Blog Archives

LOOTERS AND LIARS ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANKS. NFP's Employment Minister AGNI DEO SINGH abstained from voting for pay rise while four of his NFP MPs voted against but don't be fooled, Fiji

24/5/2024

POLITICIANS, POVERTY and PAY RISE: For several months, it has been rammed down our throats (including the Baledrokadroka-Leung GGC Report) that vast majority of i-Taukei are living below the POVERTY line.
Yet, out of the 40 MPs who voted for hefty pay rises, 34 are i-Taukei Members of Parliament. Six Indo-Fijian MPs voted with them, including the multi-millionaire Labasa businessmen Charan Jeath Singh.
Two Paramount Chiefs - the President and the Speaker - stand to reap financial windfall (Speaker even official residence) while their i-Taukei subjects are allegedly drowning in POVERTY, with Indo-Fijians being blamed for their alleged miserable financial plight.
*We have been saying for the last four decades that the real culprits responsible for i-Taukeis' financial plight are their CHIEFS and the i-Taukei ELITE. Welcome to the new 34 i-Taukei Greedy Thieves.

HURRAH. PAP, SODELPA and FFP MPs combine to fill their pockets while the poor are struggling to put food on the table...and NFP is trying to hoodwink us by pretending to be objecting to the pay rises. In fact, one of its Ministers Agni Deo Singh - Minister for Employment - abstained from voting.
Another, FFP MP Alvick Maharaj, having signed off on the pay rise report, did NOT vote - bloody hypocrite trying to cover his 'arse' from public outrage.
Another FFP MP and signatory to the pay rise report, Mosese Bulitavu voted for the whopping pay increases while Poor living in POVERTY.

FFP MP Parveen Bala did not vote but was present in Parliament.

Opposition FFP leader Inia Seruiratu in a rambling speech tried to justify the pay increase for himself and other MPs by claiming that, 'Some have mortgages, we have relatives, we have commitments to our churches, and these are all facts of life'.
Fijileaks to Seruiratu: The Fijians of all races are not here to endorse your pay rise, so you can contribute to your church, or assist you to financially help your bloody 'kerekere'* relatives.
The biggest liar of all is Sitiveni Rabuka, who claimed he was 'happy that his salary was going down'.
He was on $263,000 but it has been bumped up to $320,000

BORN AGAIN, Niko Nawaikula. Even the convicted swindler who was jailed for fiddling with his parliamentary allowances, has condemned the hefty pay rises for President, Speaker, Prime Minister, Ministers and Assistant Ministers

MPS SALARY INCREASE - UNFAIR, UNJUST, UNNECESSARY- OUR PRIORITY IS THE POOR & NOT MPS
Suva 23.5.24
Statement by SWN Advocasy On Increase Of MPs Salary.

Fiji Village has just reported massive 138% increases across the board for our MPs. Fiji Village reports - " The Parliamentary Emoluments Committee has recommended; increase in the President’s pay by $55,000, increase in Assistant Ministers’ pay from $90,000 to $120,000, increase in the Leader of Opposition’s pay from $120,000 to $200,000, increase in the pay of Members of Parliament from $50,000 to $95,000 . SWN Advocasy is of view the increases are utterly preposterous, absurd and ridiculous. It is unfair, unjust and unnecessary.
30% of our population live below the poverty line. They cant put food on the table. They are the ones that our MPs should concentrate on. Not themselves.

I meet the poor all the time as I travel by bus.I just came back from Vanua Levu by boat on economy class. There was this single Mother struggling to keep her brood of 4 children on the bare floor of the ship.

I doubt our MPs can see the poor and the ordinary from their tinted cars.

But $55K increase for the President, $30K increase for assistant Ministers, $80K increase for the leader of Opposition & $45K increase for a sitting member of Parliament are totally unwarranted.

And what achievements can our MPs boast to deserve this. The coalition manifesto state as a target the repeal/review of Constitution. This has not been achieved.

The coalition manifesto indicate as a target the repeal of all anti taukei laws. This has not been achieved. In 2014 the FFP government fooled the public by passing hefty increases just before passing the 2013 Constitution so they gave the excuse its already part of the law.

The Coalition Government is no different in that sense from the FFP Government in putting its interest and members Pocket before National Interest and the interest of the poor and needy.

