High Court Judge, Justice Deepthi Amaratunga has ruled that the termination, suspension, suspension without salary decision was unlawful and taken without proper procedure and has declared all decision null and void.
He has ruled the advice given to President Jioji Konrote to suspend the Solicitor General, Sharvada Sharma in 2021 was against the Constitution and Sharma’s termination was illegal.
This is because a tribunal was not appointed to look into the allegations made against Sharma by former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem.
The Judge has ordered that Sharma will not be reinstated but be compensated about $3.1 million as loss of income and damages.
He says considering all the circumstances, in his mind Sharma’s remedies should be confined to damages and they are assessed as his lost income for the 51 day period of his suspension amounting to $27,913.49 gross plus 8 percent Fiji National Provident Fund of $2,233.08; special damages for his lost income from 10th November 2021 to the date of the hearing which is 581 days at the rate of $199,773 per annum amounting to $317,994.83, from which credit must be given for the $130,373.84 he will have earned from USP that is net $187,620.99 per annum plus 8 percent FNPF contribution of $15,009.68; loss to future earnings where a multiplier of 10 is used considering the circumstances that Sharma has good prospects of employability considering his experience and qualificaitons and other uncertainties in 22 year time until his retirement at the age of 70.
For multiplier, his annual salary at the time of termination $221,971 per annum so future loss multiplied by 10 is $2,219,710 and 8 percent FNPF of $177,576.80.
Sharma had applied for a judicial review against his termination.
The ruling was deferred 9 times since last year.
Sharma had taken legal action against the President of Fiji, the Judicial Services Commission and the Attorney General of Fiji in relation to the termination of his employment on 10th of November, 2021 by former President Jioji Konrote.
Under sections 112 and 116 of the Constitution, the Solicitor General can only be removed from office after a proper inquiry by an independent tribunal.
In Sharma’s case, no tribunal inquiry was held.
During the case, Sharvada Sharma’s lawyer, Jon Apted had argued that Sharma’s dismissal was in breach of the relevant provisions of the constitution governing process.
He had said that Sharma was not accorded common law rights to natural justice.
R Patel Lawyers partner Devanesh Sharma who was representing the Attorney General, President of Fiji and the Judicial Services Commission had revealed details in court about the complaint to the Judicial Services Commission by the then Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem against the then Solicitor General, Sharvada Sharma.
The complaint was made after Sharma who represented the Supervisor of Elections, lost the Niko Nawaikula case.
Devanesh Sharma said Saneem had said that he was not consulted prior to submissions being filed by Sharvada Sharma.
