility for restoration of some pensions to the tune of $4 million a year.
This was a welcome relief, but it did not take account of the years that FNPF had
refused to pay what it owed. Neither did it serve those who had taken partial or
full lump sums and were left in virtual poverty.

4

It was notable that Minister Prasad branded as illegal the unilateral reduction in
the pensions. Also broken, he said, was the statutory arrangement and trust
between the Fund and the pensioners.

Here was the FNPF line Minister proclaiming that what had been forced on the
pensioners was illegal. And yet the Fund’s board and management remain silent.
How can that be?

The current number of surviving victims appears to be about 1500, as old age
thins our ranks and reduces the FNPF’s liability.

My first contact with Mr Qarase was when I was appointed Senior Administration
Officer (SAO) in the Labour Party’s Opposition Office in Parliament. Mr Qarase, as
parliamentary leader of the SDL Party, was twice Prime Minister.

We began to meet in the Parliamentary corridors; it wasn’t long before we found
ourselves chatting around the tanoa with Government and Opposition members
and officials. He was quiet and polite and enjoyed the yaqona socialising.

Things changed substantially for me when I accepted an invitation to contest the
General Election of 2006 on a Labour ticket. Campaigning in the Laucala Indian
Communal constituency, I won in a landslide. I was now a Member of Parliament
and felt a bit more qualified to engage in conversations with Mr Qarase.

5

He was easy to talk to and always had details of Government initiatives at his
fingertips. Of course we didn’t agree on everything, but we were able to enjoy
some verbal jousting without acrimony.

Like me, Mr Qarase was caught in the pension squeeze. However, he suffered
what he called a “double hit”. First his pension as a former Prime Minister was
withheld by the Bainimarama-Sayed-Khaiyum government. The PM believed the
duo had begun to see pensions as a weapon against those who had criticised
them. He reported how his Prime Minister’s pension was withheld for eight years.

The late PM related how the regime embarked on another project that left many
people “bitter, disillusioned and in despair”. He was referring to the so-called
FNPF reforms that have penalised so many of us. Mr Qarase was also at the
receiving end.

“As an FNPF pensioner,” he wrote, “I was also caught in this new onslaught on
senior citizens.”

The victims, his book relates, fought hard to escape the clutches of the regime.
“They could not, however, prevail against a military dictatorship which was used
to imposing its will and had the means to do so.”

6

Then came Mr Qarase’s direct attack. “It was a mark of enduring shame for the
FNPF, its board and senior management, that they became willing accomplices of
the dictators.”

He indicated he had documents about the “disgraceful betrayal” of FNPF
dependants. He signed a petition calling for an independent inquiry into the plan
to cut pensions of recipients. He described them as mainly the poor, retired
working people, and some from the middle class.

According to Mr Qarase, the petitioners said that for the first time in its history the
FNPF had broken binding pension contracts. The FNPF had initially ignored advice
from its own consultants to honour contracts to existing pensioners.

He made short work of the FNPF argument that pensions had to be reduced to
ensure the FNPF was sustainable.

“…..its case fell apart on the details. In fact, it seemed to be making things up as it
went along.”

The late PM referred to the “bitter reality” of a future on substantially lower
incomes than the pensioners had been receiving through “irrevocable”
arrangements with the FNPF.

7

“They contended, with justification that the Fund had never proven that the
continuation of their pensions at the existing contractual levels would send the
FNPF into bankruptcy.”

Mr Qarase submitted that the FNPF further undermined its case when it stressed
that the Fund as it stood was sustainable for up to 45 years. According to the
aggrieved pensioners, this did not provide any foundation for default on current
payments.

He quoted from the pensioners’ petition: “…..Our plea is for the FNPF to leave us
alone in our final years, without inflicting on us the destruction and stress caused
by savage reductions in income for citizens who will find it difficult to re-enter the
workforce to make up for their loss…the government and FNPF have, without
justification, cut away the foundation of the last phase of our lives.”

Mr Qarase highlighted what he called a “new ploy” – refunds of the original
amounts pensioners had in their accounts.

“A refund is not a pension. The offer was seen as a ‘sweetener’ to soften the
impact of what the Fund had done.”

“In the circumstances, a good number of pensioners decided to take refunds. The
question I saw was when the money is gone, which in many cases was likely to be

8

sooner rather than later, what will happen to the recipients? Destitution will stare
them in the face.

“The petition described this as a social and human disaster for the pensioners
concerned. That’s exactly what it was. In fact, the entire business was disaster.”

The late Prime Minister then took a swipe at Mr Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. He wrote
that to make things even harder for the innocent pensioners, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum
tossed into the arena a “dreadful” piece of legislation called the Transition Decree
(known also as Decree 51).

