Home

WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT: FICAC Rejects Claims, Says Ian Lloyd KC Opinion Exists, Closes Complaint Against Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva, John Rabuku and Chief Justice Salesi Temo. FICAC closes Investigation

17/7/2026

FICAC has completed its preliminary assessment of a complaint involving Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Nancy Tikoisuva, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions John Rabuku and Chief Justice Salesi Temo, and has closed the file after finding insufficient evidence to commence a formal corruption investigation against any of them.

This follows former ODPP staff Susana Vuniani's Statutory Declaration in Australia where she alleged that senior ODPP officials decided to close the Commission of Inquiry file into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner because it involved high-profile public officials, members of the judiciary and the legal fraternity, and that prosecuting the matter could cause embarrassment and conflict.

She further claimed the decision was made under directives from Chief Justice Salesi Temo.

FICAC says its assessment examined whether the material provided disclosed a sufficient basis to begin a formal corruption investigation within its statutory mandate.

As part of the assessment, FICAC verified the existence of a signed written legal opinion by Ian Lloyd KC held by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

However, it says its verification was limited to confirming the opinion exists and that it cannot disclose or comment on its contents.

FICAC says the decision is a threshold determination confined to its criminal corruption mandate and should not be interpreted as a finding on the complainant's broader allegations, motives, or visa status, or on any matter outside the Commission's jurisdiction.

The Commission says it will make no further comment on the complaint or the legal opinion.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions says they will address the allegations made by Vuniani with the relevant Australian authorities. Source: Fijivillage News

'THE WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT': Senior ODPP OFFICER ALLEGES Deliberate Suppression of the COI Files, Claims No Aussie KC Opinion Ever Existed, Accuses Senior Prosecutors of Shielding Powerful Figures

15/7/2026

A Brief Note To Our Readers: Fijileaks has been somewhat inactive in recent weeks because I have been travelling abroad and therefore temporarily absent from my "tent on Oxford Street, London", the location from which, according to NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad, Fiji's political destiny is apparently plotted after "a few more bottles of beer." Consequently, publication may remain intermittent over the next few days. However, readers, critics, political leaders and their media surrogates can rest assured that I will return to my Oxford Street tent to resume normal operations, armed with a laptop, Wi-Fi, and an undiminished appetite for asking inconvenient questions.

Vuniani

An analysis of the statutory declaration of Susana Raseru Vuniani and the Facebook rebuttal by Deputy DPP John Rabuku.

Rabuku

The statutory declaration sworn in Australia on 24 June 2026 by Susana Raseru Vuniani, a senior Administration Officer for Litigation and Registry at Fiji's Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), is one of the most serious allegations ever made by a serving insider against the country's prosecution service.

If true, the declaration suggests that the decision not to prosecute individuals named in the Commission of Inquiry (COI) investigation was not merely an exercise of prosecutorial discretion but the product of deliberate internal management decisions, followed by what the deponent describes as a false public explanation.

If false, however, the declaration would itself expose the maker to potentially serious legal consequences, including prosecution for making a false statutory declaration under Australian law.

Either way, the affidavit raises issues that cannot simply be ignored.

The Whistleblower

Vuniani presents herself not as an outsider but as someone embedded in the machinery of the ODPP.

She states that she joined the office in 2017, became Administration Officer for Litigation and Registry in 2022, manages the Suva Case Registry, receives police investigation files, allocates them to prosecutors, maintains custody of sensitive case materials and attends managerial meetings where prosecution decisions are discussed.

She says she reports directly to Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva and Deputy DPP John Rabuku.

Her affidavit therefore attempts to establish first-hand knowledge rather than hearsay.

The Central Allegation

According to Vuniani, the Fiji Police submitted the COI investigation recommending criminal charges against ten individuals, including the following individuals:

Chief Justice Salesi Temo
Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
Solicitor-General Ropate Green
Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga
former Attorney-General Graham Leung
Wylie Clarke
Amani Bale
Barbara Malimali
Laura Vaurasi
Nemani Tuifagalele

She alleges that both Nancy Tikoisuva and John Rabuku instructed her to place the file directly on the DPP's desk rather than process it through the ordinary allocation system.

She further claims that the file remained there for several months without action.

Political Pressure

The affidavit alleges that only after Opposition Leader Inia Seruiratu publicly questioned the delay did senior management convene a meeting to discuss the file.

According to Vuniani, the outcome of that meeting was already predetermined.

She alleges that those present decided the COI matter would simply be closed because those implicated occupied influential positions throughout the Judiciary, the legal profession and the prosecution service itself.
She further claims it was said during the meeting that prosecuting them would create embarrassment and conflict because several individuals were effectively under the constitutional authority of the Chief Justice.

These are exceptionally serious allegations because they go beyond legal disagreement and suggest institutional conflict of interest.

The KC Ian Lloyd Issue

Perhaps the affidavit's most explosive allegation concerns the Australian King's Counsel Ian Lloyd.

When the ODPP later announced publicly that the COI matter had been closed because independent King's Counsel Ian Lloyd had found insufficient evidence, Vuniani says that explanation was false.

She declares as follows:

no KC opinion existed;
Ian Lloyd never prepared any legal advice on the COI file;
the review was conducted entirely internally;
Lloyd happened to be in Fiji on an unrelated matter before the courts.

She further states that when the file was returned to Police marked "insufficient evidence", no King's Counsel opinion accompanied it because none had ever been obtained.

If accurate, this allegation directly challenges one of the principal public explanations given for closing the investigation.

The Puleiwai Complaint

The affidavit then turns to another sensitive matter involving former Acting FICAC Commissioner Francis Puleiwai and former investigations manager Kuliniasi Saumi.

Vuniani says Police sought legal advice because the available evidence did not support criminal charges.

She nevertheless alleges that during an internal meeting Deputy DPP John Rabuku stated the ODPP would retain the file until both officials returned to Fiji before laying abuse of office charges, and that the office would protect Barbara Malimali and the Judiciary.

Again, if proven, such conduct would raise profound questions about prosecutorial independence.

Personal Risk

Vuniani concludes by explaining why she chose to speak publicly.

She says she fears losing her job because officials who speak out within the current administration face suspension, dismissal or prosecution.

The declaration is accompanied by copies of her ODPP employment identification and her Fijian passport, apparently intended to support her identity and employment status.

The Legal Significance

The affidavit itself proves none of the allegations. It is evidence of what one witness claims to have personally seen and heard. In any legal proceeding, those assertions would need to be tested by contemporaneous documents; internal ODPP records; file movement registers; meeting minutes; electronic correspondence; and cross-examination.

Equally, if the declaration were knowingly false, its maker could face criminal liability under Australian statutory declaration legislation.

Its publication therefore raises issues requiring investigation rather than assumption.

John Rabuku's Facebook Rebuttal

Deputy DPP John Rabuku has publicly rejected Vuniani's allegations.

According to his Facebook response, Rabuku described the statutory declaration as false, denied any conspiracy to suppress the COI investigation, rejected claims that the ODPP deliberately protected any individuals, and maintained that prosecutorial decisions were made properly in accordance with the evidence available. He also disputed allegations concerning the handling of the COI file and rejected suggestions that he had acted improperly.

His response therefore presents a direct contradiction of Vuniani's sworn account.

The dispute now becomes one of competing factual narratives.

The Larger Constitutional Question

The affidavit ultimately raises questions extending beyond the personal credibility of either Susana Vuniani or John Rabuku.

If the whistleblower is correct, the implications would be profound for confidence in prosecutorial independence and public trust in Fiji's criminal justice system.

If Rabuku's rebuttal is correct, then the affidavit represents an extraordinarily serious false accusation against senior legal officers.

Either conclusion demands proper investigation.

For that reason, the Vuniani declaration is likely to become one of the most closely scrutinised documents to emerge from Fiji's ongoing institutional controversies.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) confirms that it has completed its review of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) files that were submitted to the ODPP for legal advice.

The ODPP received a total of twelve (12) files from the Fiji Police Force for review last year. Of these, one file was closed and returned earlier last year with the decision not to charge in the matter of State v Barbara Malimali, due to insufficient evidence to support any prosecution.

The remaining eleven files have also been reviewed, and the outcomes together with the summaries of each file will be returned to the Fiji Police Force later this week.

The complaints stemmed primarily from allegations against Ms Barbara Malimali arising out of the COI, which in turn led to several other complaints and cross-complaints involving a number of public officers and well-known senior legal practitioners.

Due to the sensitivity of the matters and the significant public interest generated by the COI, the files were assessed by multiple senior prosecutors who had no prior involvement or connection with any of the parties named in the complaints.

The initial assessments conducted by these senior prosecutors were subsequently subjected to an independent review by a senior consultant engaged by the ODPP. The ODPP was privileged to obtain the services of Mr Ian Lloyd KC, who concurred with the initial assessments and provided further recommendations on the analysis of the evidence.

Each matter was examined individually and collectively within the ambit of the law. The assessments were guided by relevant legislation, including but not limited to the FICAC Act, the Electoral Act, and the Crimes Act, as well as applicable Court of Appeal authorities and the supreme law of Fiji, the Constitution.

In considering the evidence, the ODPP took into account several critical factors, including the sufficiency of evidence to meet the criminal standard of proof, reasonable prospects of conviction, public interest considerations, statutory limitation periods, applicable immunity provisions, and the distinction between criminal and civil liability.

Having carefully considered the initial assessments and being guided by the independent review and recommendations of Mr Ian Lloyd KC, the ODPP has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to sustain any criminal charges to the required criminal standard of proof in respect of the files assessed.

The Acting DPP, Ms Nancy Tikoisuva underlined that it will not be pressured or rushed into making decisions without following due process, and remains committed to upholding the rule of law, fairness, and independence in the discharge of its constitutional mandate.

“The ODPP is an independent constitutional body with its own mandate and operates strictly in accordance with the Prosecution Code and internal governance processes. Our review and decision-making processes are guided by evidence, the law, and established prosecutorial principles, and decisions are not dictated by, nor influenced by political individuals or political agendas including social media posts and opinion,” said Ms Tikoisuva. 22 January 2026.

RIGHT OF REPLY OFFERED: Ian Lloyd KC Did Not Respond to Fijileaks' Questions

Prior to publication, Fijileaks emailed (13 July 2026) King's Counsel Ian Lloyd seeking clarification regarding the allegations in Ms Susana Raseru Vuniani's statutory declaration that referred to him and his alleged involvement in the Commission of Inquiry files. At the time of publication, no response had been received. Should Mr Lloyd wish to comment, Fijileaks will publish his response in full, subject to normal editorial standards.

Subject: Request for Clarification Regarding Statutory Declaration Referring to Your Alleged Advice
Dear Mr Lloyd KC,

I hope this email finds you well.

I am writing in my capacity as the Founding Editor-in-Chief of Fijileaks regarding a statutory declaration made in Australia on 24 June 2026 by Ms Susana Raseru Vuniani, who identifies herself as the Administration Officer for Litigation and Registry at Fiji's Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).

A copy of the declaration has entered the public domain.

In paragraphs 11 to 13 of her declaration, Ms Vuniani makes allegations concerning the handling of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) police file. In particular, she states that:

a public statement was issued claiming that the COI matter had been closed due to insufficient evidence based on a legal opinion from King's Counsel Ian Lloyd;
she believes that explanation was false;
no legal opinion from you had been prepared in relation to the COI file;
the review was allegedly conducted internally under the direction of Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva and Deputy DPP John Rabuku; and
your presence in Fiji at the relevant time related to an unrelated court matter rather than any review of the COI investigation.

Given that your name has been specifically mentioned in a sworn statutory declaration, I would be grateful if you could comment on the following:

Were you ever instructed by the Fiji ODPP to review the Commission of Inquiry police file?
Did you provide any written or oral legal opinion regarding whether criminal charges should be brought arising from the COI?
If you did provide advice, was it relied upon by the ODPP in concluding that there was insufficient evidence?
If you did not provide such advice, are you able to confirm that no opinion from you formed the basis of the ODPP's public statement?
Do you wish to comment generally on the allegations made in the statutory declaration insofar as they concern your involvement?