Its totally surprising we are not even 2 years into the life of this Parliament and this has come up as a national priority above the 30% who live in poverty , the resolution of those that stole from FSC, the resolution of those that stole from the Savusavu Market Project , from the $400M Winston Project and Countless others.

SWN Advocasy urges the Coalition Govt not to implement the recommendation.

To be leaders our MPs must be servants to the People , their first priority must be the poor and others and not themselves.

Niko Nawaikula
president
SWN Advocasy
23.5.24

RABUKA PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH TAXPAYERS MONEY
Just like under his watch, Looters bankrupted National Bank of Fiji

The former Media Advisor - Office of the Prime MInister at Fiji Government

PROOF of Roti and Dhal is in the Eating. Will BIMAN PRASAD and NFP Board order its FIVE MPs not to accept PAY RISE and financial PERKS and Privileges? Then only Prasad's Crying Wolf Tears will be GENUINE

24/5/2024

NO SHOW ON EMOLUMENTS COMMITTEE: If the Baimaan Party was serious, it should have nominated one of its MPs to the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee, and later that NFP MP could have refused to sign off the Final Report

"The Speaker is the head of the legislative branch of the government. The role is important and the salary (from $150,000 to $220,000) should reflect the gravitas of the post.'
The Parliamentary Emoluments Committee Report, April 2024.
The Committee also recommended for OFFICIAL RESIDENCE for the Speaker of Parliament.
*Disgustingly, while the FATHER-SON (Health Minister) will feed on massive pay rises, perks and privileges, and may also get official residence, Tui Cakau's subjects are allegedly living in POVERTY

SAVED BY RABUKA's GONG. 'RATU 652 Votes': PAP loser and SODELPA defector Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu was nominated by PAP-NFP-SODELPA to be the new SPEAKER, the man who wanted GEORGE SPEIGHT and other 2000 coupists freed from NABORO PRISON.

Labasa Magistrate Sunil Kumar, while jailing Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and three other chiefs, said he did not consider a suspended sentence for the four as they had pleaded NOT guilty to the charges against them.
Mr Kumar said he took into consideration that the four were chiefs in their own right and could have stopped the illegal activities of the rebel soldiers.
*He blamed the takeover of the Labasa police station, the beating up of police officers and loyal soldiers on the four chiefs who, he said, played a leading role in influencing the rebel soldiers to act criminally.

Fiji's lands minister and Vanua Levu high chief, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, has been jailed for eight months for coup related offences.
Radio Legend reports that also jailed for eight months are government senator Ratu Josefa Dimuri, and two other Vanua Levu chiefs - one of whom is on the Great Council of Chiefs. Ratu Naiqama is the parliamentary leader of the junior partner in the coalition government, the Conservative Alliance Matanitu Vanua, while Ratu Josefa is its general secretary.
* All four were charged with illegal assembly at the Sukanaivalu Barracks in Labasa during an army mutiny at the height of the 2000 coup.
* Magistrate Sunil Kumar is quoted as saying he did not consider a suspended sentence for the four as they had pleaded NOT guilty to the charges against them.
* Mr Kumar said he took into consideration that the four were chiefs in their own right and could have stopped the illegal activities of the rebel soldiers.
* He blamed the takeover of the Labasa police station, the beating up of police officers and loyal soldiers on the four chiefs who, he said, played a leading role in influencing the rebel soldiers to act criminally.
* The magistrate said illegal assembly is a serious offence which led to instability and security problems at a time when the nation was looking to its leaders to calm the situation. * The four have been taken to Labasa prison where they will serve their term.

Fiji's jailed former minister for lands, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, and government senator, Ratu Josefa Dimuri, have been released from Labasa Prison to serve their sentences extramurally. Their release today came just 11 days after they were jailed for eight months on Monday of last week on coup related offences.
Radio Legend reports that family members have confirmed the release of the two chiefs who left for Suva immediately afterwards. The commissioner of prisons, Aisea Taoka, has referred all queries to the supervisor of Labasa Prison who was away in Taveuni and could not be reached.
* The radio report says prison regulations allow a prison supervisor to release any person jailed for less than 12 months to serve the sentence extramurally by doing public work outside.
* Their release mean that Ratu Naiqama and Senator Dimuri will be able to attend meetings of the House of Representatives and the Upper House respectively and will be in no danger of losing their seats.
* Ratu Naiqama resigned his portfolio immediately after his jailing last week and was succeeded by another member of his pro-coup Conservative Alliance Matanitu Vanua and George Speight's brother, Samisoni Tikonisau.