“Not only did this endorse the rescinding of contracts; it also denied the
fundamental right of seeking redress through the court system. The 1997
Constitution properly addressed this. It provided that every party to a civil dispute
had the right for the matter to be determined by a court of law or an independent
and impartial tribunal.

“Sayed-Khaiyum’s Transition Decree completely ignored this basic legal principle.
It put an end to a civil action already started by a courageous pensioner from Suva
Point, the late Mr David Burness. How shameful that Mr Burness was prevented
from seeking justice before he died.”

Mr Qarase passed away in 2020. He was a faithful and able servant of Fiji.

Meanwhile, the surviving pensioners continue their campaign for justice.

The Wakaya Letter.

06 Thursday Nov 2025

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

” We desire to place before you the following representations. We consider that the act of cession had for the Fijian People of Fiji, a special implication. It was this : they envisaged their country as attached to the crown, an intergral part of the United Kingdom. Her Majesty’s title, decided by the Chiefs after cession is ” Queen Of Fiji and Britain – Ranadi ni Viti kei Peritania” and the Council of Chiefs have from the beginning jealousy maintained their right of directly addressing the Sovereign on the occasions of their meetings.

It is the Fijian view that the possibility of deference of this link with the crown- a link forged in the spirit of mutual trust and goodwill- would never be contemplated. This special relationship would appear to have its closest parallel in the constitutional links between the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man , and the United Kingdom. It is submitted that before

any Constitutional change is considered, and certainly before there is any more move towards internal self government, the terms of the special relationship between the United Kingdom and Fiji should be clarified and codified along the lines of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Channel Island or the Isle of Man.

We propose a new Constitutional Instrument which would embody this understanding of the relationship and would make provision for the safeguarding of Fijian interests building on and strengthening the spirit and substance of the Deed Of Cession. There would have to be a precise restatement of the guarantees of Fijian land ownership. We visualize that the Native Land Trust legislation should not be changed or added to without the prior consent of the Sovereign and the agreement of the Great Council Of Chiefs.

We also stand by the expressed desire of the high Chiefs in the preamble to the Deed Of Session that Fiji should be a Christian state and that therefore no constitutional or administrative changes should take place that would deviate from that intention.

The provisions of the Fijian Affairs Ordinance that all legislations affecting Fijian rights and interests should be referred to the Fijian Affairs Board or , on the recommendation of the Board , to the Great Council Of Chiefs, should be retained and likewise the Governors directions through the public Service Commission to work towards the balance of race in the civil service.

Subject to the satisfactory solution to the issues we have raised in the foregoing memorial, we would be prepared to initiate, in cooperation with the other principal races further move towards internal self government. In this regard we wish to remind you of the terms of the resolution passed at the last session of the legislative council, which records the insistence of the Fijian people that the initiative for any constitutional changes should come from them.

Sgd :K.K.T. Mara 1st FM, P.K.Ganilau 2nd FM,S.Sikivou 3rd FM, R.Vunivalu 4th FM , G.Cakobau 5th FM, A.C. Reid, Chairman, J.N.Falvey, legal adviser & R.M.Major, financial adviser. “

Legality of the 2012 FNPF Act & GROK AI Solution

02 Sunday Nov 2025

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Legality of the 2012 FNPF Act (Actually the 2011 Decree)

Fiji National Provident Fund Decree 2011 (No. 52), promulgated on November 25, 2011, and often discussed in the context of 2012 implementations. This decree reformed the pension system, reducing annuity rates for sustainability reasons (e.g., from historical highs of up to 25% of balances to lower rates like 15%, later adjusted). It was enacted under the interim military-backed government led by Frank Bainimarama, following the 2006 coup, which suspended the 1997 Constitution and ruled without elections until 2014.

  • Was it legal in 2012? At the time, the interim government’s authority was contested internationally and domestically as unconstitutional, stemming from an unelected regime. Pensioners and critics argued the reforms breached existing contracts, violated property rights, and were invalid due to the government’s illegitimacy. Several court cases were filed, such as the high-profile Burness/Shameem challenge in 2011-2012, which sought to halt reductions as a breach of trust and contract. However, the regime issued additional decrees (e.g., limiting judicial review of FNPF decisions) that effectively shielded the reforms from immediate legal overturn. These cases were delayed, dismissed on procedural grounds, or unresolved due to such restrictions. In practice, the decree was enforced as law under the interim regime, but its foundational legitimacy was questionable without democratic backing.
  • Is it legal in 2025? Yes, it remains in force as the FNPF Act 2011. The 2013 Constitution (adopted under the same regime but later upheld) includes transitional provisions validating all pre-2013 decrees and laws, stating they “continue in force as if they had been made under or pursuant to this Constitution.” In August 2025, Fiji’s Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion affirming the 2013 Constitution’s legal effectiveness, further entrenching the validity of prior decrees like the FNPF reforms. Ongoing reviews of the Act in 2025 focus on modernization, not repeal, indicating its accepted status. Critics, including pensioner groups, still label it “illegal” due to its origins, but courts have not invalidated it post-2013.

