*In her affidavit to the Commission of Inquiry, Barbara Malimali asserts that she holds the same rank as the Commissioner of Police and the FICAC investigators hold ranks that are similar to police officers, citing s13AA of the Ficac Act. |
Fijileaks: In an outrageous decision, FICAC under Barbara Malimali and her side-kick Lisiate Fotofili have rushed and terminated the case against NFP leader Biman Prasad before the Commission of Inquiry, led by Justice David Aston-Lewis, released his Report to the President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
*However, Malimali and Fotofili did not consider any of the evidence provided by Fijileaks from August 2024, and only focused on complaints from Ms Alex Forwood (Sydney, Australia), the original complainant to FICAC in February 2024.
*We call on Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu to take Malimali and Fotofili into custody for attempting to pervert the cause of justice.
*Below is the evidence that was sent by FICAC Commissioner Malimali to one of her investigators. Fijileaks had sent the Whats App exchanges to Attorney-General Graham Leung, Justice Minister Siromi Turaga, Army Commander Jone Kalouniwai and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
*The rotten to the core bunch did nothing and let Malimali continue as FICAC Commissioner, and now she has let Biman Prasad loose on Fiji.
*These Whats App exchanges took place on 24 December 2024, and we repeat our call to Tudravu to take Malimali into custody.
FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence
ATTEMPTED TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE: Contrary to section 190 (e) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence
JOSAIA VOREQE BAINIMARAMA sometime between July 2020 and September 2020 at Suva in the Central Division, attempted to pervert the course of justice by telling Sitiveni Tukaituraga Qiliho , the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji to stay away from the USP investigations that was reported under CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019.
SECOND COUNT
Statement of Offence
ABUSE OF OFFICE: Contrary to section 139 of the Crimes Act 2009
Particulars of Offence
SITIVENI TUKAITURAGA QILIHO on the 15th day of July 2020 at Suva in the Central Division being employed in the civil service as the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji, directed the Director of Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, in abuse of the authority of his office, which was an arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of University of the South Pacific which is the Complainant in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019.
Statement of Offence
ATTEMPTED TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE: Contrary to section 190 (e) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence
JOSAIA VOREQE BAINIMARAMA sometime between July 2020 and September 2020 at Suva in the Central Division, attempted to pervert the course of justice by telling Sitiveni Tukaituraga Qiliho , the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji to stay away from the USP investigations that was reported under CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019.
SECOND COUNT
Statement of Offence
ABUSE OF OFFICE: Contrary to section 139 of the Crimes Act 2009
Particulars of Offence
SITIVENI TUKAITURAGA QILIHO on the 15th day of July 2020 at Suva in the Central Division being employed in the civil service as the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji, directed the Director of Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, in abuse of the authority of his office, which was an arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of University of the South Pacific which is the Complainant in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019.
"It was not right for you to tell the second respondent [Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho] to stay away from investigating the alleged mismanagement of taxpayer’s fund at the University of the South Pacific by top senior officials, who appear to be citizens of Fiji. The second respondent was the Commissioner of Police. The second respondent’s brief as Police Commissioner was guided by section 5 of the Police Act 1965. It was mandatory for the second respondent to prevent and detect crimes and enforce the criminal law of the Republic of Fiji. The police were investigating the USP mismanagement of funds at the time.
The police had sought the Director of Public Prosecution’s assistance. He had recommended the caution interview of the suspects. By telling the second respondent to stay away from the USP investigation, you have in a sense effectively sabotaged the police investigation. To this day, the investigation had not been completed. Your action was inconsistent with the oath of your office.
Breach of the Public’s Trust.
At the material time, the second respondent was the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji. By virtue of section 129 (3) of the Constitution, he commands the Fiji Police Force and is responsible for its administration, organization, deployment and its control, and in those matters, he is not subject to anyone’s control. He is the top police officer and it is his task to lead the police maintain law and order. By virtue of section 5 of the Police Act 1965, he leads the police in preserving the peace, protecting life and property, prevent and detect crime and to enforce the criminal law of this country.
However, when he, on 15 July 2020, at Suva in the Central Division, directed the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, he was certainly abusing his office, which was an arbitrary act, prejudicial to the rights of USP.
What he did was a direct violation of section 5 of the Police Act 1965 and as such, was a breach of the public trust in him.
(ii) By acceding to the first respondent’s request to stay away from the USP investigations reported in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, the second respondent violated his constitutional independence as guaranteed by section 129 (5) of the 2013 Constitution.