Naturally, Fijileaks intends to report fairly and accurately. We would therefore welcome your response before publication so that your position can be reflected in full.

If you would prefer, your response may be provided on the record or, if necessary, on background, although any request for attribution should be made clear.

I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Kind regards,

Victor Lal
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Fijileaks
Oxford, United Kingdom

IAN LLOYD KC REJECTS WHISTLEBLOWER'S CLAIMS:

King's Counsel Ian Lloyd KC has categorically denied allegations made against him in paragraphs 12 and 13 of Susana Raseru Vuniani's statutory declaration. Responding to enquiries from Fijileaks, Lloyd confirmed the accuracy of the Fiji Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions' press release of 22 January 2026 and described Ms Vuniani's assertions as "totally inaccurate". He stated that the sole purpose of his visit to Fiji was to undertake work for the ODPP, adding: "I did no other work than that for the Fiji ODPP during my trip to Fiji at that time." Lloyd declined to comment further.

ODPP Strikes Back: Fiji Prosecutors Reject Whistleblower's Claims and Escalate Dispute to Australian Authorities

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has publicly rejected the allegations made by its former employee, Susana Vuniani, describing aspects of her statutory declaration as false and internally inconsistent, while announcing that it intends to refer the declaration to the relevant Australian authorities for consideration.

The statement marks the first detailed institutional response to allegations that have generated considerable public debate about the handling of files arising from the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).

According to the ODPP:

It rejects allegations that criminal investigations connected to the Commission of Inquiry were deliberately closed to protect senior public officials, members of the judiciary, legal practitioners and ODPP leadership.
It maintains that its decision not to prosecute was based solely on established prosecutorial principles, including the sufficiency of evidence, prospects of conviction, public interest considerations, statutory limitation periods, constitutional immunities where applicable, and the distinction between criminal and civil liability.
It says those conclusions were reinforced by an independent review conducted by King's Counsel Ian Lloyd, whose advice was that there was insufficient evidence to justify criminal charges.
The ODPP further alleges that Vuniani's statutory declaration contains false statements regarding her employment status. It says she resigned on 4 May 2026 while in Australia on a tourist visa and was no longer an employee when she executed her statutory declaration on 24 June 2026.
Because of what it describes as "material inconsistencies", the ODPP says it will refer the declaration to Australian authorities.
It also emphasises that prosecution decisions are not made unilaterally by a single individual.

The Significance of the ODPP Response

The ODPP has deliberately framed its response on two separate fronts.

The first is substantive. It rejects the core allegation that prosecutorial decisions were influenced by external pressure or institutional embarrassment. Instead, it argues that ordinary prosecutorial tests governed the decision-making process.

The second is procedural. Rather than merely denying Vuniani's account, the ODPP has gone further by challenging the credibility of the statutory declaration itself, particularly her description of her employment status, and by indicating that Australian authorities should examine those alleged inconsistencies.

This is a significant escalation because it transforms what might otherwise have remained a domestic public controversy into an issue potentially engaging Australian legal authorities, given that the declaration was executed in Australia.

Reliance on Ian Lloyd KC

One of the central features of the ODPP statement is its continued reliance on the independent advice of King's Counsel Ian Lloyd.

Rather than defending the decision solely as its own, the ODPP places considerable emphasis on Lloyd's review, stating that his independent assessment supported the conclusion that the available evidence was insufficient to sustain criminal prosecutions.

From an institutional perspective, this reliance serves two purposes.

First, it reinforces the argument that prosecutorial discretion was exercised independently rather than politically.

Secondly, it seeks to distance the final decision from allegations that internal ODPP officials improperly protected influential individuals.

Whether that independent review ultimately satisfies public critics, however, remains a separate question.

Employment Status: Why It Matters

The ODPP's challenge to Vuniani's employment status is not merely technical. If, as the ODPP contends, she represented herself in the declaration as still being an employee after having already resigned, that inconsistency could affect the perceived reliability of parts of her evidence.

Equally, however, even if her employment status were inaccurately described, that alone would not automatically determine whether the substantive allegations concerning prosecutorial decision-making are true or false.

In law, credibility is rarely determined by a single factual discrepancy. Courts generally distinguish between peripheral inaccuracies and allegations going to the heart of the dispute.

Questions That Still Remain

Despite the ODPP's response, several important questions remain unanswered publicly.

These include: Whether independent documentary evidence exists supporting or contradicting the alleged meeting described in the statutory declaration.
Whether any contemporaneous notes, emails or memoranda exist.
Whether other participants allegedly present have been interviewed.
Whether additional witnesses can corroborate either version of events.
Whether the Office of the Chief Justice will respond to the allegation that directives originated from the Chief Justice. At the time of the report, questions had been sent to that office but no response had yet been reported.

These issues are likely to determine the longer-term significance of the controversy.

Institutional Credibility at Stake

The dispute is no longer simply between a former employee and her former employer.

It now directly engages the credibility of Fiji's prosecutorial service.

If the ODPP's account proves correct, it will reinforce the principle that prosecutorial decisions were made independently, consistently with established legal standards, and supported by external senior counsel.

Conversely, if independent evidence were eventually to substantiate Vuniani's allegations, it would raise profound constitutional questions concerning prosecutorial independence, judicial influence and public confidence in the administration of justice.
At present, neither proposition has been judicially tested.

The ODPP has mounted its strongest public defence yet of its handling of the Commission of Inquiry files. Rather than simply issuing a denial, it has relied upon established prosecutorial principles, the independent advice of King's Counsel Ian Lloyd, and a direct challenge to the factual accuracy of Susana Vuniani's statutory declaration. It has also signalled that it intends to place the matter before Australian authorities because the declaration was executed there.

For now, the controversy remains one of competing narratives. The ODPP insists that prosecutorial decisions were based on evidence and law, while its former employee alleges that improper considerations influenced those decisions. Ultimately, the resolution of these competing claims will depend not upon public statements, but upon independent evidence capable of withstanding legal scrutiny.

BITTER HARVEST: Fiji's Sugar Industry Is More Than Economic Debate. It Is a Test of Whether Nation Can Confront History, Reality, and the Future

14/7/2026

"Give me my heart's desires in Coolies and I will make you a million hogsheads of sugar" - A British sugar planter in the Caribbean.

When Permanent Secretary for Finance Shiri Gounder declared that Fiji must begin planning an exit from the sugar industry, he did more than ignite an economic debate.

He touched one of the deepest historical and emotional nerves in the country's modern history.

His argument was stark. Fiji, he said, must stop "fooling ourselves" into believing that sugar can simply be restored to its former glory. Reviving the industry, he suggested, could require billions of dollars of taxpayer funding with little realistic prospect of success. Instead, Government should begin helping farmers transition into alternative agricultural industries.

His remarks immediately drew criticism from cane farmers, among them Sakiasi Kele, who argued that sugar remains the lifeblood of rural Fiji and warned against abandoning an industry that continues to sustain thousands of families.

Both, in different ways, are correct. But neither side can ignore the larger truth.

The debate over sugar is no longer simply about cane production, milling efficiency or government subsidies. It is about Fiji's history. It is about the legacy of Girmit. It is about taxpayers.

And it is about whether political leaders are finally prepared to confront realities that successive governments have postponed for decades.

Sugar Is Inextricably Tied to the Memory of Indenture

Any discussion of Fiji's sugar industry must begin with history. Sugar cannot be treated merely as another agricultural commodity. It is inextricably tied to the memory of indenture. Between 1879 and 1916, more than 60,000 Indians were brought to Fiji under the Girmit system to work on the plantations of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. They crossed the kala pani, endured harsh conditions, long hours, poor wages and immense personal hardship.

Many never returned to India. Instead, they built new lives in Fiji. Their labour transformed the colony's economy. Their sacrifice built an industry that for more than a century became Fiji's largest export earner and the foundation of countless rural communities.

Every cane field carries the memory of Girmit. Every sugar mill stands as a reminder of that extraordinary human journey. For descendants of the Girmitiyas, sugar is far more than a crop. It is part of their identity. It is a living memorial to those who endured indenture and helped shape modern Fiji.

That history cannot be erased by economic statistics. Nor should it be.

But History Alone Cannot Sustain an Industry

Yet history, however important, cannot substitute for economic reality. The international sugar industry has changed beyond recognition. Countries that once competed alongside Fiji invested heavily in modernisation. Brazil developed a world-leading ethanol industry alongside sugar production. Australia embraced mechanised harvesting and cutting-edge milling technology. Thailand expanded production and export capacity. Mauritius diversified into premium sugars, renewable energy and high-value agricultural products.

Fiji largely failed to make that transition. Instead, ageing mills became increasingly unreliable. Mechanisation lagged behind. Production costs rose. Cane production declined. Young people left farming. The industry's competitiveness steadily weakened.

The Farmer Is Not the Villain

One of the greatest injustices in this debate would be to blame the farmer. Farmers did not create today's crisis. They did not allow mills to become obsolete. They did not negotiate the loss of preferential European Union sugar prices. They did not create uncertainty over agricultural leases. They did not design inconsistent government policies. Nor did they create the political instability that repeatedly disrupted Fiji's economic development.

For decades they continued planting cane despite declining returns, rising costs, labour shortages and repeated natural disasters. They have carried burdens not of their own making. When cane farmers defend sugar, they are not merely defending an industry. They are defending their livelihoods, their families and the communities that have depended upon sugar for generations.

The Cost of Political Failure

No honest assessment can ignore Fiji's political history. The sugar industry's decline did not occur in isolation.

The coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006 damaged investor confidence, disrupted long-term planning and diverted governments away from structural economic reform.

Land lease uncertainty discouraged investment.

Financial institutions became increasingly cautious.

Successive administrations frequently chose short-term political solutions over long-term restructuring. Sugar became another casualty of political indecision. Instead of preparing the industry for global competition, governments increasingly relied upon subsidies and debt write-offs.

That delayed difficult decisions. It did not solve the underlying problems.

Gounder Asked the Question Politicians Avoid

Whether one agrees with him or not, Shiri Gounder deserves credit for raising a question that many politicians have preferred not to ask.

Can Fiji continue spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars supporting an industry whose production continues to decline?

Every dollar directed towards sugar is a dollar unavailable for hospitals, schools, roads, climate resilience, water infrastructure or investment in emerging agricultural industries.

This is not an argument against farmers. It is an argument about public policy. Governments have an obligation to support vulnerable communities. They also have an obligation to spend taxpayers' money responsibly. Those responsibilities are sometimes difficult to reconcile.

But Government Cannot Simply Walk Away

Equally, Government cannot simply declare that sugar has no future and expect rural Fiji to absorb the consequences. Thousands of families still depend directly upon cane farming. Transport operators, harvesting contractors, engineering workshops, fertiliser suppliers and countless small businesses depend upon the annual crushing season.

An abrupt withdrawal of support would devastate entire communities.

Transition, if it comes, must therefore be gradual.

It must include financial assistance, retraining, infrastructure investment and genuine opportunities for alternative agriculture. Diversification is not achieved through speeches. It requires markets, investment, technical expertise and long-term planning.

Stop Selling False Hope

Perhaps the greatest failure of successive governments has been their reluctance to tell the public the truth.

If Fiji believes sugar remains commercially viable, then Government should present a comprehensive restructuring strategy. It should explain how mills will be modernised.

How harvesting will be mechanised.

How productivity will increase.

How ethanol production and renewable energy will expand.

How dependence on taxpayer subsidies will decline.

If, however, Government believes the industry can never again become internationally competitive, then it owes farmers honesty.

False hope is not policy.

Political slogans do not create profitable industries.

Sugar's Legacy Must Be Preserved

Even if the industry's economic role continues to diminish, its historical importance must never be forgotten.

The story of Girmit is inseparable from the story of sugar.

The preservation of old mills, railway systems, Girmit sites and plantation history should become part of Fiji's national heritage.

Future generations should understand that sugar was not simply an export commodity.
It shaped the country's demography, economy, politics and national identity.

Its history deserves preservation regardless of its commercial future.

The Choice Before Fiji

This debate is not a contest between economists and farmers. Nor is it a choice between preserving history and embracing reform. The real challenge is finding a path that honours both.

The cane farmer defending sugar is defending generations of sacrifice.

