Home

KEEP On Running Biman Prasad. As Malimali closes file on NFP leader, we call on Police Commissioner Tudravu to arrest and charge Malimali for Perverting the Cause of Justice. Bainimarama and Qiliho duo were jailed

25/4/2025

In her affidavit to the Commission of Inquiry, Barbara Malimali asserts that she holds the same rank as the Commissioner of Police and the FICAC investigators hold ranks that are similar to police officers, citing s13AA of the Ficac Act.
She was recalling her arrest and detention by her own staff on 5 September 2024, describing it as a 'mutiny'
*If so, then she should be charged for telling one of the FICAC Investigators on 24 December 2024 not to proceed with Biman Pradad's file at FICAC

Keep On Running

24 December 2024

Fijileaks: In an outrageous decision, FICAC under Barbara Malimali and her side-kick Lisiate Fotofili have rushed and terminated the case against NFP leader Biman Prasad before the Commission of Inquiry, led by Justice David Aston-Lewis, released his Report to the President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
However, Malimali and Fotofili did not consider any of the evidence provided by Fijileaks* from August 2024, and only focused on complaints from Ms Alex Forwood (Sydney, Australia), the original complainant to FICAC in February 2024.
We call on Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu to take Malimali and Fotofili into custody for attempting to pervert the cause of justice.
Below is the evidence that was sent by FICAC Commissioner Malimali to one of her investigators. Fijileaks had sent the Whats App exchanges to Attorney-General Graham Leung, Justice Minister Siromi Turaga, Army Commander Jone Kalouniwai and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
The rotten to the core bunch did nothing and let Malimali continue as FICAC Commissioner, and now she has let Biman Prasad loose on Fiji.
These Whats App exchanges took place on 24 December 2024, and we repeat our call to Tudravu to take Malimali into custody.

FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence

ATTEMPTED TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE: Contrary to section 190 (e) of the Crimes Act 2009.

Particulars of Offence
JOSAIA VOREQE BAINIMARAMA sometime between July 2020 and September 2020 at Suva in the Central Division, attempted to pervert the course of justice by telling Sitiveni Tukaituraga Qiliho , the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji to stay away from the USP investigations that was reported under CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019.

SECOND COUNT
Statement of Offence

ABUSE OF OFFICE: Contrary to section 139 of the Crimes Act 2009

Particulars of Offence

SITIVENI TUKAITURAGA QILIHO on the 15th day of July 2020 at Suva in the Central Division being employed in the civil service as the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji, directed the Director of Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, in abuse of the authority of his office, which was an arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of University of the South Pacific which is the Complainant in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019.

"It was not right for you to tell the second respondent [Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho] to stay away from investigating the alleged mismanagement of taxpayer’s fund at the University of the South Pacific by top senior officials, who appear to be citizens of Fiji. The second respondent was the Commissioner of Police. The second respondent’s brief as Police Commissioner was guided by section 5 of the Police Act 1965. It was mandatory for the second respondent to prevent and detect crimes and enforce the criminal law of the Republic of Fiji. The police were investigating the USP mismanagement of funds at the time.
The police had sought the Director of Public Prosecution’s assistance. He had recommended the caution interview of the suspects. By telling the second respondent to stay away from the USP investigation, you have in a sense effectively sabotaged the police investigation. To this day, the investigation had not been completed. Your action was inconsistent with the oath of your office.

Breach of the Public’s Trust.
At the material time, the second respondent was the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji. By virtue of section 129 (3) of the Constitution, he commands the Fiji Police Force and is responsible for its administration, organization, deployment and its control, and in those matters, he is not subject to anyone’s control. He is the top police officer and it is his task to lead the police maintain law and order. By virtue of section 5 of the Police Act 1965, he leads the police in preserving the peace, protecting life and property, prevent and detect crime and to enforce the criminal law of this country.

However, when he, on 15 July 2020, at Suva in the Central Division, directed the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, he was certainly abusing his office, which was an arbitrary act, prejudicial to the rights of USP.

What he did was a direct violation of section 5 of the Police Act 1965 and as such, was a breach of the public trust in him.

(ii) By acceding to the first respondent’s request to stay away from the USP investigations reported in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, the second respondent violated his constitutional independence as guaranteed by section 129 (5) of the 2013 Constitution.

In sentencing you [Bainimarama}, I am guided by section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009, that is, to punish you in a manner which is just in all the circumstances; to protect the community; to deter others from committing similar offences and to signify that the court and community denounce what you did in Count No. 1. I start with a sentence of 6 months imprisonment. For the aggravating factor, I add 2 ½ years making a total of 3 years imprisonment. For all the mitigating factors, I deduct 2 years, leaving a balance of 1 year imprisonment. On Count No. 1, I sentence you to 1 year imprisonment.

The Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) authorizes the release of the following statement concerning the closure of the complaint against the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Biman Prasad.

The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has formally responded to Ms. Ana Mataiciwa, Supervisor of Elections, regarding a complaint alleging that the Honourable Dr. Biman Prasad, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) had committed an offence for failing to comply with the declaration requirements under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.

The initial complaint was lodged with the Supervisor of Elections by one Alexander Forwood of Sydney, Australia. The complaint alleges that the Honourable Dr. Prasad, submitted false information in his declaration of income, assets and liabilities for the years 2014 – 2020, 2022 and 2023 to the Fijian Elections Office in his capacity as Party Leader of the National Federation Party.

FICAC initiated a comprehensive investigation that included an in‑person interview with the Honourable Dr. Prasad and a detailed review of documentary evidence and legal submissions provided by his counsel. Although the Political Parties Act does not explicitly list “party leader” among those required to declare, the Commission concluded that the Honourable Dr. Prasad’s role qualifies him as an “office holder” under section 24 and therefore subject to its declaration obligations.

The complaint that the Honourable Dr. Prasad should have disclosed his superannuation is debatable. Since 2014, the Honourable Dr. Prasad has provided his declaration to the Fijian Elections Office without including superannuation information, and there is no evidence before FICAC that the Supervisor of Elections or the Electoral Commission ever advised Honourable Dr. Prasad that his declarations were insufficient or requested that superannuation information be included in the declaration form.

As there were no grievances raised in almost a decade, any ordinary person in the Honourable Dr. Prasad’s position might think that the declarations provided were sufficient. Furthermore, the forms required the Honourable Dr. Prasad or any other office holder to declare their assets and did not specifically require information pertaining to superannuation.