Regarding the consultants’ advice: Historical accounts confirm actuarial consultants (e.g., Mercer) warned that the pre-2011 scheme was unsustainable, but specifics on advising against touching existing pensions are debated. The reforms proceeded despite protests, with the government citing fund solvency. Coercion claims (e.g., pressuring withdrawals) align with pensioner reports but weren’t ruled illegal in major cases.

Assessment of the 2024 Budget Scheme for Pension Top-Ups

In the 2024-2025 National Budget (announced June 28, 2024), Finance Minister Biman Prasad introduced a restoration for affected FNPF pensioners. Key details:

  • Pensioners who opted for full annuities at reduced rates post-2011 will have rates restored to pre-reform levels (e.g., up to 25% equivalents), effective August 1, 2024.
  • Applies only to those who didn’t withdraw funds; no backpay for 2012-2024 losses.
  • Government funds it fully ($4 million in 2024-2025, ~$57 million over 20 years).
  • Ends prior $25/month social pension top-up for these pensioners.
  • Was it legal? Yes. This is a fiscal policy under an elected government (Coalition since 2022), compliant with the FNPF Act and budgetary laws. It amends no core laws retroactively and addresses a “moral responsibility” without violating contracts. No legal challenges have succeeded against it.
  • Was it wise? It’s a pragmatic step forward—restoring rates prospectively aids ~1,500-2,000 pensioners without overburdening the fund (now healthier post-reforms, crediting 8.75% interest in 2025). It provides closure and boosts retiree income amid inflation. However, omitting backpay ignores 12+ years of reduced payments (potentially $10,000-$50,000+ per person, depending on balances), which critics call incomplete justice. Wisely, it balances fiscal limits (Fiji’s debt/GDP at ~80%) with equity, but fuller wisdom might include phased compensation for hardest-hit cases to rebuild trust.

How Grok Would Resolve the Pensioners’ Situation

As an AI built by xAI to seek truth and help users, I’d approach this pragmatically, focusing on evidence-based steps while respecting Fiji’s legal framework. Resolution requires balancing pensioner rights, fund sustainability, and political realities. Here’s a structured plan:

  1. Advocate for Targeted Backpay Compensation:
    • Lobby the government or FNPF for a one-time ex-gratia payment covering partial losses from 2012-2024. Base it on actuarial calculations (e.g., difference between original and reduced rates, adjusted for inflation). This could be funded via a dedicated levy on FNPF profits or budget surplus, estimated at $20-50 million total—feasible given recent fund growth. Prioritize vulnerable groups (e.g., low-income or elderly pensioners).
  2. Pursue Legal Avenues:
    • File a class-action lawsuit challenging the lack of retroactive relief as a breach of property rights under the 2013 Constitution (Sections 26-27 on fair compensation). Reference past cases like Burness for precedent. The 2025 Supreme Court ruling opens doors for constitutional reviews, potentially questioning decree immunities. Engage NGOs like Citizens’ Constitutional Forum for support.
  3. Political and Public Pressure:
    • Form or join pensioner advocacy groups (e.g., via fijipensioners.com) to petition Parliament during the ongoing FNPF Act review. Use media and social campaigns to highlight human impacts, aiming for amendments in the 2025-2026 budget.
  4. Practical Alternatives for Individuals:
    • Review personal FNPF accounts for errors; apply for the 2024 restoration if eligible.
    • Diversify retirement (e.g., via private savings or government social pensions for those 70+).
    • If coercion evidence exists, seek independent audits or ombudsman review.

This resolution emphasizes fairness without destabilizing the fund, which now benefits all members. If backpay proves unfeasible, enhanced future benefits (e.g., inflation-linked adjustments) could compensate. Ultimately, true resolution needs government goodwill—

The fLAWs that Fiji suffers

20 Monday Oct 2025

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Overview of Fiji’s Administrative Flaws

Fiji’s administration, encompassing its government, bureaucracy, and public institutions, has faced persistent challenges rooted in its history of military coups, ethnic divisions, and weak institutional safeguards. Since independence in 1970, the country has experienced four coups (1987, 2000, and twice in 2006), which have undermined democratic stability and led to authoritarian tendencies. The 2013 Constitution, imposed under former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama’s regime (2007–2022), centralized power while curtailing civil liberties, and even after the 2022 democratic transition to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government, many systemic issues persist. As of October 2025, Fiji’s administration is rated “partly free” by Freedom House, with ongoing concerns about corruption, political fragility, and inefficiencies in public service delivery.

