Home

Why Richard Naidu’s “2015 Charge” Argument Against Biman PRASAD Rings Hollow as DPP Gears Up to Prosecute 2011 Health Tender Case Against Frank Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, and Dr Neil Sharma

10/2/2026

As Editor-in-Chief of FijiLeaks, I disclosed and published leaked FICAC investigation files between 2014 and 2015 relating to health-sector tender matters involving Voreqe Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Dr Neil Sharma, which FijiLeaks reported in the public interest at the time.

Separately, in April 2024, I lodged a complaint concerning an alleged failure by Biman Prasad to disclose a directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd dating back to 2015, in accordance with statutory disclosure requirements.

I make this disclosure in the interests of transparency.

Old Offences, Selective Outrage: Why Richard Naidu’s 2015 Argument Falters Against 2011 Charges

RICHARD Naidu, since you are a senior partner at Munro Leys and a long-standing corporate lawyer, let’s put your 'ten-years-old offence', charge theory, to a practical test.

If one of your corporate clients deliberately hid crucial financial information from FRCS, not for ten years but even just ten days, would you stroll into court and argue:

“Your Honour, the offence is ten days old, and therefore it shouldn’t count”?

And more to the point. Would you ever advise a client:

“Keep hiding it. If you manage to bury it for ten years, I’ll argue it’s too old to prosecute”?

Because that is precisely the legal absurdity behind your claim that the concealment linked to Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd is 'ten years old' and therefore somehow irrelevant.

You know, as every law graduate knows, that:

The offence is the concealment.
The offence repeats every year the concealment continues.
The offence becomes actionable when the concealment is discovered. It is not when the hidden asset was first created.

So here is the real question:

Would you ever let a corporate client adopt the 'hide it for a decade, then call it old offence' defence or is this special treatment reserved only for former Finance Minister and DPM and the National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad?

Just as you have repeatedly pointed out the malfunctioning Government Buildings Clock in Suva, no one noticed Biman Prasad's false declarations until Fijileaks unearthed them in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Biman Prasad lied in 2014 declaration to get elected to Fiji's Parliament. And he continued to file false declarations from 2015-2024.

COURT TO HEAR PRASAD AND KAMIKAMICA HEARINGS TOGETHER

The Suva High Court has ordered that the permanent stay applications filed by former Deputy Prime Ministers Professor Biman Prasad and Manoa Kamikamica be heard together, following submissions from counsel in court.

Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull made the decision, noting that while the cases will be called jointly to save time, they are not formally consolidated.

Both former government MPs are seeking permanent stays of proceedings in their separate legal matters. Counsel for each party argued there are shared legal issues, particularly regarding the appointment of the Acting Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Lavi Rokoika, which justify synchronized hearings.

Prasad faces charges relating to alleged failures in statutory disclosure and providing false information in a statutory declaration, while Kamikamica’s case includes charges of perjury and providing false information.

The joint hearing has been scheduled for March 18, 2026.

Why the DPP Can, and Should, Step In And Take Over Prasad’s Case Just as It Has in the Health Tender Prosecutions

As the case against Biman Prasad grinds slowly through the courts on a single alleged disclosure offence dating back to 2015, a fundamental question has begun to overshadow the legal arguments being advanced: why has the prosecution not been taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), especially when other, allegedly stronger FICAC files were set aside in April 2025 and remain untouched?

The answer lies in the structure of Fiji’s criminal justice system, and in a distinction that is too often misunderstood. The high-profile prosecution of Voreqe Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Dr Neil Sharma arose from investigations conducted by FICAC, yet the case is now being prosecuted by the DPP. No one disputes the legality of that arrangement.

The DPP’s Powers Are Constitutional, and Overriding

The DPP’s authority does not come from statute or delegation. It comes directly from the Constitution of Fiji. That authority allows the DPP to institute criminal proceedings, take over and continue prosecutions begun by other bodies, discontinue proceedings where appropriate, and assess evidence independently of the investigating agency.

Critically, the DPP’s powers are not affected by disputes over appointments within FICAC. This matters because much of the argument in Prasad’s case has focused on the legality of Lavi Rokoika’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner. Even if such arguments are ventilated in court, they do not prevent the DPP from stepping in, assessing the evidence afresh, and prosecuting in the public interest.

Why a DPP Takeover Matters in the Prasad Case

A DPP-led prosecution would immediately address several concerns now troubling the public:

Delay

The case before the court relates to an alleged non-disclosure from 2015. A decade later, the matter is now crawling through interlocutory stages. Delay of this kind risks undermining confidence in the justice system, regardless of the outcome.

Selectivity

There is credible reporting that other FICAC files involving Prasad, supported by documentary evidence, were discontinued by former Commissioner Barbara Malimali in April 2025. Those matters remain dormant, while one charge proceeds at glacial pace.

Institutional Confidence

A DPP-led prosecution would insulate the case from internal FICAC controversies and ensure decisions are seen to rest with the country’s constitutionally independent prosecutor.

Public Interest

The DPP is mandated to consider not just evidence, but public interest, fairness, and proportionality. That includes whether it makes sense to litigate a single charge for years while other alleged offences remain untouched.

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied for Everyone

The maxim applies both ways. For an accused person, prolonged uncertainty and litigation over a single charge is unfair. For the public, watching potentially serious matters languish without resolution is corrosive.

If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the prosecution should proceed decisively. If there is not, the matter should be resolved without endless procedural drift. What undermines justice is limbo.

Why the Law Anticipates DPP Intervention

The law anticipates exactly this scenario. If prosecutions could be derailed simply by disputes over appointments or internal leadership within investigative bodies, corruption cases would become unmanageable. That is why the Constitution places the final prosecutorial call in the hands of the DPP.

Evidence does not evaporate because a Commissioner’s appointment is questioned.
Files do not become unusable because leadership changes.

Justice does not pause because institutions argue among themselves.

The Question That Now Needs Answering

The real question is no longer whether the DPP can take over the Prasad prosecution. The law is clear: the DPP can. The question is whether continuing to allow the case to inch forward in its current form, while other matters remain shelved, serves the interests of justice at all.

For a system built to combat corruption, the danger is not scrutiny.The danger is selective inertia.

Fiji has already demonstrated, through the Health Tender prosecutions, that FICAC can investigate and the DPP can prosecute without controversy. That same constitutional pathway remains open in the Prasad case.

Until it is used, or convincingly explained why it is not, the perception will persist that justice is being delayed not by law, but by choice.

And justice delayed, in the end, is justice denied.

Richard Naidu to FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali

5 September 2024

Dear Barbara Malimali,

"Prof Prasad was interviewed at FICAC on 12 August 2024 and 22 August 2024 in connection with alleged offences under s24 of the Political Parties Act 2013.

On 24 August I sent a letter (copy enclosed) to Mr Kuliniasi Saumi in connection with the investigations....On Tuesday 3 September 2024 (Fijileaks: a day before Malimali was appointed FICAC Commissioner) FICAC executed a search warrant at NFP's head office in Tamavua, Suva, and took possession of a number of documents.

Yesterday (4 September), at 6.53pm, Mr Saumi called me on my mobile phone. Mr Saumi advised that FICAC wished for Prof Prasad to attend at FICAC this afternoon for completion of his (Prasad's) caution interview. He indicated that FICAC's intention was to CHARGE Prof Prasad.

I indicated to to Mr Saumi that Prof Prasad would not resist any reasonable process but it was NOT reasonable for him to re required to attend at FICAC on less that 24 hours notice given his responsibilities.

First, this is a Parliament sitting week. Second, Mr Ajay Banga is making an official visit to Fiji this week. This is the first ever visit to Fiji, the World Bank is one of Fiji's largest development partner, and self-evidently the official who is his key contact in Fiji is the Minister of Finance (Biman Prasad).

Whatever is FICAC's view of Prof Prasad's conduct, it is NOT in anyone's interest, least of all Fiji's, for the Minister of Finance to be CHARGED with an offence in the middle of the visit."

FLYING FREE. Jese Saukuru’s Repayment Offer and FICAC’s File Closure Decision: Why Fiji Sports Council File Need to Be Reopened. At stake is more than one airline ticket. FICAC focused on contract and not conduct

10/2/2026

Jese Saukuru

Gilbert Vakalalabure

Litia Senibulu

Lavi Rokoika

The decision of FICAC to close its investigation into the Fiji Sports Councilâ€™s use of contra tickets was presented as a final legal determination: the complaint, FICAC said, did not meet the 'criminal threshold'.

Yet the controversy has refused to die. The public offer by Sports Minister Jese Saukuru to repay the cost of his wifeâ€™s business-class airfare has reopened uncomfortable questions about personal benefit, conflict of interest, and whether FICACâ€™s original analysis was complete.

FICAC has closed their investigation into Fiji Sports Council (FSC) CEO Gilbert Vakalalabure, writing that the use of contra tickets from Fiji Airways does not disclose conduct amounting to abuse of office or any other corruption offence.

At stake is more than one airline ticket. It is the credibility of Fijiâ€™s anti-corruption framework. In closing the case, FICAC argued that the contra-ticket arrangement was a commercial agreement between institutions; it did not confer enforceable rights or obligations on individual office-holders; there was insufficient evidence of abuse of office or corruption, and therefore, prosecution was not justified.

The decision, signed under Acting Commissioner Lavi Rokoika, focused largely on contractual form and institutional structure.

In effect, FICAC treated the matter as a corporate transaction rather than a question of individual accountability.

What Saukuruâ€™s Repayment Offer Reveals

Sports Minister Saukuru has now acknowledged that his wife travelled on a business-class ticket funded through Fiji Sports Council arrangements, and he is prepared to repay the cost.

This changes the factual landscape in three important ways.

First, It Confirms a Personal Benefit

The repayment offer confirms that a material benefit was received by a ministerâ€™s immediate family. This directly undermines any suggestion that the matter was purely institutional. A personal advantage existed.

Second, It Signals Possible Impropriety

In public governance practice, reimbursement is rarely offered unless the recipient recognises that the original arrangement was questionable. Saukuru has not admitted wrongdoing. But his willingness to pay indicates that he accepts the benefit was, at minimum, ethically problematic. That alone deserved closer scrutiny than it received.

Third, Repayment Does Not Erase the Past

Under corruption and abuse-of-office principles, the legal relevance lies in the moment the benefit is received. Returning it later does not undo the original transaction. It may mitigate political damage, but it does not remove legal significance.

The Case for Reopening the Investigation

New and Material Information

Saukuruâ€™s public statements were not addressed in the original closure letter. They amount to new evidence of individual benefit. Most anti-corruption agencies retain power to reopen cases when material facts emerge. This threshold appears to be met.

Individual Conduct Was Not Properly Examined

FICACâ€™s analysis focused on contracts, not conduct. It did not fully examine:

Who authorised the airfare;
Whether ministerial influence was involved;
Whether approval processes were followed;
Whether disclosure rules were complied with.

These are core corruption-law questions.