19 May 2000. Coincidentally, on the day George Speight and his hooligans seized the Chaudhry government, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu had lost his defamation claim against the Fiji Times, and the NLTB. The paper and the Board, represented by lawyer Graham Leung,
claimed Lalabalavu's claim was an abuse of the court process because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was misconceived and had no basis in law.
*A reasonable, ordinary and intelligent reader would have read the article to mean no more than that as part of the restructuring of the first defendant (NLTB), a number of employees, including the first plaintiff (Lalabalavu) lost their jobs.
(2) The article's suggestion that the second plaintiff (Fiji Times) had misread the letter was evidence of the second plaintiff's (PENAIA DRIU SAMUSAMUVODRE, Lalabalavu's lawyer) unreasonable sensitivity, not that he had a low mental capacity, and the second defendant's claim of such an implication is an imagined grievance where none existed.

Lalabalavu v Native Land Trust Board [2000] FijiLawRp 35; [2000] 1 FLR 92 (19 May 2000)[2000] 1 FLR 92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

RATU NAIQAMA TAWAKE LALABALAVU
& PENAIA DRIU SAMUSAMUVODRE
v
NATIVE LAND TRUST BOARD
& FIJI TIMES LIMITED

High Court Civil Jurisdiction
Byrne, J
19 May, 2000
HBC0533/99

Defamation - striking out Statement of Claim - whether newspaper report of striking out of claim against defendants in HBC0557/98S is defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning - High Court Rules O.18 r.18(2)

The plaintiff claimed unfair dismissal from NLTB and filed a Writ against the NLTB, which writ was struck out against all defendants except the NLTB. The Fiji Times published a report of the striking out and the plaintiff issued a Writ against the defendants claiming damages for defamation. They allege that in their ordinary meaning the article meant the plaintiff and his solicitor were and are of poor reputation; the court's rejection of the plaintiff's defamation claim against the first defendant was false; the imputation that the court had heard evidence and did not find any defamatory meaning was false; implied low mental capacity; the article had not disclosed that the claim against the 1st defendant had yet to be determined; the article was calculated to disparage the plaintiffs in their persons, character, status and standing, and they suffered humiliation, distress and embarrassment. The second defendant applied to strike out the plaintiffs' claims as they disclose reasonable cause of action were scandalous and vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the court process. It claimed a defence of fair comment in the public interest. The court rejected the allegation that failure to disclose the alleged defamatory words of the letter, it implied the defamation action against the first defendant was frivolous.

Held - (1) The claim is an abuse of the court process because it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is misconceived and has no basis in law. A reasonable, ordinary and intelligent reader would have read the article to mean no more than that as part of the restructuring of the first defendant, a number of employees, including the first plaintiff lost their jobs.

(2) The article's suggestion that the second plaintiff had misread the letter was evidence of the second plaintiff's unreasonable sensitivity, not that he had a low mental capacity, and the second defendant's claim of such an implication is an imagined grievance where none existed.

(3) The fact that the article could possibly have been better written does not mean that a story with gaps is defamatory.

(4) No amendment will not cure inherent weakness in the plaintiffs' claim against the second defendant.

Claim struck out as against 2nd defendant with costs.

Cases referred to in judgment

dist Rt Sir Kamisese Mara v Fiji Times Ltd (1984)30 FLR 119
dist Attorney-General v Shiu Prasad Halka & PSC 18 FLR 210
ref Ratu Naiqama Tawake Lalabalavu v Native Land Trust Board, Coopers & Lybrand, Permanent Secretary for Fijian Affairs & Attorney-General [1999] HBC0557/98S judgment of 10 February, 1999

Kini Marawai for the plaintiffs
Grahame E. Leung for the 2nd defendant

19 May, 2000.
JUDGMENT

Byrne, J

Don Quixote tilted at windmills. In my opinion in so far as their Statement of Claim concerns the 2nd Defendant the Plaintiffs are copying Don Quixote. I shall elaborate.

By letter dated 7th July 1998 the 1st Plaintiff's employment with the 1st Defendant was terminated with effect from the 8th of July 1998.

In its letter, the 1st Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff:

"As you would be aware the selection process was rigorous and focussed on assessing technical, management and change in leadership capacity. It was with regret that the Board in endorsing appointments to the new structure recognised that your competency profile was not a close match with the profile required for the new leadership team."