Allegations regarding his spouse’s ties to FEMLink Pacific and the Global Girmit Institute (GGI), as well as his professional association with Dr. Ganesh Chand, were similarly reviewed and dismissed, as none involved reportable business transactions. Under section 24 (1A) and (1B) of the Political Parties Act 2013, an office holder must disclose business interests and transactions but does not require the disclosure of personal connections.

In relation to Lotus Construction and Lotus Tours and Travel; the form requires that declarants are to declare any dividends received and directorships. Honourable Dr. Prasad declared his shares in two companies, the value of one company and the loan obtained from the bank. Honourable Dr. Prasad also declared that he did not receive any dividends. So, whilst the Honourable Dr. Prasad declared his shares, no income in the form of dividends were received from the companies. (Fijileaks: We will respond to Lotus and Prasad's declarations)

If an office holder under section 24 of the Political Parties Act 2013 commits a technical breach in their declaration, that person can still be prosecuted because it is a strict liability offence. FICAC appreciates the objective of the declaration requirement which is to promote transparency and accountability. However, it is a provision which generates disputes (whether made in good faith or not) between political parties, opposition and their supporters, which in turn has the potential to weaponise FICAC disproportionately against certain individuals.

In this light, in its prosecutorial discretion, FICAC will examine all electoral cases referred to it closely to identify cases of a trivial nature or is a technical breach versus those who wilfully flout the declaration requirements.
FICAC will not be prosecuting Dr. Prasad.

Ms Forwood

Ms Ana Mataiciwa,
Acting Supervisor Fiji Elections,
Fiji Elections Office,
Suva, Fiji

12th February 2024.

Dear Ms Mataiciwa,

Re: Party Leader- Biman Prasad- False and Non Declaration under the Political Parties Act 2013.

I am writing this letter to lodge an official complaint regarding one Biman Prasad who is the Party Leader of the National Federation Party which is currently in the Coalition Government.

I note that Biman Prasad has declared that his income being $188,000 per annum, however he failed to declare the FNFP contribution as it added on top of his salary under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014, excluding his personal contribution as required by law (Attached as exhibit 1- Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014). I state the following:

1. Under section 24 (1)(A) (B) (i) which stipulate one must declare total assets whether in Fiji or Abroad (including money and other property) in their possession or under their control. Therefore, I argue that FNPF contributions and any funds is considered personal property as one can have access to funds as stipulated in the withdrawal provisions of the fund being FNPF. Therefore, Biman Prasad should have declared his contributions and the amount held by FNPF. I note the case precedent used by Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum whereby in one of his previous declarations he declared his FNFP declarations. Therefore, the same must apply in this case.

2. I note that Biman Prasad failed to declare his travel allowances during his overseas travel and the amounts he received. That evidence is in office and can be verified upon your perusal of his declaration.

3. I noted that Biman Prasad failed to declare that he is the Governor of the Asian Development Bank in Fiji. As that position is not Gazette to him under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014 it is thus separate to his Minister of Finance Post- which must be declared under section 24 (1) (ab) (iv) of the Political Parties Act where a person must declare any directorship or other office in a corporation or other organisation whether in Fiji or Abroad held by each of them. In support I attach exhibit 2- Asian Development Bank Documents stating that Biman Prasad is Governor of the Reserve Bank.

4. I note that Biman Prasad did not declare that his wife one Dr Rajni Chand is the trustee of the Global Girmit Institute and that it facilitated the funds of $200,000 given by the Coalition Government. The Not for Profit Organisation was re-registered in 2023, after it deregistered in February 2022 for failing to supply its financial statements as required under the laws of Fiji. The period of re-registration falls within the required period upon which Biman Prasad is required to declare in his 2023 Financial Declaration (Attached is exhibit 3- Global Institute Deed of Trust and
Registration Documents).

5. I note that Biman Prasad did not declare his connection to Ganesh Chand and Hirdesh Sharma whom are the registered Trustees of the Global Girmit Institute upon whom received $200,000 of Tax payers funds. This is a breach under section 24

(a) (b) (iii) of the Political Parties Act. I submit that no tender was called in relation to the event organisation.

6. I note that Biman Prasad declared that he owns 50 percent shares in Lotus Construction Pte Limited, however upon obtaining the registration documents and the Article of Association – it was established that Biman Prasad only has a 5 percent share in Louts Construction and not the 50 percent share he claims in his declaration (Attached as exhibit 4- Lotus Construction Pte Limited Registration Documents and the Article of Association).

The document was re-lodged in 2022 with the date of the Article of Association dated and signed in 2014 and upon which the re- registration occurred in 2022.

7. I note that one of the directors of Lotus Construction upon which Biman Prasad has shares in is Sunil Chand (Please refer to exhibit 4). Biman Prasad did not declare the business connection with Sunil Chand who has the same Lotus Construction company in Australia thus being a breach under section 24 (a) (b) (iii) of the Political Parties Act 2014 (Attached is exhibit 5- Louts Construction registration in Australia).

8. Biman Prasad’s spouse Dr Rajni Prasad [Chand] did not declare that she is Chairperson to Femlink Pacific (Please note she has held this position 2009 to date), therefore being a breach under 24 (1a) (d) of the Political Parties Act (Attached is exhibit 6- Femlink Document stipulating that Dr Rajni Prasad is the Chairman of the organisation). Dr Rajni Chand may/may not be receiving a salary from this post nonetheless it was a non-declaration.

9. I note that Biman Prasad and Dr Rajni Chand have not declared under section 24 (1) (a,b (iii) and 24 (1A) (c) of the Political Parties Act 2014 their business transaction to one Dr Ganesh Chand who is the co-trustee of the Global Girmit Institutre as previously mentioned. However, due to the business transaction the fact must be taken into account is that Biman Prasad allocated $1 million to Pacific Polytech whose Advisor is Dr Ganesh Chand. Please note that there was no tender process in line with the Laws of Fiji. Please note that Pacific Polytech has not submitted that their Audit reports as required. The funds was transferred in 2022 to Pacific Polytech.

I therefore submit this complaint for the breaches under the Political Parties Act 2014 upon which I understand that whilst some elements of this complaint cannot be handled by your office.

You must, therefore, refer the matter to FICAC under section 18 of the Political Parties Act.

Ms Alex Forwood, Sydney, Australia.

RIP, POPE FRANCIS, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. As son of Italian immigrants to Argentina, Francis (born JORGE MARIO Bergoglio) invested personal passion into his fierce advocacy on behalf of migrants

21/4/2025

Francis, standing second left, with his two brothers, two sisters and parents, both Italian immigrants who settled in Argentina. Photograph: API/Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images

Pope Francis made history when he became the first leader of the Catholic Church from the Americas.