Conflict of Interest Was Underplayed

â€‹A ministerâ€™s spouse receiving premium travel funded by a statutory body is a textbook conflict-risk scenario. Yet conflict-of-interest analysis was largely absent from FICACâ€™s reasoning. Saukuruâ€™s repayment highlights this omission.

Public Confidence Is at Risk

FICAC already faces public scepticism. If it refuses to reconsider in light of new facts, it risks reinforcing perceptions that powerful figures receive preferential treatment. Reopening, even without prosecution, would demonstrate institutional seriousness.

The Case Against Reopening the Investigation

Supporters of FICACâ€™s closure advance a different argument.

Repayment Suggests No Corrupt Intent

They argue that Saukuruâ€™s willingness to repay shows good faith, not corruption. He did not seek personal enrichment and acted to correct a mistake. From this perspective, the matter is administrative, not criminal.

No Evidence of Quid Pro Quo

To date, no public evidence shows that the airfare was linked to any improper favour, decision, or advantage. Without proof of influence or inducement, criminal prosecution would be unlikely to succeed. Reopening might therefore waste public resources.

Risk of Politicising FICAC

Repeated reopening of closed cases can expose anti-corruption agencies to political pressure. FICAC may argue that reopening on the basis of media controversy, rather than solid new evidence, undermines its independence.

Governance Remedies May Be More Appropriate

Some argue the issue is better handled through internal audits, policy reform, Ministerial codes of conduct, and parliamentary oversight. Criminal investigation, they say, is a blunt instrument for ethical lapses.

The Real Problem: FICACâ€™s Narrow Legal Framework

At the heart of this controversy lies a deeper issue. FICAC framed its inquiry almost entirely around whether it could prosecute. It did not seriously engage with systemic governance failure, institutional conflict of interest, and ethical standards in public office. By reducing corruption to 'can we charge?', FICAC narrowed its own mandate.

Saukuruâ€™s repayment exposes the limits of that approach.

What Reopened Inquiry Should Examine

If FICAC reopens the file, it should focus on the approval chain for the airfare; any ministerial or political involvement; compliance with travel and ethics policies; disclosure obligations; and whether similar benefits were routinely granted.

This need not lead to prosecution. But it would establish the factual truth.

Accountability Versus Finality

Saukuruâ€™s willingness to repay has weakened the foundation of FICACâ€™s closure decision. It confirms that a personal benefit exists. It was linked to public arrangements. It is now acknowledged as problematic. Legally, this justifies reconsideration. Politically, it demands transparency. Institutionally, it tests FICACâ€™s credibility.

Reopening the case would not presume guilt. It would demonstrate seriousness. Refusing to do so may protect procedural finality but at the cost of public trust. In a democracy still struggling with the legacy of abuse of power, that is a price Fiji can ill afford.

PACIFIC POLYTECH and HECF Standoff: $7 Million Without Law. How a Letter to Solicitor-General Exposed Biman Prasad’s Finance Ministry, Rot in grant system. HECF to S-G: 'Disbursing money to PP will be ultra vires'

9/2/2026

By the time the Higher Education Commission Fiji (HECF) wrote to the Solicitor-General on 29 January 2026, the truth was already unavoidable: the $7 million grant to Pacific Polytech had no lawful foundation.

This was not an internal memo. It was not routine correspondence. It was a formal response to the Solicitor-General’s legal opinion, and it amounted to a public sector body telling the State’s chief legal adviser: 'We cannot lawfully do this.'

In HECF’s own words, disbursing the money would be ultra vires, beyond its legal powers. But buried in this letter is a more disturbing reality: this illegal grant did not emerge from nowhere. It flowed from decisions made under the watch of former Finance Minister and NFP leader Biman Prasad.

A Direct Reply to the State’s Top Lawyer

Ropate Green

The letter, addressed to the Solicitor-General, confirms that HECF was responding to formal legal advice dated 27 January 2026. The Commission was asked whether the grant could lawfully proceed. Its answer was simple: No. Executing or disbursing the grant would breach the Higher Education Act. This means as follows: the issue had reached the highest legal office, serious doubts already existed, and HECF felt compelled to formally resist. This was not confusion. It was institutional defiance of an unlawful expectation.

A Grant Without Legal Standing

HECF explained to the Solicitor-General that Pacific Polytech was not fully registered when the funding process began. Full registration came only on 27 August 2025, long after budget deadlines. Under the Higher Education Act 2008, only compliant and recognised institutions qualify for funding. Pacific Polytech did not. Yet $7 million was allocated anyway.

Deadlines Ignored, Rules Suspended

The Commission’s reply details repeated non-compliance:

November 2024: Funding call issued.
January 2025: Deadline extended.
31 January 2025: No submission.
March 2025: Late submission received.

By law, that should have disqualified the institution. Instead, the process was overridden.

The Finance Ministry and Biman Prasad’s Role

Here lies the political core of the scandal. In paragraph 7 of its letter, HECF states plainly: the $7 million grant was allocated by the Ministry of Finance, not by HECF. This is crucial. At the time the allocation was made, the Ministry of Finance was under Biman Prasad’s leadership. In other words:

The statutory regulator did not recommend funding.
The institution was non-compliant.
Legal doubts existed.
Yet the Finance Ministry approved the money.

This did not happen accidentally. It required ministerial authority. It required political approval. It required a conscious decision to bypass regulatory safeguards.

The June 2025 Email Trail

HECF’s letter also refers to correspondence dated 13 June 2025 between Biman Prasad and the Commission’s Director. The Commission stresses that it never formally recommended funding. It never requested the grant. It never endorsed the allocation.

This strongly suggests political pressure from the Finance Ministry, pressure that HECF later refused to legitimise. In effect, the regulator was being asked to clean up a political decision.

'Do Not Use Us to Launder This'

Throughout the letter, HECF repeatedly refuses to 'route', 'facilitate', or ''execute' payment. It tells the Solicitor-General that following the advice to proceed would mean acting beyond its powers. This is bureaucratic language for, 'Do not make us complicit'.
HECF was being positioned as an institutional shield, a way to make an unlawful allocation look legitimate. It declined.

Where Is Biman Prasad’s Accountability?

If his ministry allocated the funds, the regulator opposed it, the institution was ineligible, legal advice warned against payment, then responsibility cannot be evaded. The central question is unavoidable: why did Biman Prasad’s Ministry approve this grant? Was it political patronage? Favouritism? Electoral calculation? Pressure from vested interests?

Or simple contempt for the regulatory process? So far, Prasad has offered no detailed convincing public explanation. Silence is not accountability.

Students as Political Cover

Supporters will say Pacific Polytech serves disadvantaged students. That may be true.
But students must not be used as a moral cover for illegality. When ministers distribute funds outside the law, they gamble with students’ futures. If investigations follow, if accreditation fails, if funding is clawed back, it is students who will suffer. Not politicians.

Two Systems of Government

This case reveals Fiji’s dual governance structure: the legal system - statutes, regulators, procedures. The political system - ministers, discretion, pressure. Under Biman Prasad’s Finance Ministry, the second overrode the first. That is how corruption becomes 'normalised'. No bribes. No envelopes. Just decisions made behind closed doors.

Evidence, Not Allegation

This is not speculation. It is documented in an official letter to the Solicitor-General, signed by senior HECF officials. It records:

Ineligibility,
Missed deadlines,
Ministerial allocation,
Regulatory refusal,
Legal obstruction.

This is a paper trail.

The Unanswered Questions

Fijians deserve answers:

Who within the Finance Ministry approved the grant?
Did Biman Prasad personally authorise it?
What legal advice was ignored?
Was Cabinet informed?
Will FICAC and the Auditor-General investigate?

Without answers, 'good governance' is just branding.

Law Versus Political Power

The Pacific Polytech affair is not merely about $7 million. It is about whether ministers are above the law. HECF chose legality. The Solicitor-General sought clarity.

But under Biman Prasad, the Finance Ministry chose discretion over compliance. Until that choice is explained and accounted for, Fiji’s anti-corruption rhetoric remains hollow. Because money spent without legal authority is not development.

It is decay.

To be continued: the two legal opinions from the Solicitor-General

From Fijileaks Archives

SAUKURUGATE. From Rugby Boots to Political Boots. Time to Kick Jese Saukuru Out of Office as SPORTS MINISTER. He must be shown red card

8/2/2026

The routine practice of ministers and assistant ministers taking their spouses on official overseas trips has increasingly come to resemble a quiet but systematic abuse of public funds. While presented as informal 'accompaniment', these trips often trigger generous travel and subsistence allowances, paid by the taxpayer, that far exceed actual personal expenses.

In effect, the allowance system becomes a subsidy for private travel. Flights, accommodation, meals, and incidental costs for spouses are frequently covered directly or indirectly through inflated per diem claims, meaning the public ends up underwriting what are essentially personal holidays.

This arrangement operates as a soft scam: technically compliant on paper, but ethically indefensible in substance. At a time when ordinary citizens struggle with rising costs and strained public services, it is indefensible for political office-holders to monetise official travel in this way. If spouses have no formal diplomatic, administrative, or representational role, they should not be travelling at public expense, directly or indirectly. Transparency, strict limits on allowances, and mandatory disclosure of accompanying persons are essential if public confidence in political integrity is to be restored.

The controversy involving Sports Minister Jese Saukuru has sharpened public concern about how travel allowances can be exploited when spouses accompany ministers overseas. Even if no rules were formally broken, the perception is that generous allowances can easily cover private expenses, blurring the line between official duty and personal benefit. In politics, as in sport, failing to read the situation properly can be costly, and this episode suggests a serious lapse in judgment.

If investigations or disclosures confirm misuse, accountability must follow. Public office is not a private entitlement, and ministers are expected to uphold higher ethical standards than ordinary citizens. Credit is due to whistleblowers who bring such matters to light, because transparency is essential for protecting public funds. Ultimately, if trust has been compromised, political leadership requires stepping aside, both to preserve institutional integrity and to send a clear message that public money is not a personal perk.

In the high-stakes arena of public office, Saukuru appears to have misread the play completely. With a generous travel allowance already in his kit bag, he could easily have covered his wife’s expenses himself. Instead, he drifted into dangerous territory -like a defender ball-watching while the striker slips past. The rules of governance, like the rules of sport, are clear: you don’t use public resources for private advantage. Miss that, and you invite a straight red card.

Now that the whistle has been blown, the referee - public opinion - has stepped in. Credit goes to the whistleblower who spotted the foul and called it out, refusing to let the game be quietly rigged.

In any serious competition, players who repeatedly break the rules (the case of Biman Prasad and his statutory declarations from 2014 to 2024, first highlighted to FICAC by Sydney based whistleblower Alex Forwood and later subjected to forensic examination by Fijileaks) don’t stay on the field.

If standards mean anything, Saukuru should be substituted out of both the political and sporting arenas. Leadership is about fair play, not gaming the system, and those who forget that deserve to be sent to the sidelines.

We apologise for arriving at the stadium a little late. At Fijileaks, we were momentarily stuck in the replay booth, immersed in Barbaragate and the unfolding drama surrounding Barbara Malimali and FICAC. While the crowd was watching the main match, we were busy reviewing fouls, offside calls, and questionable decisions from another troubled field of play.

