Justice Goundar rules Parliament's salary cut stood until changed by law. |  BAD legal news |
*The ruling carries wider implications for all public office-holders in Fiji. By affirming that salaries and allowances fixed under the Parliamentary Remunerations Act endures until formally altered by Parliament, the Court closed the door on retroactive claims based on political understandings or expectations. It also reinforced the principle of legislative supremacy: remuneration for members of Parliament and high officers of State must be set by law, not by private bargains or shifting interpretations.
Bainimarama's Pension Claim Sinks in Court
The Fiji High Court in Suva has dismissed former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s much-publicised lawsuit over his pension and gratuity entitlements, delivering a sharp reminder that parliamentary determinations on salaries and benefits carried the full force of law and could not be reshaped by assumption or expectation.
Bainimarama had argued that his retirement benefits had been wrongly calculated following a 20 percent salary reduction applied during his time in office. He contended that the reduction had been “temporary” and that his pension and gratuity should have been restored to reflect his original salary of $328,750.
In his statement of claim, Bainimarama asserted that his annual pension ought to have been $246,562.50 rather than the $184,921.87 he was currently receiving. He further maintained that his gratuity entitlement should have amounted to $770,507.87, but he had been paid only $433,296.75. He demanded the balance plus interest at 13.5 percent, which would have raised the State’s liability by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Justice Daniel Goundar rejected the claim in its entirety. In a carefully reasoned judgment, the Court found that under Section 11 of the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014, a determination of salaries and allowances by Parliament remained in force until replaced by another determination. The Court held that there was no legal presumption that a reduction was temporary, nor could it be inferred that salaries would revert automatically to earlier levels without explicit parliamentary action.
The Court stated that Bainimarama had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the 20 percent reduction was meant to be temporary in law. The argument of “temporary adjustment” might have carried political or rhetorical weight, but it lacked statutory foundation. Accordingly, his pension and gratuity had been correctly calculated on the reduced salary.
In addition to losing the substantive claim, Bainimarama was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the State. For a man who had once commanded absolute authority as both Prime Minister and Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, the order symbolised a humbling reversal.
A Test of Statutory Interpretation
The decision turned on strict statutory interpretation. Justice Goundar emphasised that where Parliament had spoken, the Court’s task was to apply the plain words of the statute. Section 11 left no room for judicial creativity or executive assumption. If Bainimarama wanted his pension recalculated, the remedy lay in Parliament passing a fresh determination, not in the courts rewriting the statute.
Wider Implications
The ruling carried wider implications for all public office-holders in Fiji. By affirming that salaries and allowances fixed under the Parliamentary Remunerations Act endured until formally altered by Parliament, the Court closed the door on retroactive claims based on political understandings or expectations. It also reinforced the principle of legislative supremacy: remuneration for members of Parliament and high officers of State must be set by law, not by private bargains or shifting interpretations.
The cost order was also significant. Courts in Fiji had at times been reluctant to impose costs against politically exposed litigants, but in this case the High Court signalled that Bainimarama’s stature offered no shield. Unsuccessful claims that strained public resources could attract financial consequences.
A Defeat with Symbolism
For Bainimarama, who was already facing mounting legal troubles in separate criminal proceedings, the pension case marked another blow to his post-prime ministerial legacy. His claim, framed as a fight for entitlements, backfired and exposed him to both financial liability and reputational damage.
For the legal community, the decision underscored the need for clarity and precision when mounting statutory claims. Without explicit provisions or amendments, expectations of “temporary” measures would not stand.
Fijileaks Explainer: What This Ruling Meant
The Fiji High Court in Suva has dismissed former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s much-publicised lawsuit over his pension and gratuity entitlements, delivering a sharp reminder that parliamentary determinations on salaries and benefits carried the full force of law and could not be reshaped by assumption or expectation.
Bainimarama had argued that his retirement benefits had been wrongly calculated following a 20 percent salary reduction applied during his time in office. He contended that the reduction had been “temporary” and that his pension and gratuity should have been restored to reflect his original salary of $328,750.