In sentencing you [Bainimarama}, I am guided by section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009, that is, to punish you in a manner which is just in all the circumstances; to protect the community; to deter others from committing similar offences and to signify that the court and community denounce what you did in Count No. 1. I start with a sentence of 6 months imprisonment. For the aggravating factor, I add 2 ½ years making a total of 3 years imprisonment. For all the mitigating factors, I deduct 2 years, leaving a balance of 1 year imprisonment. On Count No. 1, I sentence you to 1 year imprisonment.
The police had sought the Director of Public Prosecution’s assistance. He had recommended the caution interview of the suspects. By telling the second respondent to stay away from the USP investigation, you have in a sense effectively sabotaged the police investigation. To this day, the investigation had not been completed. Your action was inconsistent with the oath of your office.
Breach of the Public’s Trust.
At the material time, the second respondent was the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji. By virtue of section 129 (3) of the Constitution, he commands the Fiji Police Force and is responsible for its administration, organization, deployment and its control, and in those matters, he is not subject to anyone’s control. He is the top police officer and it is his task to lead the police maintain law and order. By virtue of section 5 of the Police Act 1965, he leads the police in preserving the peace, protecting life and property, prevent and detect crime and to enforce the criminal law of this country.
However, when he, on 15 July 2020, at Suva in the Central Division, directed the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, he was certainly abusing his office, which was an arbitrary act, prejudicial to the rights of USP.
What he did was a direct violation of section 5 of the Police Act 1965 and as such, was a breach of the public trust in him.
(ii) By acceding to the first respondent’s request to stay away from the USP investigations reported in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, the second respondent violated his constitutional independence as guaranteed by section 129 (5) of the 2013 Constitution.
In sentencing you [Bainimarama}, I am guided by section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009, that is, to punish you in a manner which is just in all the circumstances; to protect the community; to deter others from committing similar offences and to signify that the court and community denounce what you did in Count No. 1. I start with a sentence of 6 months imprisonment. For the aggravating factor, I add 2 ½ years making a total of 3 years imprisonment. For all the mitigating factors, I deduct 2 years, leaving a balance of 1 year imprisonment. On Count No. 1, I sentence you to 1 year imprisonment.
The Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) authorizes the release of the following statement concerning the closure of the complaint against the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Biman Prasad.
The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has formally responded to Ms. Ana Mataiciwa, Supervisor of Elections, regarding a complaint alleging that the Honourable Dr. Biman Prasad, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) had committed an offence for failing to comply with the declaration requirements under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.
The initial complaint was lodged with the Supervisor of Elections by one Alexander Forwood of Sydney, Australia. The complaint alleges that the Honourable Dr. Prasad, submitted false information in his declaration of income, assets and liabilities for the years 2014 – 2020, 2022 and 2023 to the Fijian Elections Office in his capacity as Party Leader of the National Federation Party.
FICAC initiated a comprehensive investigation that included an in‑person interview with the Honourable Dr. Prasad and a detailed review of documentary evidence and legal submissions provided by his counsel. Although the Political Parties Act does not explicitly list “party leader” among those required to declare, the Commission concluded that the Honourable Dr. Prasad’s role qualifies him as an “office holder” under section 24 and therefore subject to its declaration obligations.
The complaint that the Honourable Dr. Prasad should have disclosed his superannuation is debatable. Since 2014, the Honourable Dr. Prasad has provided his declaration to the Fijian Elections Office without including superannuation information, and there is no evidence before FICAC that the Supervisor of Elections or the Electoral Commission ever advised Honourable Dr. Prasad that his declarations were insufficient or requested that superannuation information be included in the declaration form.
As there were no grievances raised in almost a decade, any ordinary person in the Honourable Dr. Prasad’s position might think that the declarations provided were sufficient. Furthermore, the forms required the Honourable Dr. Prasad or any other office holder to declare their assets and did not specifically require information pertaining to superannuation.
Allegations regarding his spouse’s ties to FEMLink Pacific and the Global Girmit Institute (GGI), as well as his professional association with Dr. Ganesh Chand, were similarly reviewed and dismissed, as none involved reportable business transactions. Under section 24 (1A) and (1B) of the Political Parties Act 2013, an office holder must disclose business interests and transactions but does not require the disclosure of personal connections.