But make no mistake. We are back in the game now. And as always, when the whistle blows on abuse of power, misuse of public funds, or ethical breaches, we’ll be there to call it as it is.

No favours. No blind spots. Just straight reporting, from kickoff to full time.

Jese Saukuru must be removed from Rabuka's Coalition cabinet without delay and held accountable for his conduct, including the CEO of the Fiji Sports Council Gilbert Vakalalabure.

And how richly ironic it is that those who spent months satanically vilifying Forwood for daring to blow the whistle, an act that ultimately triggered the Commission of Inquiry, are now posturing as moral crusaders, with Malimali’s lawyer, Tanya Waqanika, leading the charge against Saukuru and the acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika, and the so-called 'Natewa Vikings' from Cakaudrove. E sa rairai ni se bula tiko ga e Viti na politiki ni veivakavodoki vakayavusa kei na veisei vakamataqali.

When the Anti-Corruption Watchdog Turns on the Whistleblowers: How the FICAC Inquiry Exposed a Systemic Failure at the Top under Barbara Malimali

The most damning chapters of the Commission of Inquiry into the Appointment of the Commissioner of FICAC Barbara Malimali are not about technical errors, personality clashes, or bureaucratic missteps. They are about power and how it was exercised, against whom, and to what end. Read carefully, the Inquiry’s findings amount to a grave warning: Fiji’s anti-corruption watchdog was steered away under Malimali's brief stewardship from accountability at the very moment it was most needed.

At the centre of the Inquiry’s concern was the conduct of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of FICAC. What emerges is not a picture of an independent anti-corruption chief making difficult judgment calls, but of an officeholder who selectively stalled investigations, sidelined whistleblowers, and re-engineered prosecutorial discretion to protect the politically powerful.

This is not rhetoric. It is the Commission’s own conclusion.

Prosecutions Ready Then Quietly Stopped

One of the clearest findings of the Inquiry is that investigations into alleged false political declarations by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Prasad were not speculative, incomplete, or premature. They were substantively finished.

Investigators had gathered evidence. Legal officers had reviewed the files. External assessments had been obtained. By the Commission’s account, the matters were 'prosecution-ready'. Charges were being prepared.

And then, nothing.

Instead of authorising prosecutions, Malimali initiated a pattern of delay: repeated reviews, shifting requests for 'further analysis', and ultimately a refusal to proceed. Her justification? That any breaches were merely 'technical'.

The Commission rejected this outright.

False or misleading declarations under the Political Parties Act are not technicalities. They are the core enforcement mechanism of electoral transparency law. The Act is deliberately strict because Parliament understood a basic truth: if politicians can lie or omit assets with impunity, public accountability collapses.

By rebranding completed investigations as trivial, the Commission found that Malimali misunderstood, or deliberately misapplied, the law.The Dangerous Fiction of 'Technical Breaches'

The Inquiry goes further. It warns that treating false declarations as 'technical' does not just excuse individual misconduct; it destroys the architecture of political accountability.

Anti-corruption law exists precisely because powerful people are skilled at reframing wrongdoing as oversight, error, or misunderstanding. The Political Parties Act anticipates this and imposes strict duties to declare assets fully and accurately.

FICAC’s job is not to weigh political inconvenience. It is to enforce the law.

By declining to prosecute on the basis of invented categories like 'technical breach', Malimali did more than close a case. She introduced a precedent that favours ministers over ordinary citizens, and that is the antithesis of anti-corruption enforcement.

A Chilling Message to Whistleblowers

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Inquiry is what it reveals about how forwarded complaints, particularly those associated with Alexandra Forwood, and Fijileaks, were handled.

The Commission found evidence of a blanket directive: complaints originating from Ms. Forwood were not to receive further resources, regardless of merit, evidence, or statutory obligation. Investigations were halted not because they were unfounded, but because of who had raised them.

This is fatal to any credible anti-corruption regime.

Whistleblowers are, by definition, inconvenient. They are persistent. They raise uncomfortable questions. If an anti-corruption body conditions investigation on whether the complainant is liked, resident, or politically palatable, then corruption does not need to be hidden. It merely needs the right friends.

The Commission explicitly warned that this approach creates a chilling effect, discouraging future complainants and signalling that some voices will simply be ignored. That is not discretion. It is discrimination.

Selective Independence Is No Independence at All

Throughout the Inquiry, a pattern emerges: cases involving powerful political figures slowed or stopped; cases involving others proceeded. This asymmetry is what led the Commission to question FICAC’s independence under Malimali’s leadership.

Anti-corruption agencies are not judged by how aggressively they pursue minor offenders. They are judged by whether they are willing to act upwards, against ministers, senior officials, and politically connected actors.

The Inquiry’s conclusion is stark: the public could reasonably perceive that FICAC’s independence, objectivity, and integrity had been compromised.

Once that perception takes hold, the damage is systemic. Investigators lose morale. Whistleblowers lose faith. Citizens stop believing that the law applies equally.

The Commission ultimately warns that Malimali’s conduct weakened Fiji’s anti-corruption framework at a critical moment, eroded public confidence, and undermined the very institution she was entrusted to lead.

Why This Matters Now

Fiji does not lack laws. It lacks credible enforcement. When an anti-corruption body shields the powerful, marginalises whistleblowers, and reframes illegality as inconvenience, corruption does not need to win elections - simply waits.

The Commission of Inquiry has done its job. It has documented the failure, named the risks, and drawn the conclusions. What happens next will determine whether FICAC is rebuilt as an independent institution or remembered as a cautionary tale of how watchdogs can be quietly defanged from within.

For a country that has paid dearly for the corrosion of accountability, the choice should not be difficult.

But it must be made openly, decisively, and now.

UPPING THE PRESSURE: Our Emails, Our Rights: Being Complainants Against Biman Prasad Doesn't Stop at Malimali's Blood Pressure: From Fijileaks Archive

LEGAL Pitch Invader: Waqanika Enters to Confront Saukuru and Rokoika

Apparently, a complaint was lodged to FICAC on alleged abuses by senior officials executives of Fiji Sports Council. I believe the complainant was a former FSC employee who was (or still is??) a PAP Youth member. Not sure whether the complaint was lodged during Pulewai or Malimali’s term.

Anyway, after our Zumba session last week, I was sitting inside Grace Road with Barbs [Malimali] and in walks a FSC Board member. Without any prompting from me, the board member says that the Acting Commissioner FICAC had cleared CEO Fiji Sports Council of allegations of abuse of office against him. I looked at the board member in disbelief and questioned whether all the board members raised and registered their concern on the “conflict of interest” given the relationship of the Acting Commissioner FICAC & CEO Fiji Sports Council.
I reminded the board member of the Post Fiji case which saw the late Peni Mau and Mahendra Patel (he was the Chair of Post Fiji) go to prison because of the purchase of a wall clock.

Fijileaks: The Fiji Times boss Patel jumped bail and fled to Australia, and only returned to Fiji last year after a dubious amnesty from the Coalition government.

How could the illegally appointed Acting Commissioner FICAC clear her brother in law from this alledged abuse of office.

Government needs to take action and remove the Acting Commissioner now. Woe unto her and her deeds.

This kind of abuse, not even Nollywood would script it as they would say that such things never happens in movies and reality ….except it does happen in Fiji. How shameful of these people to steal from the nation.

Come on Coalition Government- take action against these corrupted people, they have been exposed and should and must be charged.

Fiji Sports Council board members cannot sit back and be complacent. They need to convene a board meeting and take remedial actions. If you all knew that this was happening- all of you should also be charged. You have failed in your Fiduciary Duties and these fraudulent deeds were done under all your noses. How in heavens did you all appoint him as CEO when this alleged abuse happened when he was the Executive Chairman. Gilbert was appointed CEO in October, 2025.

Executive Chairman is when a Chair acts as CEO in the absence of a CEO. I was told that there was a circular issued under the directive of the Prime Minister that all Executive Chairmanship should not exceed a period of 3 months for all Govt statutory bodies. A PAP MP/ Minister told me last year that Gilbert Vakalalabure was Executive Chair for more than 3 months - a total disregard of the PM’s directive. It does not help when the PM’s confidant (plus the FSC board member) tells me that PM sacked Vakalalabure 3 times and reinstated him. One wonders why Vakalalabure was sacked and reinstated- was it because of these alleged abuses.

The media should be asking the PM these questions.

I read Fiji Sun’s front page where Saukuru says that he will pay back & it’s “not much”. The quantum is irrelevant- it’s the breach of public trust from a Member of Parliament and a Minister that worsens the situation. The Government needs to take action and their failure to do so reduces the public’s trust with Government.

There are case authorities where restitution was done but the court sentenced imprisonment for the accused.

Saukuru’s admission calls for his removal as he has implicated himself.

If this alleged abuse is so blatant and done openly at FSC, I can imagine what else was or is happening under Gilbert’s watch.

Everything hidden will be exposed.

NON-DISCLOSURE, Misrepresentation, and the Validity of Appointment. Did Barbara Malimali’s FICAC Application Survive the Test of Candour?

6/2/2026

The Fiji High Court ruled that Malimali’s removal was unlawful because it was effected by actors lacking constitutional authority. Critically, the Court did NOT rule that her appointment was substantively valid in all respects or the JSC is bound to reinstate her regardless of new or previously unexamined evidence. An appointment obtained through material non-disclosure is vulnerable to rescission, suspension, or constructive revocation, even after a finding of unlawful removal. Illegality in removal* does not cure illegality in appointment.
*The LPU, if satisfied that the matter bears on fitness and propriety, it may lawfully suspend or condition a practising certificate on an interim basis pending inquiry, subject to procedural fairness. Any such action would be protective, not punitive, and does not depend on the outcome of the Judicial Services Commission’s separate examination of appointment-related issues.

We examine, in chronological order, whether Barbara Malimali failed to disclose material facts, specifically her professional difficulties in Tuvalu, across multiple statutory and employment-related applications, and the legal consequences of any such non-disclosure on (a) her eligibility for appointment as Commissioner of FICAC, (b) the continuing validity of that appointment following the High Court ruling that her removal was unlawful, and (c) the powers now available to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

The analysis is confined to documentary material on us, including practising certificate applications supported by statutory declarations, and her formal application for the office of FICAC Commissioner.

Chronology of Disclosure Obligations

(A) Practising Certificate Applications (2018–2025)

From at least 2018 onwards, Malimali repeatedly completed Practising Certificate (PC) applications under the Legal Practitioners Act, each supported by a statutory declaration attesting that 'I have provided all true and accurate information.'

These forms expressly required disclosure of:

Admission or practice in other jurisdictions;
Any disciplinary action, suspension, or professional sanction “in Fiji or elsewhere”;
Any matters bearing on fitness to practise.

In the 2018–2019 PC application, there is a handwritten reference to Tuvalu, accompanied by an explanatory note (page 3) that she had been “asked to put in letters etc” and that complaints had arisen in the context of political representation.