Shiri Gounder is defending the interests of taxpayers and the long-term sustainability of Fiji's public finances.

Both perspectives deserve respect.

But neither nostalgia nor sentiment can replace sound economic policy.

Fiji's sugar industry was built upon the extraordinary sacrifices of the Girmitiyas.

It became the foundation of modern Fiji and sustained the nation for more than a century.

Its decline was not inevitable.

It resulted from decades of political instability, ageing infrastructure, inconsistent policy, land tenure uncertainty, failure to modernise and an inability to adapt to a changing global marketplace.

The question facing Fiji today is not whether to honour that legacy.

It unquestionably should.

The question is whether the country has the courage to distinguish between preserving history and preserving an economic model that may no longer be sustainable.

History must be remembered.

Farmers must be protected.

Taxpayers deserve honesty.

And Fiji's leaders must finally choose between continuing to manage decline or undertaking the difficult reforms that should have begun decades ago.

The legacy of Girmit deserves nothing less.

From Indenture to Innovation: What Fiji Can Learn from the Mauritian Sugar Industry Without Forgetting the Shared Legacy of the Girmityas

The history of Fiji and Mauritius is intertwined by one of the darkest chapters of the British Empire: the indenture system. Between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, thousands of Indian labourers, dismissively labelled "coolies" by colonial authorities, were transported across the oceans to work on sugar plantations after the abolition of slavery. Their sweat built two sugar economies. Their suffering laid the foundations of two modern nations.

Yet while both countries inherited almost identical colonial structures, their sugar industries have travelled in markedly different directions.

Mauritius has managed, despite severe challenges, to restructure and diversify its industry. Fiji's sugar sector, by contrast, has endured decades of declining production, ageing farmers, deteriorating infrastructure and persistent political interference.

The comparison is not perfect. Mauritius and Fiji differ in geography, population, market access and political economy. Nevertheless, the Mauritian experience offers valuable lessons as Fiji debates whether sugar still has a future.

A Common Beginning

Both industries were born under British colonial rule. Indentured labourers from India arrived in Mauritius from 1834 onwards and in Fiji from 1879 until 1916. In both colonies, labourers signed contracts they scarcely understood, endured harsh plantation discipline, low wages and racial discrimination, and, after completing their contracts, many remained as small farmers rather than returning to India.

Sugar became more than an export crop. It became the economic foundation upon which schools, roads, ports, towns and government revenues depended.

For descendants of the Girmitiyas in Fiji, sugar is inseparable from memory. Every cane field carries echoes of the indenture lines, overseers' whips, broken promises and remarkable resilience. That historical reality cannot be erased simply because the industry is no longer commercially dominant.

Mauritius Faced Crisis Earlier

Mauritius did not escape hardship. Like Fiji, it confronted declining European sugar prices, rising labour costs, competition from larger producers and shrinking preferential access to overseas markets.

Rather than treating every crisis as temporary, Mauritian governments gradually accepted that the industry had to transform.

That transformation did not mean abandoning sugar overnight.

It meant changing what sugar represented.

From Sugar to a Sugar Economy

Mauritius increasingly shifted from selling raw sugar to extracting value from every part of the sugar cane. Today, cane supports multiple industries:

refined and speciality sugars;
electricity generation through bagasse;
ethanol and industrial alcohol;
rum production;
bio-based products;
tourism linked to plantation heritage.

Instead of relying entirely upon volatile raw sugar exports, the industry became part of a broader bio-economy. Sugar remained important. But it was no longer expected to carry the entire economy.

Consolidation Instead of Fragmentation

Mauritius also recognised that fragmented production reduced efficiency. Mills were modernised. Many inefficient factories were closed. Mechanisation increased. Supply chains became more integrated. These decisions were politically difficult. Communities feared job losses. Governments faced criticism.

Yet delaying reform would almost certainly have produced an even deeper crisis later.
Fiji has often postponed difficult decisions. Instead of long-term restructuring, governments have repeatedly announced rescue packages, subsidies and promises that production would soon recover. Each new crop season becomes another emergency.

Institutions Matter

Mauritius gradually strengthened institutions responsible for research, marketing, extension services and industry planning. Research into higher-yield cane varieties continued. Farmers received technical support. Industry decisions increasingly reflected commercial realities rather than purely political considerations.

Fiji once possessed internationally respected sugar research capacity. Many of those capabilities have weakened through years of under-investment, institutional instability and declining confidence.

Diversification Beyond Agriculture

Perhaps the greatest Mauritian achievement lay outside sugar itself. Recognising that sugar alone could never sustain national prosperity, Mauritius deliberately diversified into textiles, financial services, tourism, higher education, information technology; and offshore business services.

As these sectors expanded, sugar no longer carried the burden of employing large sections of the population or generating the majority of export earnings.

Fiji has diversified in important ways, particularly through tourism, but sugar policy has often remained trapped in the assumption that cane production can somehow return to the levels achieved decades ago.

Demography alone makes that unlikely.

The Human Challenge

Both countries have ageing farming populations. Young people increasingly prefer urban employment. Farming is physically demanding. Returns are uncertain. Climate change has intensified weather risks.

Mauritius responded partly through mechanisation and consolidation. Fiji still faces major labour shortages in harvesting and transport. Without addressing rural labour realities, production targets risk becoming political slogans rather than economic forecasts.

Heritage Has Economic Value

Mauritius has also embraced its sugar history as part of its national heritage. Former sugar estates now house museums, cultural centres, restaurants and tourist attractions.

The history of indenture became part of national identity rather than something hidden away.

Fiji possesses equally powerful historical assets.

The story of the Leonidas, the Girmitiyas, CSR, colonial plantations and the eventual emergence of Indo-Fijian farming communities represents a unique chapter of global migration history.

That history deserves preservation irrespective of the industry's commercial future.

Lessons for Fiji

The Mauritian experience suggests several lessons. First, sentiment cannot substitute for economics. Governments cannot indefinitely sustain an industry simply through subsidies if productivity continues to decline.

Second, diversification creates resilience. Sugar should become one component of a wider rural economy rather than its sole foundation.

Third, value addition matters more than volume alone. Fiji should increasingly explore refined sugars, specialty products, ethanol, renewable energy, premium rum and other downstream industries.

Fourth, research and innovation require sustained investment. Improved cane varieties, mechanisation and modern milling technologies are essential if production is to remain competitive.

Finally, history should not be sacrificed in pursuit of reform. The legacy of indenture belongs to the nation, not merely to the sugar industry.

Fiji Must Avoid False Choices

The debate should not be framed as choosing between saving sugar and abandoning it. Nor should it descend into romantic nostalgia that ignores economic reality.

The real question is whether Fiji can transform its sugar sector into a modern agricultural and bio-industrial enterprise while preserving the extraordinary legacy of the Girmitiyas who built it.

Mauritius demonstrates that transformation is possible.

It also demonstrates that transformation demands political courage, institutional competence and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths before circumstances force them upon the nation.

Sugar gave both Mauritius and Fiji their economic beginnings.

But history teaches that industries survive not because governments wish them to survive, but because they adapt.

For Fiji, the greatest lesson from Mauritius may therefore be this: honour the sacrifices of the descendants of the indentured labourers not by preserving yesterday's industry unchanged, but by ensuring that their descendants inherit an economy capable of thriving in tomorrow's world.

The Unfinished Lesson - Land Security:

There is, however, one crucial difference between Mauritius and Fiji that no discussion of sugar can honestly ignore.

Mauritius did not have to contend with the recurring uncertainty over agricultural land leases that has haunted Fiji's cane industry for decades. While Mauritian cane farmers generally enjoyed far greater long-term security over the land they cultivated, many of Fiji's cane farmers have lived under the constant shadow of expiring leases under the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act (ALTA) and the transition to native leases.

Beginning in the late 1990s, thousands of Indo-Fijian cane farmers either lost their leases or chose to leave farming because they could no longer justify investing in land that they might be required to surrender. Others continued farming under the persistent uncertainty that the next lease renewal was never guaranteed. For a farmer deciding whether to plant a crop that takes years to mature, invest in irrigation, purchase machinery or improve soil quality, security of tenure is not an abstract legal concept. It is the foundation of every economic decision.

The consequences were profound. Families who had cultivated the same cane fields for generations left rural communities. Mills lost growers. Schools, businesses and entire settlements that had depended on the sugar economy declined alongside them. The industry's shrinking production cannot be understood without recognising the central role that land insecurity played.

Many indigenous iTaukei landowners exercised their lawful rights not to renew leases, while others negotiated new arrangements. Yet, irrespective of the legal position, the cumulative effect of lease expiries and the continuing perception that agricultural land could be reclaimed or might not be renewed created an atmosphere of uncertainty that discouraged long-term investment throughout the industry.

That is perhaps the greatest lesson separating Mauritius from Fiji.

A successful sugar industry requires more than fertile soil, modern mills and government subsidies. It requires confidence that those who cultivate the land will be able to continue cultivating it long enough to justify investing in its future.

The descendants of the Girmitiyas transformed wilderness into productive cane fields over generations. Many did so believing that hard work and stewardship would secure a future for their children. Too often, that confidence was shattered when leases expired or renewal became uncertain.

No agricultural industry can flourish where investment is constantly overshadowed by insecurity of tenure. Until Fiji finds a durable and mutually beneficial framework that respects both iTaukei ownership rights and provides genuine long-term certainty for productive farmers, the country will continue to struggle to emulate the achievements of Mauritius.

That may well be the most enduring lesson of all: sugar can survive droughts, cyclones and fluctuating world prices but no industry can prosper indefinitely when those who work the land fear that one day the land beneath their feet may no longer be theirs to farm.

SHOCKING FROM A FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE: DANIEL FATIAKI Says Cabinet Can Reject the Supreme Court's Opinion, for "opinion is merely advisory, does not bind Parliament or Cabinet, and may be disregarded"

11/7/2026

*Should a former Chief Justice be encouraging the political branches of government to disregard the constitutional guidance of the country's highest court?

*A former Chief Justice is expected to be an unwavering defender of constitutionalism, judicial independence and the rule of law. For that reason, his suggestion that Cabinet could reject the Supreme Court's constitutional opinion and move directly towards replacing the Constitution is likely to generate considerable debate within Fiji's legal community.

*This is the same former Chief Justice who, following the 2006 coup, accepted $275,000 settlement from the post-coup regime and withdrew his legal challenge to his removal from office. Those events form part of the public record. Today, in his submission to the Constitution Review Commission, he argues that Cabinet may disregard the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the 2013 Constitution. Readers are entitled to assess the significance of those facts for themselves.

Former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki's Constitution Review Commission Submission Raises Serious Questions About the Rule of Law

Former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki, in his submission to the Constitution Review Commission (CRC), advanced one of the most controversial legal arguments in the current debate over Fiji's constitutional future.

According to Fatiaki, the Supreme Court's Opinion of 29 August 2025 on the 2013 Constitution is advisory only and is not binding on Parliament or Cabinet. He argued that:

the Supreme Court's opinion is advisory rather than determinative;
it binds only the courts and not Parliament or Cabinet;
section 91(5), which empowers Cabinet to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on constitutional questions, is "an aberration" because it places the Court outside its normal appellate function;
because the opinion was delivered under the Court's original jurisdiction rather than its appellate jurisdiction, it should not be treated as equivalent to a final judgment;
Cabinet is legally entitled to reject the opinion because it is merely an opinion; and
section 98 of the 2013 Constitution makes only Supreme Court "decisions" binding on other courts and says nothing about advisory opinions.

On that basis, Fatiaki suggested that the Government could establish a body to draft a new Constitution, exclude the constitutional immunity provisions, and hold a general election under the new constitutional order.

His recommendation regarding immunity was equally direct. He argued that the immunity chapter should simply be removed from the Constitution altogether and, if immunity is considered necessary, Parliament could enact an ordinary Immunity Act instead.

Those submissions undoubtedly raise legitimate constitutional questions worthy of debate.

However, they also raise a much larger question.

Should a former Chief Justice be encouraging the political branches of government to disregard the constitutional guidance of the country's highest court?

