Drive project and justice
Justice prevails
THE High Court has ruled in favour of ousted solicitor-general Sharvada Sharma.
The court ruled that the termination, suspension, and suspension without salary decisions were unlawful and taken without proper procedure, and it has declared all decisions null and void.
However, the bigger information that the public should understand from this is how poor the previous government was in terms of maintaining the authority of the law in the country.
Just over an year after being removed from office, all their wrongdoings are starting to float, and only God knows how many more unconstitutional acts they were engaged in prior to Mr Sharvada’s case.
Justice Deepthi Amaratunga ruled that, in light of the fact that Sharma has good employment prospects, his experience and qualifications, and other uncertainties in the 22 years leading up to his retirement at the age of 70, he will not be reinstated but instead receive compensation of about $2.1million for loss of income and damages.
I am thankful that Mr Sharma applied for a judicial review against his termination, as this outcome will set a precedent for future such processes undertaken by the Government. It also outlines the value of the judiciary in Fiji as independent and separate from the grips of the Government.
Getting justice took some time, but the beauty of time is that the truth always comes back on top.
RAYNAV CHAND
Nakasi, Nausori
Queen Elizabeth Drive
IN the ongoing debate on the cost of completion of the QE Drive project, there seems to be no objective analysis of this important project in terms of building for the future and the need for greater resilience in infrastructure projects in the face of rising sea level and climate impacts.
An additional cost of just over $4.2m in a $63m project amounts to around 7 per cent. If this means climate proofing the road so that it is not submerged because of the rising sea level and increased exposure to the extreme rainfalls that is being predicted by scientists, what is the problem?
In fact one should be happy that the cost of this extra resilience is only 7 per cent, most projects internationally allow as much as 20 per cent to get that additional cushion to these increased impacts.
In fact investment in such measures now is lot more economical than trying to do so in the future, something the experts have already established.
We should be grateful that the project would serve as a good example of how we should deal with the anticipated impacts rather than just pontificate about it.
And, by the way, such additional costs of climate proofing can easily be covered under grants available to small island countries under the international financing mechanisms.
What the Government needs to do is to source these funds, rather than just criticise ad nauseum such positive developments.
ALTAUF CHAND
Minto, NSW, Australia