In relation to Lotus Construction and Lotus Tours and Travel; the form requires that declarants are to declare any dividends received and directorships. Honourable Dr. Prasad declared his shares in two companies, the value of one company and the loan obtained from the bank. Honourable Dr. Prasad also declared that he did not receive any dividends. So, whilst the Honourable Dr. Prasad declared his shares, no income in the form of dividends were received from the companies. (Fijileaks: We will respond to Lotus and Prasad's declarations)
If an office holder under section 24 of the Political Parties Act 2013 commits a technical breach in their declaration, that person can still be prosecuted because it is a strict liability offence. FICAC appreciates the objective of the declaration requirement which is to promote transparency and accountability. However, it is a provision which generates disputes (whether made in good faith or not) between political parties, opposition and their supporters, which in turn has the potential to weaponise FICAC disproportionately against certain individuals.
In this light, in its prosecutorial discretion, FICAC will examine all electoral cases referred to it closely to identify cases of a trivial nature or is a technical breach versus those who wilfully flout the declaration requirements.
FICAC will not be prosecuting Dr. Prasad.
The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has formally responded to Ms. Ana Mataiciwa, Supervisor of Elections, regarding a complaint alleging that the Honourable Dr. Biman Prasad, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) had committed an offence for failing to comply with the declaration requirements under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.
The initial complaint was lodged with the Supervisor of Elections by one Alexander Forwood of Sydney, Australia. The complaint alleges that the Honourable Dr. Prasad, submitted false information in his declaration of income, assets and liabilities for the years 2014 – 2020, 2022 and 2023 to the Fijian Elections Office in his capacity as Party Leader of the National Federation Party.
FICAC initiated a comprehensive investigation that included an in‑person interview with the Honourable Dr. Prasad and a detailed review of documentary evidence and legal submissions provided by his counsel. Although the Political Parties Act does not explicitly list “party leader” among those required to declare, the Commission concluded that the Honourable Dr. Prasad’s role qualifies him as an “office holder” under section 24 and therefore subject to its declaration obligations.
The complaint that the Honourable Dr. Prasad should have disclosed his superannuation is debatable. Since 2014, the Honourable Dr. Prasad has provided his declaration to the Fijian Elections Office without including superannuation information, and there is no evidence before FICAC that the Supervisor of Elections or the Electoral Commission ever advised Honourable Dr. Prasad that his declarations were insufficient or requested that superannuation information be included in the declaration form.
As there were no grievances raised in almost a decade, any ordinary person in the Honourable Dr. Prasad’s position might think that the declarations provided were sufficient. Furthermore, the forms required the Honourable Dr. Prasad or any other office holder to declare their assets and did not specifically require information pertaining to superannuation.
Allegations regarding his spouse’s ties to FEMLink Pacific and the Global Girmit Institute (GGI), as well as his professional association with Dr. Ganesh Chand, were similarly reviewed and dismissed, as none involved reportable business transactions. Under section 24 (1A) and (1B) of the Political Parties Act 2013, an office holder must disclose business interests and transactions but does not require the disclosure of personal connections.
In relation to Lotus Construction and Lotus Tours and Travel; the form requires that declarants are to declare any dividends received and directorships. Honourable Dr. Prasad declared his shares in two companies, the value of one company and the loan obtained from the bank. Honourable Dr. Prasad also declared that he did not receive any dividends. So, whilst the Honourable Dr. Prasad declared his shares, no income in the form of dividends were received from the companies. (Fijileaks: We will respond to Lotus and Prasad's declarations)
If an office holder under section 24 of the Political Parties Act 2013 commits a technical breach in their declaration, that person can still be prosecuted because it is a strict liability offence. FICAC appreciates the objective of the declaration requirement which is to promote transparency and accountability. However, it is a provision which generates disputes (whether made in good faith or not) between political parties, opposition and their supporters, which in turn has the potential to weaponise FICAC disproportionately against certain individuals.
In this light, in its prosecutorial discretion, FICAC will examine all electoral cases referred to it closely to identify cases of a trivial nature or is a technical breach versus those who wilfully flout the declaration requirements.
FICAC will not be prosecuting Dr. Prasad.

Ms Ana Mataiciwa,
Acting Supervisor Fiji Elections,
Fiji Elections Office,
Suva, Fiji
12th February 2024.
Dear Ms Mataiciwa,
Re: Party Leader- Biman Prasad- False and Non Declaration under the Political Parties Act 2013.
I am writing this letter to lodge an official complaint regarding one Biman Prasad who is the Party Leader of the National Federation Party which is currently in the Coalition Government.
