| Deputy Prime Minister and Cabinet Minister Manoa Kamikamica has made the honourable decision to resign from Cabinet and his ministerial duties, effective 22 October 2025, to focus on clearing his name following charges by FICAC. He will return to Fiji and continue serving in Parliament as a backbencher. The Prime Minister Rabuka accepted his resignation and praised Kamikamica’s integrity and continued commitment to the Government and people of Fiji, confirming he will temporarily oversee Kamikamica’s portfolio. |  |
 |  |
*In an official statement posted on the Office of the Attorney-General's Facebook page, the office clarified that the individual named in the court matter was not Solicitor-General Ropate Green, but another person who shares the same name
| The Office of the Solicitor-General has strongly refuted claims made on social media alleging that the Solicitor-General, Ropate Green, has been charged with criminal intimidation and is expected to appear in court this week. |  |
In a statement, the Office clarified that these claims, which were posted by Alex Forwood and Ketan Lal, are false, misleading and defamatory.
They say the individual mentioned in the court matter is not the Solicitor-General, but another person who happens to share the same name.
The Office is urging members of the public, including public figures and social media users, to act responsibly when posting or sharing information online and to verify facts before publication.
They say the spread of unverified and false claims by individuals not only tarnishes reputations but also erodes public trust in national institutions.
The Office further says that defamation whether intentional or due to reckless disregard for the truth, carries legal consequences.
The Office has also stated that it reserves all rights to take appropriate legal action to protect the integrity of the Office and the reputation of the Solicitor-General.
They say the individual mentioned in the court matter is not the Solicitor-General, but another person who happens to share the same name.
The Office is urging members of the public, including public figures and social media users, to act responsibly when posting or sharing information online and to verify facts before publication.
They say the spread of unverified and false claims by individuals not only tarnishes reputations but also erodes public trust in national institutions.
The Office further says that defamation whether intentional or due to reckless disregard for the truth, carries legal consequences.
The Office has also stated that it reserves all rights to take appropriate legal action to protect the integrity of the Office and the reputation of the Solicitor-General.
WHY the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General Should Have Responded Immediately, and NOT With Legal Threats
When a rumour names the country’s chief law officer, you don’t wait for the bushfire to reach towns, cities, and villages before fetching a hose. You step out early, clearly, and with facts. Instead, the Offices of the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General let speculation ferment across social media, only to surface with a belated press note wagging a legal finger and threatening defamation.
That is crisis mismanagement 101, and it hands oxygen to the very claims you want to suffocate.
What went wrong, where was Coalition's Information Minister Lynda Tabuya?
Why the timing matters
What a competent response would have looked like
No drama. No grandstanding. Just facts, fast.
The problem with “defamation first”
Yes, defamation exists. Yes, reckless amplification hurts real people. But state lawyers are not private litigants. The threshold is higher. When the S-G or A-G reaches first for the legal cudgel, it looks like power defending itself rather than the public interest defending the truth. And the public notices.
Use the law last. Use evidence first.
What the public is entitled to expect
The Offices of the S-G and A-G cannot preach “verify before you share” while practising “threaten before you clarify.”
If you want the public to be responsible with information, model the behaviour: be swift, specific, and scrupulously factual. It’s not just smarter communications; it’s a constitutional duty owed to the people whose confidence you serve on trust.
Fijileaks’ Three Rules for Officials Under Fire
That is crisis mismanagement 101, and it hands oxygen to the very claims you want to suffocate.
What went wrong, where was Coalition's Information Minister Lynda Tabuya?
- Silence in the golden hour. The first hour after a claim lands is decisive. Even a short holding line, “We’re aware, it’s false, fuller statement at X o’clock”, would have set the record. The vacuum invited screen-grabs, half-quotes, and conspiracy hashtags to multiply.
- Threats before transparency. Leading with “we reserve our rights” is not a rebuttal; it’s a bluff charge. It chills legitimate scrutiny, antagonises the public, and, in the digital age, triggers the domino effect: more clicks, more shares, more doubt.
- Name confusion left to run. If another person with a similar name is the one in a court list, then say so fast and precisely. Provide the distinguishing details you are lawfully able to share. Ambiguity breeds mischief.
Why the timing matters
- Public trust is perishable. The law officers are custodians of the state’s credibility. Every hour of official silence moves the conversation from “is it true?” to “why aren’t they denying it?” That reputational slide is hard to reverse.
- Politics rushes into the gap. In Fiji’s febrile climate, a loose post becomes ammunition. By the time the statement arrived, the issue had already been weaponised. A rapid, factual correction would have de-politicised it before the spin machines warmed up.
- You can’t out-litigate a meme. Legal threats can manage newspapers; they cannot catch up with WhatsApp, Viber and Snapchat groups. Speed and clarity beat bluster and letters.
What a competent response would have looked like
- T+30 minutes: Acknowledgement and holding line from the S-G’s Office:
- “Claims circulating that the Solicitor-General has been charged are false. We’ll issue a detailed clarification by 2pm.”
- T+2 hours: Detailed bulletin with verifiable facts, not adjectives.
- “The person named in [court/charge list] is [full name, middle initials, birth year], not the Solicitor-General [full name]. The S-G has not been charged with any offence. Any enquiries may be directed to [contact].”
- T+2 hours: Proactive distribution to newsrooms, talk-back producers, and major social pages; post sharable graphic with the core fact in one sentence. Encourage corrections rather than threaten writs.
- T+Day’s end: Record of correction: list of pages/posts that have corrected or retracted. Thank them publicly. Keep the temperature down.
No drama. No grandstanding. Just facts, fast.
The problem with “defamation first”
Yes, defamation exists. Yes, reckless amplification hurts real people. But state lawyers are not private litigants. The threshold is higher. When the S-G or A-G reaches first for the legal cudgel, it looks like power defending itself rather than the public interest defending the truth. And the public notices.
Use the law last. Use evidence first.
What the public is entitled to expect
- A timeline. When did the Offices first learn of the posts? Who approved the response? Why the delay? Publish the chronology.
- A comms protocol. Show us the playbook: who speaks, when, and how. “We were busy” is not a policy.
- A correction culture. Ask posters to correct and pin the correction. Reserve legal action for the narrow band of malicious, repeated, and refused-to-correct cases, and say so up front.
The Offices of the S-G and A-G cannot preach “verify before you share” while practising “threaten before you clarify.”
If you want the public to be responsible with information, model the behaviour: be swift, specific, and scrupulously factual. It’s not just smarter communications; it’s a constitutional duty owed to the people whose confidence you serve on trust.
Fijileaks’ Three Rules for Officials Under Fire
- Speed over swagger. A 50-word fact at 1pm beats a 500-word scold at sunset.
- Receipts over rhetoric. Show the distinguishing facts; avoid adjectives.
- Corrections over courtrooms. Fix the record publicly; litigate only the wilfully malicious.
NO Immunity for Convicted Criminals, even if you former PRESIDENT
 |  |