The 76-year-old Archbishop of Buenos Aires, who was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was given his new name after he was elected to succeed Pope Benedict XVI on 13 March, 2013.

He was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 17 December, 1936, to Italian immigrants.

The Argentine had worked as a bouncer before turning to the priesthood after recovering from pneumonia back in 1958.

Francis was ordained a priest on 13 December 1969 and trained in Spain for a year before moving back to Argentina.

Francis took over the role of Pope in 2014, and was seen as an outspoken moderniser, reformist and progressive.

POPE FRANCIS never visited Fiji. The last Pope to visit was John Paul 11, who in 1986 had described 'Fiji: The Way The World Should Be'.

14 May 1987
"Fiji - A Garden of Eden to Satan's Paradise

Fijileaks: The Government of India, on application, may register as an Overseas Citizen of India, any person who: (a) is a citizen of another country, but was a citizen of India on 26 January 1950 or at any time thereafter; or (b) is a citizen of another country, but belonged to a territory that became part of India after 15 August 1947; or (c) is a citizen of another country, but was eligible to become a citizen of India on 26 January 1950; or (d) is a child or a grandchild or a great-grandchild of such a citizen.

September 2024: Fiji's Archbishop Peter Loy Chong meets Pope Francis in PNG

In Wonderful Company. Some of Fiji's most senior journalists are on free jaunt in the United States, even hitching a ride on a private jet owned by Fiji Water's Californian owners (Resnicks). Yet not a story in the Fiji press

17/4/2025

Who is PAYING for the trip of some of Fiji's most senior journalists?
What are they doing, gallivanting from one place to another, in the US?
*Update: After the uproar, we are told that these senior journalists are part of the International Visitors Leadership Program tour to the US organised by the US State Department.

Pio Tikoduadua, 'Middle East Tour to catch up with RFMF soldiers on the ground'. FLP, '$126,000 Travel Allowance Junket'. Defence Minister Pio Tikoduadua, 'I don't respond to parties led by CONVICTED CRIMINALS'

16/4/2025

*Among the 10 charges NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD was facing, included his failure to disclose that his wife Dr Rajni Chand was one of the three Trustees of the Global Girmit Institute. He had handed $200,000 of taxpayers funds without any tender to GGI to organise the Global Girmit Conference at the USP

Fijileaks to Pio Tikoduadua and Biman Prasad:
FLP leader Chaudhry has faced the full brunt of the law

"I don't respond to parties led by convicted criminals"
Pio Tikoduadua, April 2025.

Fiji, in 2008, Tikoduadua was among FIRCA Board Members who had filed legal action against VICTOR LAL, the late former Fiji Sun* publisher Russell Hunter (RIP) and the Fiji Sun after the paper had published Victor Lal's investigation that Bainimarama's Interim Finance Minister Chaudhry was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account. Chaudhry was also FIRCA line manager in 2008.

**Fijileaks:* Shortly after Victor Lal had revealed Mahendra Chaudhry's $2million in the Sydney bank account, Bainimarama's military thugs were unleashed on Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter. He was abducted from his Suva home, tortured, and deported out of Fiji the next day, and was declared a prohibited immigrant.
*The RFMF army thug leader was later identified by Russell Hunter.

From Fijileaks Archive, 11 September 2014

Standing "shoulder to shoulder" with Tiko...

The six-week long Middle-East trip of Defence Minister Pio Tikoduadua to visit our peace - keeping troops to 'hear their concerns directly', as he puts it, is unbelievably absurd.

Six weeks is a long, long time for a highly paid Minister to be away from his duties at home.

To make it worse, he adds that he is ..'not going on a vacation but to stand shoulder to shoulder with our men and women in uniform'.

Minister, it's going to cost the taxpayer thousands to send you on this junket as we see it.

Besides, we think our men and women in uniform are quite capable of standing shoulder to shoulder on their own- they hardly need a Minister to inspire them.

As for 'hearing their concerns directly', may we ask the Minister: Does the RFMF not have its own machinery to deal with such matters?

Thousands of dollars will be wasted on this puerile trip while our hospitals and health centres remain deprived of money to provide medicine and other critical supplies to our sick.

Just how the Prime Minister allows such abuse of funds and irrational ministerial conduct, boggles the mind!

VASU appointment of rabid racist Navakamocea, the political turncoat as acting PS, Ministry of iTaukei Affairs. He is allegedly MINISTER VASU's wife's cousin. But his rabid racist views of Indo-Fijians cause for alarm

15/4/2025

Navakamocea

POLITICAL TURNCOAT. Navakamocea was State Minister for National Planning in the SDL government of Laisenia Qarase.
Following the 5 December 2006 coup, he was appointed Minister for Local Government, Urban Development and Utilities in the interim government formed by Commodore Frank Bainimarama.

Navakamocea was one of a few members of the Qarase government to run and join Bainimarama's interim regime.
In August 2006, Navakamocea had caused racial storm when he demanded that the term Indo-Fijian be banned, saying it amounted to identity theft by Indo-Fijians.
He claimed the term Indo-Fijian was created by racist Indo-Fijian academics like Dr Ganesh Chand for the purpose of 'Fijianising" the Indian ethnicity in Fiji at the expense of i-Taukei Fijians.
However, our sources at the i-Taukei Affairs Board were shocked to see him take the job test in February for the post of Deputy PS Operations.

Ganesh Chand

Deputy Secretary Operations in the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs, Culture, Heritage and Arts Jone Navakamocea has been appointed as the Acting Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs, with the agreement of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
This has been confirmed by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission Luke Rokovada, who says Navakamocea is holding the position for now, as the Permanent Secretary for iTaukei Affairs, Culture, Heritage and Arts Pita Tagicakirewa has been on medical leave from 31st March 2025. Rokovada says Tagicakirewa will take his annual leave following medical leave. He says Navakamocea has a background in economics having acquired a Master of Science in Macro Economics, Policy and Planning in Developing Countries from the University of Bradford, West Yorkshire, England. Rokovada says Nakavamocea has had extensive experience in economic planning and development in Government and the public sector spanning more than thirty years.

'Talibanistic' views of Indo-Fijians, with Navakamocea claiming that the late deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase had endorsed his views on Indo-Fijians

"Minister, you don't have to apologise. There was nothing wrong in your speech. Sometimes they just need to be told who they are, and who we are," Prime Minister Qarase to Navakamocea, allegedly in August 2006

*Navakamocea, did you know that Laisenia Qarase (RIP) was a JEW?

