Fiji's electricity tariff debate has exploded into a stunning display of political theater, with accusations of hypocrisy flying left and right. But here's where it gets controversial: REWA chief Ro Naulu Mataitini isn't holding back, calling out critics of the proposed 25% price hike as the very architects of the system that led to this crisis.
In a scathing social media post, Ro Naulu directly targets former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Opposition Leader Inia Seruiratu. He argues that their vocal opposition to the tariff increase rings hollow, given their roles in creating the flawed system that made such drastic measures necessary.
And this is the part most people miss: Ro Naulu highlights the irony of Sayed-Khaiyum, who once championed executive control over institutions, now lecturing about the independence of the Fiji Commerce Commission (FCCC). He points out that during Sayed-Khaiyum’s tenure, institutional independence was systematically eroded, with appointments and decisions often aligning suspiciously with the executive’s will.
Ro Naulu doesn’t mince words, accusing Sayed-Khaiyum of conveniently adopting the mantle of regulatory purity, citing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) as a model, while ignoring his own administration’s role in undermining the very independence he now demands.
The REWA chief argues that this sudden faith in untouchable regulators isn’t a genuine conversion but a strategic weapon to criticize the current government, all while sidestepping his own legacy of centralized control.
At the heart of the tariff issue, Ro Naulu insists, is a financial imperative. The Energy Fiji Limited (EFL) needs revenue, driven in part by the obligation to deliver returns to its shareholders under its current ownership structure.
Here’s the kicker: While the Opposition fiercely attacks the tariff hike, they defend the root cause—the 2021 sale of a 44% stake in EFL to Japanese investor Chugoku. Ro Naulu points out the glaring contradiction: while they claim foreign shareholders have no influence on tariffs, the introduction of profit-driven private investors inevitably shifts EFL’s priorities away from public affordability.
The Opposition’s celebration of the FJ$1.25 billion sale, Ro Naulu argues, wilfully ignores the structural tension they created between shareholder profits and the public’s ability to afford electricity.
Even the 21-day consultation pause, labeled ‘political theatre’ by Seruiratu, is not spared. Ro Naulu agrees, but with a twist—he sees it as a stage set by the Opposition, following a script they themselves wrote.
This debate isn’t just about tariffs; it’s a clash of ideologies, accountability, and the legacy of past decisions. But here’s the question that lingers: Can Fiji untangle the financial and political knots created by years of questionable policies, or is this crisis just the tip of the iceberg? What do you think? Is Ro Naulu’s critique fair, or is there another side to this story? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments.