In his statement of claim, Bainimarama asserted that his annual pension ought to have been $246,562.50 rather than the $184,921.87 he was currently receiving. He further maintained that his gratuity entitlement should have amounted to $770,507.87, but he had been paid only $433,296.75. He demanded the balance plus interest at 13.5 percent, which would have raised the State’s liability by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Justice Daniel Goundar rejected the claim in its entirety. In a carefully reasoned judgment, the Court found that under Section 11 of the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014, a determination of salaries and allowances by Parliament remained in force until replaced by another determination. The Court held that there was no legal presumption that a reduction was temporary, nor could it be inferred that salaries would revert automatically to earlier levels without explicit parliamentary action.
The Court stated that Bainimarama had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the 20 percent reduction was meant to be temporary in law. The argument of “temporary adjustment” might have carried political or rhetorical weight, but it lacked statutory foundation. Accordingly, his pension and gratuity had been correctly calculated on the reduced salary.
In addition to losing the substantive claim, Bainimarama was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the State. For a man who had once commanded absolute authority as both Prime Minister and Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, the order symbolised a humbling reversal.
A Test of Statutory Interpretation
The decision turned on strict statutory interpretation. Justice Goundar emphasised that where Parliament had spoken, the Court’s task was to apply the plain words of the statute. Section 11 left no room for judicial creativity or executive assumption. If Bainimarama wanted his pension recalculated, the remedy lay in Parliament passing a fresh determination, not in the courts rewriting the statute.
Wider Implications
The ruling carried wider implications for all public office-holders in Fiji. By affirming that salaries and allowances fixed under the Parliamentary Remunerations Act endured until formally altered by Parliament, the Court closed the door on retroactive claims based on political understandings or expectations. It also reinforced the principle of legislative supremacy: remuneration for members of Parliament and high officers of State must be set by law, not by private bargains or shifting interpretations.
The cost order was also significant. Courts in Fiji had at times been reluctant to impose costs against politically exposed litigants, but in this case the High Court signalled that Bainimarama’s stature offered no shield. Unsuccessful claims that strained public resources could attract financial consequences.
A Defeat with Symbolism
For Bainimarama, who was already facing mounting legal troubles in separate criminal proceedings, the pension case marked another blow to his post-prime ministerial legacy. His claim, framed as a fight for entitlements, backfired and exposed him to both financial liability and reputational damage.
For the legal community, the decision underscored the need for clarity and precision when mounting statutory claims. Without explicit provisions or amendments, expectations of “temporary” measures would not stand.
Fijileaks Explainer: What This Ruling Meant
- For taxpayers: The Court saved the State from paying out an additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pension and gratuity.
- For MPs and Ministers: Any salary reduction imposed by Parliament remained in force until Parliament changed it. There was no “automatic bounce-back” to higher salaries.
- For future claims: Office-holders cannot rely on political assurances or assumptions; they must point to a clear statutory or parliamentary basis.
- For the courts: The judgment signalled judicial unwillingness to rewrite legislation to accommodate political figures.
“How the late Qarase must be feeling, somewhere up above, smiling wryly as the man who stripped him of his pension now finds his own claims cut down by the Court.”
*They used to say that Laisenia Qarase was not entitled to a pension under Bainimarama’s regime, a claim loudly repeated, used to justify withholding what many believed was legally owed.
*But the tables turned. After Bainimarama challenged the calculation of his own pension and gratuity, the Fiji High Court dismissed his suit and upheld the principle that parliamentary cuts stood until formally reversed.
*In the same legal theatre where Qarase was denied, Bainimarama has now been denied his claim, and ordered to pay costs.
*But the tables turned. After Bainimarama challenged the calculation of his own pension and gratuity, the Fiji High Court dismissed his suit and upheld the principle that parliamentary cuts stood until formally reversed.
*In the same legal theatre where Qarase was denied, Bainimarama has now been denied his claim, and ordered to pay costs.
From Blocking Qarase's Pension to Guarding Fiji's Security:
Pio Tikoduadua Goes From Pension Watchdog to Defence Bulldog
From Fijileaks Archive, 23 Janaury 2023
 |   |
 |  |