I note that Biman Prasad has declared that his income being $188,000 per annum, however he failed to declare the FNFP contribution as it added on top of his salary under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014, excluding his personal contribution as required by law (Attached as exhibit 1- Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014). I state the following:
1. Under section 24 (1)(A) (B) (i) which stipulate one must declare total assets whether in Fiji or Abroad (including money and other property) in their possession or under their control. Therefore, I argue that FNPF contributions and any funds is considered personal property as one can have access to funds as stipulated in the withdrawal provisions of the fund being FNPF. Therefore, Biman Prasad should have declared his contributions and the amount held by FNPF. I note the case precedent used by Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum whereby in one of his previous declarations he declared his FNFP declarations. Therefore, the same must apply in this case.
2. I note that Biman Prasad failed to declare his travel allowances during his overseas travel and the amounts he received. That evidence is in office and can be verified upon your perusal of his declaration.
3. I noted that Biman Prasad failed to declare that he is the Governor of the Asian Development Bank in Fiji. As that position is not Gazette to him under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014 it is thus separate to his Minister of Finance Post- which must be declared under section 24 (1) (ab) (iv) of the Political Parties Act where a person must declare any directorship or other office in a corporation or other organisation whether in Fiji or Abroad held by each of them. In support I attach exhibit 2- Asian Development Bank Documents stating that Biman Prasad is Governor of the Reserve Bank.
4. I note that Biman Prasad did not declare that his wife one Dr Rajni Chand is the trustee of the Global Girmit Institute and that it facilitated the funds of $200,000 given by the Coalition Government. The Not for Profit Organisation was re-registered in 2023, after it deregistered in February 2022 for failing to supply its financial statements as required under the laws of Fiji. The period of re-registration falls within the required period upon which Biman Prasad is required to declare in his 2023 Financial Declaration (Attached is exhibit 3- Global Institute Deed of Trust and
Registration Documents).
5. I note that Biman Prasad did not declare his connection to Ganesh Chand and Hirdesh Sharma whom are the registered Trustees of the Global Girmit Institute upon whom received $200,000 of Tax payers funds. This is a breach under section 24
(a) (b) (iii) of the Political Parties Act. I submit that no tender was called in relation to the event organisation.
6. I note that Biman Prasad declared that he owns 50 percent shares in Lotus Construction Pte Limited, however upon obtaining the registration documents and the Article of Association – it was established that Biman Prasad only has a 5 percent share in Louts Construction and not the 50 percent share he claims in his declaration (Attached as exhibit 4- Lotus Construction Pte Limited Registration Documents and the Article of Association).
The document was re-lodged in 2022 with the date of the Article of Association dated and signed in 2014 and upon which the re- registration occurred in 2022.
7. I note that one of the directors of Lotus Construction upon which Biman Prasad has shares in is Sunil Chand (Please refer to exhibit 4). Biman Prasad did not declare the business connection with Sunil Chand who has the same Lotus Construction company in Australia thus being a breach under section 24 (a) (b) (iii) of the Political Parties Act 2014 (Attached is exhibit 5- Louts Construction registration in Australia).
8. Biman Prasad’s spouse Dr Rajni Prasad [Chand] did not declare that she is Chairperson to Femlink Pacific (Please note she has held this position 2009 to date), therefore being a breach under 24 (1a) (d) of the Political Parties Act (Attached is exhibit 6- Femlink Document stipulating that Dr Rajni Prasad is the Chairman of the organisation). Dr Rajni Chand may/may not be receiving a salary from this post nonetheless it was a non-declaration.
9. I note that Biman Prasad and Dr Rajni Chand have not declared under section 24 (1) (a,b (iii) and 24 (1A) (c) of the Political Parties Act 2014 their business transaction to one Dr Ganesh Chand who is the co-trustee of the Global Girmit Institutre as previously mentioned. However, due to the business transaction the fact must be taken into account is that Biman Prasad allocated $1 million to Pacific Polytech whose Advisor is Dr Ganesh Chand. Please note that there was no tender process in line with the Laws of Fiji. Please note that Pacific Polytech has not submitted that their Audit reports as required. The funds was transferred in 2022 to Pacific Polytech.
I therefore submit this complaint for the breaches under the Political Parties Act 2014 upon which I understand that whilst some elements of this complaint cannot be handled by your office.
You must, therefore, refer the matter to FICAC under section 18 of the Political Parties Act.
Ms Alex Forwood, Sydney, Australia.
Acting Supervisor Fiji Elections,
Fiji Elections Office,
Suva, Fiji
12th February 2024.
Dear Ms Mataiciwa,
Re: Party Leader- Biman Prasad- False and Non Declaration under the Political Parties Act 2013.