There is nothing unusual about constitutional lawyers disagreeing over the interpretation of a constitution. Courts themselves frequently revisit earlier decisions. But there is an important distinction between criticising judicial reasoning and suggesting that the Executive and Parliament may simply ignore the Supreme Court's constitutional opinion whenever it proves inconvenient.

Even if one accepts Fatiaki's proposition that the opinion is technically advisory, it does not automatically follow that Parliament is free to bypass the Constitution currently in force. The Government remains subject to the Constitution until it is lawfully replaced.

There is also an obvious constitutional paradox.

Fatiaki argues that the Supreme Court's opinion binds only the courts. If the Government were to ignore that opinion and proceed to adopt an entirely new Constitution outside the existing constitutional framework, any legal challenge would inevitably return to those very courts. Those courts, by Fatiaki's own reasoning, would be bound to apply the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation when determining the legality of the Government's actions.

The question of constitutional immunity presents a similar distinction. Whether immunity ought to remain in the Constitution is a legitimate matter for public debate. Many constitutional scholars oppose entrenched immunity clauses on rule-of-law grounds.

But the method by which immunity is removed is every bit as important as the objective itself. Constitutional reform must itself be constitutionally lawful.

What makes Fatiaki's submission particularly significant is not simply the substance of his legal arguments but the office he once held. A former Chief Justice is expected to be an unwavering defender of constitutionalism, judicial independence and the rule of law.

For that reason, his suggestion that Cabinet could reject the Supreme Court's constitutional opinion and move directly towards replacing the Constitution is likely to generate considerable debate within Fiji's legal community.

If Fiji is to replace the 2013 Constitution, it should do so through a process whose legality is beyond dispute. Otherwise, the country risks creating yet another constitutional controversy in a nation that has already experienced repeated constitutional ruptures since 1987.

That is why Daniel Fatiaki's submission to the Constitution Review Commission deserves close scrutiny. It is not merely another opinion in the public debate. It is the considered view of a former Chief Justice, and for precisely that reason it demands the most rigorous legal examination.

TRUTH WITHOUT THE WHOLE TRUTH? GEORGE SPEIGHT'S Apology Cannot Replace Full Account of the 2000 Coup. Speight claims Truth and Reconciliation Commission doesn't have authority to achieve its purpose

9/7/2026

SPEIGHT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PARADOX: 1997 or 2013 Constitution

Twenty-six years after overthrowing Fiji's elected government and denouncing the 1997 Constitution as inadequate for protecting indigenous iTaukei interests, George Speight has returned to the constitutional debate. In his submission to the Constitution Review Commission, he branded the 2013 Constitution "unfair and unjust", describing its immunity provisions as "a recipe for disaster". His latest intervention raises an unavoidable historical question: having rejected the 1997 Constitution and now condemning the 2013 Constitution, what constitutional order does George Speight ultimately regard as legitimate?

FRONTMAN: The Racist and Terrifying Face of the 2000 Coup

"The central purpose of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not merely to hear expressions of regret. It is to establish, as comprehensively as possible, the historical record. That means moving beyond the public face of events to uncover how they were conceived, organised, financed and sustained. The question that has haunted Fiji since May 2000 has never been confined to George Speight himself. It has always been: who else? Who encouraged the enterprise? Who financed it? Who provided logistical support?
Who supplied intelligence? Who expected to benefit politically or economically from the overthrow of the elected government? Who worked behind the scenes while allowing Speight to become the public face of the coup?
These are not idle questions."

SPEIGHT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PARADOX: From Rejecting the 1997 Constitution to Condemning the 2013 Constitution.
Which Constitution Would He Accept?

George Speight now says that Fiji has "a great deal of hurt" and that he is responsible for a large part of it.

It is a significant admission. It acknowledges, albeit belatedly, the immense human, political and constitutional damage caused by the events of May 2000. Thousands of ordinary Fijians, of every race and political persuasion, continue to live with the consequences of that coup. Institutions were weakened, governments destabilised, confidence in democracy shattered and the culture of military and political intervention deepened.

An acknowledgement of responsibility is therefore welcome. But acknowledgement is not the same as accountability. Nor is remorse a substitute for truth.

The central purpose of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not merely to hear expressions of regret. It is to establish, as comprehensively as possible, the historical record. That means moving beyond the public face of events to uncover how they were conceived, organised, financed and sustained.

The question that has haunted Fiji since May 2000 has never been confined to George Speight himself. It has always been: who else?

Who encouraged the enterprise? Who financed it? Who provided logistical support?
Who supplied intelligence? Who expected to benefit politically or economically from the overthrow of the elected government? Who worked behind the scenes while allowing Speight to become the public face of the coup?

These are not idle questions. They are questions that have occupied journalists, academics, lawyers, investigators and ordinary citizens for more than a quarter of a century.

Many participants have died. Others have faded from public life. Documents have disappeared. Memories have become less reliable.

Every year that passes makes the task of establishing the truth more difficult. That is precisely why testimony before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission matters.

A private apology or carefully crafted public statement cannot answer those larger questions.

Only a detailed examination of evidence, and the willingness of those who participated to tell the whole story, can do that. No serious student of Fiji's constitutional history believes that the 2000 coup was simply the work of one individual acting in isolation.

Large political upheavals rarely occur that way.

History teaches us that coups involve networks: political allies, financiers, sympathisers, organisers and opportunists. Some play visible roles. Others remain in the shadows. Some emerge years later. Others never do.

Whether such individuals existed in relation to the 2000 coup, and what role they may have played, are precisely the kinds of issues that deserve careful examination based on evidence rather than rumour.

That is why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission carries such an important responsibility. It is not a court. Its purpose is not to secure convictions. Its responsibility is to establish as complete a historical record as possible.

That record should not stop with the men who occupied Parliament. It should extend to everyone who may have encouraged, supported or facilitated the events that unfolded.
Truth commissions around the world have demonstrated that national reconciliation depends upon disclosure rather than selective memory.

Victims deserve more than expressions of sorrow. They deserve answers. Future generations deserve more than simplified narratives. They deserve documented history.

Fiji, perhaps more than most countries, understands the cost of leaving difficult questions unresolved.

The coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006 were not isolated constitutional accidents.

Each altered the political landscape. Each reshaped institutions. Each influenced those that followed. Each left unanswered questions that continue to divide opinion decades later.

One of the greatest dangers confronting any truth commission is the temptation to settle for partial truth. Partial truth is often politically convenient. It is rarely historically satisfactory.

If key witnesses choose not to participate, that is, of course, their legal right. No one should be compelled to incriminate themselves beyond the limits of the law.

But history will inevitably record not only what they admitted, but also what they chose not to explain.

The Commission should therefore continue gathering documentary evidence, hearing other witnesses, examining official records and testing competing accounts. No single witness should become the gatekeeper of Fiji's history.

Equally, if George Speight ultimately decides to appear before the Commission, he has an opportunity that very few people are ever given. He can help complete the historical record. He can explain decisions that have remained unexplained for twenty-six years. He can clarify relationships that have long been debated. He can distinguish fact from myth. He can answer questions that countless victims, families and citizens have carried for a generation.

Whether he chooses to do so is ultimately his decision. But the Commission's responsibility remains unchanged. It must pursue the truth wherever the evidence leads. Because reconciliation built upon incomplete truth is fragile.

Justice built upon selective memory is uncertain.

And history written without the courage to ask difficult questions is not history at all. For Fiji to move forward with confidence, the nation requires not merely remorse from those who shaped its darkest chapters, but the fullest possible account of how those chapters came to be written.

Dr Anirudh Singh

From Fijileaks Archives, 14 June 2014

From Fijileaks Archive, 25 July 2014

Excerpt from Victor Lal: Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention:

"Ratu Inoke Kubuabola told Islands Business magazine of May 1988 that for more than six hours on April 19 he and Rabuka, later joined by Jone Veisamasama, 'talked about different options'. It was on 19 April that the groundwork for the coup was laid and according to Kubuabola, 11 May was the day his co-conspirators decided to proceed with its execution. He also claims that when it was learnt that Parliament would not sit on Friday they had agreed to bring forward the coup to Thursday.

Another crucial intermediary between the Taukei Movement and the military, the Rev Tomasi Raikivi, provided his house in Suva as a centre for overall planning. Thus it was there that Rabuka met the other conspirators on Easter Monday, nine days after the defeat of the Alliance Party.

We will let Rabuka explain the rest, as he did to Eddie Dean and Stan Ritova in his infamous autobiography No Other Way. He went to Rev Raikivi's for, ' … What he understood was an ordinary 'grog' party. It was early evening, and he just walked in, as he normally would, throwing his 'sevusevu' of yagona towards the bowl where the 'grog' was being mixed. 'I saw all these people sitting down, and realised it was some kind of a meeting. Some of the people greeted me, although I could not see everyone clearly because it was fairly dark in the lounge-room. Nobody asked me to leave.' When his eyes adjusted to the darkness, he discovered the gathering was 'quite a formidable group'.

He says it included Ratu Finau Mara, Ratu George Kadavulevu, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, Ratu Keni Viuyasawa, the brother of Brigadier Epeli Nailatikau, Filipe Bole, Ratu Jo Ritova of Labasa, Ratu Jale Ratum, 'Big Dan' Veitata, and the host Raikivi. Another leading light at this meeting was Apisai Tora.''

CRYING AS THE GALLOWS LOOMED: GEORGE SPEIGHT WEPT AS HE WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR TREASON

In February 2002, it fell to Justice Michael Scott to sentence failed coup leader George Speight to death for treason.

After placing the traditional black silk cap over his judicial wig, Justice Scott pronounced the sentence:

"George Speight, the sentence of the court upon you is that you be taken from this place to a lawful prison and thence to a place of execution and that you there suffer death by hanging, and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul."

The events of May 2000 have been an unmitigated catastrophe for Fiji, but also for you. By pleading guilty you have done the right thing, and I am certain you will be given credit for the course you have taken. I have no option but to pass the sentence laid down by law."

Yesterday's self-styled nationalist and macho strongman, George Speight, broke down and wept uncontrollably even before the sentence was formally delivered. He was immediately escorted from the courtroom after the proceedings.

However, Speight never faced the gallows. Within hours, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by President Josefa Iloilo.

The Attorney-General, Qoriniasi Bale, later told waiting journalists: "We convened a special meeting of the Prerogative of Mercy Commission and, after considering all relevant factors, advised the President to commute the death penalty imposed on George Speight to one of life imprisonment."

Bale said one of the principal considerations was the security of the nation, amid fears that carrying out the execution could trigger further unrest.

1981: Victor Lal with Chief Registrar Michael Scott, Who Later as Fiji High Court Judge, Pronounced the Court's Death Sentence on George Speight for Treason

USPSA FORENSIC REPORT: Allegations of FORGERY, Abuse of Office, Mismanagement and Governance Failures Resulting in $172,667.91 in Losses at USP Student Associations. Fiji Police Probe Recommended

3/7/2026

The forensic accounting report prepared by Dr Ilimotama Cawi (PhD, CPA, ACFE), an independent forensic accountant engaged to investigate the financial affairs of the University of the South Pacific Students Association (USPSA) Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch, paints a troubling picture of alleged financial misconduct, governance failures, abuse of office and systemic administrative breakdown within student governance structures during 2024–2025.

The investigation concluded that the combined economic loss to USPSA Federal and USPSA Laucala Branch amounted to $172,667.91, which the report attributes to a combination of financial greed, corrupt practices, abuse of office, obtaining financial advantage by deception, aiding and abetting, negligence, poor governance and mismanagement of funds.

Importantly, the report stresses that while USP itself established the student association under the University's Charter, the University is not legally liable for debts or liabilities incurred by the student organisation.

Breakdown of the Alleged Financial Losses

The forensic investigation identified five principal areas of loss:

Overseas travel and forgery: $12,516
Unpaid catering and borrowings through Navintees/Sashi: $123,614.35
Borrowings from USPSA Service Centre: $25,912.80
Unpaid student allowances: $1,500
USPSA Federal Auckland travel expenses: $9,124.76

These losses together totalled $172,667.91.