*Unlike the political JUDAS Jone Navakamocea in 2006, I fought for deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase's rights until he passed away.

*American ambassador Larry Dinger in secret cable to Washington

Jone Navakamocea, Interim Minister for Local Government and Urban Development. Navakamocea won a parliamentary seat in 2006 under Qarase's SDL banner and served as State Minister for National Planning in the multi-party cabinet.
He reportedly formally applied for a cabinet position in the interim administration and resigned from the SDL Party.
Navakamocea was previously Deputy Secretary of Finance.

*From Prussia to Mavana. From Madras to Muaniweni

Riddhi Damodar, 'I am NOT my Sister's Keeper'. "I believe Fiji women are more than capable of running strong, winning campaigns without 30% of seats handed to them. Let us Fix the System—NOT Force the Outcome."

13/4/2025

Fijileaks Editor-in-Chief: We fully endorse Riddhi Damodar's views against the call for a 30% Quota for Women in Parliament. In 2014, we fully supported Lynda Tabuya when, as president of the People's Democratic Party, she contested the election. We supported Ro Teimumu Kepa when she led Sodelpa into the election. We supported the former Acting Permanent Secretary for Education Basundra Kumar when she stood in the 2022 election as NFP candidate. In fact, in 2014, we had exposed how the then FFP Education Minister Mahendra Reddy had allegedly, based on personal vendetta, ousted her from her position as acting Education Secretary.
We firmly believe that if activist Shamima Ali adopted her position on a case by case basis, instead of always claiming 'I am My Sister's Keeper', voters might be more favourable to women candidates.
We notice another champion of women's rights Imrana Jalal is once again calling for the reservation of 30% of seats in Parliament. During the formulation of the 1997 Constitution, she had presented a lengthy written submission to the Reeves Commission:
'An initial 20% of reserved seats might be a realistic aim. This does not mean that women are limited to just 20% of seats, only that 20% of all seats must be reserved for women and all parties have to field candidates for these seats."
The Reeves Commission merely mentioned women in passing by referring to the UN Convention on Women (CEDAW) and did not give it any other added importance in the 1997 Rabuka-Reddy Constitution other than advise that the 1997 Constitution 'must not discriminate against a person on any other prohibited ground, such as sex, gender or age, and they must not deny to any person any other human right or fundamental freedom recognised by law'. Other than this, there was no specific mention of the reservation of seats for women.
Our understanding is that race and ethnic politics, the divisions and efforts to reconcile simply dominated the political and national landscape at the time. So, something like the reservation of seats for women, would simply be rendered invisible in the highly charged tension of post-coup 1987 military politics, ethno-nationalism, land issues along with the racial/ethnic lines.
Throughout Fiji's electoral history, women candidates managed to break through the political wall. Take, for example, Mrs Irene Jai Narayan, the former NFP Deputy leader who was part of the delegation to London that negotiated Fiji's independence.
In both the 1972 and 1977 elections, she comprehensively beat my paternal uncle for the Suva Indian communal seat in the Muanikau Ward, despite him being the Alliance Party's former Lord Mayor of Suva.
Mrs Narayan became the most hated figure in the Indo-Fijian community when she became Sitiveni Rabuka's Minister for Indian Affairs after the racist 1987 military coups.
She was one of the few Indo-Fijians who agreed to serve in the transitional government of 1987-1992, a government that was widely condemned by many of her fellow Indo-Fijians for promulgating the racist 1990 Constitution of Fiji.
*Once again, we fully endorse Riddhi Damodar, the failed 2018 NFP candidate.

On the 30% Quota for Women in Fiji’s Parliament

As someone who firmly supports women in leadership, I want to see more capable, confident women in Parliament. But I don’t believe the answer lies in guaranteed quotas or handouts. Real progress means building systems that empower women to rise on their own merit—and win because they’re the best for the job.

Fiji’s population is nearly half women. Our voter base reflects that. And yet, women remain underrepresented in Parliament. Why?

Let’s ask the harder questions. Are women not putting themselves forward—or are political parties not selecting them? Is the political culture discouraging women from contesting? These are structural issues we must address before we fall back on quotas as a fix-all.

But here’s a question that’s often left unasked—especially for voters:

In past elections, did you vote for a woman candidate? Or did you choose a male candidate instead? Why?

If voters and especially women are not voting for women candidates, we need to understand why. Is it a lack of trust? Lack of visibility? Lack of women candidates? Or a reflection of deeper societal attitudes? This isn’t about blame—it’s about introspection.

If we want more women in Parliament, it’s not just about how many women stand—it’s about how many of us, especially women, are willing to vote for them.

I believe women are more than capable of running strong, winning campaigns without needing 30% of the seats handed to them. But we need to give them a fair shot: better support from parties, safer spaces to campaign, and a culture that takes their candidacy seriously.

Let’s fix the system—not force the outcome, And let’s back women—not just in talk, but in the ballot box.

Jalal

A call is being made to support a submission by the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) and Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC) to have temporary special measures for 30 percent reserved seats for women in parliament.

Imrana Jalal, who is a founding member of the FWRM, is calling on NGOs and civil society organisations to support the submission titled “Reforming our Electoral Legislation for Gender Equality in Fiji’s Parliament” by the FWRM and FWCC to the Fiji Electoral Law Reform Commission.

Jalal says the submission calls for temporary special measures to reserve 30 percent of seats in Parliament for women, to be contested only by women, but open to votes from all voters, not just women.

She says they ask for either extra seats for women or a proportion of existing seats.
The renowned lawyer says they believe that this is a temporary solution to create a level playing field between men and women until women can compete fairly with men in normal seats.

She says their submission contains a plethora of evidence in support where they also ask for other improvements which they believe will create a better representative democracy such as a geographical constituency representative model where people can go to their MP for accountability.

Jalal says they also ask for scrapping of the current system which glorifies the ‘Big Man’ autocratic patriarchal concept and allows MPs with minuscule votes to be in Parliament and Cabinet.

They also ask for better protection for female candidates and MPs against online and offline sexual harassment, bullying, intimidation and threats of violence.

We won't be surprised that sooner or later Indo-Fijians and Other Minorities will demand Reservation of Seats in Parliament to prevent Idi-Amin like expulsion from Fiji, now that i-Taukei have become MAJORITY.
From Fijileaks Archive, 9 October 2021.

