A former top executive at the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC) has questioned whether Fiji’s competition regulator is fulfilling its mandate, warning that recent decisions suggest a weakening of consumer protection.
Pranil Singh said the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC) should not act as a “rubber stamp” for cost increases, but instead actively negotiate to reduce the burden on the public.
He was the FCCC’s General Manager Regulations and also acted as CEO.
“In periods of global cost pressures, FCCC’s role is not simply to pass through cost increases. It is to actively assess, challenge, and negotiate,” he said.
Mr Singh pointed to past practices under former CEO Joel Abraham, where price increases were challenged and, in some cases, reduced through negotiation with industry and Government.
He also raised concerns about governance, questioning how the FCCC Board allowed such decisions without robust scrutiny.
“If these actions reflect a lack of judgment… then this must be addressed decisively,” he said, calling for possible leadership review.
He stressed that fuel pricing decisions must meet the highest standards of transparency and accountability, warning that public confidence is at risk.
Mr Singh also said fuel pricing methodology may also have been breached.
A former senior regulator has raised alarm over what he describes as a “clear departure” from established fuel pricing methodology, warning it may have unnecessarily increased costs for Fijians.
In an opinion piece, Pranil Singh said the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC) deviated from its structured pricing model by incorporating March fuel imports into April pricing.
“FCCC has confirmed… that March fuel imports were incorporated into the April pricing determination, representing a clear departure from the approved methodology,” Mr Singh stated.
He explained that under the standard framework, April prices should reflect February costs, allowing Government time to assess mitigation measures.
Mr Singh argued that failing to follow this model likely placed upward pressure on fuel prices, impacting the cost of living across transport, food and essential goods.
He called on FCCC to provide a full explanation for the shift and justify why established policy was not followed.