The Plaintiff was unhappy with his dismissal and so issued a Writ against the Native Land Trust Board, Coopers & Lybrand, the Permanent Secretary for Fijian Affairs and the Attorney-General.

In a Judgment delivered on the 10th of February 1999 Fatiaki J. struck out the Statement of Claim against all the Defendants except the Native Land Trust Board. That was in Civil Action HBC0557 of 1998/S. The Fiji Times the 2nd Defendant in the instant proceedings published a report of the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim against the three Defendants on February the 11th 1999. That article read as follows:

"An attempt by a former Native Land Trust Board employee to claim damages for defamation of character after his termination was yesterday rejected by the High Court in Suva.

And Justice Daniel Fatiaki ordered Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu to pay $150 each as costs to Coopers and Lybrand, Permanent Secretary for Fijian Affairs and the Attorney-General for making a frivolous and vexatious allegation.

Ratu Naiqama, who was the NLTB Divisional Estate Manager Western, was made redundant in July as part of the NLTB's restructuring programme.

He was among three others who had their services terminated.

Ratu Naiqama, through his lawyer Penaia Samusamuvodre claimed he was unhappy with board's decision.

He claimed the board colluded with accounting firm Coopers and Lybrand, Permanent Secretary for Fijian Affairs and the Attorney-General and wrote his termination letter.

However, Graham Leung, acting on behalf of the NLTB and Coopers and Lybrand, and Siteri Tabaiwalu on behalf of the Fijian Affairs Permanent Secretary and the A-G, objected to his claims.

They said there was not a shred of evidence to suggest that the letter contained any defamatory sentence.

There was a strong possibility that he may have misread the letter and made an unfounded allegation, they said.

Justice Fatiaki agreed with Ms Tabaiwalu and Mr Leung's submission and struck out the defamation claim against Coopers and Lybrand, Permanent Secretary for Fijian Affairs and the Attorney-General."

On the 16th of November 1999 the Plaintiffs issued a Writ claiming damages for defamation against the Defendants.

On the 17th of November 1999 the 2nd Defendant issued a Summons which is now before me seeking to have the Plaintiff's claims against it struck out on the grounds that they:

(a) disclose no reasonable cause of action;

(b) are scandalous and or vexatious;

(c) are otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Plaintiffs allege that in its natural and ordinary meaning the article was understood to mean:

(a) That the 1st Plaintiff through, and together with his solicitor, the 2nd Plaintiff, were and are of poor reputation to claim damages for defamation because the 1st Plaintiff was terminated;

(b) That the 1st Plaintiff's defamation claim against the 1st Defendant was rejected by the Court, which is false;

(c) That the Court had heard the evidence about the subject letter, and did not find any defamatory sentence, which is false. But the article did not disclose the alleged defamatory words of the said letter, implying that the defamation action was frivolous as far as the 1st Defendant is concerned;

(d) That "strong possibility that he may have misread" implies low mental capacity in failing to read and understand the termination letter of the 1st Defendant which was addressed to the First Plaintiff, the subject letter in civil action HBC No. 557/98S;

(e) That the 1st Plaintiff, inter alia, in that case, was claiming defamation against the 1st Defendant, the claim which the Court is yet to determine. That was not disclosed;

(f) The said words were calculated to disparage the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff in their persons, character, status and standing;

(g) In consequence, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs' reputation was seriously damaged, and they suffered humiliation distress and embarrassment.

The 2nd Defendant denies these allegations and in support of its Summons has filed an affidavit by Samisoni Kakaivalu who is the Editor of the 2nd Defendant. Mr. Kakaivalu deposes among other things that the report published was neither defamatory nor intended to be defamatory of the Plaintiffs and that it was simply fair comment in the public interest.

Mr. Kakaivalu also says that the reportage of the earlier case involving the 1st Plaintiff was made in good faith by a then employee of the 2nd Defendant. It purported to accurately report on a story perceived to be of public interest.

I have received helpful submissions from the parties but cannot accept that the article complained of is in any sense defamatory. I consider that a reasonable, ordinary and intelligent reader would have read the article to mean no more than that as part of the re-structuring of the 1st Defendant, a number of employees, including the 1st Plaintiff lost their jobs.