However, in later applications (2019–2025), Tuvalu either disappears entirely or is reduced to neutral jurisdictional admission entries, while the statutory declarations remain absolute and unqualified.

Legal significance

If Malimali had been barred, suspended, or effectively prevented from practising in Tuvalu (whether formally or de facto), then the progressive dilution or omission of that history raises a serious question of material non-disclosure, not mere oversight.

(B) Application for FICAC Commissioner (July 2024)

In her formal application to the JSC for Commissioner of FICAC, Malimali presented herself as a senior local practitioner and explicitly criticised “foreign” holders of senior prosecutorial office, arguing that FICAC required a local litigator rather than expatriate leadership (more on "foreigners" in the next instalment).

Crucially:

The application does not disclose any adverse professional history outside Fiji.
No reference is made to Tuvalu, despite its obvious relevance to an integrity-based constitutional office.
The application relies on merit, independence, and experience, without qualification.
She further listed a sitting Cabinet Minister (Filimoni Vosarogo) as one of only two referees, an extraordinary choice for an applicant to an anti-corruption body meant to be institutionally and perceptually independent from political actors. (more on her choice of referees in the next instalment)

Legal significance

At this stage, the disclosure obligation is heightened, not relaxed. The common-law duty of candour applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial appointments requires disclosure of anything that might reasonably bear on suitability, even if disputed.

If Non-Disclosure Is Proven, Was It Material?

The test is not whether the Tuvalu issue was ultimately justified, or Malimali agrees with the allegations, but whether a reasonable appointing authority would have considered the information relevant. On any objective standard, the answer is yes. A prior exclusion from practice, especially in another Pacific jurisdiction, would be directly relevant to integrity, judgment, institutional confidence, international cooperation, and public trust in FICAC.

This meets the classic threshold of material misrepresentation by omission.

Potential Legal Consequences: Criminal Exposure

If a statutory declaration was made knowing it to be false or misleading, potential consequences arise under the Statutory Declarations Act, and general criminal law relating to false statements to public authorities. This is not determinative here but it cannot be ignored.

Effect on Appointment After the High Court Ruling

The Fiji High Court ruled that Malimali’s removal was unlawful because it was effected by actors lacking constitutional authority. Critically, the Court did NOT rule that her appointment was substantively valid in all respects or the JSC is bound to reinstate her regardless of new or previously unexamined evidence. An appointment obtained through material non-disclosure is vulnerable to rescission, suspension, or constructive revocation, even after a finding of unlawful removal. Illegality in removal does not cure illegality in appointment.

Powers of the JSC Now

With no appeal lodged by the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, the JSC is now the sole constitutional actor with authority over Malimali’s status. On orthodox administrative and constitutional principles, the JSC may

Decline reinstatement, pending inquiry;
Place Malimali on administrative leave, with or without pay, for a reasonable period;
Determine that the appointment is voidable for misrepresentation;
Appoint an interim Commissioner from within FICAC to preserve institutional continuity. This is not punitive. It is protective of the office.

Why Administrative Leave (Without Reinstatement) Serves a Legitimate Purpose

Placing Malimali on administrative leave without restoring her to office would prevent interference with ongoing prosecutions (including those reversing her earlier decisions), protect witnesses and investigators, avoid prejudicing any review of her appointment, and preserve public confidence.

Administrative leave is not discipline. It is a neutral holding position while jurisdictional and integrity questions are resolved.

If Malimali failed to disclose a material professional bar or exclusion in Tuvalu across statutory declarations in her FICAC application then the JSC was entitled to reject the application, and the appointment is legally voidable. The High Court ruling does not compel reinstatement; and the JSC retains full authority to act in defence of constitutional integrity.

In short, a finding that her removal was unlawful does not translate into an entitlement to return to office if the appointment itself was procured without full candour.

Practising Certificate and LPU Jurisdiction
"The review of Malimali’s statutory declarations to the Legal Practitioners Unit raises issues that fall squarely within the LPU’s independent regulatory mandate. While the available material does not permit certainty as to criminal liability, it does disclose a prima facie basis for inquiry into whether disclosures concerning overseas professional difficulties were complete and accurate. The LPU is not required to await criminal charging before acting. If satisfied that the matter bears on fitness and propriety, it may lawfully suspend or condition a practising certificate on an interim basis pending inquiry, subject to procedural fairness. Any such action would be protective, not punitive, and does not depend on the outcome of the Judicial Services Commission’s separate examination of appointment-related issues."

Can the LPU suspend her practising certificate while the JSC re-examines the declarations? Yes, LPU can suspend or impose conditions on her P-Certificate

The LPU can suspend (or impose conditions on) her practising certificate on an interim basis, even before the JSC makes any decision on her, provided statutory thresholds are met.

Under the Legal Practitioners framework, the LPU’s mandate is protective, not punitive. Its concern is whether a practitioner is fit to practise now, not whether criminal guilt is established.

Accordingly, the LPU may act where there is a prima facie concern about truthfulness or candour in statutory declarations; a question affecting fitness and propriety to practise, and potential risk to the public, the courts, or the administration of justice. Criminal certainty is not required.

What the LPU can lawfully do (short of charging)? While reviewing the declarations, the LPU may suspend the practising certificate temporarily or impose conditions (e.g. supervision, restricted practice) or decline renewal pending inquiry.

This is especially defensible where the issue goes to honesty in statutory declarations, and the practitioner holds (or held) a high public office demanding exceptional integrity.

What the LPU must do to stay lawful. The LPU must still observe procedural fairness, including notice of the concern, opportunity to respond, reasons for any interim action, and proportionality (temporary, review-linked measures).

An interim suspension pending inquiry is orthodox in professional regulation and is not a finding of guilt.

Relationship between LPU and JSC processes

The LPU and JSC act on separate legal tracks:

The LPU regulates fitness to practise law.
The JSC regulates suitability for constitutional office.

One body does not need to wait for the other. Evidence examined by one may inform the other but decisions are independent.

NEXT INSTALEMENT: Why Lands Minister Vosarogo was an Inappropriate Referee for Barbara Malimali’s FICAC Commissioner Application.
*Was he aware of the Tuvalu A-G's letter (23 May 2017) to Malimali banning her from practising in Tuvalu?

Minister for Lands and Mineral Resources Filimoni Vosarogo says he has never lobbied for the position of Attorney-General, even before entering Government.

Last year a Cabinet reshuffle announcement – that was later abandoned by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka – listed Mr Vosarogo to take over the A-G’s post.

The announcement drew protests from members of Fiji’s law fraternity.

The Fiji Law Society (FLS) said Mr Vosarogo could not hold the office as he had pled guilty in a few disciplinary proceedings before the Independent Legal Services Commission, thus resulting in his disqualification under section 96 (2) (b) of the 2013 Constitution. Source: The Fiji Times, January, 2024.

'The Natewa Vikings and Vakalalabures'. As Tanya Waqanika is forced to retract her depiction of the 'Natewans', A Court Win Is Not a Crown: Why Waqanika's Narrative on FICAC and attacks on ROKOIKA Is Misleading

5/2/2026

A Court Win Is Not a Crown: Why Waqanika's Narrative Is Deeply Misleading

By any fair reading of recent events, a troubling narrative is being advanced in public that because Barbara Malimali succeeded in her High Court challenge, the story is over, her record is vindicated, and she should now be restored - formally or informally - as the guiding authority at FICAC.

This narrative is being promoted most forcefully by her lawyer Tanya Waqanika, through repeated public attacks on the current Acting Commissioner Lavi Rokoika. It is a narrative that is legally unsound, institutionally dangerous, and fundamentally dishonest.

A Procedural Victory, Not a Vindication

Let us begin with the basic legal reality. Malimali won her case because the court found that the process by which she was removed was unlawful. In other words, the correct constitutional and administrative steps were not followed. That is all. The court did not examine her handling of major investigations, her exercise of prosecutorial discretion, her management of politically sensitive files, or the quality of her leadership.

It did not endorse her judgment. It did not validate her decisions. It did not approve her record. It ruled the procedure. To convert that narrow legal finding into a sweeping moral and professional vindication is a profound distortion.

The False “End of the Story” Claim

Yet Waqanika's public posture suggests precisely that: that the judgment 'ends the story', closes the chapter, and restores her client’s authority.

This is false. The real story has never been properly told.

Multiple serious matters from Malimali’s tenure remain unresolved, unexplained, and unaccounted for. They were never ventilated in court. They were never independently reviewed. They were never publicly justified.

They simply disappeared. A court ruling on removal procedure does not make those issues vanish.

The Prasad File and Selective Closure

The most glaring example remains the handling of complaints involving Biman Prasad.

In the last two years, we supplied FICAC with extensive documentation alleging false or incomplete political declarations, undisclosed shareholdings and property interests, related-party transactions, and possible tax and procurement breaches.

These were not technicalities. They went to the heart of political integrity. Yet under Malimali’s leadership, these complaints were effectively neutralised through a narrow finding concerning superannuation disclosure. That limited issue was then used to justify closing off a much wider body of allegations.

There was no comprehensive investigation. No systematic testing of evidence. No transparent reasoning on each allegation. Serious complaints were buried under a procedural fig leaf.

That history remains unexamined.

Attacking a Successor While Avoiding Accountability

Against this background, Waqanika's attacks on Lavi Rokoika are institutionally inappropriate. Rokoika inherited an agency damaged by controversy, politicisation, and public scepticism. Her task was to stabilise FICAC and rebuild trust. Instead of allowing that process to occur, counsel for her predecessor has chosen to wage a public campaign against her.

This does nothing to improve governance. It does nothing to strengthen investigations. It does nothing to restore confidence. What it does is turn FICAC into a battleground for personal and professional rivalry. That is corrosive.

The 'Send Her Back to Fix It' Fantasy

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this campaign is the implied suggestion that Malimali should be 'sent back' to FICAC to clean up the alleged 'mess' left by Rokoika. This is fantasy. Institutions do not function by rewinding history.

They do not reinstall contested leadership because of technical court victories. They move forward by reforming systems, strengthening safeguards, and learning from failure. To suggest that a former commissioner with an unresolved record should now return as a corrective authority is to undermine institutional continuity and legitimacy. You cannot be both the unresolved problem and the proposed solution.

The Timing Problem

The timing of Waqanika's public campaign is also revealing. Malimali remains engaged with accountability processes involving the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). Questions about her professional conduct and tenure have not evaporated.

At such a moment, the responsible course would be restraint and professionalism. Instead, we see confrontation and media positioning. To any reasonable observer, this looks less like principled advocacy and more like narrative management.

The Double Standard at the Heart of the Campaign

The central weakness in Waqanika's position is selective morality. When serious complaints were closed under her client’s watch, we were told that discretion must be respected.

When Rokoika makes decisions, we are told that every conflict must be publicly dissected. When narrow reasoning was used by Malimali, it was defended. When narrow reasoning is used by her successor, it is condemned. This is not principle. It is convenience. Institutions cannot survive on double standards.