The recent glorification of NFP founder and leader A. D. PATEL
in the Fiji Times is all HOGWASH. The London Constitutional talks, even though Patel had passed away before the talks, revolved around majority and minority population rights, without taking into account the fact that the Indo-Fijians were on their way to becoming a minority race in Fiji
There were projections that by 1988 the Fijian (i-Taukei) population would overtake the Indians (Indo-Fijians) as the largest racial group in the country. Apart from the far-reaching implications, this trend also raises a fundamental question: which group is to be treated as a minority in need of constitutional and political safeguards?
Victor Lal, Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention

The NFP also handed veto power to CHIEFS, argued against DUAL CITIZENSHIP, and accepted ongoing future COMMON/COMMUNAL ROLL voting system talks. In a hurry to KICK the British out, they went to London with the voice of NFP founder and India-born AD Patel ringing in their ears, and returned empty-handed, except with a new Constitution of Fiji that was the final depository of an i-Taukei's Charter of Rights. Since 1970, NFP kept Indo-Fijians trapped into a BOTTOMLESS PIT but hopefully in 2022 they will have broken free from their inglorious past. So much has been made of the 1997 Constitution. It was designed to ensure that SVT-NFP (Sitiveni Rabuka-Jai Ram Reddy) formed the new government (mandatory power-sharing) after the 1999 election but the
heavy baggage of history and bigotry was against them.
"Colonial rule on its departure left Fiji in Fijian (i-Taukei) hands and might thereby be deemed to have fulfilled, at least in a political sense, its promise of paramountcy of indigenous interests. By permitting European over-representation and facilitating an alliance of European and Fijian communities, it substantially secured the European positiion. As for Indians (Indo-Fijians), who had been brought in initially as indentured labourers but with the prominence of 'employment of rights' and a large majority of whom in 1970 supported the opposiiton National Federation Party, the care of their future was transferred, without any specific legal provisions, from the British to the new rulers of Fiji." - The late Dr AHMED ALI, who later ran and became a Cabinet Minister in the Alliance Party and Rabuka's Interim Coup Cabinet

The Great Council of Chiefs. We look forward to the day when WOMEN (especially i-Taukei women) will rise up and demand equality in the Great Council of Chiefs. So far, there is only one lonely figure - Ro Teimumu Kepa in the GCC. PATRIARCHY on full display in Fiji.
Ro Kepa was also cheated of the Presidency, for it went to Rabuka's paramount chief, who had only managed to get 300 votes in the 2022 general election as PAP candidate.
Maybe, those (including Daniel Fatiaki) now screaming against candidates with 200-300 votes in Parliament, will agitate to remove Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu as President of Fiji.
From Fijileaks* Archive, 12 November 2024.

The NFP's Deputy Leader Mrs Narayan signing away Indo-Fijian rights (while her fellow Indo-Fijian women and young girls were being raped-confirmed by Shamima Ali despite Lynda Tabuya asking for evidence like Police Reports) to Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka in October 1987.
Mrs Irene Jai Narayan oversaw the passage of the racist and feudalistic 1990 Constitution that disenfranchised Indo-Fijians.
The Australian Justice Michael Kirby had branded the 1990 Constitution 'quite as bad'* as the apartheid laws in South Africa.
'Those who lift their voice against that form of entrenched legal discrimination must do saw against this new and completely unacceptable [1990] Constitution of Fiji'*, said Justice Kirby.
**Fijileaks:* Who says more women in Fiji's Parliament will protect and defend women's rights - Mrs Narayan is a disgraceful example why more women like Riddhi Damodar should reject calls for the reservation of 30% of seats in Parliament for Women.

LOW Turnout at Electoral Act Consultations. Fatiaki, 'I really don't know. I have tried very hard to create awareness'. Smart-eyed public can see the charade. Even Narsey will struggle to understand Hindi in advertisement

8/4/2025

Fijileaks Apology: We apologise to our worldwide readers, including those inside Fiji, who couldn't access Fijileaks. We have fixed the 'Glitch'

Daniel Fatiaki, you told Fijivillage, the Coalition's $1.7m annual recipient of public taxpayers money and propaganda lapdog, that you have put out questions in all three languages, including FIJI HINDI.
No, it is not Fiji Hindi. Its Biman Prasad's Mother India HINDI.
Take, for example, Mahilaaon. For God's sake, we say 'Aurat'.
*The majority of Indo-Fijians who contacted us claim they are struggling to read the English translation into Biman Prasad's Hindi.

Elephant in the Electoral Reform Commission. We are shocked to listen to Fatiaki, Narsey lecturing us. FIJI, Fatiaki took $275,000 and fled the country, leaving even our Editor at mercy of Bainimarama's dictatorship

4/4/2025

*For years we have called for reform of Fiji's Electoral System but we condemn how Fatiaki-Narsey came to be chosen to draft the changes

The 'Runaway Elephant' emerges in Fiji after retiring as Chief Justice of Nauru, begins writing Letters to the Editor on Fiji's Electoral System (in the Fiji Times), puts in a tender to the Coalition government to review the Electoral System, gets Wadan Narsey on 'the Elephant's back', and is lecturing Fiji.
We are convinced that the TENDER had been submitted with the agreement that the vote to amend the 2013 Constitution would be passed in Parliament.
*DANIEL FATIAKI, what about Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka's Decree that declared Fiji a Republic, so he could escape the Death Penalty for TREASON on 14 May 1987?

*It was Wadan Narsey's NFP party leader Jai Ram Reddy who agreed to insert the IMMUNITY Clause from the racist 1990 Constitution into the Rabuka-Reddy 1997 Constitution that remains entrenched in the Bainimarama-Khaiyum 2013 Constitution of Fiji

"A classic example is the FNPF Decree 51 which ripped the heart out of pensioners as those receiving 15 to about 25 percent were forced to accept 9 percent. The pensioners went under the poverty line as a result because no consultations were done. It was just done by authority, whoever has the power. That decree remains today and no government has bothered to actually ratify it and make it an Act of Parliament. The level of unlawfulness in this country is shocking."
Daniel Fatiaki, Chair, Electoral Reform Commission

From Fijileaks Archive, 6 February 2022

"No, there was no discussion in Parliament on whether Fiji should become a REPUBLIC, but the legal advisors at the time
said, “The only way to go now is to go all the way to being a Republic,
because you have sacked Her Majesty the Queen. If she comes back, then you are all liable for treason against Her Majesty. So, the only way to put an end to that is to just say, “This is no longer Her Majesty’s Government. It’s no longer Her Majesty’s territory of Fiji. It is now a republic.”
Treasonist Coupist SITIVENI RABUKA, who declared Fiji a republic, severing the Chiefs and the Country's 113 year link with the Crown.