In my view the article, read as a whole, does not state that the 1st Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant for defamation was rejected. The article clearly states that the defamation claim against Coopers & Lybrand, the Permanent Secretary for Fijian Affairs and Attorney-General was struck out but does not make any such allegation concerning the 1st Defendant. I do not agree that because the article did not disclose the alleged defamatory words of the letter it implied that the defamation action against the 1st Defendant was frivolous. Likewise I reject the meaning attributed by the Plaintiffs in allegation (d). To put such a construction on the article is in my opinion unjustified and evidence only, if that, of the fact that the 2nd Plaintiff has an unreasonable sensitivity. Like Don Quixote it seems to me the 2nd Defendant in claiming such an implication is simply imagining a grievance where none exists or reasonably could not be considered to exist.

The complaint in (e) in my view goes only to the fullness of the report. The fact that the article could possibly have been better written does not mean that a story with gaps is defamatory.

In Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara v. Fiji Times Ltd (1984) 30 FLR 119 Court of Appeal said at p.131:

"We remind ourselves also that where Judge (sic) is sitting alone to try a libel action without a jury the only questions he has to ask himself are 'Is the natural and ordinary meaning or the words that which is alleged in the statement of claim?' and: (If not) what, if any, less injurious defamatory meaning do they bear?"

I have read the various cases cited by the Plaintiffs in opposing the Summons and say that they are distinguishable on the facts from those in the instant case.

The power to strike out a Statement of Claim must always be used sparingly - for example AG v. Shiu Prasad Halka & PSC 18 FLR 210 and many other cases too numerous to mention in this judgment. However in so far as the Plaintiffs seem to place some reliance on Shiu Halka it must be observed that that case is distinguishable from the present because the question in Shiu Halka concerned the right of the Crown to dismiss its servants at will whereas the present case is an action in defamation.

In Gatley on Libel and Slander Ninth Edition, paragraph 26.42, page 675 the author states:

"If it appears to the Judge that none of the words complained of are capable of bearing the meaning or meanings attributed to them, he may dismiss the claim ..."

The Plaintiff complains in its submissions that the 2nd Defendant in relying on the affidavit of Samisoni Kakaivalu is attempting to allege evidence which is forbidden under Order 18 Rule 18(2) of the High Court Rules. In my opinion there is no merit in this complaint. In the note to the equivalent rule in the 1993 Supreme Court Practice at p.332 it is said:

"On an application to strike out an originating summons on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, the prohibition in para. (2) against adducing evidence on the application itself does not apply to an affidavit already put in as supporting the originating summons."

In my judgment the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim is an abuse of the Court process because it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is misconceived and has no basis in law. I am also satisfied that any amendment will not cure the Plaintiffs' claim against the 2nd Defendant of its inherent weakness because in my view their case is plainly unarguable.

For these reasons I grant the Orders sought in the 2nd Defendant's Summons and Order the Plaintiffs to pay the 2nd Defendant's costs which I fix at $300.00.

Application granted.

Fijileaks: It is shocking that instead of condemning the Speaker's salary, the Emoluments Report has recommended that Ratu Naiqama's salary be increased because of the sanctity of the Speaker's Chair in Parliament.
Unfortunately, Ratu Naiqama's CV and Coup related Conviction should have been used to rule him out for the job but no, after losing the 2022 election as a PAP candidate, Rabuka made him Speaker of Parliament

Lalabalavu v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] FJHC 74; HBM0015.2004 (8 April 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL MOTION ACTION NO.: HBM0015 of 2004 LABASA

BETWEEN:

RATU NAIQAMA LALABALAVU
APPLICANT

AND:

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
RESPONDENT

Mr. K. Vuataki for the Applicant
Mr. W. Kuruisaqila for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The application before me is made pursuant to Section 41 of the 1997 Constitution and the High Court (Constitutional Redress) Rules 1998. The motion seeks a declaration that the applicant’s Constitutional right to a trial within reasonable time and right to fair trial under Section 29 of the Constitution was breached. He is seeking an order permanently staying further proceedings by the Magistrate’s Court of Criminal Case in State v. Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu - Criminal Action 172 of 2004 at Labasa Magistrate’s Court.

The applicant filed three affidavits:

(a) first sworn on 30th November 2004
(b) supplementary affidavit sworn on 24th January 2005
(c) supplementary affidavit sworn on 11th February 2005.
The applicant was initially charged with two others for the offence of unlawful assembly. The events are alleged to have occurred between 4th July 2000 and 3rd August 2000at Sukanaivalu Barracks in Labasa. The charges were filed on 8th November 2000.