Why This Matters for Fiji

This debate is not about personalities. It is about systems. FICAC’s legitimacy depends on three things: independence, consistency, and accountability

When former officeholders, through their lawyers, attack successors while evading scrutiny of their own records, all three pillars are weakened. Public confidence erodes. Whistleblowers retreat. Complainants disengage. Powerful actors feel insulated.

That is how anti-corruption bodies fail, not through dramatic collapse, but through slow institutional decay.

Moral Authority Is Earned, Not Claimed

Moral authority in public life is not created by court judgments. It is earned through rigorous investigation, transparent reasoning, equal treatment, and institutional humility. Those qualities were lacking in several major cases handled under Malimali’s leadership. Until that record is honestly confronted, lectures about governance will continue to ring hollow.

The Proper Meaning of the Judgment

A responsible reading of the court’s decision is simple: the removal process was flawed, procedures must be improved, and institutions must act lawfully. It does not mean the past is erased, the former commissioner is vindicated, the successor is discredited, or authority should be restored.

Anything beyond that is advocacy masquerading as analysis.

A Legal Win Is Not a Moral Reset

Tanya Waqanika's apparent belief that her client’s court victory entitles her to reclaim institutional authority and 'fix' FICAC is misguided.

Simione Valenitabua

From Fijileaks Archives

This breach of duty of candour alone is sufficient to render the appointment invalid in substance, and voidable in law.
Elevated Eligibility Standard Under the 2013 Constitution

“The Commissioner of FICAC must be a person who is qualified to be appointed as a judge.”

Any person with a disciplinary history, especially one resulting in prohibition from legal practice in local or foreign jurisdiction, would likely fail the threshold test of suitability. If the JSC had been aware of this prior bar, it is reasonable to conclude that it should not have endorsed her appointment.

Constructive Revocation Is the Proper Remedy

Because the JSC’s original advice was premised on incomplete, inaccurate, or concealed information, the appointment is constitutionally flawed. Under the doctrine of constructive revocation, the JSC is empowered to:

Recognize that the basis of its prior advice has been fundamentally compromised;
Withdraw that advice;
Formally recommend to the President that the appointment be terminated.

This is a corrective, not punitive, action. Its purpose is to restore the integrity of the Commission and uphold the public trust in the appointment process.

Precedents from Other Jurisdictions

Across Commonwealth jurisdictions, courts and appointment bodies have upheld the principle that failure to disclose adverse professional history (such as prior suspension, disbarment, or censure) is:

A material breach of an applicant’s duty of honesty;
Grounds for immediate termination of appointment, or refusal to confirm it;
A basis for finding constructive fraud or misrepresentation.

This applies equally whether the prior disciplinary action occurred in Fiji or in another jurisdiction, such as Tuvalu.

Implications for the Judicial Services Commission

If the JSC now knows (it certainly does) that Malimali:

Was barred from practising in Tuvalu, and
Did not disclose this in her application, it is not merely permitted but likely duty-bound to:

Reassess her continued fitness for the post; withdraw its earlier recommendation under the constructive revocation doctrine; preserve the constitutional integrity of FICAC and the JSC itself.

To knowingly allow the appointment to stand, once such a material misrepresentation is confirmed, could itself become a dereliction of duty by the JSC.

The failure to disclose a prior bar from practising law in Tuvalu is a serious and independent ground for constructive revocation of Barbara Malimali’s appointment.

It goes directly to honesty, character, and eligibility.

The Judicial Services Commission now has both clear legal grounds and a constitutional obligation to act urgently and decisively.

Legal Basis for Revocation

The doctrine of constructive revocation permits the JSC to correct its own error where its prior advice was tendered:

On the basis of false, misleading, or incomplete information, or
Where the integrity, independence, or credibility of the office is subsequently threatened. Courts have upheld such powers as essential to constitutional accountability, even in the absence of express revocation provisions.

Recommended Steps

The JSC is advised to:

Convene an urgent meeting to reassess the appointment in light of the full factual matrix;
Pass a formal resolution to withdraw its earlier advice;
Write to the President of Fiji recommending the re-termination of the appointment;
The JSC now possesses compelling facts, some of which were not disclosed or misrepresented at the time of her appointment, that render the continued appointment of Malimali was incompatible with the office she held.

The JSC is empowered, and arguably obligated, to act under the doctrine of constructive revocation.

The Malimali appointment a nullity? FLP Slams 'Illegal' Barbara Malimali Appointment, Accuses Political and Legal Elites of Undermining FICAC

4/2/2026

"On the basis of facts well established in the CoI Report, Malimali’s appointment was made improperly and unlawfully and may, therefore, be considered a nullity – legally void from the beginning. In our opinion, the question of her return to FICAC does not arise. Nor should there be any question of compensation in lieu. This is a case of immense public concern. It reveals grave improprieties in the governance of our nation. It points to disturbing signs of collusion among our highest institutions to serve personal and political agendas."
Fiji Labour Party statement

OPINION
The Malimali appointment a nullity?

It's time to change the narrative in the Malimali case. Notwithstanding the recent judicial review ruling, the case must be viewed from the wider perspective of her unlawful appointment as Commissioner FICAC, as revealed in the CoI report.

The judgement of Justice Tuiqereqere was confined to judicial review principles relating to process and procedure rather than the actual adverse findings in the CoI Report. The courts do not have jurisdiction under the CoI Act to consider any evidence that was part of the CoI process.

The findings in the report make it clear that the JSC chair, the Attorney-General and some senior members of the State Law Office were complicit in her unlawful appointment.

The Report recommended that they be charged for the serious offences of perjury, perverting the cause of justice, professional misconduct and misdemeanours.

The findings against Malimali are disturbingly damning. She is alleged to have made several false declarations over the years, concealing her disbarment from practising law in Tuvalu, arising from serious ethical and professional misconduct.

She is declared persona non grata in Tuvalu.

The fact that the DPP's office has stymied prosecution in all these cases, claiming insufficient evidence as an excuse, is in itself a travesty of justice.

It is well known that the Deputy DPP John Rabuku was appointed DPP on the recommendation of the JSC but was tossed out by the Supreme Court because of his conviction for serious professional misconduct.

Rabuku was refusing to relinquish office in open defiance of the Supreme Court ruling until the JSC Chair is said to have approved an unlawful $100,000 hand-shake payment to him.

Malimali was headhunted for the FICAC post and appointed overnight. The rush was to get off the hook Ministers facing charges by FICAC on complaints referred to it by the Supervisor of Elections. Indeed, immediately after her appointment she had the charge against one Minister dropped, and complaints against others dismissed.

Those under investigation were Ministers Biman Prasad, Lynda Tabuya, Filimoni Vosaroga, Manoa Kamikamica, Siromi Turaga and a number of senior officers in the judiciary.

Assistant Commissioner FICAC Francis Puleiwai was actively investigating these complaints.

At the time of her appointment, Malimali herself was under active investigation by FICAC for abuse of office as Chair of the Electoral Commission.

Indeed, she was arrested and was to be charged when the 'crocodiles' identified in the CoI Report intervened unlawfully with the full backing of the JSC, the State Law Office and some senior members of the legal fraternity who were defending those under investigation.

Assistant FICAC Commissioner Puleiwai was in charge at the time. She was proceeding undeterred with her work until threatened by the JSC and forced to resign.

The payment of $160,000 reportedly paid under Malimali’s authorisation from FICAC funds to her privately engaged counsel Tanya Waqanika to represent her in the CoI is also a complaint that remains unresolved.

It has been reported to FICAC as the payout was made against the advice of its legal division. Malimali’s case before the CoI was seen as a private matter not an official FICAC business.

On the basis of facts well established in the CoI Report, Malimali’s appointment was made improperly and unlawfully and may, therefore, be considered a nullity – legally void from the beginning.

In our opinion, the question of her return to FICAC does not arise. Nor should there be any question of compensation in lieu.

This is a case of immense public concern. It reveals grave improprieties in the governance of our nation. It points to disturbing signs of collusion among our highest institutions to serve personal and political agendas.

‘Get the Car Back on the Road,’ says Waqanika by reinstating her client Malimali as FICAC Commissioner. But despite Court Ruling, FIJILEAKS Editor as Complainant against Prasad, still has Legal Standing at Wheel

3/2/2026

"As one of the complainants whose corruption file against the NFP leader, former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD, was closed under Barbara Malimali's watch, a file that has since produced charges and reopened investigations, we remain legally, factually, and institutionally in the driving seat when it comes to objecting to her possible reinstatement, regardless of how enthusiastically Tanya Waqanika presses the accelerator."

The Fiji High Court ruled on the mechanic. It did not hand over the keys or silence the complainants.
The court ruled that Malimali's removal from office was unlawful.
*It did not rule on what she did while in office, it did not validate the decisions she made, and it certainly did not extinguish the legal standing of complainants affected by those decisions.

Calls to “get the car back on the road” following the Fiji High Court ruling on the unlawful dismissal of Barbara Malimali may sound like common sense advocacy, but they misstate the legal terrain entirely. The court ruled that Malimali's removal from office was unalwful. It did not rule on what she did while in office, it did not validate the decisions she made, and it certainly did not extinguish the legal standing of complainants affected by those decisions.

As one of the complainants whose corruption file against Biman Chand Prasad was closed during Malimali’s tenure as FICAC Commissioner, I remain directly and materially affected by her exercise of public power. That status does not evaporate simply because a court later finds that her removal was procedurally unlawful.

What the court decided, and what it did not

The High Court decision by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere addressed a narrow constitutional question: whether the executive acted lawfully in removing Malimali without the proper involvement of the Judicial Services Commission. That judgment has been endorsed by Fijileaks. However, the High Court did not examine the integrity of the investigations she oversaw, the rationality of the file closures she authorised, or the consequences of those decisions for complainants and the public interest.

Critically, the ruling did not order her automatic reinstatement. Reinstatement, if it occurs at all, is a fresh constitutional act that must be assessed independently, with regard to fitness, propriety, apprehended bias, and public confidence in FICAC as an integrity institution.

Why complainant standing survives the ruling

Public law has long recognised that while no individual has a 'right to prosecution', a complainant does have a right to lawful, rational, and unbiased decision-making. The closure of a corruption file is not a neutral act; it is a legal decision with real consequences. Where a complainant is directly affected by that decision, standing follows.

That standing is not cancelled by a subsequent employment or constitutional dispute between the office-holder and the State. The court’s ruling resolved Malimali’s dispute with the executive. It did not resolve, or even touch, the position of complainants.

The inconvenient fact Waqanika skips over

There is a further problem with the “just put the car back on the road” argument advanced publicly by Tanya Waqanika: it ignores what happened after Malimali left office.

Despite the earlier closure of the files, a subsequent review of the complaints relating to Prasad identified evidence. One of those files has now resulted in criminal charges being laid. Other files are under active review and reportedly contain evidence of additional serious electoral-related offences, including alleged breaches of declaration and disclosure laws.

That sequence of events matters. It establishes that the complaints were not speculative or political. It demonstrates that the earlier closures were not determinative of the merits. And it squarely reinforces the legitimacy, and continuity, of complainant standing.