I am writing this letter to lodge an official complaint regarding one Biman Prasad who is the Party Leader of the National Federation Party which is currently in the Coalition Government.
I note that Biman Prasad has declared that his income being $188,000 per annum, however he failed to declare the FNFP contribution as it added on top of his salary under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014, excluding his personal contribution as required by law (Attached as exhibit 1- Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014). I state the following:
1. Under section 24 (1)(A) (B) (i) which stipulate one must declare total assets whether in Fiji or Abroad (including money and other property) in their possession or under their control. Therefore, I argue that FNPF contributions and any funds is considered personal property as one can have access to funds as stipulated in the withdrawal provisions of the fund being FNPF. Therefore, Biman Prasad should have declared his contributions and the amount held by FNPF. I note the case precedent used by Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum whereby in one of his previous declarations he declared his FNFP declarations. Therefore, the same must apply in this case.
2. I note that Biman Prasad failed to declare his travel allowances during his overseas travel and the amounts he received. That evidence is in office and can be verified upon your perusal of his declaration.
3. I noted that Biman Prasad failed to declare that he is the Governor of the Asian Development Bank in Fiji. As that position is not Gazette to him under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 2014 it is thus separate to his Minister of Finance Post- which must be declared under section 24 (1) (ab) (iv) of the Political Parties Act where a person must declare any directorship or other office in a corporation or other organisation whether in Fiji or Abroad held by each of them. In support I attach exhibit 2- Asian Development Bank Documents stating that Biman Prasad is Governor of the Reserve Bank.
4. I note that Biman Prasad did not declare that his wife one Dr Rajni Chand is the trustee of the Global Girmit Institute and that it facilitated the funds of $200,000 given by the Coalition Government. The Not for Profit Organisation was re-registered in 2023, after it deregistered in February 2022 for failing to supply its financial statements as required under the laws of Fiji. The period of re-registration falls within the required period upon which Biman Prasad is required to declare in his 2023 Financial Declaration (Attached is exhibit 3- Global Institute Deed of Trust and
Registration Documents).
5. I note that Biman Prasad did not declare his connection to Ganesh Chand and Hirdesh Sharma whom are the registered Trustees of the Global Girmit Institute upon whom received $200,000 of Tax payers funds. This is a breach under section 24
(a) (b) (iii) of the Political Parties Act. I submit that no tender was called in relation to the event organisation.
6. I note that Biman Prasad declared that he owns 50 percent shares in Lotus Construction Pte Limited, however upon obtaining the registration documents and the Article of Association – it was established that Biman Prasad only has a 5 percent share in Louts Construction and not the 50 percent share he claims in his declaration (Attached as exhibit 4- Lotus Construction Pte Limited Registration Documents and the Article of Association).
The document was re-lodged in 2022 with the date of the Article of Association dated and signed in 2014 and upon which the re- registration occurred in 2022.
7. I note that one of the directors of Lotus Construction upon which Biman Prasad has shares in is Sunil Chand (Please refer to exhibit 4). Biman Prasad did not declare the business connection with Sunil Chand who has the same Lotus Construction company in Australia thus being a breach under section 24 (a) (b) (iii) of the Political Parties Act 2014 (Attached is exhibit 5- Louts Construction registration in Australia).
8. Biman Prasad’s spouse Dr Rajni Prasad [Chand] did not declare that she is Chairperson to Femlink Pacific (Please note she has held this position 2009 to date), therefore being a breach under 24 (1a) (d) of the Political Parties Act (Attached is exhibit 6- Femlink Document stipulating that Dr Rajni Prasad is the Chairman of the organisation). Dr Rajni Chand may/may not be receiving a salary from this post nonetheless it was a non-declaration.
9. I note that Biman Prasad and Dr Rajni Chand have not declared under section 24 (1) (a,b (iii) and 24 (1A) (c) of the Political Parties Act 2014 their business transaction to one Dr Ganesh Chand who is the co-trustee of the Global Girmit Institutre as previously mentioned. However, due to the business transaction the fact must be taken into account is that Biman Prasad allocated $1 million to Pacific Polytech whose Advisor is Dr Ganesh Chand. Please note that there was no tender process in line with the Laws of Fiji. Please note that Pacific Polytech has not submitted that their Audit reports as required. The funds was transferred in 2022 to Pacific Polytech.
I therefore submit this complaint for the breaches under the Political Parties Act 2014 upon which I understand that whilst some elements of this complaint cannot be handled by your office.
You must, therefore, refer the matter to FICAC under section 18 of the Political Parties Act.
Ms Alex Forwood, Sydney, Australia.