The chronology of events since filing of charge is as follows:

8th November 2000 - charges filed.
13th November 2000 - plea deferred at request of defence counsel.
14th December 2000 - proceedings adjourned for defence to make representations to the DPP.
14th February 2001 - proceedings adjourned for defence to make representations to the DPP.
5th March 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow defence to make representations to the DPP
25th April 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow defence time to have further discussions with DPP.
12th June 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow DPP to consider the submissions.
6th August 2001 - proceedings adjourned to give DPP more time to consider submissions.
24th August 2001 - no presence of accused as presence was excused.
21st September 2001 - no presence of accused as presence excused.
2nd November 2001 - prosecution seeks to obtain statements from people. Also disclosures not served.
11th February 2002 - Second accused absent as sick.
12th February 2002 - proceedings adjourned. Second accused deceased. Charges against 2nd accused withdrawn.
12th July 2002 - hearing adjourned. Magistrate in Conference in Suva.
5th August 2002 - adjourned. 1st accused not present. Magistrate in Suva.
15th August 2002 - 1st accused absent.
30th September 2002 - 1st accused absent. Bench warrant ordered.
10th October 2002 - Special call as 1st accused arrested. Bench warrant cancelled.
2nd December 2002
17th March 2003 - 3rd accused not present.
14th August 2003 - accused absent. Hearing aborted.
22nd August 2003 - accused absent.
8th September 2003 - 1st accused – not present. Presence was excused.
13th October 2003 - DPP’s file sent to Suva for DPP to decide whether to proceed with prosecution or not.
1st December 2003 - accuseds not present. Charges withdrawn. Bench warrant ordered against the two accused.
5th January 2004 - accuseds arrested and brought to court. Bench warrants cancelled.
2nd February 2004 - hearing fixed for24th to 28th May 2004.
5th April 2004 - case called in absence of accused, adjourned to 10th May 2004.
10th May 2004 - All coup related cases withdrawn under Section 201(2)(b)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code Amalgamated Charge for Unlawful Assembly filed. No objection from defence.
24th May 2004 - Motion similar to present motion filed in Magistrate’s Court. Motion filed on the very day of trial.

The sole issue before me is whether the post charge delay in court warrants a permanent stay of proceedings as it breaches Section 29(1) and (3) which stipulate that the accused has the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

I have had both written and oral submissions from counsels. If I may say part of respondent’s written submissions dealt with stay on grounds of abuse of process. That is not the ground on which the applicant is proceeding. Abuse of process is not alleged.

Mr. Vuataki relied heavily on the case of Apaitia Seru & Anthony Frederick Stevens v. the State – Criminal Appeals AAU0041 and 42 of 1991, where the Court of Appeal considered what is the applicable law in Fiji in case of delay. It adopted the principles on delay as considered in Martin v. Tauranga District Court – [1995] 2 NZLR 419.

At page 9 of the judgment the Court of Appeal laid out what ought to be the approach of courts and what factors to consider in applications for stay on grounds of delay.

“The general approach to a determination as to whether the right has been denied is not by the application of a mathematical or administrative formula but rather by a judicial determination balancing the interests which the section is designed to protect against factors which either inevitably lead to delay or are otherwise the cause of delay. As I noted in Smith [ R v Smith (1989) 52 CCC (3d) 97], ‘(i)t is axiomatic that some delay is inevitable. The question is, at what point does the delay become unreasonable?’ .... While the court has at times indicated otherwise, it is now accepted that the factors to be considered in analyzing how long is too long may be listed as follows:

1. the length of the delay;

2. waiver of time periods;

3. the reasons for the delay, including

(a) inherent time requirements of the case;
(b) actions of the accused;
(c) actions of the Crown;
(d) limits on institutional resources, and
(e) other reasons for delay, and

4. prejudice to the accused. (12-13)”

In Attorney-General’s Reference No. 1 of 1990 [1992] 3 ALL ER 169 Lord Lane at page 176 cautioned against permanent stays being granted too readily. He stated that:

“Stays imposed on the grounds of delay or for any other reason should only be employed in exceptional circumstances. If they were to become a matter of routine, it would only be a short time before the public, understandably, viewed the process with suspicion and mistrust. We respectfully adopt the reasoning of Brennan J in Jago v. District Court of New South Wales [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23.