Hi Fijileaks,
Coup hanger-on Alipate Qetaki replaced at NLTB: What next for Rabuka-Bainimarama henchman - remember he became A-G in Rabuka's post 1987 coup, and resurfaced in same role after the George Speight coup!,

"This man who was a prime mover and shaker in the racist, violent Rabuka coup of 1987 got me charged under the Official Secrets Act for publishing an article on Social Welfare in Fiji. That article did no citizen of Fiji any harm. In fact many professional people said they came to better understand what the Social Welfare Department was doing even though it was rather poorly resourced. By contrast Alipate Qetaki and his like minded racist colleagues in Rabuka's inner circle and the Taukei Movement did a great deal of harm to thousands of fellow Fiji citizens and to the country.
Has Qetaki been charged for anything? Has he faced justice for his role in the 1987 coup? No, he hasn't. Instead he continued to be rewarded with top posts in the government and other institutions like the NLTB." - Rajend Naidu, Sydney, 3 April 2015

STRAIGHT ANSWER Fatiaki, Narsey. As the two Coalition propagandists billed to appear on Fijivillage Straight Talk, it is THIRTY YEARS and we still waiting for confirmation if Daniel Fatiaki same NBF Debtor ($26,000)

1/4/2025

Chinese Whispers. There are rumours that Wadan Narsey and Daniel Fatiaki had put together a proposal for Electoral Reform, and for Coalition government to rubber-stamp and tagged on other members as part of their Electoral Review Team.
Last year, in one of his Opinion Columns in the Fiji Times, Narsey had called on the Fiji Law Society to call for a new Constitution Review Commission (CRC) which 'can include nominees of the current Government and Opposition (hopefully including knowledgeable local experts like Richard Naidu and Daniel Fatiaki, and a constitutional expert each from Australia and New Zealand for greater credibility'.

Now, Daniel Fatiaki is calling for the binning of the 2013 Constitution.
And suspicions have arisen whether their call for the review of the Political Parties Act 2013 is designed to protect NFP leader, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Prasad who is most likely to be recommended by the Commission of Inquiry to be charged in the coming weeks. He is on the run from FICAC, courtesy of Barbara Malimali.
We may recall that Wadan Narsey was slated to be the Finance Minister if the Rabuka-Reddy SVT-NFP coalition had won the 1999 general election.
Along with Biman Prasad, Narsey lost in that election. Since then he has been licking his political wounds and lurking on the fringes without success to shape Fijian political landscape.
Meanwhile, it was under another Constitution, the racist and feudalistic 1990 Constitution that saw the collapse of the National Bank of Fiji, with thousands of DEBTORS disappearing into the sunset. Now, many back on the horizon. Have they paid up?

From Fijileaks Archive, 15 October 2017

Wadan Narsey, The SODELPA website quotes Rabuka saying:
“When the issue of NBF was brought to my attention as the then Prime Minister, I responded immediately to minimise any further risk to the financial sector and to the economy as a whole, rather than sweeping the matter under the carpet”.
"This is a blatant lie. The Fiji public knows very well that the rot at NBF started when Rabuka sent in his soldiers with guns to remove the General Manager then, and replace him with [Visanti] Makrava who then proceeded to destroy the NBF from within. Far from responding “immediately” Rabuka allowed all the rot to set in because many of them were his supporters. Rabuka never instituted a full inquiry into the most costly financial disaster that Fiji had ever faced despite many public calls. In the end the taxpayers lost around $200 million to indemnify the depositors. In other words, bad borrowers ran off with at least that sum of money (I say at least because interest was frozen on bad debts). [Multiply $200 million by 2.1 if you want to convert 1996 dollar values to today’s prices, i.e. more than $400 million in today’s money]."
Professor Wadan Narsey, 15 October 2017

*FALL Guy: The late Visanti Petero Makrava blamed for collapse of NBF
"Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka had appointed Visanti Makrava in December 1987, at the point of a gun. Makrava entered the NBF headquarters in Suva with a group of soldiers saying he had been appointed by the Brigadier, as Rabuka was then. At the time Makrava was manager of the NBF's Samabula branch where the army did its banking...The other link Rabuka had with the bank was through his friend and former army commander, Paul Manueli, who had become NBF chairman in January 1988. He was to stay in that position until June 1992 when he left to become Rabuka's Minister of Finance...Makrava certainly did Rabuka no favours when he was reported to have said,
"If I open my mouth, half the Government goes, including the leader."

The late Visanti Makrava

In 2011, the Fiji Court of Appeal had upheld the decision of the Suva High Court in 2008 for former Cabinet Minister, Marieta Rigamoto and her husband, Robert Rigamoto to pay their $1.5 million loan with interest.

The Rigamotos obtained certain advances from the bank between 1991 and 1995 which amounted to $404,589.97 and over the period of time, interest had built up.

The late Robert Rgamoto and his wife Marieta Rigamoto.

"I agree with the judgment and proposed orders of Sriskandarajah JA.

"In my view this is a case where the bank cannot be bound by the actions of its Chief Officer, Visanti Makrava .
He was not acting as authorised agent of the bank but as the agent of his friends the Rigamotos. Visanti Makrava , in so acting, was acting fraudulently in concert with the Rigamotos and with farm hands Ranjit Prasad and Rajesh Chand. Consequently everything done purportedly by the bank including the termination of the security on the land in respect of the Rigamoto's debt and the consideration given to a secured loan to the farm hands was of no effect.
Visanti Makrava and the Rigamotos were fellow Rotumans and Makrava 's actions in this case demonstrate that he was their close friend. Visanti Makrava had passed away by the time of the trial in 2008.
Justice William Marshall, Fiji Court of Appeal, 2011

From Coupfourpointfive, Victor Lal, 26 May 2010

The NBF was ordered by the then Rabuka government to grant “soft loans” to the “downtrodden” taukei population. The rationale was that the taukei created instability in the country because they were economically disadvantaged, and the way to prevent future instability was to narrow the gap between their economic position and others by introducing affirmative action policies. Flawed though this reasoning was, and based on no reputable statistics, the programme was immensely popular among the ordinary i-taukei, and who can blame them.

Since the principle of handouts was based only on ethnicity, it provided the basis of a bank policy of soft loans with few questions asked. Between 1987 and 1994, more than $200 million was lent to people on the basis of no or inadequate securities. No one noticed what was happening. Many Cabinet Ministers, already wealthy businessmen, and political cronies of the people in power borrowed money from the bank. They did not pay the loans back. In fact the beneficiaries of many of the loans were political associates, golf playing mates or relatives of those who were influential at the time.