Apprehended bias is not cured by a court win

Even if Malimali was unlawfully removed, a reasonable and informed observer would still legitimately ask whether it is appropriate to reinstate a commissioner who personally closed files that later produced charges and reopened investigations against a senior political office-holder.

That is not a personal attack. It is a classic case of apprehended bias, an objective standard that survives judicial vindication on unrelated procedural grounds. Integrity institutions live or die on public confidence. Reinstating a former decision-maker in these circumstances risks corroding that confidence, particularly for complainants who must trust that their allegations will be assessed impartially.

Waqanika can keep invoking the car metaphor. But the law is less poetic and far less forgiving. The court fixed a procedural defect in Malimali’s removal; it did not wipe the slate clean, it did not validate her past decisions, and it did not eject complainants from the legal landscape.

One of the files she closed has already driven itself into court. Others are back under review for serious electoral related statutory offences. That is not a vehicle idling in a garage. It is the law catching up with substance. And it leaves the complainant, court ruling or not, very much legally in the driving seat. Reinstating the former driver does not erase the road already travelled, the skid marks left behind, or the evidence now on the record, and BIMAN PRASAD before the court. Her 'driving licence' has serious legal question marks. She cannot, and must not, be allowed to 'drive' back to FICAC.

It was revealed that on or about 30th December 2015, in Suva, Prasad, as an officeholder of the registered National Federation Party under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, allegedly failed to comply with Section 24(1) (b) (iv) by omitting to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Pte Limited in his annual declaration of assets, liabilities, and income submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties.

He is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, having allegedly recklessly submitted a declaration omitting his directorship, which rendered it materially false.

PAPER Trail from Lotus (Fiji) lawyers in Sydney Exposes Biman Prasad's Hidden Directorship. He had not revealed it in his declarations

Malimali Dismissal Unlawful. Why Fiji High Court Is Right: Constitutional Fidelity, Not Judicial Adventurism. As we argued, 'JSC Giveth, and JSC Can Taketh Away'. Justice Tuiqereqere did not invent any new DOCTRINE

1/2/2026

Area of Specialisation: For four decades, my legal specialism has focused on constitutionalism, conflict, and judicial intervention in British Commonwealth jurisdictions, examining how courts navigate crises of legitimacy, executive overreach, and contested constitutional authority within inherited common law systems. That lifelong interest was first kindled at the University of Oxford under the academic supervision of the late Sir David Butler - one of the Commonwealth's leading constitutional scholars and a pioneer in the study of voting behaviour and electoral systems - whose work helped shape modern understanding of democratic legitimacy in Westminster systems. He was a member of the expert group involved in drafting Fiji's 1970 Independence Constitution and previously advised the late and first Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and his nascent Alliance Party, during Fiji's transition to independence. My own family was also closely involved in the Alliance Party from its inception, providing early and direct exposure to the constitutional and political foundations of the Fijian state.

Accordingly, the Fiji High Court conclusion in Malimali was not reached in isolation or hindsight. It is informed by an earlier constitutional contest from another era, when I argued, publicly and persistently, that the late President Ratu Josefa Iloilo did not possess a reserve power to dismiss the deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and appoint the coup leader Frank Bainimarama as Prime Minister. That argument was ultimately upheld by the Fiji Court of Appeal, which confirmed that constitutional authority cannot be implied, improvised, or conjured from political necessity. Where the Constitution prescribes who may act, and on whose advice, neither expedience nor frustration can manufacture a substitute source of power. The lesson from that period, too often ignored, was that departures from constitutional form in the name of stability only deepen constitutional rupture. It is precisely that lesson which resonates in the present case.

From the very beginning of this constitutional crisis, Fijileaks advanced a simple, orthodox proposition: where the Judicial Services Commission confers an appointment, only the Judicial Services Commission can lawfully take it away. What the 'JSC giveth, the JSC alone can taketh away'. That was not a slogan, but a straightforward reading of the Constitution’s text and structure governing independent office-holders.

We did not merely criticise after the fact. When Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka publicly acknowledged that the government had failed to secure the cooperation of the Judicial Services Commission and had instead proceeded by direct recommendation from the Prime Minister to the President, Fijileaks warned, at the time, that this was constitutionally untenable. More importantly, we pointed to a lawful and dignified way out: refer the matter back to the JSC, either to regularise the acting appointment or to allow the Commission to select an alternative acting commissioner from within FICAC, thereby avoiding an inevitable legal challenge.

That advice was ignored. The executive chose improvisation over constitutional fidelity, notwithstanding clear warning that bypassing the JSC was not a permissible workaround but a fatal defect. The consequence was entirely foreseeable. The High Court’s ruling does not represent judicial overreach or hindsight reasoning; it is the predictable application of settled constitutional principle to facts that were publicly admitted and contemporaneously criticised.

In endorsing the High Court’s decision, one is not applauding the downfall of individuals, but affirming the constitutional order itself. The judgment confirms what should never have been in doubt: executive convenience cannot displace constitutional command, and where the Constitution vests appointment and removal power in the Judicial Services Commission, neither the Prime Minister nor the President may lawfully substitute themselves in its place.

Justice Tuiqereqere

Justice Dane Tuiqereqere's ruling on the removal of Barbara Malimali is best understood not as a dramatic intervention, but as a straightforward act of constitutional maintenance. The Court did not invent new doctrine, stretch the text, or intrude into political terrain. It applied first principles to an admitted set of facts, and found, unsurprisingly, that the Constitution had not been followed.

At the centre of the dispute was a deceptively simple question: who has the constitutional authority to appoint and remove an independent integrity office-holder? The answer was never ambiguous. Under Fiji’s constitutional structure, that authority rests with the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). The President acts only on constitutionally valid advice. The Prime Minister is not an alternative source of authority where the JSC declines to cooperate.

The Architecture of Independence

Independent commissions such as FICAC exist precisely because the Constitution seeks to insulate certain functions from political pressure. That insulation is achieved not through rhetoric, but through process: appointment and removal mechanisms that deliberately exclude unilateral executive discretion.

The JSC is not an ornamental body. It is the constitutional gatekeeper for judicial and quasi-judicial appointments. Its role is exclusive, not advisory in the casual sense. Where the Constitution assigns a function to the JSC, it does so to the exclusion of other actors, including the Prime Minister.

This is why the formulation advanced consistently by Fijileaks throughout the crisis, what the JSC giveth, the JSC alone can taketh away, is not metaphorical. It is a literal description of constitutional design.

Executive Frustration Is Not Constitutional Power

A critical feature of this case, and one that makes the High Court’s ruling especially uncontroversial, is the public admission by the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka that the JSC did not agree with the proposed course of action, and that the executive therefore proceeded by direct recommendation to the President.

That admission is fatal in constitutional terms.

The Constitution does not contain a “deadlock” or “non-cooperation” exception allowing the Prime Minister to step into the JSC’s shoes. There is no fallback clause that converts executive impatience into constitutional authority. The absence of JSC concurrence is not a gap to be filled; it is a stop sign.

Once that is understood, the legal outcome becomes almost mechanical. If the JSC did not recommend the appointment or removal, then any attempt to achieve the same result through an alternative advisory channel is ultra vires - beyond power.

The President’s Role and the Limits of Advice

The case also clarifies an often-misunderstood point about the Presidency. The President is not a free-standing constitutional actor with inherent discretion in such matters. The President acts on advice but crucially, on the correct advice, from the correct constitutional source.

Advice tendered by the wrong authority is not advice at all in constitutional terms. It cannot be laundered into legality by formality or good faith. The High Court’s insistence on this point reinforces a basic rule of constitutional law: the validity of an act depends on the source of power, not the sincerity of its exercise.

Why the Court Could Not Have Ruled Otherwise

Much commentary following the judgment will focus on its political implications. That focus will miss the more important truth: the Court had no lawful alternative. Had the High Court upheld the removal, it would have sanctioned a precedent whereby:

the executive could bypass constitutional commissions when inconvenient;
independence would exist only at the pleasure of the Prime Minister;
future integrity office-holders would serve under a permanent shadow of political override.

Such a ruling would not have been pragmatic. It would have been destabilising. It would have collapsed the distinction between independent constitutional offices and ordinary executive appointments.

Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice

Although the constitutional defect alone was sufficient to dispose of the case, the proceedings also exposed troubling questions of procedural fairness. Independent office-holders are not only protected by structural safeguards, but by basic principles of natural justice. Removal without adherence to the prescribed process is not merely unlawful; it is unfair.

The High Court’s reasoning implicitly recognises that process is substance in constitutional law. Where the rules are designed to protect independence, their breach is not technical. It goes to legitimacy itself.

Foreseeability and the Ignored Exit Ramp

One of the most striking aspects of this episode is how avoidable it was. Long before litigation crystallised, Fijileaks publicly articulated a lawful exit strategy for the government: return the matter to the JSC; either secure its approval or allow it to appoint an alternative acting commissioner from within FICAC. That course would have preserved institutional dignity, avoided litigation, and respected constitutional boundaries.

The refusal to take that path transforms the High Court’s ruling from a surprise into a confirmation of the obvious. This was not a constitutional ambush. It was a foreseeable consequence of persisting with an acknowledged workaround.

What the Judgment Ultimately Affirms

Stripped of personalities and politics, the judgment affirms four enduring principles:

Constitutional power is exhaustively allocated. It cannot be improvised.
Independent commissions mean what they say. They are not advisory inconveniences.
Executive necessity does not create authority.
Courts exist to enforce structure, not accommodate expedience

In that sense, the High Court did not choose sides. It chose the Constitution.

Conclusion

Endorsing this ruling is not an act of partisanship. It is an affirmation of constitutional discipline. The High Court has reaffirmed that Fiji’s constitutional order still has internal logic, enforceable limits, and meaningful checks. That is not judicial activism; it is judicial duty.

Those who may find the outcome uncomfortable should direct their concern not at the Court, but at the decision to bypass the very institution the Constitution placed at the centre of the process - the Judicial Services Commission.

The law was clear. The warning was given (see below) by Fijileaks but ignored.

Postscript:

Fijileaks records its appreciation to Tanya Waqanika, a long-standing personal friend of this platform, for making available her full and lengthy submission filed on behalf of Barbara Malimali.

While Fijileaks has, in the public interest, been critical of aspects of her legal positions, such critique has never been personal.

The decision to share the submission contributed meaningfully to informed analysis and public understanding of the issues before the Court, and reflects a professional commitment to transparency that deserves acknowledgment.

It also allowed me to re-evaluate Professor Philip Joseph's opinion and advise whether Barbara Malimali may be lawfully suspended from her duties pending the completion of the Col’s inquiries.

Counter-Opinion Memo: Suspension of FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali

Prepared for potential judicial review proceedings

The government relies on Philip Joseph KC’s advice that the President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may lawfully suspend the FICAC Commissioner without JSC involvement. While the advice is elegantly reasoned, it is open to challenge on constitutional and statutory grounds.