In principle, therefore, even where the delay can be said to be unjustifiable, the imposition of a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule. Still more rare should be cases where a stay can properly be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution. Delay due merely to the complexity of the case or contributed to by the actions of the defendant himself should never be the foundation for a stay.”

With those above remarks I shall now consider various relevant factors:

Length of Delay:

Between the filing of the charge on 8th November 2000 to the commencement of trial on 24th May 2004 there was a delay of just over three years and six months. Some delay in prosecution of cases is inevitable. It cannot however be said that passage of time beyond a certain point is unreasonable and ipso facto mandates a stay. However, longer the delay, greater the possibility that a fair trial is impossible particularly if evidence to be led is recollection of events by witnesses and not based on documentary evidence. A delay of three years and nine months may be considered to be an unreasonable delay so the reasons for the delay have to be examined closely.

Waiver of time periods

Once the length of delay is significant as in this case, the second factor to consider is whether the accused has waived his right to complain about the delay. There were times when the accused consented to adjournments and sought adjournments. The first six adjournments were granted at the request of the defence to make representations to the DPP and the next two to allow the DPP to consider the representations. A total of nine months was chewed up by this process. On seven occasions one or other of the accused was absent without his presence being excused. One of those occasions was 14th August 2003 when the case was fixed for hearing when all the accused were absent. There was absence of first accused for a period of six weeks. The first accused the applicant was brought under arrest to court on 10th October 2002. Again from 17th March 2003 to 22nd August 2003 one or other accused was absent.

Reasons for the Delay

The chronology of events discloses a number of reasons for delays which include making representations to the DPP, the DPP taking time to consider those representations, the unavailability of Magistrates on two occasions as they were out on a conference, time taken to provide disclosures, absence of one or more accused and prosecution seeking to amalgamate the charges.

Limits on Resources

In the present case the Magistrates were present except on a couple of occasions when they were in Suva for a Magistrates’ conference. These I note were mention dates and not hearing dates. The unavailability of Magistrates has not been a contributory factor to delay in this case.

Prejudice to the Accused

The trial is over. It commenced on 24th May 2004. At the end of prosecution case on 30th June 2004 the defence made a submission of no case to answer (see affidavit of John Rabuku). After ruling of case to answer on 31st August 2004, the defence asked for adjournment and the case was fixed for continuation of hearing on 21st December 2004.

The applicant deposes that he was called to Sukanaivalu Barracks by Tui Labasa who died on 11th February 2002. He also deposed that one Ratu Orisi Vuki had been sent by Tui Labasa to call the applicant to the barracks and Ratu Orisi Vuki died on 23rd June 2003.

When questioned if the defence had statements from these various deceased witnesses, Mr. Vuataki admitted they had not taken statements from them. Without the statements, the court is left to speculate as to the nature of the evidence and its relevance to the defence. In paragraph 9 of his supplementary affidavit, sworn on 11th February 2005 the applicant deposes that a number of Army officers had also visited him. The applicant could have subpoenaed any of these officers if he considered their evidence relevant. The applicant must show that the evidence of the alleged deceased witnesses would be relevant as to disputed material facts in issue.

The applicant also deposed that he was prejudiced in that the original statements of all witnesses were not disclosed but only typed statements of witnesses were provided. The normal practice in Fiji is for police to hand-write the statements of witnesses. Often the handwriting is impossible to read so typed statements are given. If the counsel had difficulty getting a witness to admit a statement was his, the counsel could easily have made an application to the learned magistrate to ask prosecution to show the original statement to the witness. The original hand-written statements are not released to the defence but only photocopies or typed version. If the counsel failed in presentation of the case, that cannot be made a ground for stay.

Mr. Vuataki also submitted that his client was a public figure. He is the Minister for Lands, Leader of political party and a traditional leader and therefore occupied prominent position. He submitted that this was a high profile case with lot of media attention. He relied on authority of Apaitia Seru where at page 13 the Court of Appeal stated “to have serious, high profile charges handing over ones head for more than four years, with the ultimate spectre of a possible prison sentence, is in itself prejudicial”. He said in such a case there was no need to show prejudice.

The activities of those who occupy prominent position in society generally attract attention of the media. That is inevitable part of such occupations. I also do not lose sight of the fact that the maximum penalty for the offence is one year.

In Apaitia Seru the delay was institutional delay principally in the courts – both by the Magistrates Court during committal proceedings and later in the High Court.