Many were not i-taukei and many were not economically disadvantaged. To hide the nature of some borrowers, lawyers for the NFB allegedly created shelf companies to make the application on behalf of some other client. No one noticed. Allegedly, even the Reserve Bank of Fiji, which is supposed to be a bank policeman, said it noticed nothing. The Opposition noticed nothing. The police noticed nothing. The media noticed nothing until 1992, when another scam broke involving an out-of-court Deed of Settlement between a nationalist politician and the Attorney-General, which was devised to provide security for a loan from the NBF.

When that scandal broke there was an investigation into the NBF, firstly by the Reserve Bank, secondly by the Ministry of Finance, and thirdly by the police. The findings were shocking to our senses: $200 million in unsecured or under-secured loans. The beneficiaries were not the disadvantaged taukei. And no loan was likely to be repaid. Police investigations revealed fraud, corruption, and gross abuse of office, obtaining by false pretences and obtaining credit by fraud.

Of course the first question asked was where were the watchdogs? How could this happen with a strong parliamentary opposition, an Auditor-General, a free media, a banker’s bank (The Reserve Bank) and a watchdog - the Ministry of Finance? It became painfully apparent that none of these “good governance” institutions had the capacity to stop the stinking rot. The jury is still out on whether they all knew what was going on, and failed to intervene in a politically supported hot ‘lovo’. But the institutions failed to detect or expose the fraud, until it was too late.

And so the taxpayers turned to the criminal justice system to demonstrate accountability. Police investigations took almost three years to complete. The Fiji Police Force was under-trained and resourced, and fraud laws antiquated. The investigations were compounded because DPP’s Office, which was destroyed in the 1987 coup, was staffed with under-qualified and inexperienced lawyers. The National Bank prosecutions, led by the then Director of Public Prosecutions, later Justice Nazhat Shameem, were a test of the ability of Fiji’s criminal justice system to try the rich and the powerful. She had already held that office for some three years.

Those of us who eagerly and closely followed the whole saga soon noticed a sinister pattern emerging, prevalent in many other corruption riddled Third World countries. The first was the hostility of the magistracy. State prosecutors were daily maligned, abused, and on one occasion detained in custody for alleged contempt of court. In one absurd case the accused, who was a Cabinet Minister and a high chief, had been permitted to sit at the bar table instead of the dock.

His counsel, in the course of the preliminary inquiry abused the prosecutor on the basis of his skin color. He was an Australian and the Deputy DPP. The Fijian magistrate reprimanded the prosecutor for insulting Fijian culture when he (the prosecutor) led evidence that the accused had received large sums of money “for his people” in exchange for fishing licenses. When the prosecutor tried to present his side of the story, he was detained in the police cell for “contempt of court”, raising the question: when does a cultural gift become a corruptly received gift?

We might recall that the DPP Shameem had to appear to secure his release, and to request the magistrate to disqualify himself. He refused to do so. Shameem moved the High Court to order him to disqualify himself. The High Court did so order, but the defence appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. So much delay ensued, that the trial of the Minister never proceeded. The DPP, who took office after Shameem left, entered a nolle prosequi. The prosecutor won the battle, but the war was lost.

In the midst of the judicial battles, came the interlocutory challenges. The prosecution tried to ground all the accused by seizing their passports. Their lawyers and the magistrates were outraged. These were important people: Cabinet Ministers, lawyers, and businessmen. In vain the prosecution argued that all suspects should be treated in the same way, and their travelling curtailed. When the prosecution failed, it appealed the bail rulings to the higher courts. Again, the delay worked to its detriment. The prosecution got so caught up in interlocutory hearings that the substantive matters were never aired.

In the few cases that did proceed to trial, witnesses refused to testify. When they gave evidence, they turned hostile. They agreed to everything suggested to them by the defence. A lawyer who had told the police that the signature on a cheque was that of his partner (the accused) said on evidence that he was mistaken and that in fact the accused had been out of the country at the time. One after another, Ministers, senior bank officials, lawyers and businessmen were acquitted. The impatient media, having failed to notice the “cat and mouse” legal game, began to unnecessarily criticize the DPP’s Office.

It only rallied to Shameem’s defence when someone leaked to the press the behind the scenes strong-arm tactics that was being deployed against her. In the midst of the hearings, the Public Service Commission had asked her to sign a performance agreement, which would have made her accountable to the Permanent Secretary for Justice. She refused to sign. The Commission complained to the Chief Justice. She refused to sign. The matter was discussed in the Judicial Services Commission (the appointing body of the DPP). She refused to sign. Cabinet ordered her to sign and expressed “concern” at her refusal to co-operate with the authorities. She refused to sign. When things began to look very ugly, the matter was leaked to the media, which was forced to rally to her support.

Then personal attacks were rained on her. It later emerged that she received abusive memoranda from senior public servants who refused to accept any correspondence from her without approval from the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General. One memorandum expressed the view that she was unfit to hold public office.

The Attorney-General refused to send her requests for mutual assistance from Australia and New Zealand for witnesses to give evidence on video link. Overnight, the Ministry of Finance cut her department’s budget by 40%. The vote most affected was the witness expense vote. She could no longer afford to summon witnesses. It was restored only when she threatened to challenge the decision of the Minister of Finance in court. The end result was that despite the prosecution’s best efforts, no one was convicted. The courts in the NBF scam held no one accountable.

No doubt, many would call that a failure. In one sense it was a failure. It was the failure of Fiji’s democratic and judicial institutions to tackle corruption and give effect to the rule of law.
Clearly, the law could not hold the rich and powerful to account for their conduct.

However, that view is too simplistic. Firstly the police investigations and the prosecutions themselves provided a form of accountability. Chiefs, who had never before been asked what they did with the money they received for their people, had to explain themselves. So did Cabinet Ministers, including lawyers. In order to achieve their acquittals, they had to pay vast sums of money to their lawyers.

Secondly, the prosecutions confronted the inequities in the judicial system. The Judicial and Legal Services Commission disciplined the magistrate, who detained the prosecutor. Another, who cited a newspaper reporter and a prosecutor for contempt, was maligned and savagely attacked in the newspapers. The government machinery, which had with ease silenced many independent officers with threats and administrative heavy-handedness, was unable to silence Shameem as head of the prosecution team. Her office grew in strength. And it took on a wider public interest role

The third positive aspect of the story of the National Bank was the role of the media. The media discovered the scandal. A list of names of people who owed money to the Bank was published in one of the newspapers. For the first time, the media realized that her struggle was one to preserve the rule of law in an ailing democracy. Their stories became much more discerning and informed. The government failed to “shoot the messenger” – in this case Nazhat Shameem, who tried to bring to justice the nations “corruptodiles”.

