Former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama asserts that the problem with the formula used by the State in calculating his salary was that it had to be 75 per cent of one salary from his retirement and not a bunch of salaries.
Through his defence counsel, Devanesh Sharma, Mr Bainimarama made this argument during the hearing of his civil action against the Fiji Government for miscalculating his pension and gratuity entitlements.
Mr Sharma said the salary that should have been used to calculate his pension was either the reduced salary of $263,000, imposed as a COVID measure in 2020, or his substantial salary of $328,750.
The court heard from one of the state witnesses yesterday that in January 2023, the secretary to the Cabinet had sought a legal opinion from the Solicitor-General’s office on Mr Bainimarama’s eligibility for pension and other benefits.
The S-G’s office responded on April 3, stating the former PM was eligible.
On June 22, 2023, the S-G’s office rendered its advice stating that salaries received from January 5, 2007, to 2017 would be used in pension calculation with the formula.
Mr Bainimarama received $88,945 in annual salary from January 5, 2007, to September 9, 2007. From September 10, 2007, to December 31, 2011, it was $96,012.48. From January 1, 2012, to September 21, 2014, it was $230,000. From September 22, 2014, to November 19, 2018, it was $328,750. From November 20, 2018, to April 1, 2020, it was $328,750. From April 2, 2020, to December 24, 2022, it was $263,000.
Taking the stand, Moape Rokosuka, head of corporate services in the Office of the Prime Minister, who was one of three witnesses, said they used the formula in Section 4 (b) of the Prime Minister’s Pensions Act, given Mr Bainimarama had served more than a decade.
Mr Rokosuka said 20 per cent is applied for the first two years, 10 per cent for the next three years, and for each year after the first five years is five per cent to reach a maximum of 75 per cent of the total salary.
He said the total gratuity was calculated after the process was $433,296.75.
Mr Bainimarama, however, claimed his pension should have been $246,562.50 annually, but it was instead reduced to $184,921.87.
Additionally, Mr Bainimarama alleged there was a shortfall in his lump sum gratuity payment, which should have been $770,507.87, but was only $433,296.75. He is seeking a remaining gratuity balance of $337,211.12 and a fortnightly pension of $7112.37, plus 13.5 per cent annual interest.
Mr Rokosuka said the same formula was used to calculate two former prime ministers, Laisenia Qarase and Ratu Tevita Momoedonu, whose salaries during their terms of tenure were stagnant.
Justice Daniel Goundar said the complication in this matter is the difference in salary because it changes every year, amongst other factors.
Justice Goundar has given the parties 21 days to file closing arguments before the judgment is delivered on notice.