  "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." Wadan Narsey |    |
Wadan Narsey’s Rebuke of Richard Naidu: When the Rule of Law Meets the Politics of Silence
In their recent commentary in the Fiji Times on the plight of Fiji’s 2012 pensioners, the Australian based economist Wadan Narsey and former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki launched a broader critique of what they described as the continuing erosion of the rule of law in Fiji.
Embedded within that wider argument was a pointed and uncomfortable reflection on the role of prominent lawyer Richard Naidu, who now appears in the dispute as legal adviser to the Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF).
Their criticism was not an outright denunciation but something more layered: a mixture of disappointment, irony, and a reminder of Naidu’s own long public record as a defender of legality and constitutional governance.
From defender of the rule of law to adviser of the system
Narsey began by situating Naidu within Fiji’s legal and political discourse. The lawyer had previously written a satirical commentary urging reflection on the rule of law in Fiji’s political life. Yet Narsey contrasted that earlier posture with Naidu's more recent role advising FNPF in discussions with representatives of the 2012 pensioners.
According to Narsey’s account, Naidu attended a meeting between the pensioners’ core group and the FNPF Board where he emphasised repeatedly that the institution must operate strictly according to the law as it currently stands. In particular, Naidu reportedly stressed that the 2011 decrees introduced during the military regime effectively prevented FNPF from addressing the grievances of pensioners whose contracted benefits had been drastically reduced.
For Narsey, this legalistic position raised an uncomfortable contradiction. If the legal framework itself emerged from decrees imposed by a military government following the 2006 coup, can it truly be invoked as an unquestionable authority against citizens whose contractual rights were stripped away under that same regime?
The deeper constitutional critique
The attack on Naidu therefore sits within a broader constitutional argument. Narsey and Fatiaki insisted that the legal regime governing the pension dispute cannot be separated from its origins in the decrees and constitutional framework imposed after the 2006 coup.
In their view, the 2013 Constitution, often cited as preventing retrospective remedies for the pensioners, lacks democratic legitimacy because it was never adopted through a parliamentary vote or national referendum.
Against that backdrop, Narsey found it troubling that lawyers who once stood against military rule now rely on legal provisions derived from that same period to justify institutional inaction. The implication is stark: fidelity to “the law as it stands” can become morally problematic when the law itself originates from unconstitutional authority.
A reminder of Naidu’s earlier reputation
Yet the article stopped short of portraying Naidu as a villain. On the contrary, Narsey acknowledged that many pensioners have long respected him for his principled opposition to coups, illegal governments and media censorship.
Indeed, Narsey reminded readers that he himself publicly defended Naidu in 2022 when the former Bainimarama administration attempted to pursue criminal action against the lawyer over a social media post.
This historical reminder is not incidental. It serves to underline Narsey-Fatiaki disappointment. The criticism is directed not merely at a lawyer performing a professional duty, but at a figure who had once symbolised resistance to authoritarian legal structures.
The ethical dilemma of the lawyer
At the centre of Narsey’s critique lies a classic professional dilemma: the role of the lawyer when confronted with laws perceived to be unjust.
On one side lies the orthodox legal position: a lawyer must advise clients according to the law currently in force, regardless of its origins. From that perspective, Naidu’s insistence that FNPF must comply with existing decrees and statutes is entirely orthodox.
On the other side lies a broader conception of legal ethics. If the law itself derives from unconstitutional or illegitimate acts, should lawyers treat it as morally binding? Or should they actively encourage institutions to seek legislative remedies to correct past injustices?
Narsey clearly favoured the latter view. In his account, the pensioners’ core group has already proposed a legislative pathway - a draft bill that would repeal the relevant provisions of the FNPF Act and the transitional legislation imposed during the military regime.
What he found troubling was that such options appeared to receive little attention from those advising the institutions involved.
The dwindling generation of pensioners
The most poignant element of Narsey’s argument lies in his closing observation: the number of pensioners affected by the 2012 cuts continues to decline with time.
For more than a decade they have sought restitution for what they describe as the unilateral breaking of irrevocable pension contracts by the military government and the FNPF. Now, as their numbers diminish, the hope for a negotiated or legislative solution grows increasingly urgent.
This urgency is precisely why Narsey and Fatiaki appeal to lawyers such as Naidu. They argued that legal advisers should recognise not only the technical constraints of existing statutes but also the moral and constitutional context in which those statutes emerged.
A broader indictment of Fiji’s legal culture
Ultimately, Narsey and Fatiak's criticism of Richard Naidu is less about a single lawyer and more about what they see as a wider problem in Fiji’s legal and political culture.
The article suggested that the country still struggleed to reconcile two competing realities: (1) the persistence of laws and institutions shaped during the military era; and (2) the democratic aspirations that followed the return to parliamentary government.
For Narsey and Fatiaki, invoking those laws to deny restitution to citizens who suffered under them amounts to a profound contradiction.
Whether one agrees with that view or not, the argument forces an uncomfortable question upon Fiji’s legal establishment: Is strict adherence to the law always compatible with justice when the law itself was born of unconstitutional power?
In raising that question, Narsey and Fatiaki’s critique extends far beyond the pension dispute. It touches the very foundations of Fiji’s post-coup legal order.