The core challenge: the FICAC Act provides a clear statutory mechanism for appointments and removals, requiring JSC recommendation. That mechanism must govern. The President’s “executive authority” cannot override specific legislation unless expressly stated.

Grounds of Challenge
A. Primacy of Specific Statutory Scheme

FICACA ss 5–6 expressly states that the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are appointed only on the recommendation of the JSC, after AG consultation.
By necessary implication, suspension (being a limitation/removal of office) must also follow this scheme.
The maxim generalia specialibus non derogant applies: general constitutional authority (s 81–82) cannot override a specific statutory procedure.

Argument: Parliament deliberately insulated FICAC appointments from political interference. Allowing the PM to advise suspension unilaterally guts that safeguard.

B. Section 44 of the Interpretation Act is conditional

Joseph is right that s 44 imports a power of suspension. But the proviso requires that where appointment is on JSC recommendation, suspension must also be on JSC recommendation.
This undercuts his claim that executive authority supplies an alternative route. Section 44 is clear: the JSC’s role is mandatory.

Argument: The executive cannot bypass s 44’s proviso by invoking the Constitution’s general “executive authority.”

C. Independence of Integrity Institutions

Constitution s 115(6): FICAC “shall not be subject to direction or control of any person or authority, except by a court of law or as prescribed by written law.”
Suspension without JSC involvement is not “prescribed by written law”. It is merely inferred from a general constitutional clause.
Courts may hold that independence requires explicit statutory authority for interference, not broad implied powers.

Argument: Allowing unilateral executive suspension breaches the constitutional guarantee of institutional independence.

D. Suspension - Appointment

At common law, the power to appoint may imply power to remove. But in this case:

Parliament expressly adopted judicial removal procedures (s 112 model) for the Commissioner’s terms.
This shows an intent to limit executive discretion and prevent arbitrary interference.
Courts may draw a clear line: suspension is too close to removal to be left to implication.

Argument: Parliament intended high removal thresholds, not casual suspension by executive advice.

E. Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance

Courts prefer interpretations that avoid conflicts between Constitution and statute.
Reading s 81(2) as overriding the FICAC Act creates conflict. Reading it harmoniously means the “executive authority” is subject to statutory limits enacted by Parliament.

Argument: The harmonious reading is that s 81(2) enables appointment/suspension only as provided for by law.

F. Risk of Political Abuse

The Commissioner investigates high-level corruption, often involving Cabinet.
If the PM can advise the President to suspend the Commissioner at will, the very independence of the body is destroyed.
Courts are likely to lean toward an interpretation that protects against this constitutional danger.

Anticipated Judicial Reasoning

High Court: Likely to stress statutory language and say suspension requires JSC recommendation.
Court of Appeal and Supreme Court: Could invoke rule of law and separation of powers, holding that constitutional “executive authority” is not a blank cheque.
They might distinguish Joseph’s reliance on prerogatives as historically grounded but inconsistent with Fiji’s statutory independence regime.

Conclusion

Joseph’s opinion is vulnerable because it conflates broad constitutional language with specific statutory procedures. The courts are more likely to hold that:

The President can suspend the Commissioner, but only on JSC recommendation under s 44.
The President and PM cannot bypass the JSC by relying on ss 81–82.
Any appointment of an Acting Deputy without JSC involvement would be ultra vires.

This counter-opinion provides a ready framework for judicial review, focusing on independence, statutory specificity, and constitutional harmonisation. It casts Joseph’s analysis as politically convenient but legally overreaching. Victor Lal, Oxford, England

Click for Tuiqereqere's full judgment

Click here, Malimali submission

Click here, Joseph's legal opinion

GLOBAL GIRMIT INSTITUTE: As Biman Prasad and Mahendra Chaudhry head to court over $200,000 to GGI, Prasad's failure to disclose his wife's trusteeship of the GGI must lead to charges under Political Parties ACT

31/1/2026

Fijileaks (14 May 2024): Prasad says his wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there. Arre, Jhootha, Daulasu Levu, only last year your Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told us that you had declared to his Cabinet that your wife is a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute when you gave GGI $200,000 to host the international global conference at USP
*Given that they lived under the same roof at 152 Sekoula Rd, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, how could his wife's trusteeship of the Global Girmit Institute have escaped disclosure in his statutory declarations for six consecutive years (2018-2024)?

*In fact, this is not the first occasion on which he has failed to disclose her connections in his statutory declarations.
*In his 2014 declaration, submitted when he first entered Parliament, he made a false declaration by omitting to disclose that he had jointly owned a property with his wife since 2009.
*That property was sold in 2016 to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, a company he founded with his cousin and in which he holds a 50% shareholding.
*He also failed to disclose his directorship in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, and lied about the true extent of his shares in Lotus (Fiji).
*He also failed to disclose that his wife, in exchange, got two villas worth $300,000 from Lotus (Fiji) Ltd in 2017.
*We filed all the three complaints with FICAC, supported by documentary evidence, before Barbara Malimali illegally closed the files in April 2025, including the file on GGI and his wife's link.

SPOUSE, TRUSTEE, SILENCE: Why Biman Prasad’s Declarations Raise Hard Questions Under the Political Parties Act

The Global Girmit Institute did not emerge overnight. It was formally established as a charitable trust in May 2017, with its trustees appointed on 21 May that year. Among those trustees, according to official trust records, was Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, an academic and the wife of Biman Chand Prasad, then NFP leader and later Minister of Finance.

Trusteeship is not an honorary title. Under Fiji law, a trustee is a fiduciary office-holder with governance responsibility, legal accountability, and influence over the direction and affairs of an institution. It is precisely the kind of role the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act was designed to bring into the open when held by a spouse of a party official or Member of Parliament.

Yet across a succession of statutory declarations filed by Prasad between 2018 and 2024, there is no disclosure of his wife’s trusteeship.
That silence is now the central issue.

The Institute and the Timeline

The Global Girmit Institute began operations in 2017 and continued until it was deregistered in 2022 for administrative non-compliance. It was re-registered in February 2023. Throughout that entire period, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand remained a trustee. There is no record of resignation, suspension, or withdrawal.

This matters because disclosure obligations under the Political Parties Act are annual and continuing. They are not triggered only when an interest first arises; they apply every year the interest exists.

What the Law Requires

The Political Parties Act obliges party officials and MPs to file statutory declarations disclosing their interests and the interests of their spouses. The law is preventive, not punitive. It is designed to ensure transparency and to allow conflicts of interest to be identified before they become problems.

Three features of the Act are critical:

Spousal interests must be disclosed, even if the official does not personally hold the role.
Unpaid positions still count if they involve governance, authority, or fiduciary responsibility.
Each declaration stands alone. An omission in one year is not cured by silence in another.

A trusteeship fits squarely within this framework.

The Declarations: Year After Year

Based on the signed dates and “as at” dates appearing on Prasad’s declarations, the duty to disclose his wife’s trusteeship clearly applied in the following filings:

2018 declaration, signed in January 2019
Declaration as at 6 January 2020, signed 11 January 2020
Declaration as at 31 December 2020, signed 6 April 2021
Declaration as at 30 December 2022, signed 31 January 2023
Declaration as at 25 January 2023, signed 30 January 2023
Declaration as at 23 January 2024, signed 31 January 2024

By each of these dates, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand had already been a trustee for years. The trusteeship existed, was ongoing, and was material.

The January 2017 declaration is not in issue. At that time, the trusteeship had not yet come into existence. From 2018 onward, however, the obligation was clear.

Two Returns, One Year, Still No Disclosure

In 2020, two declarations were filed: one capturing interests at the start of the year, another at year-end. Multiple filings in a single year can occur for administrative reasons. What matters is that both declarations covered periods when the trusteeship existed, and neither disclosed it.

Duplication did not correct the omission. It repeated it.

What About Errors and Dates?

Some declarations contain internal inconsistencies in dates. Those are administrative defects that should have been queried by the Elections Office. But they do not erase the legal duty to disclose. Once the true execution date is established, and the documents are signed and witnessed, the law asks a simple question: did the interest exist on that date?

Here, the answer is consistently yes.

Can Charges Be Laid?

Under the Political Parties Act, filing a false or incomplete declaration can constitute an offence. Repeated omissions across multiple years significantly strengthen the case that the failure was not accidental.

Which Years Matter Most?

From an enforcement perspective, not all years are equal. The strongest candidate years are those with clean dates, long-standing trusteeship, and no transitional explanations:

Declaration as at 31 December 2020 (signed April 2021)
Declaration as at 30 December 2022 (signed January 2023)
Declaration as at 23 January 2024 (signed January 2024)

These filings occur well after the trusteeship began and after multiple opportunities to correct any omission.

Earlier years, such as 2018, remain relevant but are more likely to be relied upon as background evidence establishing a pattern.

The Bigger Question

This is not about whether the Global Girmit Institute did good work, nor about whether any personal benefit was obtained. The Political Parties Act does not require proof of gain. It requires disclosure.

Transparency is not optional. It is the price of public office.

Whether regulators act is a matter for them. But the documentary record raises a legitimate and unavoidable question: why was a long-standing spousal trusteeship never declared - year after year - when the law required it to be?

That question has yet to be answered.

Across multiple statutory declarations signed by Biman Prasad between 2019 and 2024, there is no disclosure of his wife’s trusteeship of the Global Girmit Institute.

This is not a single omission. It is repeated non-disclosure.

Does Cabinet approval or public funding negate liability?
Absolutely NOT.

Cabinet processes and grant approvals are irrelevant to compliance with the Political Parties Act.
Disclosure duties are personal statutory obligations, not displaced by Cabinet knowledge, verbal briefings, or alleged institutional awareness.

Courts have repeatedly held that “everyone knew” is not a defence to non-disclosure statutes.

Charge 1: False or Incomplete Declaration (Spousal Interest)
Statute: Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act

Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, being a party official and/or Member of Parliament required by law to file a statutory declaration of interests, did knowingly or recklessly fail to disclose that his spouse, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, was a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute, an incorporated trust, at the time of filing his declaration as at 31 December 2020, signed on 6 April 2021, contrary to the Act.

Charge 2: False or Incomplete Declaration (Repeat Offence)
Statute: Political Parties Act

Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, on 30 December 2022, signed and filed a statutory declaration which omitted a material spousal interest—namely, the trusteeship of Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand--without reasonable excuse, contrary to the Act.

Charge 3: Continuing Non-Disclosure (Most Recent Filing) Statute: Political Parties Act

Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, on 31 January 2024, signed a statutory declaration which again failed to disclose an ongoing spousal trusteeship interest that had existed since 2017, thereby continuing a pattern of non-disclosure, contrary to the Act.

Earlier years (2018–2019) could be pleaded as background facts establishing knowledge, continuity, and opportunity to correct.

Evidential Sufficiency
Duty:
The Act clearly requires disclosure of spousal interests, including governance roles such as trusteeships.
Existence:
Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand was appointed a trustee on 21 May 2017 and remained so throughout all relevant periods.
Non-Disclosure:
No declaration from 2018–2024 discloses this interest.
Mental Element:
Repeated omission across multiple years strongly supports an inference of knowledge or recklessness, defeating a simple “oversight” explanation.