Sasa Biutiviti - Central Figure

Central Figure: Sasa Biutiviti

The report places the greatest responsibility on Sasa Biutiviti, who served as Finance Officer of the USPSA Laucala Branch. According to the findings, Biutiviti was allegedly involved in multiple acts of misconduct, including:

forging signatures;
obtaining financial advantage by deception;
abuse of office;
conflict of interest;
failure to repay borrowed funds;
misuse of disbursed university funds;
negligence in performing financial duties;
poor record-keeping and financial administration.

The report further states that Biutiviti admitted in writing that he had forged signatures relating to travel arrangements for a USPSA Federal Council meeting in the Cook Islands.

The Cook Islands "Observers" Trip and Alleged Forgery

One of the most serious findings concerns travel arrangements for three iTaukei student "observers" to attend the USPSA Federal Council meeting in the Cook Islands in November 2024.

The forensic report found that on 18 November 2024, Sasa Biutiviti allegedly forged the signatures of Dwayne Koroka, President of USPSA Laucala Branch; and Teligafou Sakaio, Vice-President of USPSA Laucala Branch.

The forged documents allegedly authorised travel costing $12,516, comprising airfare costs for Sasa Biutiviti, Asupa Balemaihawai, and Osea Kaloutani.

The report notes that the trip proposal had previously been discussed and rejected by the relevant iTaukei student council processes and therefore should not have proceeded.

Emosi Vakarua

The report identifies Emosi Vakarua, Secretary-General of USPSA Federal, as having approved and stamped documentation despite the absence of the required signatures from the Laucala Branch President and Vice-President.

The report further concludes that Vakarua:

failed to exercise due care;
failed to ensure constitutional compliance;
approved transactions that bypassed required approval mechanisms;
verbally approved certain borrowings; and
failed to act upon grievances subsequently raised.

The report therefore recommends both disciplinary action and police referral in relation to aspects of his conduct.

Lepani Naqarase

The forensic investigation also focuses heavily on Lepani Naqarase, Deputy Secretary-General of USPSA Federal.

According to the report, Naqarase:

insisted that the Cook Islands proposal proceed;
allegedly aided and abetted the approval process;
had an undisclosed personal interest in one of the proposed observers;
failed to declare that conflict of interest;
utilised the category of "observers" to facilitate the participation; and
failed to act after receiving grievances concerning the matter.

The report further notes that similar "observer" arrangements allegedly occurred previously during a USPSA Council meeting in Vanuatu.

Manasa Navara

The report identifies Manasa Navara, President of the iTaukei Students Association (ITSA), as another significant participant.

According to the findings:

Navara received and distributed borrowed funds;
participated in the approval and organisation of events financed through borrowed monies;
insisted on the participation of the Cook Islands observers despite constitutional concerns; and
allegedly aided and abetted actions undertaken by Sasa Biutiviti.

The report recommends that Navara also be referred to police for criminal investigation.

Osea Kaloutani and Asupa Balemaihawai

The report identifies Osea Kaloutani and Asupa Balemaihawai as two of the three beneficiaries selected to attend the Cook Islands meeting as observers.

However, the report does not make direct criminal findings against them.

Rather, they appear primarily as participants in the disputed observer travel arrangements.

Navintees Borrowings and Catering Debts

The largest financial loss identified concerns debts owed to Navintees Restaurant (Sashi) amounting to $123,614.35.

This consisted of $21,000 owed by the iTaukei Students Association; and $102,614.35 owed by USPSA Laucala Branch.

The report found that borrowed funds were repeatedly used to finance student activities due to chronic cash shortages and poor financial controls.

Investigators also found discrepancies in invoicing practices, including examples where catering invoices allegedly exceeded services actually provided.

USPSA Service Centre Borrowings

The forensic investigation found that USPSA Laucala Branch borrowed $25,912.80 from the USPSA Service Centre during 2024 and 2025.

According to the report:

the funds were borrowed due to insufficient cash reserves;
repayments were not made despite subsequent university disbursements; and
financial management processes were inadequate.

Unpaid Student Allowances

The report identified unpaid student sitting allowances amounting to approximately $1,500, which investigators attributed to failures by the finance office to properly administer and repay allocated funds.

USPSA Federal Governance Failures

The forensic accountant Cawi concluded that USPSA Federal itself failed to fulfil its constitutional role as the supervisory body responsible for ensuring good governance among branch associations.

The report found:

inadequate oversight;
failure to investigate complaints;
inadequate constitutional compliance monitoring;
absence of effective internal controls;
insufficient risk management;
lack of proper audit processes; and
systemic governance failures.

The report also noted that an internal audit by Grant Thornton Fiji had identified approximately $56,600 in personal funds being used to finance operational activities, itself described as a breach of USPSA by-laws.

Auckland Travel Expenditure

The investigation further found that Poonam Singh, USPSA Federal Finance Officer; and Kaushal Sen, USPSA Federal intern, incurred expenditure amounting to $9,124.76 relating to travel to Auckland for a USPSA Council meeting in 2025.

The report records these expenditures as part of the overall financial losses under investigation.

Key Recommendations

The forensic report makes several significant recommendations.

Criminal referrals to Fiji Police

The report recommends that the following individuals be referred to the Fiji Police Force:

Sasa Biutiviti for alleged abuse of office, forgery, obtaining financial advantage by deception, conflict of interest and misuse of funds;
Emosi Vakarua for alleged corrupt practices and aiding and abetting;
Lepani Naqarase for alleged corrupt practices and aiding and abetting; and
Manasa Navara for alleged corrupt practices and aiding and abetting.

Disciplinary action

The report also recommends disciplinary action against:

Emosi Vakarua;
Lepani Naqarase; and
Sasa Biutiviti, for negligence, failure to perform constitutional duties and breach of financial responsibilities.

Financial reforms

The report further recommends:

settlement of outstanding Navintees debts;
cessation of the practice of USPSA Federal overriding branch decisions;
strengthening of governance structures;
improved financial controls;
improved risk management systems;
enhanced internal auditing; and
stronger constitutional compliance mechanisms.

Conclusion

The forensic report presents what is arguably one of the most serious internal governance crises to emerge within USP student governance structures. It alleges not merely accounting irregularities, but a broader pattern of forged documents, unauthorised travel approvals, conflicts of interest, misuse of funds, governance failures and alleged criminal conduct involving both branch and federal student office bearers.

Whether the findings ultimately result in criminal prosecutions or disciplinary sanctions will depend on the actions taken by the relevant authorities, but the report itself concludes that the combined failures of individuals and institutions resulted in losses exceeding $172,000 and exposed fundamental weaknesses in the governance architecture of USPSA Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch.

About Dr Ilimotama Cawi

Dr Ilimotama Cawi (PhD, CPA, ACFE) is an independent forensic accountant with more than 35 years of experience in forensic accounting investigations involving both criminal and civil matters across the public and private sectors. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Accountancy specialising in Forensic Accounting, a Master of Forensic Accounting with Distinction, and undergraduate degrees in Accounting, Banking, Finance, Economics and Management. He is a Certified Practising Accountant (CPA Australia) and a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), where he is recognised as a Certified Forensic Accountant Specialist. Cawi states that he has served on the boards and committees of several major organisations, including Fijian Holdings Limited and Basic Industries Limited, where his responsibilities included the preparation, scrutiny and oversight of budgets, financial affairs and financial statements. His doctoral research examined the role of forensic accounting experts in assisting courts to understand complex financial matters, including fraud, corruption and financial misconduct. In the USPSA matter, he was engaged as an independent forensic accountant to investigate the financial affairs, governance structures and alleged fraudulent activities within USPSA Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch.

FROM PORT VILA TO THE FORENSIC REPORT: The USPSA Laucala Delegation at the 28th USPSA Council Meeting in Vanuatu

This photograph captures members of the USPSA Laucala delegation attending the 28th USPSA Council Meeting held in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in June 2024, several months before some of the same individuals would later feature prominently in the independent forensic accounting investigation into the affairs of USPSA Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch.

Pictured from left to right are Sasa Biutiviti, Finance Officer of USPSA Laucala Branch; Ricky Pana, Postgraduate Representative; Teligafou Sakaio, Vice-President of USPSA Laucala Branch; Nofo Hakaumotu, President of the Tongan Students Association (TSA); and Manasa Navara, President of the iTaukei Students Association (ITSA).

The delegates are dressed in matching kalavata, reflecting the cultural identity and solidarity of the Laucala campus delegation participating in the regional student governance meeting.

The Vanuatu Council Meeting itself is referenced in the forensic accounting report prepared by Dr Ilimotama Cawi, although not as a subject of direct financial loss findings. Rather, the report refers to the Vanuatu meeting in the context of the use of the category of "observers", noting that a similar arrangement had allegedly been used during the Vanuatu meeting before reappearing in the controversial Cook Islands trip of November 2024.

Of the individuals pictured, Sasa Biutiviti and Manasa Navara later became central figures in the forensic investigation. The report alleges that Biutiviti, as Finance Officer, was involved in acts of forgery, abuse of office, obtaining financial advantage by deception, and mismanagement of funds, while Navara, as ITSA President, was alleged to have participated in and supported certain decisions relating to the disputed Cook Islands observer delegation and borrowings associated with ITSA activities.

The report also records that Teligafou Sakaio, as Vice-President of USPSA Laucala Branch, was one of the office bearers whose signature was allegedly forged by Biutiviti in relation to the approval documentation for the Cook Islands trip.

While the photograph captures a moment of regional student representation and camaraderie at the 28th USPSA Council Meeting in Port Vila, it has acquired additional historical significance because several of the office bearers depicted later became key participants, witnesses, or subjects in a forensic investigation that ultimately identified alleged losses of $172,667.91 arising from what the report described as financial mismanagement, governance failures, abuse of office and other irregular practices within USPSA Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch.

Electoral Commission Rejects Call for an Independent Investigation into FEO conduct. As a lawyer and former Supervisor of Elections, Should Mohammed Saneem Have Known the Correct Constitutional Process?

2/7/2026

A Brief Note To Our Readers: Fijileaks has been somewhat inactive in recent weeks because your Founding Editor has been travelling abroad and therefore temporarily absent from his "tent on Oxford Street, London", the location from which, according to NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad, Fiji's political destiny is apparently plotted after "a few more bottles of beer." Consequently, publication may remain intermittent over the next weeks. However, readers, critics, political leaders and their media surrogates can rest assured that your Founding Editor will return to his Oxford Street tent to resume normal operations, armed with a laptop, Wi-Fi, and an undiminished appetite for asking inconvenient questions.

Electoral Commission Rejects Saneem's Call for Independent Investigation:

A Question of Process and Jurisdiction

The Electoral Commission of Fiji has formally declined former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem's request for the establishment of an Independent Investigation Committee to investigate the conduct of four Fiji Elections Office officials.

In a statement issued on 2 July 2026 and signed by Electoral Commission Chairperson Justice Usaia Ratuvili, the Commission said that after careful consideration, it had concluded that the matters raised by Saneem fall outside its constitutional mandate and should instead be dealt with by the Constitutionally mandated authorities.

The Commission's Position

The Electoral Commission confirmed that it had reviewed Saneem's request and was aware of the findings delivered by the Chief Justice Salesi Temo in Criminal Case HC 165 of 2025 involving Saneem and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

However, the Commission stated that disciplinary matters concerning the Supervisor of Elections and staff of the Fiji Elections Office fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC), noting that Saneem himself had already lodged a formal complaint with that body.

The Commission further emphasised that the appointment, terms and conditions of employment, and removal of former Fiji Elections Office officials are matters governed by the legal framework regulating the Supervisor of Elections and the Constitutional Offices Commission, rather than by the Electoral Commission itself.

As a result, the Electoral Commission said it would await the outcome of the relevant constitutional processes.

The statement also reaffirmed that the Electoral Commission remains the constitutional custodian of elections and is focused on preparations for the 2026 General Election.

A Procedural Rather Than Political Response

The Electoral Commission's response is notable not for what it says about the merits of Saneem's allegations, but for what it says about constitutional process.

The Commission has not rejected Saneem's complaints outright. Rather, it has taken the position that the complaints must be addressed through the correct constitutional channels. In effect, the Commission has drawn a clear distinction between its role as overseer of electoral processes and the separate responsibilities vested in the Constitutional Offices Commission regarding employment, disciplinary and administrative matters involving the Supervisor of Elections.

This distinction is important because Fiji's constitutional framework deliberately separates electoral oversight from employment and disciplinary jurisdiction over constitutional office holders.

Should Saneem Have Known Better?

The Commission's response inevitably raises a broader question: whether Mohammed Saneem, as both a lawyer and Fiji's former Supervisor of Elections, should already have been fully aware of these constitutional boundaries.

Saneem served as Supervisor of Elections for almost a decade and operated at the centre of Fiji's constitutional and electoral architecture. As a legally trained professional who worked extensively with the Electoral Commission, the Constitutional Offices Commission and other constitutional bodies, he would be expected to possess a detailed understanding of where disciplinary authority and investigative powers lie.

Indeed, the Electoral Commission itself noted that Saneem had already lodged his complaint with the Constitutional Offices Commission — the very body constitutionally empowered to deal with such matters.

That reality may lead some observers to conclude that the request for an independent committee was less a matter of legal uncertainty and more an attempt to seek an additional avenue of review or to place public pressure on the relevant institutions.

Looking Ahead

The Electoral Commission's statement effectively closes one avenue pursued by Saneem while leaving open the constitutional process already underway before the Constitutional Offices Commission.

For now, the Commission has signalled that it intends to remain focused on its primary constitutional responsibility: ensuring that preparations for Fiji's next general election proceed without interruption.

Whether Saneem's complaints ultimately result in further investigation will now depend not on the Electoral Commission, but on the institutions that the Constitution specifically empowers to consider them.

COMING SOON: IF SANEEM'S CONTRACT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, WHAT ABOUT HIS ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT? Revisiting the 'Cutting Corner' Questions That Never Went Away

From Fijileaks Archive

WHO GETS PAID TWICE? Mataqali Nabukarabe's Watering Compensation Demand and the Forgotten Fiji Taxpayer. The WATER Authority of Fiji is NOT a Milking Cow, with Mataqali threatening to cut off the Water SUPPLY

23/6/2026

*If one citizen receives only the general benefits available to everyone, while another receives those same benefits plus lease income, resource compensation, royalty payments, and communal grants, is the overall distribution of public and economic benefits still equitable?

The dispute over compensation payments to Mataqali Nabukarabe for the Nasarava Water Catchment in Vanua Levu raises a question that Fiji's political leaders seem increasingly reluctant to answer: Where does this end?

According to public reports, the mataqali negotiated a compensation package exceeding $1.4 million for the use of the Nasarava water source. More than $600,000 has already been paid, with the balance still outstanding.

The dispute has now escalated to threats that the water supply serving thousands of residents in Labasa could be disrupted unless the remaining payments are made. The Minister for Lands, Filimoni Vosarogo, has urged patience and assured the landowners that payment will eventually be completed.

But the real issue is not whether government should honour a lawful agreement.

It should. The real issue is what Fiji has become. Increasingly, the country resembles a resource-rent state in which every river, water source, forestry operation, quarry, tourism development, road project and infrastructure investment becomes another opportunity for compensation claims funded by the public purse.

And the public purse is not an abstract concept.

It consists of money contributed by every taxpayer in Fiji.

The shopkeeper in Labasa.
The market vendor in Suva.
The cane farmer in Ba.
The Indo-Fijian businessman in Nadi.
The Chinese entrepreneur in Lautoka.
The Rotuman teacher.
The part-European civil servant.

The ordinary wage earner who pays VAT every time they buy a loaf of bread.

Yet one group - the iTaukei - increasingly appears twice in the queue. First, as beneficiaries of compensation payments, lease revenues, royalty streams and resource-owner settlements.

Second, as beneficiaries of the same government programmes available to everyone else.

This is where the public debate becomes uncomfortable.

When a mataqali receives hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation, are its members also eligible for government grants, educational assistance programmes, per-child payments, provincial subsidies, communal development funds, agricultural assistance schemes, scholarship programmes and other taxpayer-funded initiatives?

The answer, generally, is yes.

Legally, there is nothing wrong with that.

But politically and economically, it raises an important question.

Has Fiji ever conducted a serious national accounting exercise to determine the cumulative value of all benefits flowing through the system?

* How much comes from lease money?
* How much from compensation?
* How much from royalty payments?
* How much from provincial grants?
* How much from communal development funding?
* How much from special assistance channelled through traditional institutions?
* How much from general taxpayer-funded programmes?

No government has ever produced a comprehensive balance sheet.

Consequently, taxpayers are repeatedly asked to fund new compensation packages without ever being shown the wider picture.

The same lack of transparency applies to the payments themselves.

When $1.4 million is paid to a mataqali, where exactly does the money go?

* How much reaches ordinary members?
* How much is invested?
* How much is retained?
* How much improves education, housing, healthcare or local business development?
* How much is publicly accounted for?

These are not anti-iTaukei questions.

They are accountability questions.

They would be asked of any institution receiving substantial sums derived from public funds.

Yet anyone who raises them is often accused of questioning indigenous rights rather than seeking transparency.

No one disputes that resource owners deserve fair compensation.

The issue is whether Fiji has created a system in which compensation has become an ever-expanding entitlement with no obvious limiting principle.

Today it is a water catchment.

Tomorrow it may be another river.

The next day another road reserve.

The following week another public utility.

Eventually the question ceases to be whether compensation is justified and becomes whether the nation can continue to afford an endless series of settlements financed by taxpayers who are themselves excluded from the benefits.

Particularly absent from this discussion are the thousands of non-iTaukei families who have lived in Fiji for generations.

Many have been in Fiji for over a century.

They built businesses. They developed towns. They established farms. They staffed schools and hospitals. They paid taxes. They created employment. They contributed to the economic development of provinces where they have lived for four or five generations.

Take the case of Tailevu. I have watched with growing alarm how, in the name of indigenous rights and provincial entitlement, many non-iTaukei families who helped build the province are increasingly treated as historical footnotes.

My own maternal grandfather and his brother introduced one of the first bus services into rural Tailevu in the 1960s. Their buses connected villages from Verata to Vugalei with markets and commercial centres, enabling villagers to travel, trade and sell produce. They invested capital, took risks and helped connect communities long before government services reached many of these areas.

Yet history records a darker reality.

During the 1987 coups and again during the 2000 coup, many non-iTaukei families in Tailevu became victims rather than partners in the provincial story they had helped build.

Businesses were disrupted. Properties were attacked. Livestock and produce were stolen. Families were intimidated. Some were beaten.

During the George Speight coup, some of my own maternal family members hid in the bush for days to avoid roaming mobs and the complete breakdown of law and order in parts of the province.

For those families, the memory of Tailevu is not merely one of contribution.

It is also one of abandonment.

Their labour helped build the province.

Their taxes helped fund the state.

Their businesses helped sustain local economies.

Yet when discussions arise about ownership, compensation and entitlement, they are often nowhere to be seen.

Their contribution is acknowledged only when the tax bill arrives. Unlike resource-owning groups, they possess no communal land rights, no royalty streams, no compensation claims over rivers or catchments, no collective lease distributions and no provincial institutions through which additional public resources may be channelled.

They contribute. They pay. But they rarely appear at the negotiating table.

The Nasarava dispute therefore raises a larger national question.

Are we building a modern democratic state based on equal citizenship and shared obligations?

Or are we creating a permanent compensation economy in which some citizens receive benefits as taxpayers while others receive benefits both as taxpayers and as collective resource owners?

The issue is not whether Mataqali Nabukarabe should receive what was promised.

If a valid agreement exists, it should be honoured.

The issue is whether Fiji is willing to have an honest conversation about who receives what, who pays for it, where the money goes and whether the current model remains economically sustainable.

Water is an essential public service. It is not merely another commodity.

When access to a water source serving thousands of ordinary citizens becomes entangled in compensation disputes, Fiji must ask itself whether the balance between private rights and public interest has shifted too far.

Until that conversation occurs, every new compensation dispute will raise the same unanswered question: Who is really paying, and who is really benefiting?

DE FIJI À LA FRANCE
FROM THE EIFFEL TOWER TO DIOR AND THE ARC DE TRIOMPHE: When Paris Discovers Fiji's Cabinet Minister hits town in style

JO NATA: 'There was a man sipping a fruit cocktail at a hotel bar in Suva, waiting for the call. But when a new face appeared on television screen, he quietly retreated to his hole.' Cocktail Man was Savenaca Draunidalo

21/6/2026

*Behind the removal of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara as President of Fiji, and the Speight coup, stood two shadowy and faceless high-ranking paramount chiefs

*The late Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter and I were nearing completion of a book on the 2000 coup when he passed away. Yet throughout our research, one name kept recurring: Ratu Savenaca Draunidalo. Today, Jo Nata's evidence before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in which he described, but did not identify, the mysterious "Cocktail Man", seems to provide the final piece of a puzzle that had long troubled us during the writing of the manuscript.

The Man with the Fruit Cocktail: Why the Name Savenaca Draunidalo Kept Appearing

For more than two decades I have attempted to reconstruct, as accurately as possible, the events surrounding the May 2000 coup and the violence that followed. In that process, I have interviewed participants, examined confidential reports, reviewed court records, studied police investigations and listened carefully to the testimony of those who were present.

One name kept resurfacing.

Not once. Not twice. But repeatedly.

The name was Ratu Savenaca Draunidalo.

Long before the events of 2000, Draunidalo had already secured a place in Fiji's political history as one of the soldiers involved in the 1987 military overthrow of the democratically elected government of Dr Timoci Bavadra. Like many figures associated with Fiji's coup culture, his story did not end in 1987.

As I continued to piece together the fragmented narrative of May 2000, references to Draunidalo emerged from different directions. Sometimes the references were direct. Sometimes they appeared only as passing remarks. Sometimes they surfaced in conversations that had nothing to do with him. Yet his name continued to appear often enough to attract attention.

That is why a particular recollection from Jo Nata stood out.

"There was a man sipping a fruit cocktail at a hotel bar in Suva, waiting for the call. But when a new face appeared on the television screen, he quietly retreated to his hole."

On its face, it was merely an anecdote. But viewed against the broader backdrop of information gathered over many years, the description took on greater significance.

Jo Nata did not publicly identify the individual in the testimony relied upon for this article. However, the historical evidence assembled over many years of research, points to one individual whose name repeatedly surfaces in discussions surrounding the political and military intrigue of that period: Savenaca Draunidalo.

The purpose of this article is not to pronounce guilt or innocence. History is rarely that simple. Rather, it is to examine why the same name continues to emerge whenever investigators, journalists, former soldiers and political insiders attempt to explain the forces operating behind the scenes during one of the most turbulent periods in Fiji's modern history.

The unanswered question is not whether Draunidalo existed on the margins of Fiji's coup history. That is beyond dispute.

The question is how close to the centre he really was in 2000?

Jo Nata

5 August 2000: Media adviser to coup leader George Speight, Jo Nata leaves court after being denied bail in Suva. Nata, coup leader George Speight and his hierarchy appeared in court charged with the unlawful possession of guns, unlawful assembly, unlawful burial of a body and were remanded to the prison island of Nukulau, for a review of their bail application.

SMILING Coupist: George Speight

Quarantine Station, Nukulau Island

AN IRONY OF FIJIAN HISTORY: Jo Nata, Jale Moala and I Once Worked for the Fiji Sun That Rabuka Shut Down After His 1987 Coup

The image carries with it a certain irony that Fiji's political history rarely fails to provide.

Jo Nata, Jale Moala and I were all journalists at the old Fiji Sun, the newspaper that was forcibly closed by Sitiveni Rabuka following his 1987 military coups. At the time, the newspaper stood among the casualties of the assault on constitutional democracy, press freedom and elected government.

Nearly four decades later, we find ourselves reflecting on another chapter of Fiji's troubled coup history.

Jale Moala, himself a veteran journalist and former colleague, has publicly responded to recent attempts by Jo Nata to re-enter the national conversation through expressions of remorse over his role in George Speight's 2000 coup. Moala's comments, reproduced in the accompanying image, reflect a view held by many Fijians who lived through the trauma of May 2000 and its aftermath.

For me, the story carries an additional and rather poignant dimension. Jo Nata was not merely a former colleague in journalism. He was also my classmate in the late 1970s. Like many who passed through those classrooms, we embarked on very different journeys in life.

None of us could have imagined then that one former schoolmate would eventually enter Parliament at gunpoint alongside George Speight, another would become a leading journalist chronicling Fiji's political upheavals, and a third would spend much of his life documenting and investigating the very coups that shaped modern Fiji.

History has a habit of bringing old acquaintances back together in unexpected ways.

The image therefore is not simply about Jo Nata. It is also about memory. It reminds us how a generation of journalists were scattered by the events of 1987, 2000 and 2006, yet remain linked by those defining moments in Fiji's national story.

Whether Jo Nata's expressions of remorse should earn him a public platform is a matter on which reasonable people will disagree. What cannot be disputed is that the consequences of the 2000 coup were profound and enduring, affecting not only governments and institutions but countless ordinary families whose lives were disrupted by the political violence and uncertainty of that period.

And perhaps that is the greatest irony of all: three former Fiji Sun colleagues - one a participant in a coup, one condemning it, and one chronicling it from exile while living in a tent on London's 'Oxford Street' (in NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad's twisted imagination), still debating the meaning of those events almost forty years after the first coup silenced the newspaper that once brought them together.

THE IRONY OF 14 MAY 1987: Adi Kuini Bavadra's Former Husband, Captain Savenaca Draunidalo, Served as Rabuka's Second-in-Command in the Overthrow of the Bavadra Government on 14 May 1987

From Fijileaks Archive, 6 August 2024

BUKARAU: "Naupoto gave a short brief, which basically said, "if you try anything to escape or untie the rope, you will be dead". He said this 2-3 times. There were about 6 men in front of us, and a lot more at the back with weapons...We received kicks, rifle butts and continuous verbal abuses. George, Ligairi and Silatou were getting most of the abuses and we had people rubbing their boots on the back of our heads. We than sailed to Nukulau through Beqa waters. We were constantly assaulted and abused thoughout the 2 hours or so journey. We were soaked and from the rough seas. I could feel that certain individuals did not have their hearts and minds on what was happening (assault and abuses). I received a swelling on the left side of my face and 3 days later we were taken to hospital."

KOROVUSERE: "It was still dark when we reached the Naval Base. Naupoto warned us that if we tried to do anything, we would be shot. Mua was kicked on the esohagus. Silatolu at one stage had difficuty breathing due to the continuous punching. I was asked about Adi Samanunu and what she was doing in the country. I was kicked on the face. They told us to experience life in the navy and one of our detainees was threatened of being sexually assaulted, and that it was normal in the Navy. Once we arrived near Nukulau, one of the boys said I was his Commanding Officer in Sinai and Lebanon, whilst I was being kicked and had his foot on my head. Our hands were released at about 0800hrs once we were inside the perimeter fence."

LIGAIRI: "Upon arrival [at the Naval Base] I was the second last to board the awaitig ship. We were moved to the forecastle and we were handled roughly. NAUPOTO briefed us and his orders were very aggressive. I had a feeling that he didn't care about who we were. I never expected Fijians to behave and act in that manner. I was so confused that I did not listen to what they were saying or asking. A lot of questions about my ability to change myself into rats and other things were put forward. I was assaulted with punches, rifle butts, kicks to my head and body. I was also very concerned about our safety particulalry with our hands tied at our backs and the possiblity of us getting washed to the sea. The assault inflicted on me has caused me headaches, blurred vision and this is due to a rifle barrel pushed to the side of my head."

SAVUA: "We were than taken to the Naval Base. Upon arrival we boarded the ship and briefed by Naupoto, "If you try anything to escape or untie the rope, you will be dead". One of the navy personnel began verbal abuses. Abusive verbal language was hurled at me and others, "Savua/Mua drau vei cai". One of them asked me if I wanted to be Commander. They stated that this was Commander's (Bainimarama's) vessel...They even threatened to sexually assault Nata and stated that it was quite common in the Navy. They continued to butt and assault us. Wainiqolo was inflicting most of the punishment...The assault continued right until we arrived at Nukulau and when the ship was anchored off at Nukulau"

MUA: "We were driven to Walu Bay. They told us to come out of the truck one by one. I was walking behind Speight when he was thumped from the back. We were ushered to the forecastle of KIRO. We were seated between the gun turrett and the wave breaker. As soon as the ship left the pier the assault started. I was kicked in the face, rifle butted on the face and verbally abused. I lost one tooth in the process. This sequence went on for approximately 3 hours until we got here (Nukulau). My vision was blurred for 3 days due to the injuries I sustained. I was kicked around and on the esophagus. When this happened, I almost lost all consciousness and I thought I was going to die. We were told that we were going to an unknown destination...During the transfer to Nukulau, I slipped and was given two more kicks before I reached ashore. I cannot believe that people could be so brutal. The Military Police (MP) who were on Nukulau wept and asked us to forgive them for what had happened on the ship [Kiro]"

KONATACI: "We were taken to the Naval Base and as soon as we arrived, they shoved us onto the ship and forced us to the forecastle. We were given instrcutions to stay in one place and not to move or we would be shot. We were told to sit in front of the ship (forecastle), and as we sat down we were punched, kicked and verbally abused whilst our hands were tied. It seemed they were acting on instructions. As we left the harbour towards the open sea, I was very frightened naturally because I came from the highlands. My hand was kicked and my fingers were crushed with a boot, which was fractured. It was around 07000hrs, when we arrived near Nukulau. I could see others carrying injuries...A lot of verbal abuse was hurled at us. The two Lauan colleagues particularly copped a lot of abuse. I thought that we would be treated well and arrested as political prisoners and not be treated the way we were."

NATA: "We were taken to Naval Base and as soon as we got off, I was punched on the left, and I knew we were in for a rough ride. Once we got to the forecastle, we were warned in unequivocal terms that we were to follow orders. We were taken for a 2 and half hours ride and throughout the journey I was punched, kicked, butted and abused. Apart from the inhumane treatment, I was disappointed with the sexual taunts and the threat to be sexually assaulted. We were threatened and one particular chap WAINIQOLO (Leading Seaman Walesi) was very abusive and continued to physically assault us. Both Mua and mysef were badly hurt because of our links to Lau and Tui Nayau, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara so was George Speight, Ligari and Silatolu. The MP's treated us well and they even cried when they saw the state we were in...My colleagues would have mentioned other details of the assault".

SPEIGHT: "As we moved away from the pier, the assault began...They punched, kicked, rifle butted and one person continued to kick my head. We were buffetted by the big waves and the assault continued. I felt numb after the first half an hour. The most painful was the rope tied behind my back, which became very sore. The most excruciating pain was when I fell back with my full weight. This is when I felt fairly numb. We were subjected to this until the sun rose and this whole episode lasted about two to two and half hours. Before we were helped to our feet one of the officers took pictures of us on an instamatic camera. The 3 MPs (Military Police) who escorted us from QEB to Naval Base were all waiting at Nukulau. Two of them broke down and cried when they saw the state we were in. We were then freed from the ropes by the MPs, which were tied with our hands together. By this time I was so tired that I slept for about three days."

Fijileaks Editor: Major Epeli Nailatikau, Chief Medical Officer, RFMF, who had attended to the detainees, detailed the injuries, noting "Assault by navy personnel in navy boat - while on transfer to Nukulau" - Report on Injury or Illness Form

NILESH LAL DEFENDS DIALOGUE FIJI AGAINST “TALKFEST” CRITICISM "In my view, the dialogue succeeded in its primary objective of providing a much-needed reality check on the state of the Fijian economy in 2026"

20/6/2026

A public debate has emerged following characterisation of the recent Dialogue Fiji economic forum as a "talkfest", with Dialogue Fiji Executive Director Nilesh Lal responding to defend the event's purpose, scope and outcomes.

In an email to FijiLeaks, Lal argued that some of the criticism directed at the two-day economic dialogue was based on an incomplete understanding of the event. He suggested that a number of commentators appeared to have formed their views after watching only a single livestreamed panel discussion rather than considering the full programme.

According to Lal, the forum consisted of considerably more than the publicly broadcast panel sessions. He noted that the event included an IMF keynote address, three major panel discussions, extensive audience engagement and structured breakout group sessions involving a wide range of stakeholders.

Those stakeholders included government representatives, opposition politicians, economists, business leaders, development partners, academics, civil society organisations and members of the public.

Lal also pointed out that Dialogue Fiji conducted a nationwide public priorities survey involving 1,266 respondents before the event. The survey sought public views on the issues that should be prioritised in the 2026-2027 National Budget and was used to help shape discussions during the forum.

In his response, Lal rejected suggestions that key national issues had been ignored. He maintained that topics such as labour shortages, outward migration, workforce development, healthcare, infrastructure, productivity, public debt, fiscal sustainability and long-term economic growth were discussed extensively throughout both the panel discussions and breakout sessions.

He further argued that the purpose of the dialogue was not necessarily to produce immediate solutions to every challenge facing Fiji, but rather to create a platform for evidence-based discussion and engagement among stakeholders with differing perspectives.

Lal also cited the level of public interest in the event, noting that registrations exceeded venue capacity, the livestream attracted thousands of viewers, and the discussions generated extensive media coverage and continuing public debate. He pointed to comments by the Prime Minister indicating that concerns raised during the dialogue had helped inform preparations for the forthcoming national budget.

The exchange highlights a broader question about the role of national policy forums in Fiji.

Supporters of such dialogues argue that they provide an important opportunity for policymakers, experts, businesses and citizens to discuss national challenges, exchange ideas and develop recommendations that can inform future policy decisions.

Critics, however, often question whether conferences and forums translate into tangible outcomes, particularly when many of the issues being discussed have been identified repeatedly over a number of years.
The debate surrounding the Dialogue Fiji event therefore reflects two different perspectives. One focuses on the value of public engagement, consultation and policy discussion. The other focuses on whether such discussions ultimately lead to measurable action and implementation.

Whatever one's view of the forum itself, the continuing discussion suggests that the event has succeeded in generating public attention around some of Fiji's most pressing economic and social challenges, including the cost of living, migration, labour shortages, healthcare, public debt and economic growth.

As Fiji prepares for its next national budget, the longer-term significance of the dialogue may ultimately be judged not by the discussions that took place during the two-day event, but by whether any of the ideas and recommendations emerging from it are reflected in future government policy.

State of the Fijian Economy Dialogue 2026 REPORT: A Nation Confronts Its Economic Reality

DRUNK, DISHEVELLED AND A FAIGITIVE: OXFORD STREET TENT RESIDENT ANALYSES DIALOGUE FIJI'S STATE of ECONOMY REPORT

The State of the Fijian Economy Dialogue 2026, convened at the Grand Pacific Hotel in Suva on 9-10 June 2026, represented one of the most significant public forums on economic policy held in Fiji in recent years.

Bringing together government officials, opposition politicians, economists, international development institutions, business representatives, trade unions, civil society organisations, academics, journalists and members of the public, the Dialogue sought to move beyond partisan politics and focus attention on the underlying realities of the Fijian economy.

The organisers framed the event around a central proposition: Fiji has recovered from the immediate economic devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but recovery should not be mistaken for long-term economic security. The country now faces a complex combination of slowing growth, rising living costs, increasing public debt, labour shortages, outward migration, infrastructure deficits and mounting global uncertainty.

Beyond Political Rhetoric

One of the most striking features of the proceedings is the organisers' explicit attempt to separate economic analysis from political tribalism. The report repeatedly emphasises that the Dialogue was not designed to defend or attack any government. Rather, it was intended as a forum for evidence-based discussion and critical examination of economic trends affecting ordinary Fijians.

This point is important because Fiji's public discourse has often been dominated by constitutional questions, governance disputes and political rivalries. Dialogue Fiji's Executive Director, Nilesh Lal, argued that excessive attention to politics has distracted public attention from emerging economic challenges that may prove equally consequential for the country's future.

The Dialogue therefore positioned itself as an intervention in national debate: a call for Fiji to confront economic realities before they become economic crises.

A Consensus Emerging on Economic Risks

Despite the ideological diversity of the participants, the proceedings reveal a remarkable degree of consensus regarding the broad direction of Fiji's economic challenges.

Participants generally agreed that Fiji faces slowing economic growth; rising inflationary pressures; labour shortages; outward migration of skilled workers; high public debt levels; Infrastructure deficits; fiscal sustainability concerns; and structural constraints limiting productivity growth.

What differed was not necessarily the diagnosis but the emphasis placed upon particular risks and the remedies proposed.

The IMF's Warning: Recovery Is Slowing

The keynote address by IMF Regional Representative Dr Giovanni Ganelli provided perhaps the most authoritative external assessment of Fiji's economic position.

The IMF acknowledged Fiji's strong post-pandemic recovery, largely driven by tourism and external demand. However, the Fund projected economic growth to slow to approximately 2.4 per cent in 2026, compared with 3.2 per cent previously, while inflation was expected to rise significantly.

The IMF identified several interconnected risks: persistent high public debt; widening external imbalances; labour shortages linked to migration; infrastructure deficiencies; governance and implementation constraints; exposure to global oil price shocks; and vulnerability to natural disasters.

Particularly noteworthy was the IMF's concern that the fiscal gains achieved since the pandemic could be reversed. The organisation argued that Fiji would need to balance immediate cost-of-living relief measures with the longer-term necessity of rebuilding fiscal buffers and reducing debt exposure.

The IMF's message was therefore one of cautious optimism: recovery remains real, but vulnerabilities remain substantial.

Nilesh Lal

The Public Debt Debate

Perhaps the most contentious and intellectually significant contribution came from Nilesh Lal's presentation on what he described as the "debt-to-GDP illusion."

Lal challenged the common narrative that Fiji's fiscal position has substantially improved because the debt-to-GDP ratio has declined from pandemic-era highs. According to his analysis, this ratio masks a more troubling reality.

While GDP has expanded rapidly since the pandemic, public debt itself has continued to increase. Lal highlighted figures showing public debt rising from approximately $5.7 billion before the pandemic to around $11.7 billion in FY2025–26, while budget deficits remain substantial and capital expenditure has declined as a proportion of total spending.

His central argument was that debt sustainability cannot be measured solely through ratios. If debt continues to rise while productive investment declines, future generations may inherit larger debt burdens without the infrastructure and productive assets necessary to support economic growth.

This critique represents one of the Dialogue's most important contributions because it challenges the adequacy of headline fiscal indicators and encourages closer scrutiny of the quality and composition of government expenditure.

The World Bank's Perspective: Productivity, Not Just Recovery: Dr Mathenge argued that Fiji is unlikely to achieve its ambition of becoming a high-income economy by 2050 under current growth trajectories. To do so would require average long-term growth of approximately 5.7 per cent per year, well above current forecasts.

Dr Naomi Mathenge of the World Bank advanced a complementary but distinct argument. Her presentation focused on the difference between recovery and transformation. Fiji's tourism-led rebound, she argued, has demonstrated resilience but has not yet translated into the sustained productivity growth required for long-term prosperity.

The World Bank's analysis identified several structural concerns: excessive dependence on tourism; Insufficient job creation; low productivity in key sectors; under-utilisation of female labour; high youth disengagement from employment and education; and repeated economic shocks that undermine fiscal resilience.

Most strikingly, Dr Mathenge argued that Fiji is unlikely to achieve its ambition of becoming a high-income economy by 2050 under current growth trajectories. To do so would require average long-term growth of approximately 5.7 per cent per year, well above current forecasts.

Her proposed solution centred on productivity growth, labour market reform, increased investment, skills development, female workforce participation and stronger climate resilience.

Poonam Singh

Coalition Government's Position: Progress Amid Uncertainty

Coalition Government representatives accepted many of the underlying economic challenges but presented a more optimistic interpretation of Fiji's fiscal trajectory.

Poonam Singh, Acting Head of Strategic Planning, acknowledged weaker growth forecasts, rising inflation and increasing global uncertainty. She confirmed that economic growth projections had been revised downward and inflation was expected to exceed six per cent.

However, she argued that significant progress had nevertheless been made since the pandemic, particularly in reducing budget deficits and lowering debt ratios relative to GDP. Government's position was that fiscal stability has improved, even though considerable pressures remain in relation to infrastructure, wages, social services and debt servicing.

Importantly, Singh emphasised not simply the quantity of public spending but its quality. The challenge, in her view, is ensuring that expenditure generates measurable improvements in productivity, growth and service delivery.

The Dialogue's Broader Significance

The Proceedings Report demonstrates that the Dialogue was far more than a single panel discussion or public spectacle.

It included an IMF keynote address, multiple substantive panel sessions, audience engagement and breakout group deliberations aimed at generating practical policy recommendations. The event explicitly sought to expose participants to competing viewpoints rather than manufacture consensus.

The organisers emphasised that the value of the Dialogue lay not in achieving agreement on every issue but in facilitating informed public debate grounded in evidence rather than slogans.

Viewed as a whole, the State of the Fijian Economy Dialogue 2026 reflects a growing recognition that Fiji's economic future cannot be secured merely through tourism recovery or favourable macroeconomic indicators.

The central message emerging from the proceedings is that Fiji faces a transition point. The country has recovered from the immediate shock of the pandemic, but recovery alone will not deliver long-term prosperity.

Persistent debt pressures, labour shortages, outward migration, infrastructure gaps, productivity constraints and global uncertainty require policy responses extending far beyond short-term political cycles.

Whether one agrees more with the IMF, the World Bank, Dialogue Fiji or Coalition Government officials, the Dialogue succeeded in one important respect: it brought economic realities back to the centre of national discussion and underscored the need for evidence-based policymaking at a moment when Fiji's future economic trajectory remains uncertain.

BIMAN PRASAD'S VISION 2050: PROMISES, PRIORITIES AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Speaking at the recent economic dialogue, National Federation Party leader and former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad outlined what he described as four central priorities for Fiji's economic future: jobs, incomes, resilience, and fiscal stability.

Prasad anchored his presentation around the Coalition Government's National Development Plan and Vision 2050, arguing that Fiji had, for the first time, articulated a clear objective of achieving high-income country status by 2050. He maintained that this ambition would require substantial structural transformation rather than a continuation of existing economic policies and growth patterns.

According to Prasad, tourism will remain the backbone of the Fijian economy because of Fiji's established comparative advantages, including its geographical location, tourism infrastructure, and natural environment. However, he acknowledged that Fiji has historically struggled to diversify its economic base and argued that future growth would depend upon stronger performance in agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, and higher-value exports.

Biman Prasad also highlighted investment priorities in infrastructure, housing, health, education, and climate resilience. Referring to ongoing collaboration with the World Bank, he pointed to plans for a new national hospital and broader health-sector reforms.

Warning of a Global Fuel Shock

A significant portion of Prasad's address focused on what he characterised as an emerging global fuel crisis.

Drawing comparisons with the 2008 oil price shock, he noted that crude oil prices reached approximately US$145 per barrel during July 2008. Adjusted for inflation, he suggested that this would be equivalent to roughly US$225 per barrel in today's terms.
Prasad recalled that Fiji experienced substantial inflationary pressures during that period, culminating in severe foreign exchange shortages and the eventual devaluation of the Fiji dollar in 2009.

He argued that the current economic challenge differs fundamentally from the COVID-19 crisis. Whereas the pandemic primarily generated unemployment and income loss, he said the present threat is centred on affordability pressures and the rising cost of living.

Defending the Coalition's Fiscal Record

Turning to public finances, Prasad acknowledged that Fiji's fiscal challenges predated both the Coalition Government and the pandemic.

He noted that economic growth had already slowed significantly before COVID-19 and that the economy subsequently contracted by approximately 17 percent during the pandemic period.

According to Prasad, when the Coalition Government assumed office in December 2022, it inherited a fragile fiscal position characterised by high debt and large deficits. He said the government's strategy has been to balance fiscal consolidation with economic growth and social protection.

Among the outcomes he attributed to Coalition policies were reduction of the budget deficit from approximately 7.2 percent in 2022 to 3.4 percent and subsequently 2.5 percent; reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio from around 91.8 percent in mid-2022 to approximately 79 percent by 2025, and three consecutive years of revenue growth exceeding 3 percent.

Prasad argued that these indicators demonstrate meaningful progress in restoring fiscal stability, although he acknowledged that significant challenges remain.

Vat Controversy

The Deputy Prime Minister also defended the government's controversial VAT reforms.
Responding to critics, he argued that Fiji's previous multi-rate VAT structure — consisting of 0 percent, 9 percent and 15 percent rates — created opportunities for tax leakage and abuse.

According to Prasad, some businesses were charging consumers at higher VAT rates while remitting tax at lower rates, resulting in revenue losses he estimated at between $400 million and $500 million.

He maintained that the government's decision to rationalise the VAT system was intended to improve tax compliance, strengthen revenue collection, and support fiscal sustainability.

Social Protection Measures

Prasad also pointed to several social assistance programmes implemented by the Coalition Government, including, more than $170 million in back-to-school assistance over three years; support reaching more than 200,000 students annually, and the write-off of approximately $650 million in debt affecting around 53,000 families. He argued that these initiatives demonstrate that fiscal discipline and social protection can be pursued simultaneously.

The Missing Discussion

While Prasad's presentation focused heavily on macroeconomic indicators, fiscal consolidation, and long-term planning, critics may argue that several issues received limited attention.

These include persistent concerns about the high cost of living, slow wage growth relative to inflation, housing affordability, increasing emigration of skilled workers, the continuing dependence on tourism, and the practical challenges of achieving meaningful economic diversification.

Equally absent was any detailed discussion of the legal and political controversies currently surrounding the NFP leader, including the criminal charges he faces under the Political Parties Act relating to alleged declaration breaches, allegations he denies.

Biman Prasad's presentation offered a broad defence of the Coalition Government's economic strategy and an optimistic vision for Fiji's future.

Whether Fiji ultimately achieves the ambitious targets set out in Vision 2050 will depend not only on fiscal discipline and economic growth but also on the government's ability to translate long-term plans into measurable improvements in living standards, productivity, investment, and public confidence.

For now, the debate remains open as to whether the Coalition's economic record represents a genuine transformation of Fiji's economy or merely a temporary stabilisation following the extraordinary disruptions of the COVID-19 era.

A public apology is perhaps overdue

I wish to apologise unreservedly for the grave offence of analysing and writing about the State of the Fijian Economy while allegedly ensconced in a tent pitched on Oxford Street, London, surrounded by empty Peroni beer bottles and in what NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad generously describes as a state of advanced intoxication.

In hindsight, I now realise that economic commentary should only be undertaken by individuals seated in ministerial offices, boardrooms, or television studios, preferably while facing corruption investigations, criminal charges, perjury allegations, or unresolved declarations of assets controversies.

Clearly, a tent in Oxford Street, London, is no place from which to examine public accounts, budget deficits, debt levels, inflation figures, procurement decisions, or conflicts of interest.

The fact that economic data, audited reports, company records, court judgments, parliamentary papers, and statutory declarations remain exactly the same whether read from a tent, a palace, a prison cell, or a university library is a technicality that I regret overlooking.

I therefore apologise for the shocking possibility that a slightly dishevelled Indo-Fijian, sitting beneath canvas in London, may have spent more time reading documents than some of the distinguished personalities featured in Fiji's endless economic talkfests.

I further apologise for any distress caused by the suggestion that facts remain facts regardless of the location, hairstyle, beverage consumption, or sleeping arrangements of the person examining them.

Going forward, I shall endeavour to conduct all future economic analysis from a suitably respectable venue. Until then, readers are kindly requested to focus not on the evidence, documents, and arguments presented, but on the far more important question of whether the author was holding a beer while reading them.

After all, attacking the messenger has always been considerably easier than answering the message.

Click here for Full Proceedings Report

COMING SOON: How Biman Prasad became an Adjunct Professor at Monash University on 1 June 2023, just days before co-authoring and publishing academic articles with Paresh Narayan and Joel Abraham. According to Monash, Prasad's appointment runs until 31 May 2028

<<Previous