In their recent commentary in the Fiji Times on the plight of Fiji’s 2012 pensioners, the Australian based economist Wadan Narsey and former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki launched a broader critique of what they described as the continuing erosion of the rule of law in Fiji.
Embedded within that wider argument was a pointed and uncomfortable reflection on the role of prominent lawyer Richard Naidu, who now appears in the dispute as legal adviser to the Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF).
Their criticism was not an outright denunciation but something more layered: a mixture of disappointment, irony, and a reminder of Naidu’s own long public record as a defender of legality and constitutional governance.
From defender of the rule of law to adviser of the system
Narsey began by situating Naidu within Fiji’s legal and political discourse. The lawyer had previously written a satirical commentary urging reflection on the rule of law in Fiji’s political life. Yet Narsey contrasted that earlier posture with Naidu's more recent role advising FNPF in discussions with representatives of the 2012 pensioners.
According to Narsey’s account, Naidu attended a meeting between the pensioners’ core group and the FNPF Board where he emphasised repeatedly that the institution must operate strictly according to the law as it currently stands. In particular, Naidu reportedly stressed that the 2011 decrees introduced during the military regime effectively prevented FNPF from addressing the grievances of pensioners whose contracted benefits had been drastically reduced.
For Narsey, this legalistic position raised an uncomfortable contradiction. If the legal framework itself emerged from decrees imposed by a military government following the 2006 coup, can it truly be invoked as an unquestionable authority against citizens whose contractual rights were stripped away under that same regime?
The deeper constitutional critique
The attack on Naidu therefore sits within a broader constitutional argument. Narsey and Fatiaki insisted that the legal regime governing the pension dispute cannot be separated from its origins in the decrees and constitutional framework imposed after the 2006 coup.
In their view, the 2013 Constitution, often cited as preventing retrospective remedies for the pensioners, lacks democratic legitimacy because it was never adopted through a parliamentary vote or national referendum.
Against that backdrop, Narsey found it troubling that lawyers who once stood against military rule now rely on legal provisions derived from that same period to justify institutional inaction. The implication is stark: fidelity to “the law as it stands” can become morally problematic when the law itself originates from unconstitutional authority.
A reminder of Naidu’s earlier reputation
Yet the article stopped short of portraying Naidu as a villain. On the contrary, Narsey acknowledged that many pensioners have long respected him for his principled opposition to coups, illegal governments and media censorship.
Indeed, Narsey reminded readers that he himself publicly defended Naidu in 2022 when the former Bainimarama administration attempted to pursue criminal action against the lawyer over a social media post.
This historical reminder is not incidental. It serves to underline Narsey-Fatiaki disappointment. The criticism is directed not merely at a lawyer performing a professional duty, but at a figure who had once symbolised resistance to authoritarian legal structures.
The ethical dilemma of the lawyer
At the centre of Narsey’s critique lies a classic professional dilemma: the role of the lawyer when confronted with laws perceived to be unjust.
On one side lies the orthodox legal position: a lawyer must advise clients according to the law currently in force, regardless of its origins. From that perspective, Naidu’s insistence that FNPF must comply with existing decrees and statutes is entirely orthodox.
On the other side lies a broader conception of legal ethics. If the law itself derives from unconstitutional or illegitimate acts, should lawyers treat it as morally binding? Or should they actively encourage institutions to seek legislative remedies to correct past injustices?
Narsey clearly favoured the latter view. In his account, the pensioners’ core group has already proposed a legislative pathway - a draft bill that would repeal the relevant provisions of the FNPF Act and the transitional legislation imposed during the military regime.
What he found troubling was that such options appeared to receive little attention from those advising the institutions involved.
The dwindling generation of pensioners
The most poignant element of Narsey’s argument lies in his closing observation: the number of pensioners affected by the 2012 cuts continues to decline with time.
For more than a decade they have sought restitution for what they describe as the unilateral breaking of irrevocable pension contracts by the military government and the FNPF. Now, as their numbers diminish, the hope for a negotiated or legislative solution grows increasingly urgent.
This urgency is precisely why Narsey and Fatiaki appeal to lawyers such as Naidu. They argued that legal advisers should recognise not only the technical constraints of existing statutes but also the moral and constitutional context in which those statutes emerged.
A broader indictment of Fiji’s legal culture
Ultimately, Narsey and Fatiak's criticism of Richard Naidu is less about a single lawyer and more about what they see as a wider problem in Fiji’s legal and political culture.
The article suggested that the country still struggleed to reconcile two competing realities: (1) the persistence of laws and institutions shaped during the military era; and (2) the democratic aspirations that followed the return to parliamentary government.
For Narsey and Fatiaki, invoking those laws to deny restitution to citizens who suffered under them amounts to a profound contradiction.
Whether one agrees with that view or not, the argument forces an uncomfortable question upon Fiji’s legal establishment: Is strict adherence to the law always compatible with justice when the law itself was born of unconstitutional power?
In raising that question, Narsey and Fatiaki’s critique extends far beyond the pension dispute. It touches the very foundations of Fiji’s post-coup legal order.
From Fijileaks Archives: We, together with Shaista Shameem and Wadan Narsey, had been fighting for the robbed PENSIONERS since 2012 |  |
 |  |
 Click to read Wadan Narsey and Daniel Fatiaki's Fiji Times Opinion Piece on Pension scandal below: |  |