Conclusion

There is a prima facie evidential case.

Public Interest Factors (Favouring Prosecution

Senior public office held (Minister of Finance).
Repeated omissions, not an isolated error.
Subject matter directly related to public funding and governance.
Need to maintain integrity of the disclosure regime.
Factors Against:
No allegation of personal enrichment is required (and not relied upon).

Balance:
Public interest favours prosecution, at least on a limited number of representative counts.

Fijileaks: As one of two complainants, we had provided all the documentary evidence to FICAC but in one sweep, Barbara Malimali closed Prasad's entire files. We call on Fiji Police to launch a probe against her conduct. The use of superannuation as a pretext to close the Prasad file does not withstand legal scrutiny and gives rise to a separate, serious case to answer concerning abuse of office and improper interference.

The Case Against Barbara Malimali for Stopping the Investigation Into Biman Prasad: The Matter at Hand

A serious question arises regarding Barbara Malimali, the former FICAC Commissioner, and whether she has a case to answer in relation to her conduct concerning the investigation of Biman Prasad. Specifically, the issue centers around WhatsApp messages exchanged between Malimali and Kuliniasi Saumi, a senior FICAC officer, in which she allegedly directed that Prasad’s file be halted.

This occurred after her appointment in 2024 and is a significant matter of concern due to the implications of abuse of office and interference with due process.

Key Facts and Evidence

WhatsApp messages produced before the Commission of Inquiry indicate that Malimali stated:

“I need a big one charged… to shut the critics up!”
“But it has to be proper… no charging willy nilly.”
“Well, I was after people who abused funds NOT the elections ones!”
Additionally, it was implied in a separate message that Prasad’s file should not be handled.

These communications were taken by the Commission to indicate that Malimali may have been influencing the course of investigations for reasons unrelated to the statutory process or public interest.

Legal Issues at Play

Under Sections 352–355 of the Crimes Act, public officials can be prosecuted if their communications demand or influence a subordinate’s conduct unlawfully.
Malimali’s statements to Saumi regarding Prasad’s file could potentially be considered unwarranted demands, as they suggest improper influence over prosecutorial decisions that should be made independently and impartially.

Abuse of Office

Section 139 of the Crimes Act defines abuse of office as the use of a public official’s powers to achieve personal, improper, or unlawful outcomes.
If Malimali’s message is shown to have influenced the course of the investigation for reasons outside the statutory remit, it could constitute abuse of office, especially if Saumi’s actions were directed by these communications.

Interference with Investigations

Under general legal principles regarding interference with justice, communications from an official that seek to shape or influence the outcome of an investigation could be considered interference with due process.
Malimali’s direction, even if indirect or implied, to halt the investigation into Prasad’s file could be seen as interfering with the impartiality of the investigation process, thereby raising legal concerns about the integrity of her actions as FICAC Commissioner.

Does Malimali Have a Case to Answer?

Given the facts and the legal framework established in Bainimarama's case, Malimali could potentially have a case to answer. The WhatsApp messages and their implications for the integrity of the investigation process suggest that she may have improperly used her office to influence prosecutorial decisions for reasons unrelated to law or public interest.

The legal questions that remain are:

Was her conduct sufficient to be classified as unlawful interference under the Crimes Act and related provisions on abuse of office?
Can the evidence establish that Saumi's actions were directly influenced by her communications, thereby disrupting the lawful execution of FICAC’s investigative powers?

The matter warrants further investigation and, potentially, legal action if credible evidence shows that Malimali exceeded her authority in this regard.

Charges relating to Barbara Malimali(Crimes Act)
Count 1: Abuse of Office Statute: Crimes Act, s 139

Particulars:
That Barbara Malimali, while Commissioner of FICAC, abused her office by terminating or causing the termination of investigations relating to Biman Chand Prasad on the basis of irrelevant considerations (superannuation issues), and/or for an improper purpose, thereby acting prejudicially to the administration of justice.

Count 2: Interference with the Administration of Justice (Alternative) Statute: Crimes Act (relevant provisions)

Particulars:
That Barbara Malimali, by directing or influencing investigative priorities and expressing that she did not want the Prasad file pursued, interfered with or attempted to interfere with the proper exercise of statutory investigative functions.

On 24 December 2024, FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali instructed staff to “find files” to silence or neutralize critics, indicating a politically motivated use of prosecutorial power.
When Manager Legal Kauliniasi Saumi informed her that Biman Prasad’s file was ready for charges, Malimali refused to proceed, allegedly saying:
“No, I don’t want election-related files.”

Saumi

UPPING THE PRESSURE: Our Emails, Our Rights: Being Complainants Against Biman Prasad Doesn't Stop at Malimali's Blood Pressure
From Fijileaks Archive:

Victor Lal

Assets Declared Before They Existed: Just Another Administrative Miracle. We remain, patiently, waiting for an explanation

Dear Mr Kumar,

I write in relation to the statutory declaration of assets, liabilities, and income made by Mr Biman Chand Prasad in which you appear as the legal practitioner and Commissioner for Oaths who administered and certified the declaration.

The document states that it is a declaration of assets, liabilities. and income as at 6 January 2019.

It records bank balances, property interests, and other financial particulars expressly stated to be current as at that date. However the statutory declaration section records that the declaration was declared at Suva on 17 January 2018 and was signed and certified on that basis by both the declarant (Biman Chand Prasad) and yourself.

This creates an apparent inconsistency because the declaration purports to disclose financial information as at 6 January 2019. Yet it was sworn and certified on 17 January 2018. As a matter of fact it would not have been possible in January 2018 to swear to asset positions stated to exist in January 2019.

As you would appreciate, the legal validity of a statutory declaration depends on the facts declared being capable of being true at the time the oath is administered. The role of the Commissioner for Oaths includes ensuring that the declaration sworn is coherent, intelligible, and temporally accurate.

I would therefore be grateful if you could clarify whether the date of 17 January 2018 was an error and if so how it arose, and whether the declaration was in fact sworn on a later date and subsequently misdated and what steps if any were taken to satisfy yourself that the declaration accurately reflected the date stated on its face.

This request is made in good faith and in the interests of maintaining the integrity of statutory declarations made under the Political Parties Registration Conduct Funding and Disclosures framework.

I would appreciate your response at your convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Victor Lal
Fijileaks
Founding Editor-in-Chief

Two Attachments

Economics Professor, Senior Lawyer, Two Signatures - Zero Alarm Bells (2018-2019)

From Fijileaks Archives

Kiran informed the Fijivillage Straight Talk audience that the accounts are still being audited by the Auditor-General?
*Prasad also claims that some 'deranged bloggers' are claiming that he (Prasad) gave money to his wife Rajni.
*He was indirectly calling our Editor-in-Chief the 'deranged blogger'.
*If anyone who is DERANGED and a BLOODY LIAR, it is Prasad who falsely claimed that his wife Rajni had long ago ceased to be a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute, which received $200,000 to organize a two-day international conference at USP where she is employed by Pal Ahluwalia who was the keynote speaker at the conference.
*In fact, the 'Excel Sh*t doesn't even reveal how much Ahluwalia and the USP were paid to organize the conference.
*The Global Girmit Institute must provide a comprehensive breakdown of the $200,000 it received from Prasad, without the tender process.

*BIMAN PRASAD continuing with his PACK OF LIES:
*Professor Prasad says in 2023, the total budget was $500,000 but the total expenditure was $380,308.76. He says from this money, $125,000 came through sponsorship and the government utilised $255,308.76.
*He further says the Global Girmit Institute was the only institute who could organise an international conference in such a short period of time.
*He says his wife was a trustee of the organisation many years ago and is no longer there.
* Professor Prasad says for them to say that he gave money to his wife is the type of warped logic they are trying to come up with.
*The financial report on Fijivillage online news site by Biman Prasad must have a authority indicating its official figures.
*If Kiran had any knowledge about these accounts (she was Deputy Chair of the celebrations) why didn't she state during the Straight Talk about the accounts?
*Where is the Office of the Auditor-General's seal?
*Why was the account over budgetted?
*How do we rule out that sponsors were brought in after the event? - To show low cost/spending.
*The $50,000 for admin is too vague and significant portion of total cost of event and warrants further breakdown.

Click here: GGI Re-Registered

Certificate of Registration, GGI

DE-REGISTRATION had not harmed GGI's relationship with DONORS and FUNDERS, operating out of Chicken Darbha (Coop), resembling more like the Indian Coolie Depot

<<Previous

​Old Offences, Selective Outrage: Why Richard Naidu’s 2015 Argument Falters Against 2011 Charges

Why the DPP Can, and Should, Step In And Take Over Prasad’s Case Just as It Has in the Health Tender Prosecutions

FICAC has closed their investigation into Fiji Sports Council (FSC) CEO Gilbert Vakalalabure, writing that the use of contra tickets from Fiji Airways does not disclose conduct amounting to abuse of office or any other corruption offence.

To be continued: the two legal opinions from the Solicitor-General

From Fijileaks Archives

UPPING THE PRESSURE: Our Emails, Our Rights: Being Complainants Against Biman Prasad Doesn't Stop at Malimali's Blood Pressure: From Fijileaks Archive

LEGAL Pitch Invader: Waqanika Enters to Confront Saukuru and Rokoika

Fijileaks: The Fiji Times boss Patel jumped bail and fled to Australia, and only returned to Fiji last year after a dubious amnesty from the Coalition government.

NEXT INSTALEMENT: Why Lands Minister Vosarogo was an Inappropriate Referee for Barbara Malimali’s FICAC Commissioner Application.*Was he aware of the Tuvalu A-G's letter (23 May 2017) to Malimali banning her from practising in Tuvalu?

From Fijileaks Archives

PAPER Trail from Lotus (Fiji) lawyers in Sydney Exposes Biman Prasad's Hidden Directorship. He had not revealed it in his declarations

UPPING THE PRESSURE: Our Emails, Our Rights: Being Complainants Against Biman Prasad Doesn't Stop at Malimali's Blood PressureFrom Fijileaks Archive:

Assets Declared Before They Existed: Just Another Administrative Miracle. We remain, patiently, waiting for an explanation

Economics Professor, Senior Lawyer, Two Signatures - Zero Alarm Bells (2018-2019)

From Fijileaks Archives

DE-REGISTRATION had not harmed GGI's relationship with DONORS and FUNDERS, operating out of Chicken Darbha (Coop), resembling more like the Indian Coolie Depot

Archives

Old Offences, Selective Outrage: Why Richard Naidu’s 2015 Argument Falters Against 2011 Charges

NEXT INSTALEMENT: Why Lands Minister Vosarogo was an Inappropriate Referee for Barbara Malimali’s FICAC Commissioner Application.
*Was he aware of the Tuvalu A-G's letter (23 May 2017) to Malimali banning her from practising in Tuvalu?

UPPING THE PRESSURE: Our Emails, Our Rights: Being Complainants Against Biman Prasad Doesn't Stop at Malimali's Blood Pressure
From Fijileaks Archive: