Home

RAKIRAKI LAND FIRE SALE: Indo-Fijian Widow Loses Her LAND to Fiji Development Bank. Economist and Professor Gains Windfall. How Shanti Devi's LOSS Became BIMAN Prasad and his SON's 10.4 Hectare LAND

14/11/2025

The NFP leader, and until lately the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Biman Prasad, didn't declare in his 2022 mandatory statutory declaration that a piece of land he bought for $60,000 in 2007 in Rakiraki from FDB belonging to Shanti Devi, a widow of Mohan, he gifted it to his NZ based son Mayuresh Bhan Prasad in 2021 for a nominal sum of $100, citing "for natural love and affection".*

"This is a historical convention for the National Federation Party before the 2018 General Election. It is in this town of Rakiraki that the NFP was born under a mango tree and later formalised and launched in Nadi."
3 September 2016, Biman Prasad to NFP Annual Convention

March 2023: NFP Leader and former Finance Minister and DPM Biman Prasad unveils the plaque to open the new party office in Rakiraki

When an Indo-Fijian Widow's Financial Woes Became the USP Economic Lecturer's Discount. The FDB Fire Sale Turned into Biman Prasad's Bargain Land in Rakiraki*

Summary of Key Rakiraki Land Sale Details

Instrument No: 605959
Transferor (Seller): Fiji Development Bank (FDB), a statutory body corporate under the Fiji Development Bank Act (Cap. 214), headquartered at 360 Victoria Parade, Suva.
Registered Proprietor (Previous Owner/Mortgagor): Shanti Devi (widow of Mohan) of Rakiraki, Fiji.
Transferee (Purchaser): Biman Chand (PhD) of 152 Sekoula Road, Laucala Beach Estate, Nasinu.

Land Description:

Title No.: CT 36435
Lot 2 on DP 7602 (Part of Waikaum & Cakova)
Province/Island: Viti Levu
District/Town: Rakiraki
Area: 10.3883 hectares
Sale Agreement Date: 5 September 2006
Transfer Date: Executed 10 April 2007
Registration Date: 27 April 2007 at 1:50 p.m.
Consideration (Sale Price): $60,000.00

Nature of the Transfer

This was not a voluntary sale by the registered owner Shanti Devi.

It was a forced sale conducted by the Fiji Development Bank (FDB), exercising its statutory “power of sale” as mortgagee under a mortgage registered on 29 November 2005 (Notification No. 577079).

Under Fiji's property law and the Land Transfer Act, when a borrower (mortgagor) defaults on their loan, the mortgagee (in this case, FDB) is entitled, after due notice and compliance with statutory requirements, to sell the mortgaged property to recover the outstanding debt.

Why FDB Sold Shanti Devi's Land

FDB sold the land in exercise of its power of sale because the mortgagor, Shanti Devi, had defaulted on her loan obligations secured by the land.

This is explicitly stated in the document’s heading: “TRANSFER BY MORTGAGEE IN EXERCISE OF POWER OF SALE.”

FDB’s sale was to recover the unpaid loan amount or part thereof. Upon default, the bank was legally entitled to:

Take possession of the property;
Sell it (by private treaty or public auction); and
Apply the proceeds toward the outstanding mortgage debt, interest, and costs.

The bank’s seal and officers’ signatures (Executive Manager, Asset Management Unit and Senior Manager, Legal Services) confirm that this was a bank-initiated recovery sale.

Legal Effect of the Transfer

By operation of law:

FDB’s exercise of the power of sale extinguished the mortgagor’s interest (Shanti Devi’s ownership) in the property.
The purchaser (Biman Chand, PhD) obtained good title free of prior encumbrances, as long as FDB complied with the mortgage and statutory requirements.
The Registrar of Titles formally registered the transfer on 27 April 2007, completing the change of ownership.

In short, the Fiji Development Bank sold the land because Shanti Devi defaulted on her FDB mortgage loan. The purchaser, Dr Biman Prasad, PhD, acquired the 10.3883-hectare Rakiraki property for $60,000 on 27 April 2007.

BIMANOMICS AT WORK:
*The much smaller plot of land beside Biman Prasad's $60,000 Rakiraki land (2007) is now worth $355,000 in 2025

On 12 January 2021, Biman Prasad transferred his plot of land to his NZ based son for a nominal consideration of $100, and it was formally registered on 4 February 2021

12 January 2021: So, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad Just Happened To Be Living with Biman Prasad and wife Rajni Khausal Chand at 152 Sekoula Rd, Laucala Beach, Suva, on Rakiraki Land Transfer Day.
We ask FICAC and Fiji Police and FRCA to investigate whether false information was knowingly provided during the transfer of Rakiraki land from the NFP leader and now former Finance Minister Biman Prasad to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad, on 12 January 2021, specially concerning Mayuresh Bhan Prasad's claimed residence* at 152 Sekoula Rd, Laucala Beach, Suva.

BACKGROUND and CHRONOLOGY: Ownership history

Between 2014 and 2020, Biman Chand Prasad declared ownership of a parcel of land in Rakiraki, identifying it by its Certificate of Title number (36435) in consecutive public asset declarations.

This demonstrates his consistent knowledge of the land and its legal particulars.

Transfer to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad

Records indicate that on 4 February 2021, the land was transferred to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad. The transfer documentation lists Mayuresh’s residential address as: “152 Sekoula Road, Suva.”

Publicly available evidence suggesting possible falsity

Independent evidence, Linkedin employment profile, including a published Otago Daily Times (New Zealand) record, confirms that Mayuresh Bhan Prasad obtained New Zealand citizenship in 2008.

There is credible information suggesting:

long-standing residence in New Zealand;
no known occupation or residence at 152 Sekoula Road during the relevant period;
possible physical absence from Fiji around the transfer date.

This creates reasonable grounds to suspect that the residential particulars recorded in the land-transfer instrument may have been inaccurate or misleading.

Grounds For Reasonable Suspicion

This complaint is not asserting wrongdoing as fact.

It asserts that reasonable suspicion exists, because the following appear inconsistent:

Citizenship and residence

A person who has been a New Zealand citizen since 2008 is unlikely, absent contrary evidence, to have been residing at a family address in Suva on 12 January 2021.

Immigration and travel records

If immigration logs reveal the transferee was not present in Fiji on or near the transfer date, the address listed would be materially false.

Utility and public-record indicators

Residency can be verified or disproven through:

EFL and Water Authority billing records,
FRCS/TIN address records,
Voter registration records,
Tenancy or electoral listings.

Registration requirements

Residential details are required to ensure:

Identity accuracy,
Compliance with land-registration rules,
Compliance with anti-money-laundering (AML/KYC) laws,
Proper tax treatment of transfers.

Any false address compromises the legality and validity of the transaction.

Possible Offences (For FICAC Assessment)

(All listed as possible offences only, not asserted as proven.)

Crimes Act 2009

Section 201: False or misleading information to a public official
Section 256–257: Use of false documents / uttering a false document
Section 325: Obtaining a financial or property advantage by deception
Section 334–340: General fraud and deception offences
Section 66: Aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit an offence

FICAC Act

Providing false information to a public body
Abuse of office (if a public officer participated)

Land/Title laws

Supplying false particulars in a transfer instrument
Any offence under the Registration of Titles Act relating to fraudulent registration

AML/KYC rules

Providing false identification details for a transaction involving real property

This list is not exhaustive; it outlines the statutory basis for FICAC jurisdiction.

Why The Matter Merits Formal Investigation

The case involves a public official (the grantor) and his immediate family member.
The information relates to a registered land transfer, a process requiring strict truthfulness.
The suspected false information concerns a simple, binary fact: whether the transferee resided at 152 Sekoula Road in early 2021.
Verification is straightforward and documentary.

The public interest is clear: the integrity of land records, public disclosures, and anti-corruption processes depends on the accuracy of information provided to government authorities.

Request for Action to Fiji Police Force and FICAC

Open a formal investigation into whether false information was provided in this land transfer.

Conclusion:

This complaint does not allege guilt.

It asserts that reasonable grounds exist to suspect that false information was provided in the course of an official land transfer, and that the matter falls within FICAC’s jurisdiction for investigation.

In his 2021 and 2022 statutory declarations, Biman Chand Prasad didn't declare that he had disposed of the Rakiraki land to his son.

He also failed to declare that he had gifted Shanti Devi's former family land to his son, who by all accounts, has been living and working in New Zealand.

SHANTI DEVI:
We are left to wonder what fate, and what financial misery, befell Shanti Devi, Mohan's widow from Rakiraki. Shanti means Peace. The Prasads' are sitting on a fortune

Rakiraki Land Slipped Away From Shanti Devi But Elsewhere, the Forecast for the Prasad Family Was Permanent Shade and Bright Financial Skies

2005: NFP Removed its Party President (DORSAMI NAIDU) the Moment He Was Charged. So Why Does Biman Prasad Get Special Protection in 2025. PRASAD remains the NFP leader despite being charged by FICAC

11/11/2025

Naidu was subsequently acquitted of the charges against him

TRANSPARENCY Champion Forgets to Declare the Company He Co-Founded with his Cousin but Remembered GDN Just Fine

In 2014, he disclosed in his statutory declaration that he was a DIRECTOR of GDN - Global Development Network. A decade later, he even addressed its meeting in 2024, in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.
However, in that same 2014 declaration, he lied in order to enter Parliament as an NFP MP. He failed to disclose that he had co-founded and was a DIRECTOR of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, a mandatory declaration under the Political Parties Act.
*Paragraph (6) of the statutory declaration form for 2014 clearly reminded Biman Chand Prasad that providing any false information constitutes an offence punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to TEN (10) YEARS

The Hidden Loophole: How Leaving Superannuation Out of the Statutory Declarations Undermines Fiji’s Integrity Laws under the Political Parties Act. Malimali's closure of Biman Prasad's FICAC FILE a case for Debate

9/11/2025

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

Why We Are Exposing the “Superannuation Excuse” Behind the Closure of the Biman Prasad File. And Why Superannuation Must Be Declared under PPAct of 2013

Fijileaks is publishing this piece because the public has a right to know how a serious complaint alleging undeclared directorships, hidden shareholdings, and benefits linked to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd) was quietly shut down by the former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, using a completely irrelevant technicality about superannuation.

The complaint was never about superannuation. It was about whether the NFP leader and former Finance Minister Biman Prasad failed to disclose directorships, concealed business interests with his cousin Sunil Chand, and he and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand received financial benefits that should have been reported under Section 24 of the Political Parties Act.

Yet Barbara Malimali latched onto the line that “superannuation is not required to be declared” and used that single point to bury the entire "FICAC File". One irrelevant argument was allowed to extinguish multiple, far more serious allegations. Why? Who benefited? And what was she trying to avoid investigating?

But there is a deeper issue. Fijileaks argues that superannuation should be included in statutory declarations in the first place.

Why? Because superannuation is not just a retirement nest egg. It is a financial asset capable of being manipulated, inflated, or used to disguise benefits. A third party can quietly top up a politician’s FNPF account without it ever appearing in bank records. Employers, contractors, or political donors can channel “contributions” that look clean on paper but function as hidden payments.

In a country where FNPF is one of the most powerful financial institutions, politicians who influence FNPF policy, appointments, or investments should not be allowed to hide behind a loophole. Superannuation, like bank accounts, shares, and directorships, carries potential conflicts of interest and must form part of any honest integrity regime.

So we write this because the public has been misled into believing there was “no case to answer” against Biman Prasad when in fact the real allegations were untouched, and the superannuation excuse was a convenient smokescreen. A device. A cover. A way to shutter a politically sensitive file without confronting the actual breaches.

Fijileaks will not allow selective reasoning or technical loopholes to bury the truth. Fiji deserves to know whether the superannuation argument was a genuine interpretation of the law or a deliberate misuse of authority designed to protect a senior Cabinet minister from charges, as FICAC was going to charge Prasad on 5 September 2024.

Fijileaks Editorial: Whether Superannuation qualify as "Material Benefits"?

Whether superannuation benefits received by political party office-holders (e.g., MPs and party leaders) qualify as “material benefits” under Section 18 of the Political Parties Act 2013, and if so, whether the existing disclosure forms and regulatory guidelines adequately require such benefits to be reported.

The answer is in the affirmative. Superannuation is a material financial benefit and should be disclosed under Section 18, even if not explicitly listed. However, due to gaps in declaration form design and guidance, there is ambiguity, which can be resolved through statutory reform or regulatory clarification.

Section 18 – General Duty of Disclosure

Section 18(1):

“A political party shall… provide the Registrar with a statement of its assets and liabilities, including all sources of funds, donations, and contributions in kind.”

Section 18(2)(b):

“…any financial or material support received by the party or any of its officials from any other source.”

These provisions apply to benefits received by officials, even if not originating from the party or a formal salary.

Section 24 – Individual Office-holder Declarations

Office-holders must provide annual declarations of assets, income, and liabilities.
While superannuation is not named, the broad obligation to declare all financial interests logically includes:

Pensions
Deferred compensation
Continuing income from public or quasi-public institution

Superannuation as a Material Benefit: Ongoing Income Source
Superannuation constitutes monthly or lump-sum payments, similar to other income streams. If received during a person’s time in office, it meets the threshold of a financial benefit, regardless of when the entitlement arose.

Public Resource Origin
When the superannuation:

Is funded (in part) by public institutions, like the University of the South Pacific (USP),
Includes employer top-ups or enhanced packages, or
Is not automatically available to the general population.

It is materially distinguishable from private income and should be declared, especially under a law designed to protect political integrity and transparency.

Purpose of the Act
The purpose of the Act, as derived from the long title and statutory scheme, is to:

Promote financial transparency
Prevent undue influence or secret enrichment
Enable public accountability

Therefore, a purposive interpretation requires including superannuation in declarations.

Current Gap: Lack of Specific Guidance

While the law implicitly requires such disclosure, the prescribed declaration forms:

Do not contain a line-item for superannuation, pension, or retirement benefits
Do not clarify whether prior entitlements must be included
Have not been updated to reflect changing public expectations

This has led to inconsistencies, including:

Non-disclosure by senior MPs such as Biman Prasad since 2014
No prosecution or penalty, due to FICAC’s determination that the omission was technical, not willful

Recommendation: Legal and Regulatory Reform

To resolve ambiguity and ensure consistent enforcement:

Revise declaration forms to explicitly list “pension, superannuation, or retirement income” as a required entry.
Issue guidance to all political parties clarifying that deferred or ongoing benefits must be declared under Section 18 and Section 24.

Legislative Amendment (If required)

Introduce an amendment to Section 18(2) to include:
“This includes, but is not limited to, salaries, allowances, pensions, gratuities, superannuation, retirement funds, or any other benefit or entitlement derived from public office, past or present.”

Transitional Declaration Order

Require all current office-holders to submit a supplemental declaration addressing any previously undisclosed superannuation or pension benefit, without penalty if submitted in good faith.

Conclusion
There is a strong legal basis for requiring superannuation to be disclosed under the Political Parties Act 2013. The fact that Biman Prasad failed to do so, even if not malicious, reveals a regulatory gap.

This memo recommends that Parliament act to:

Clarify the disclosure duty,
Reform the declaration process,
Restore confidence in equal enforcement of political financial accountability.

Superannuation is not a technical side issue. It is a central part of a person’s financial life and a potential vector for influence. Leaving it out of statutory declarations undermines the integrity of the disclosure system and gives cover to those who want to exploit it.

Did Barbara Malimali Use Superannuation as a Pretext to Close the Biman Prasad Investigation? A Case for Abuse of Office

The decision by Barbara Malimali to close the complaint file against Biman Prasad on the grounds that he “was not required to declare his superannuation”, despite strong evidence he had allegedly committed multiple offences, demands urgent police scrutiny.

From Fijileaks Archive

"It was not right for you to tell the second respondent [Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho] to stay away from investigating the alleged mismanagement of taxpayer’s fund at the University of the South Pacific by top senior officials, who appear to be citizens of Fiji. The second respondent was the Commissioner of Police. The second respondent’s brief as Police Commissioner was guided by section 5 of the Police Act 1965. It was mandatory for the second respondent to prevent and detect crimes and enforce the criminal law of the Republic of Fiji. The police were investigating the USP mismanagement of funds at the time.

The police had sought the Director of Public Prosecution’s assistance. He had recommended the caution interview of the suspects. By telling the second respondent to stay away from the USP investigation, you have in a sense effectively sabotaged the police investigation. To this day, the investigation had not been completed. Your action was inconsistent with the oath of your office.

Breach of the Public’s Trust.

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

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

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

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

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

Not on Taxpayers. Just $11,551.68 of Taxpayer Money! Rock Solid Denial. Limestone Coast Organisers of Fiji DAY party in Australia say Tabuya's costs for her travel, accommodation and meal costs fully funded by them

8/11/2025

*In Fiji’s new era of “transparency”, it seems a taxpayer-funded ticket upgrade is now called community support, and five-figure travel claims are “largely funded” by everyone except the taxpayers footing the bill for Tabuya's Aussie party

Premila Kumar

Lynda Tabuya

Sitiveni Rabuka

Not on Fijian Taxpayers. Just $11,551.68 of Fijian Taxpayer money

By any normal standard, $11,551.68 is a serious amount of money.

But in Fiji’s new world of ministerial transparency, that’s apparently “not taxpayers’ money.”

Minister for Information Lynda Tabuya has defended her trip to South Australia for Fiji Day celebrations, claiming that it was “largely funded by the Fijian community” and that the only cost to Government was her “ticket upgrade and standard per diem.”

Sounds modest until you read the fine print.

In a written statement to Parliament, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka shows otherwise.

According to the official list of ministerial travel costs, the Minister for Information’s trip cost taxpayers $11,551.68.

That’s more than Rabuka himself ($8,899.95) and almost twice the cost of Minister Sashi Kiran's $6,328.00.

If this is what “community-funded” means, then Fiji must have discovered a new type of invisible public accounting where community goodwill magically appears in the Ministry of Finance’s ledgers.

While the official breakdown isn’t shown, a realistic estimation (based on Fiji government travel norms) could look like this:

Airfare and upgrade: around $4,500
Per diem: about $3,000
Accommodation and extras: $2,000
Representation costs and admin fees: roughly $2,000

Total: $11,551.68, all signed off under the Prime Minister’s letterhead.

So yes, maybe the “community” did chip in with applause and flower garlands.

But the taxpayers paid for the flight, the hotel, the allowance, and the upgrade.

In other words, the “only” cost to the Coalition government was the whole trip.

QUESTIONS FOR MINISTER FOR INFORMATION LYNDA TABUYA

Funding clarity and evidence

If the organisers said the trip was “fully funded,” why did the Coalition government still pay for a ticket upgrade and per diem?
Can you produce documentation or correspondence showing exactly who funded the base airfare and accommodation?
Were any funds received directly or indirectly from PALM/NEC contractors, labour recruiters, or businesses that employ Fijian workers in Australia?

Conflict of interest and ethics

Did you or your ministry conduct any due diligence to ensure the funders had no commercial or political interests linked to your ministerial portfolio?
Were you accompanied by any government staff or advisers whose travel costs were also partly subsidised?
Under the Civil Service or Ministerial Code of Conduct, do you consider it appropriate to accept partial sponsorship for official travel from private or community groups?

Authorisation and accountability

You stated the trip was approved by the Prime Minister. Was this approval written? If so, on what date?
Was Cabinet informed or did it appear in any Cabinet paper as required for overseas ministerial travel?
Did you declare the funding source in any post-travel report or register of gifts/benefits?

Cost and transparency

What was the exact cost to taxpayers of the “ticket upgrade” and “standard travel per diem”?
Were per diems claimed for all days of travel, including those funded by organisers?
Will you release receipts or travel acquittals to verify the spending?

Policy and precedent

Would other ministers now be entitled to accept partial sponsorship from foreign-based Fijian communities?
Does this not set a precedent for outside groups to fund ministerial travel in exchange for political visibility?
What safeguards exist to prevent misuse or hidden quid pro quo arrangements?

Political and public messaging

Why does your statement emphasize PALM/NEC remittances when the trip’s funding controversy concerns ministerial ethics, not remittance appreciation?
Do you acknowledge that remittance earners’ sacrifices are being used rhetorically to justify questionable travel costs?
Why didn’t the Ministry issue a proactive statement disclosing funding details before public pressure arose?

Broader integrity questions

Will you commit to publishing all future ministerial travel disclosures and funding sources online for public scrutiny?

As an ex-MP who’s been there, let me say this clearly: most overseas trips by MPs and senior civil servants are a worthless waste of public money and time.

They do little or nothing for the nation — except line the pockets of the traveller with generous per diems and provide a taxpayer-funded holiday under the pretext of “official duty.”

This is why such trips must be strictly regulated. MPs and ministry officials should travel only when absolutely necessary — and only when the benefits to Fiji are clear, measurable, and immediate.

Too many leave for 20, 30, even 40 days, while their ministries fall behind on targets that actually matter to our people.

We saw the rot begin during the FFP years, when the former PM was sent to events meant for Permanent Secretaries — reportedly just to collect allowances and enjoy another overseas jaunt.

One former FFP MP, now sitting comfortably in opposition, is said to have raked in over $20,000 in allowances from a three-week “climate change” meeting.

And now — history repeats itself. According to today’s Fiji Times, the Government spent a total of $64,813.67 just to send the Prime Minister, five ministers, and one assistant minister overseas to “celebrate Fiji Day.” The breakdown is as follows:

• A-G Siromi Turaga — $11,783.84
• Lynda Tabuya — $11,551.68
• Penioni Ravunawa — $10,500.55
• PM Sitiveni Rabuka — $8,899.95
• Jese Saukuru — $8,583.93
• Agni Deo Singh — $7,165.72
• Sashi Kiran — $6,328.00
Total: $64,813.67 — for just one celebration.

The irony is painful. While in opposition, these same leaders condemned the FFP for wasteful spending — yet now, in power, they are walking the same path.

How can we justify spending $64,000 of our own limited funds for a feel-good trip abroad while hospitals lack medicine, schools crumble, and families struggle to put food on the table?

Worse still, many of these trips are already fully or partly funded by wealthier nations eager to buy influence and secure our votes in international forums. The sponsors win — Fiji loses. We pay our own way to attend, then clap for someone else’s agenda.

We must demand better. The next government must tighten travel regulations and keep all overseas missions to the barest minimum — only when it truly serves the national interest. No more luxury junkets disguised as diplomacy. No more taxpayer-funded sightseeing tours.

If MPs and officials really want to serve Fiji, let them stay home, fix their ministries, and deliver real results for the people who elected them — not selfies from five-star hotels abroad.

From Fijileaks Archives

NFP's Poster Boy in 2022 Election, Director of FIAS, a Defunct Institute: Biman Prasad Sold Voters Directorship of Fiji Institute of Applied Studies that had been de-registered in January 2022 under Charitable Trusts Act

5/11/2025

*The Fijian Voters thought they were getting an academic leader. It turns out the only thing active was the NFP campaign spin machine

*September 2022 Election Campaign:
CURRENTLY, he (Biman Prasad) is the Director of Fiji Institute of Applied Studies and Parliamentary Leader of the National Federation Party

Ganesh Chand

Anand Chand

Nadesa Goundar

BIMAN PRASAD's residential home? In March 1997, FIAS registered its office at Sekoula Road, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, Fiji

Biman Prasad Director of an Institute That Died Mid-Election Year

The National Federation Party loves to preach transparency and accountability. But when it comes to its own backyard, suddenly the facts get flexible.

During the 2022 elections, NFP marketed its leader, Professor Biman Prasad, as the “Director of the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies” (FIAS). Sounds academic, legitimate, and respectable - exactly the kind of intellectual polish a party wants on its campaign brochure.

Except there’s a small problem.

FIAS was formally cancelled on 26 January 2022.

That’s right. It was in the same year Prasad was touting the title to voters, the entity was quietly erased from the charitable trusts register. So while Fiji went to the polls believing Prasad was helming an active institution, public records were busy pulling the plug.

To recap:

Prasad held himself out as Director of FIAS in 2022
Official records show the trust was cancelled 26 January 2022
His 2023 statutory declaration (covering 2022) does not disclose the directorship

So, what was FIAS in 2022?

A functioning trust?

A dissolved shell?

Or an election prop that conveniently disappeared once scrutiny arrived?

Either way, the timeline does not flatter the NFP leader’s narrative.

If FIAS had effectively ceased operations before or by January 2022, then advertising oneself as its Director during the campaign is misleading at best.

If FIAS was still active up to cancellation, then why was the role not declared in the mandatory filings? The Political Parties Act does not provide exemptions for “inconvenient positions”.

And if FIAS deliberately shut down right as elections approached - well, that raises another set of questions entirely.

What voters were shown and what the register shows cannot be reconciled with a straight face.

Yet this is the same party that positions itself as the moral compass of Fiji’s politics. The same leader who chides others for “lack of transparency”.

It seems accountability is much easier to demand than to practise.

So here we are:

The Fiji Institute of Applied Studies may have breathed its last breath in January 2022, but the National Federation Party’s Institute of Political Fairy Tales continued its cheerful work.

And the lesson?

You don’t need a PhD in economics to know that voters deserved the truth. Not a disappearing act.

Based on the documentary evidence shown, there may be grounds to investigate a potential false representation under the Political Parties Act and/or ethical misrepresentation to voters.

In politics, credibility is currency. And during Fiji’s 2022 general election, Biman Prasad, leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) and later Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, traded heavily on his role as a respected academic and economist.

To seal his appeal, he flaunted a title: Director of the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS).

That title wasn’t incidental. It was central. It appeared prominently on the NFP’s campaign website and in public speeches. It was used to present Prasad as a man of ideas, independence, and global insight, the thinking voter’s candidate.

But once the votes were counted and the ministerial seat secured, that very title vanished, not from his resume but from his legal obligations.

In his 2023 statutory declaration of assets, liabilities and interests (for the year ending 2022), Prasad completely failed to disclose that he was a director of FIAS, the very organisation he invoked to earn public trust. This is not only hypocritical. It is, by any measure, a violation of the Political Parties Act, and potentially a criminal offence.

COMING NEXT: Prior to FIAS deregistration, senior figures, including Biman Prasad and Ganesh Chand, participated in planning sessions to "get it [FIAS] legal again" and transfer operations to Pacific Polytech.
The correspondence confirms the restructing as deliberate and coordinated, with proposals to re-register FIAS under new vehicles and transfer its functions. The timing raises questions about asset handling, charity government, and public office conflicts.

JULY 2025: FICAC suspect and former Finance Minister and NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD had defended $7m allocation to Ganesh Chand's Pacific Polytech. But Provisional Registration Is NOT LEGAL AUTHORISATION

4/11/2025

*Our sources tell us that FICAC searched the companies office files under Ref # 2021RC 000178 and they could not find any annual
accounts (let alone being audited) being filed since the Polytech was
operational and received funds from the Coalition Government (or former Finance Minister Biman Prasad to be accurate) and that the only record the office holds is the certificate of incorporation.

FICAC had already commenced an investigation into a complaint involving Pacific Polytech, Ganesh Chand, Biman Prasad, his wife Rajni Khausal Chand, and Pacific Polytech’s accountant. However, the then-FICAC Commissioner, Barbara Malimali, closed the entire file on questionable grounds, claiming that Biman Prasad was not required to declare his superannuation fund. This decision effectively allowed him to avoid FICAC scrutiny relating to Pacific Polytech.
Perhaps, it is now a necessity to open a case against Barbara Malimali for alleged Abuse of Office

The former Finance Minister Biman Prasad attempted to shift the $7m allocation debate away from legality and due-process obligations, instead centring on emotional appeals about youth upliftment. However, public expenditure is not justified by aspirational rhetoric. It is constrained by statute. If the institution does not meet the legal threshold for eligibility, particularly full registration under the Higher Education Act, then the legality of the appropriation is the core question, not its purported social benefit.
*Public funding to a provisionally registered entity, if not authorised in law, cannot be immunised by humanitarian justification.
Good intentions do not cure unlawful expenditure.

In Fiji, provisional registration under the Higher Education Act 2008 does not automatically entitle an institution to receive substantial public funding. It merely means the institution is allowed to operate while working toward full registration and quality assurance compliance.

Eligibility for public grants usually depends on:

Meeting full FHEC accreditation standards
Approved quality audit results
Submission and approval of funding proposals
Demonstrated capacity to deliver recognised qualifications
Compliance with governance, financial, and reporting rules

Provisional status alone is not sufficient grounds for receiving multi-million-dollar public grants.

The proper question for oversight

What must be examined is whether:

Funding criteria required full registration or quality accreditation
Funds were disbursed despite unresolved compliance issues
Due diligence and audits were conducted before release of funds
Conflicts of interest or political interference existed
Use of funds complied with the Public Finance Management Act, tender rules, and FHEC funding procedures

Oversight actions normally triggered

If millions were granted while status was only provisional, red flags include:

Possible breach of fiduciary responsibility
Risk of misuse of public funds
Need for audit by FHEC & Ministry of Finance
Referral to FICAC if procurement, disclosure, or due-process irregularities exist

Conclusion

Based solely on provisional registration, there is no automatic entitlement to receive “millions” in government grants.

Eligibility depends on compliance and funding program criteria, and any large disbursement during provisional status would warrant scrutiny, documents review, and accountability questions.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad says Pacific Polytech had asked for more than $13 million, and the government is only allocating them $7 million.

As criticism mounts on the increased allocation to the institution over the years, the Finance Minister says some of these critics have nothing better to talk about.

Professor Prasad says the process of allocating funding to higher education institutions registered by the Higher Education Commission is based on the submissions that these institutions make and some of the recommendations that come from the Higher Education Commission.

He says in this case, Pacific Polytech asked for more than what they’ve been allocated.

The Finance Minister claims these critics have forgotten that institutions like Pacific Polytech are offering a second chance to many Fijians.

“They are putting thousands of youths, you know, who would be leaving school in Form 4, Form 5, and 6, instead of, you know, being on the street and engaging in drugs, etc., are ending up in these institutes and getting qualificationsfor which they get jobs.”

Prasad reiterated that though the allocations are being announced, the process to get the funding still needs to be followed.

Provisional Registration Is Not Legal Authorisation: A Formal Rebuttal to Minister Prasad’s Pacific Polytech Defence and the Emerging Questions of Illicit Public Funding

Summary of the Minister’s Statement to FBC (9 July 2025)

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (now former), Professor Biman Prasad, defended the continued and increasing public funding of Pacific Polytech. He argued that:

Pacific Polytech requested $13m but government allocated $7m.

Criticism is unwarranted and politically motivated.
Funding decisions follow Higher Education Commission submissions and recommendations.
The institution provides “a second chance” to young people at risk of falling into crime or drugs.
Allocations are ongoing but proper processes will still follow.

The narrative frames the allocation as benevolent and socially necessary, dismissing concerns as trivial politics.

The former Finance Minister Biman Prasad's remarks attempted to shift debate away from legality and due-process obligations, instead centring on emotional appeals about youth upliftment.

However, public expenditure is not justified by aspirational rhetoric. It is constrained by statute. If the institution does not meet the legal threshold for eligibility, particularly full registration under the Higher Education Act, then the legality of the appropriation is the core question, not its purported social benefit.

Public funding to a provisionally registered entity, if not authorised in law, cannot be immunised by humanitarian justification. Good intentions do not cure unlawful expenditure.

Provisional Registration Does Not Confer Eligibility for Public Funding

The Higher Education Act establishes a clear regulatory regime:

Provisional registration is a transitional, conditional status.
It grants no automatic entitlement to state funding.
It exists to allow institutions to build capacity and meet standards before they are treated as eligible higher-education providers.

Provisional entities are, by design, not yet compliant. Treating provisional status as if it were full recognition collapses the statutory distinction and frustrates legislative purpose.

Funds allocated to an entity not lawfully entitled to them are ultra vires unless Parliament expressly authorised an exemption. No such exemption appears to exist.

This is not a policy disagreement. It is an issue of legality.

Ignoring Statutory Requirements Constitutes Misuse of Public Office

If funds were provided to an institution lacking legal standing to receive them, questions arise under:

Public Finance Management Act
Financial Management Act
Penal Code offences relating to abuse of office and unlawful expenditure
Corruption statutes (FICAC Act)

Section 139 of the Fiji Constitution requires public spending to comply with law.

Ministerial discretion does not override statutory frameworks.

Where an official knowingly allocates funds contrary to law, or recklessly disregards statutory requirements, misconduct in public office may be made out.

Procedural Validation After Allocation Is Not a Defence

The then Finance Minister Biman Prasad asserted that “though the allocations were being announced, the process to get the funding still needed to be followed.”

This is fundamentally backwards.

Compliance must precede allocation, not retrospectively legitimise it. A “fund now, check later” approach is emblematic of maladministration and potential criminality.

To treat process as a post-hoc box-ticking exercise is to invert the rule of law and nullify procurement and grant compliance systems.

Public Commentary About “Critics With Nothing Better to Do” Is Misplaced

Ministers are fiduciaries of public money.

Scrutiny is not a nuisance. It is a constitutional duty of citizens and media.

Attempting to belittle criticism sidesteps substantive legal questions and raises further concern about accountability culture.

Possible Offences

If the facts confirm that Pacific Polytech lacked legal qualification when public funds were approved or disbursed, potential offences include:

Abuse of Office (Crimes Act)
Causing financial prejudice to the State
Official corruption (FICAC Act)
Breach of duty by public officers
Failure to comply with public finance law

Further, any civil servant or commission officer who facilitated the allocation knowing the institution was only provisionally registered may face liability for aiding unlawful expenditure.

The then Finance Minister Biman Prasad's July statements did not address the central legal issue: provisional registration is not accreditation. Provisional status signals an institution is not yet fit for full recognition.

Funding such an entity without a clear legal basis risks criminal and constitutional breach.

Public money is not discretionary largesse. (Baap Ke Paisa-Father's Money)

It is held in trust.

And trust is not a substitute for statutory compliance.

The appropriate course now is:

Immediate audit of all allocations made to Pacific Polytech.
Independent legal review of the funding authorisation process.
If confirmed unlawful, referral to FICAC and police for investigation.
Fijileaks: FICAC was already investigating a complaint against Pacific Polytech, Ganesh Chand, Biman Prasad, his wife Rajni Khausal Chand, and Polytech's accountant, when the then FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali closed Biman Prasad's ENTIRE FILE on spurious grounds that he did not have to declare his superannuation fund so he was free to escape FICAC investigations. Perhaps, it is now a necessity to open a case against Malimali for alleged Abuse of Office.

Meanwhile, rhetoric about helping youth does not cure illegality. If the law was breached, accountability must follow. FICAC must re-open its file on Pacific Polytech.

Pacific Polytech Scandal: Parliament Committee Told Public Funds Went to Unaccredited Provider. “Illegal” Grant Raises Alarm, Calls for Inquiry. Who authorised illegal funding, why? Millions given to Pacific POLYTECH

3/11/2025

At its core, the scandal is simple: A private training provider, Pacific Polytech, with no accredited courses, was awarded government grants it was never entitled to receive. And the FHEC has now confirmed under oath that these payments bypassed its statutory authority.
Fiji’s laws are explicit: no institution can receive government grants unless accredited and approved by FHEC. Yet Pacific Polytech somehow leap-frogged compliant institutions and pocketed public money.

The FHEC Director explained the proper process:
“We are the only legislated institution in Fiji to give out funding on behalf of the Fiji Government.”
*So when funds flowed to Pacific Polytech outside that process, it wasn’t a mistake. It was a breach.

*How did Pacific Polytech bypass statutory regulation?
*Who authorised the payments?
*Which minister approved the budget line?
*Was Cabinet misled?

A seismic parliamentary report and sworn testimony have confirmed what students, educators, and whistle-blowers long suspected: the Pacific Polytech was receiving taxpayer funds despite not being accredited, not being approved by the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC), and not meeting national qualifications standards.

This revelation, now formally tabled in Parliament, strikes at the heart of Fiji’s education governance and raises serious questions of political influence, abuse of office, and collusion in the allocation of public funds.

At its core, the scandal is simple: A private training provider with no accredited courses was awarded government grants it was never entitled to receive. And the FHEC has now confirmed under oath that these payments bypassed its statutory authority.

FHEC Director: “Funds Were Allocated Illegally”

During the Standing Committee on Social Affairs hearing, Committee Member Parveen Bala asked directly whether grants given to Pacific Polytech were illegal.

The FHEC Director, Dr Eci Naisele, did not mince words:

“Anyone else allowing funding to go through is not legal.”

“For that matter, I would say yes.”

That admission, delivered publicly and on the record, is unprecedented. It confirms the grants breached Fiji’s higher-education funding laws.

And it immediately raises the critical question: Who authorised the illegal funding, and why?

The Facts: Pacific Polytech Should Never Have Received a Cent

Parliament’s findings are blunt. The Committee confirmed:

“Grants were allocated to institutions who were not approved by FHEC, namely Pacific Polytech and Service Pro Institute.”

“All courses offered at Pacific Polytech are not accredited by the FHEC.”

And its recommendation could not be clearer:

“Future funding of Pacific Polytech must stop immediately.”

Even more damning, the Committee recommended Parliament establish a Commission of Inquiry into the scandal:

“The Inquiry to look into the non-accreditation, and how the grant was allocated given that they did not meet the criteria.”

This is now a live call for investigation by the Parliament itself.

Regulatory Bypass: Who Pulled the Strings?

Fiji’s laws are explicit: no institution can receive government grants unless accredited and approved by FHEC. Yet Pacific Polytech somehow leap-frogged compliant institutions and pocketed public money.

The FHEC Director explained the proper process:

“We are the only legislated institution in Fiji to give out funding on behalf of the Fiji Government.”

So when funds flowed to Pacific Polytech outside that process, it wasn’t a mistake. It was a breach.

How did Pacific Polytech bypass statutory regulation?
Who authorised the payments?
Which minister approved the budget line?
Was Cabinet misled?

The public now deserves those answers.

Impact: Fiji’s Students as Collateral Damage

This scandal didn’t just violate law. It jeopardised the futures of Fiji’s young people.

Unaccredited programmes mean:

No recognised qualifications
Barriers to jobs in Fiji
No international portability of skills
Exploitation of families who paid fees in good faith

Worse, the hearing also revealed caregiver institutions flooding the market with unaccredited graduates who were promised overseas employment:

“Excessive number of students...later closed.”

Once again, students became casualties of a broken oversight system.

A Track Record of Bending Rules?

Pacific Polytech’s name has surfaced repeatedly in whistle-blower circles over the last three years, especially during alleged political favouritism in TVET funding.

This parliamentary evidence is the first formal confirmation that:

The institution was not accredited
Government money flowed anyway
The regulator was bypassed
The transaction was unlawful

This pattern demands forensic scrutiny of who benefited and why.

What Happens Next?

Parliament has the ball. It must:

Launch the Commission of Inquiry
Freeze all payments pending investigation
Refer the matter to FICAC
Audit all TVET allocations between 2018–2024
Investigate possible political interference in FHEC

Additionally, students who paid fees to Pacific Polytech should be entitled to:

Refunds
Government-funded retraining
Recognition of prior learning pathways

The Committee itself stressed that FHEC must be able to operate “without any interference.”

Now we know why.

This is not simply a bureaucratic oversight. This is a deliberate circumvention of law, funneling taxpayer money to an unqualified provider, at the expense of students, the integrity of Fiji’s qualification system, and public trust.

The fact that the scandal only surfaced because of parliamentary scrutiny points to a systemic problem: regulatory capture and political manipulation in tertiary funding.

For the first time, the truth is now on record.

The next move belongs to the Parliament, and the people of Fiji.

From Fijileaks Archive, 10 August 2024

TSUNAMI OF BLAME: Gavoka Now Says the Media is the Real Problem, Not Governance. When Fiji sees Dark Clouds Over the Horizon - Drugs, Crimes, Corruption, GAVOKA: “Relax; it’s just a WAVE, not a TSUNAMI"

2/11/2025

When the Media Tsunami Hits the Government. But the Wave Is ‘Just a Minor Splash’

So here’s the latest from the sunny shores of Fiji: the Viliame Gavoka government has blamed the media for “poor governance”. Yes, you read that right. While some of us were busy noting ministerial resignations, commissions of enquiry, illicit-drugs scandals, road-fatalities, tourism issues and the like, the government’s key takeaway is that the media are exaggerating.

What was said by Deputy Prime Minister Gavoka

Deputy Prime Minister Gavoka announced that while the government “worked hard to tell the world how beautiful Fiji was”, the media were busy writing headlines about drugs, HIV, crime and other social ills.
His line: yes, things happen, but “it’s not in a way that it’s prevalent in the community, it’s a minority thing".
Therefore the narrative problem isn’t the issues themselves. It’s the media’s “over-exaggeration”.

Why this is interesting (and a bit eyebrow-raising)

Deflection at play

When the ship starts creaking, resignations, inquiries, crime waves, the easiest tack is: “Look away from the holes in the hull. The plankton sighting is over-blown.” The media, in this reading, become the culprit rather than the cover-up.

Minister Gavoka Confronts Biggest Media Villain Yet. His Own Reflection For 'Over-Exaggerating' Fiji's Problems

CRYING WITH JOY: Stanley Simpson, Fijian Media Association boss, sheds TEARS on removal of
Media Decree

Undermining scrutiny

If you tell the public that the press is exaggerating, you chip away at the independent scrutiny function of journalism. That might leave less light shining on governance lapses, and more opaque corners for mistakes or worse.

Economic & tourism angle

There’s a distinct flavour of “we must protect Fiji’s image for tourism” in Gavoka’s remarks. Acknowledging problems might deter visitors or investors. But brushing them aside doesn’t actually fix them, and may in fact harm the economy in the long run if the underlying issues are real.

The “minority” rebuttal

Sure: many social ills begin with minorities. But that doesn’t make them minor in impact. A drug trafficking network, law-enforcement involvement, youth crime - these ripple widely. And waters that start shallow can turn into tsunamis, metaphorically speaking.

The Media’s Role. Tsunami Warning vs. Calm Sea

Let’s picture this: the media sees dark clouds on the horizon, rising crime, prosecutions, resignations, and raises the alarm. The government says: “Relax; it’s just a wave, not a tsunami.”

But what if it is the beginnings of a tsunami? What if the lack of transparency, the deflection of blame, and the slowing of remedial action are the hidden under-currents? The media, after all, serve to warn, record, scrutinise. If you silence or belittle them, you remove that early-warning system.

In effect:

The media warns the public.
The government says: “Stop shouting; the sea is calm.”
But meanwhile, under that calm surface, the water is rising.

Economic Risks of Ignoring the Wave

From an economic perspective: Fiji relies heavily on image, tourism, foreign investment, confidence. If governance problems grow unchecked because they’re dismissed as “media hype”, you risk:

Investors asking: “Why is there so much resigning and enquiring and nothing being fixed?”
Tourists saying: “Hmm, headline about drug smuggling in X resort area — maybe not this time.”
Citizens saying: “Why are our taxes funding inquiries instead of solutions?”

So the “media tsunami” might just be the warning. Ignoring it endangers the shores.

The Fiji media may exaggerate sometimes. Headlines sometimes shout. But when the government says everything is fine, and the press says there are serious problems, guess which side deserves a little extra scrutiny?

If you’re taking the government at face value, you’ll believe the sea is perfectly calm. But if you’re listening to the media too, you might spot the swell, the under-current, the glint of something breaking the surface.

In short, blaming the press is easier than doing the harder work of fixing the root causes. The question for Fiji is: which will happen first - a wave that can be handled or a tsunami that cannot?

Government has shifted the blame on the media for Fiji’s poor governance.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Tourism and Civil Aviation, Viliame Gavoka, has downplayed the ongoing issues in the country, saying it’s the media which had been “over exaggerating” issues.

His responses followed questions by this masthead about Fiji’s governance, which included commission of enquiries, resignations of his fellow DPMs and ministers in Biman Prasad and Manoa Kamikamica, national security, illicit drugs, road fatalities, social ills and criminal activities. References were also made to some tourists mulling drugs into Fiji and law enforcement officers charged for involvement in Fiji’s illicit drug trade.

Mr Gavoka said while Government worked hard to tell the world how beautiful Fiji was, media headlines had exaggerated issues.

“I just wish you (media) would change the story a bit because you know headlines of drugs, HIV and other issues like that. This (Fiji) is the most beautiful country in the whole world, visitors come here in rows and we are the ones giving Fiji the background,” Mr Gavoka said.

“It’s happening, but it’s not in a way that its prevalent in the community, it’s a minority thing.” Mr Gavoka said he hoped for a change in the media headlines as it moved ahead with its efforts in expanding the tourism Industry. Source: Fiji Sun, 2/11/2025

PM Rabuka’s Sudden Rush to Reshape FICAC: Reform or Pre-Emptive Strike? You don’t renovate guardhouse while thieves are still inside the compound. Public must wake up to false siren, for FICAC is doing its job

2/11/2025

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has finally shown his hand. He now wants to restructure the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption, and he wants to do it fast.

On the surface, Rabuka is talking about “constitutional compliance” and tidying up FICAC’s mandate. Dig a little deeper and the timing tells a very different story.

This rush comes right when FICAC sits at the centre of multiple political scandals, disputed appointments, and unfinished investigations involving senior figures in government. It also shadows the legal fight over Barbara Malimali's removal.

Make no mistake: FICAC is not being reformed in peace time. It is being re-engineered in the middle of battle.

Every time political elites feel the heat, the instinct is the same - rearrange the system before the system can reach them.

The New Script: “Reform” as a Shield

Rabuka says FICAC may be folded more directly into the policing structure, with corruption handled separately from traffic and domestic violence work. Sounds harmless enough until you remember how power works in Fiji.

When politicians talk about “structural reform” of watchdog agencies at the very moment those agencies should be barking, the public should hear sirens, not soothing assurances.

Will this “reform”:

freeze ongoing investigations?
disrupt cases already underway?
mute or sideline independent prosecutors?
replace uncomfortable leadership with obedient faces?
absorb FICAC into a police force already answerable to Cabinet?

All perfectly legal under the right “amendment package”. All perfectly fatal to accountability.

Section 115 as a Convenient Cover

Rabuka reminds us that the Constitution requires a formal amendment process to change FICAC’s mandate.

Correct, and dangerously clever.

Once the government opens the door to constitutional amendments under the slogan of “strengthening institutions,” it can slip in control mechanisms, appointment tweaks, oversight rewiring, and sunset clauses on independence - one clause at a time.

Fiji has seen this movie before. Titles change, logos change, promises flow, and then suddenly the watchdog is on a leash.

Ask the Real Question: Why Now?

Why restructure FICAC right now, not last year, not after the next election, not after current cases finish?

Because, as the saying goes, you don’t fix the fire alarm while the house is burning, unless your real aim is to silence it.

If this government had nothing to fear from an independent anti-corruption agency, it would let the current investigations run, allow the courts to resolve the Malimali saga, and then consult publicly on reform.

Instead, we get speed, secrecy, and talking points.

A Familiar Pattern in Fiji

Every government that touches FICAC pretends to strengthen it. Each one ends up either weaponising it or neutering it depending on who is under threat.

This time is no different, only the faces have changed.

If Rabuka truly believes in accountability and transparency, then he should welcome a fully-armed FICAC, not dismantle it mid-operation.

Instead, we are watching a slow-motion political insurance policy being written in real time.

The Public Must Say It Clearly

Reform can wait.

Investigations cannot.

Finish the current probes.

Let the courts speak.

Then talk about restructuring.

Otherwise, call this what it is: a pre-emptive strike on Fiji’s anti-corruption watchdog before it bites someone important.

And Fiji has seen enough “reforms” dressed in good intentions to know exactly where that road leads.

You don’t renovate the guardhouse while thieves are still inside the compound.

If FICAC collapses into another political puppet, Fiji’s corruption fight is over.

And those who engineered the collapse must be held to account.

The Great GMAIL COUP: NFP SAVES FIJI FROM ONE WOMAN WITH WIFI

31/10/2025

*Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka forwarded to Biman Prasad an e-mail from Australia asking for an explanation for alleged back-stabbing. Instead of answering, Prasad and his NFP team - fronted by Kamal Iyer of the "Mr 98 Vote" fame - exploded in anger and twisted the narrative

THE GREAT GMAIL COUP: NFP SAVES FIJI FROM ONE WOMAN WITH WIFI

So, apparently, Fiji was this close to collapsing into anarchy because an Australian-Fijian woman sent an email to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Yes, dear reader, the Republic trembled. The Coalition quivered.

And the NFP?

The party's general-secretary Kamal Iyer (Mr 98 Votes) leaped into battle like a Marvel cast on Red Bull.

What did this terrifying email contain?

Witchcraft? Classified intel? Nuclear codes?

No. It allegedly suggested that Biman Prasad might - brace yourself - have political feelings.

And possibly a phone.

And maybe, in a parallel universe, once spoke to the former NFP president Tupou Draunidalo.

Scandalous. Call the UN. Mobilise the RFMF. Hide the kava.

The NFP Version of Events

A civilian sends a message.
The PM forwards it like a polite uncle who doesn’t quite understand Gmail.
NFP reads it and declares it a global conspiracy to overthrow the government.
They accuse a woman in Australia of masterminding Fiji’s downfall from her laptop.
The press release sounds like Tom Clancy ghost-wrote it after three bowls of yaqona and a head injury.

In a dramatic flourish they warn: "a heinous plot to derail the coalition government.”

Someone questioned Biman Prasad and we are Not Having It.

They Even Dragged Tupou Draunidalo?

Poor Tupou Draunidalo, minding her business somewhere, suddenly cast as The Shadow Empress of Plotting Things Since 2016.

NFP demands she “clarify” herself like they’re summoning her to confess in a medieval castle.

Next press release: “We have reason to believe Tupou owns a mug. A suspicious mug.”

And the Language, Oh the Language

Their statement uses every dramatic insult except “the bloody b***h":

repugnant
filth
cesspool
drown

At one point it sounded like a Pentecostal exorcism and a Bollywood script collided in a newsroom.

When political parties start writing like rejected Game of Thrones villains, nothing screams “calm and stable leadership” like yelling CESSPOOL!! at a woman with an iPhone and a Laptop.

The Real Question

How fragile does a government have to be if one email, one woman, one rumour equals apocalypse level threat.

Forget cyber warfare. Fiji politics can apparently be toppled via Gmail and gossip.

Somewhere, serious intelligence agencies are absolutely weeping from laughter.

If this is the master-plan to destroy the Coalition government, Australia should be ashamed. That’s not espionage. That’s Facebook aunty energy.

Meanwhile, the public sits in Fiji like: “Guys, Biman has been on the run since 5 September 2024, and is now facing charges. Maybe talk about that instead of declaring war on GMAIL?”

But no. Better to scream “CONSPIRACY!” at the sky, declare patriotic jihad against Gmail users, and call critics “cesspool dwellers”.

Strong leadership right there by a party whose leader should be charged with multiple counts of lying in his statutory declarations between 2014 and 2024.

We had sent most of the documentary evidence to Sitiveni Rabuka long ago, calling for him to SACK the NFP leader, Deputy Prime Minister, and Finance Minister BIMAN CHAND PRASAD.

Biman Prasad failed to declare his directorships in three companies: Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd; Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd, and Lotus Tours & Transfers Ltd

*In his 2014 statutory declaration, Biman Chand Prasad failed to disclose that he was one of two directors in the Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd. He continued to hide his directorship until he became Coalition's Finance Minister in 2022. He was facing 10 charges when Malimali closed his File.

KAMAL IYER moaning that his leader has been charged for breaching the Political Parties Act in 2015 - 10 years ago. Not long ago NFP was cheering when Dr Neil Sharma, Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum were charged for offences allegedly committed in 2011

Fiji’s former Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama, former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and former Health Minister Dr. Neil Sharma appeared before Justice Usaia Ratuvili today (26 July 2025) for the first mention of the case. They face multiple charges alleging that procurement regulations were bypassed when awarding contracts for medical equipment in 2011. Dr. Sharma is charged with two counts of abuse of office and two counts of breach of trust by a public servant. Bainimarama faces one count of abuse of office, while Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with one count of abuse of office and one count of obstructing the course of justice.

<<Previous

"This is a historical convention for the National Federation Party before the 2018 General Election. It is in this town of Rakiraki that the NFP was born under a mango tree and later formalised and launched in Nadi."3 September 2016, Biman Prasad to NFP Annual Convention