It is therefore important that the present anti-corruption hunters must not be allowed to suffer the same trials and tribulations experienced by Shameem and her legal team, for corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. The National Bank of Fiji story showed the inability of Fiji’s institutions to deal with a gross abuse of public office for private gain.

There is no doubt that any investigations in the NBF saga would have been conducted if it had not been for the public outcry. There was an outcry as a result of the strength, perseverance and integrity of Fiji’s media. And the investigation process followed because the political process made it too difficult not to show some signs of accountability.

The investigation of the National Bank of Fiji was hampered by witness reluctance, police resource limitations, missing files and documents and archaic criminal laws.

After the Rabuka coups in 1987, his paramount chiefly family - the Ganilaus - and their companies - disappeared with over $2million from the National Bank of Fiji; the Cakaudrove Provincial Council with $73,179.64; the late Fijian nationalist leader Sakeasi Butadroka with $59,393; G & S Speight $100,591; Rabuka's Attorney-General Kelemedi Bulewa $352,418; three 1987 Taukei Movement leaders Ratu Inoke Kubuabola - $198,951, Ratu Meli Vesikula - $8,000, and Apisai & Melania Tora, $194,393 (Remember their banners before the Rabuka coups:
"We don't want this Indian [Bavadra] government').
We may recall Rabuka's bogus chant about his coup: "It was a matter of sink or swim for native Fijians".* Ironically, he sunk the NBF and he and his nationalists swam away with taxpayers money - estimated by
Wadan Narsey at $400 million.
"The accomplices of thieves are their own enemies" - Proverb

PRISONER of LOVE. As Prison Chief Nakarawa suspended over a raft of allegations for probe, it is alleged that his love for a divorcee, whom he recently married, led him astray. But he was facing other teething probes

29/3/2025

LAST month NAKARAWA had sacked a prison officer from the Fiji Corrections Service following an alleged positive drug test for methamphetamine. This termination, the sacked prison officer claimed, was based on incorrect information, and the prison officer respectfully sought an urgent review of his case.
"Upon learning of the results, I took the initiative to verify the findings directly with the Lab responsible for conducting my test. During our conversation, he confirmed that my test result did not indicate methamphetamine but instead showed MDMA, a compound found in certain painkillers. This aligns with my medical condition at the time, as I was taking painkillers to manage a severe toothache."
The terminated Prison Officer, 6 February 2025.

The Commissioner of Fiji Corrections Service, Doctor Jalesi Nakarawa has been suspended by the Constitutional Offices Commission following several allegations against him that warrant an investigation.

The Commission in accordance with section 137(4) of the Constitution has advised the President to suspend the Commissioner pending investigation and pending referral to a tribunal and appointment of a tribunal.

The Commission has endorsed the appointment of Sevuloni Naucukidi, presently the Assistant Commissioner, to act as Commissioner of Fiji Corrections Service with immediate effect. The COC says this decision is made to ensure the continued efficiency and effectiveness of the Fiji Corrections Service pending the investigation and pending referral to a tribunal of the Commissioner.

In early February this year after a fijivillage News investigation looking into allegations that Doctor Nakarawa had appointed his wife as the Corrections Service Senior Medical Officer, we managed to get comments from the Fiji Medical Association.

The Association raised serious concerns about the alleged conflict of interest by the Commissioner of Corrections, Doctor Nakarawa in the appointment of his wife as a Nurse Practitioner at the organisation on the same day as the termination without cause of the Corrections Senior Medical Officer, Doctor Singh.

Association President, Doctor Alipate Vakamocea also says Doctor Nakarawa’s wife working in the senior medical officer role is outside her scope as a Nurse Practitioner.

Doctor Vakamocea says the Fiji Medical Association is deeply concerned about the decision to terminate the doctor following the meeting with the Commissioner and the doctor’s supervisor regarding a racist email.

The Association says it is concerned that the decision to terminate the doctor’s contract without cause was also personally motivated by the Commissioner of Corrections. Doctor Vakamocea says this termination led to the Commissioner’s wife, to take over as the senior medical officer in charge.

He says from the position of the Fiji Medical Association, doctors are trained to have the breadth of knowledge or skills to treat patients to a safe standard and this is not to the same standard as a Nurse Practitioner.

The FMA President says their position is that Nurse Practitioners have their own scope of practice as outlined by the Fiji Nursing Council which dictates that they cannot replace a doctor.

He says nurse practitioners are not allowed to practice medicine unsupervised and as such, Mrs Nakarawa cannot be allowed to practice in this senior medical role or even act as such. Source: Fijivillage News.

From Fijileaks Archive, 10 May 2024

In 1987, the 68-year-old Jalesi Nakarawa was a prison officer at the Naboro Maximum Security Prison (he had joined the prison service in 1974) when his future PAP leader, coupist and treasonist SITIVENI RABUKA, an obscure third-ranking army colonel, captured Dr Timoci Bavadra and his FLP-NFP coalition government at gunpoint on 14 May 1987.
According to Nakarawa, as he recalled to Sashi Singh's Talking Point last year, he was locking the cells on the top floor at the maximum security prison when the deposed prime minister Dr Timoci Bavadra was brought into the prison by coupist Rabuka's thuggish soldiers.

Nakarawa: 'After all the prisoners were locked up in their cells, Dr Bavadra was the last man up to his cell. When I was locking him up, a lot of prisoners in their cells were making a lot of noise because by then they knew what was happening. To be frank, I never forgot the anguish on Dr Bavadra's face. As I was about to lock the door, he actually grabbed my boots and requested me for assistance, basically saying what about these people shouting at him. So I had to stand there and give him a bit of comfort. I told him, "Sir, take a bit of rest, and when I lock this door, it will not open until tomorrow morning." So, when I was standing there, I was thinking, what a dilemma: from Prime Minister's Office one day, to maximum security prison cell the next day. I guess that is where my interest in politics started.

Nakarawa claimed that after the encounter with Bavadra in the prison cell, he developed an interest in politics and went on to study at USP and in New Zealand, and ended up at the FNU. Now, Nakarawa has been appointed the new Commissioner of Prisons for the next five-years.

Ironically, very recently he was questioning the legitimacy of the 2013 Constitution in an opinion piece in the media, the very Constitution under which he has been selected as the new Prisons Commissioner.

<<Previous