Below, I outline key flaws based on documented reports, analyses, and recent developments, categorized for clarity.

1. Corruption and Mismanagement in Public Institutions

Fiji’s bureaucracy is plagued by embezzlement, bribery, and procurement irregularities, often involving high-ranking officials. The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) handles cases, but enforcement has been inconsistent, with political interference alleged in prosecutions.

  • Historical Cases: The 1990s National Bank of Fiji scandal involved $200 million in bad debts from favoritism toward indigenous Fijian groups, highlighting poor lending oversight. More recently, the 2019 case of a Provincial Administrator who created duplicate receipts to siphon funds exemplifies routine financial manipulation.
  • High-Level Involvement: Former Fiji Commerce Commission CEO Bobby Jitendra Maharaj faced charges for corruption, while ex-Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was charged with abuse of office (delayed due to health issues as of 2024). Under Bainimarama, opposition figures were routinely accused of corruption to silence them.
  • Impact: Despite improvements in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index since 2011 (Fiji scored 53/100 in 2023), lack of transparency persists due to self-censoring media and inadequate parliamentary oversight.

2. Political Instability and Military Influence

Fiji’s administration is vulnerable to military intervention, embedded in the 2013 Constitution, which grants the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) veto power over government decisions deemed unconstitutional. This has created a “dual power” dynamic.

FlawDescriptionExamples/Evidence
Coup LegacyFour coups since 1987 have normalized military overreach, leading to decree-based rule and eroded trust in civilian administration.2006 coup by Bainimarama; 2009 Court of Appeal ruling deemed it illegal, but he retained power by abolishing the constitution.
Coalition FragilityRabuka’s 2022–present coalition (People’s Alliance, NFP, SODELPA) is unstable, with internal tensions and unpredictable policies.Exceeded longest post-coup term by January 2024 but faces SODELPA accusations of broken promises; Bainimarama’s FijiFirst (now opposition) was suspended in 2023 over audit issues, seen as politically motivated.
Military WarningsRFMF Commander Jone Kalouniwai has cautioned against “sweeping changes,” raising fears of intervention.January 2023 statement post-election; echoes 1987 coups led by Rabuka himself.

These dynamics prioritize political survival over policy, as noted by former Attorney-General Sayed-Khaiyum in 2025, who criticized the coalition for exacerbating poverty and emigration.

3. Weaknesses in Governance and Public Service Delivery

Administrative decentralization is limited, with central control stifling local autonomy and efficiency.

  • Local Government Dissolution: Municipal councils were dissolved in 2009 under Bainimarama and run by appointed administrators, reducing accountability. Reforms in 2023 restored elections, but implementation lags, with low voter turnout (31% in 2005) reflecting disillusionment.
  • Judicial and Electoral Interference: The judiciary was politicized under Bainimarama, with foreign judges (e.g., Sri Lankans) appointed for pliancy. Electoral bodies face bias concerns, and academic funding was weaponized to influence universities.
  • Economic Mismanagement: Key sectors like sugar suffer from “poor administration” and quality issues, worsened by EU trade preference phase-outs since 2007. Unemployment, crime, and drug use have risen under the current government, widening inequality.

4. Human Rights and Civil Liberties Constraints

The administration’s flaws extend to suppressing dissent, limiting effective governance.

  • Media and Expression: Bainimarama’s era saw censorship via the Media Industry Development Decree; while eased post-2022, Public Order Act charges were used against critics in 2021.
  • Discrimination: Ethnic tensions (indigenous Fijians vs. Indo-Fijians) fuel policies favoring iTaukei groups, echoing 1987 coups that triggered Indo-Fijian exodus (population share dropped from 50% to 33%).
  • Recent Tensions: 2023 proposals to amend land trust laws sparked opposition fears of eroding indigenous rights, uniting critics against perceived overreach.

Potential Pathways Forward

Fiji’s 2026 elections will test these flaws. Positive steps include FICAC’s anti-corruption efforts and judicial diversification (e.g., New Zealand judges in 2023). However, without stronger checks on military power, transparent procurement, and inclusive policies, administrative inefficiencies will continue to hinder development. International partners like the Commonwealth (which suspended Fiji post-2006) emphasize restoring full democracy.