One aspect of this case which is cause for disquiet is the way this application came to be made. First, as I have said a similar application was made in the Magistrate courts on the day trial was to commence. Obviously the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear a constitutional redress issue. The applicant again went to rest and six days before the defence was to open its case, in the Magistrates Court he filed this application. He had all the time after 31st August 2004 to file this application but filed it during the legal vacation.

At the time of the hearing of this application, the trial was well and truly over with only the judgment of the court left to be delivered on 4th April 2005. One would expect such applications to be made well ahead of the commencement of the hearing proper of the criminal trial so the outcome is known before the hearing date.

The delay in this case has to be seen in its proper context. There are lengthy delays as a result of applicant wishing to make representations to the DPP, lengthy delays due to absence of one or other accused. This is not a proper case where a permanent stay is warranted. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs which I summarily fix in the sum of $300.00.

[ Jiten Singh ]
JUDGE

At Suva
8th April 2005

BIMAN PRASAD, 'Proof of Roti and Dhal is in the Eating'

POLITICAL DRACULAS EMPTING OUT BLOOD BANK. Fiji Parliamentary Emoluments Committee, chaired by bonking and weed-taking MINISTER Lynda Tabuya recommends massive pay rise, benefits for her fellow MPs

23/5/2024

FLP: A SLAP IN THE FACE OF THE POOR
"In their election campaigns, the Coalition parties had promised to significantly reduce the excessively high salaries and allowances set by the Fiji First government. They have obviously changed their minds and are going back on their promises just as they have done with other promises, such as reducing the cost of living and legislating a fair minimum wage.
In fact, the increase of high-end wages is in itself inflationary and will only aggravate the galloping cost of living. This will also, no doubt, have a ripple effect on the long pending wage and salary negotiations in the public service, which will reduce the capacity in the government’s budget to provide essential services to those in need. This is policy-making at its most self-indulgent without consideration to its detrimental impact on the people of Fiji. While the general population has to endure austerity measures in depressed economic conditions, Ministers are queuing up for pay increases. The Report should be referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs for public consultation. It is vital that views be sought from the people, the trade unions and employers. If these pay rises stand, we would hope that minimum wage restructuring will receive the same amount of attention."
FLP Statement on salary increases recommended by the bipartisan parliamentary emoluments committee

Independent Consultanr
Kevin Deveaux

Full REPORT, Click Here

PAP's appointment of USAIA PITA WAQATAIREWA as General Secretary challenged by party's 2022 election candidate SILA BALAWA: I was one of candidates for GS post. Selection was unfair, biased interview process

22/5/2024

Usaia Pita Waqatairewa

Kamikamica

Vosarogo

Vuki

Tabuya

Ditoka

PRIVILEGED PRISONER. 'Last week Friday I had visited the former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama at Korovou Prison. I told him I will next day be commissioning RFNS Puamau, project Bainimarama made it happen.'

19/5/2024

NEGOTIATING THE ROUGH SEAS: Sitiveni Rabuka's revelation about meeting Bainimarama regarding the commissioning of RFNS PUAMAU should raise eyebrows. Bainimarama must be treated like any other common felon unless Rabuka is frightened of Bainimarama's navy boys, and their game plan

Last week Friday, I had visited the Former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama at the Korovou Prison
.
During our conversation, I took the opportunity to personally inform him that the very next day, on Saturday, I will be commissioning RFNS PUAMAU at the Stanley Brown Naval Base.

It's a project that the Former Prime Minister had been working on during his time as Commander of the Fiji Navy and in government. And now, it gives me immense pleasure to see his efforts come to fruition.

Let us continue to support and uplift each other as we work towards a brighter future for our beloved Fiji. Wishing you all a productive week ahead!

The vessel is named after late Able Seaman Timo Puamau, a Nayau, Lau native, who died on board a naval vessel that torpedoed in Solomon Island waters at the peak of World War II in the Pacific.

LURKING BEHIND. Bainimarama Learning How to Carry Out a Coup

From Fijileaks Archive

Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Will we reach the depth for truth?

The Testimonials of George Speight Group to Board of Inquiry

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

By VICTOR LAL

On 23 February the Fiji SUN ran an article highlighting Viliame Naupoto's one year in office as Minister for Youth and Sport. "Commander Viliame Naupoto, the Minister for Youth and Sports, celebrated his one year in office with students of Nilsen College, in Vatukoula. Mr Naupoto, sworn in as Minister for Youth and Sports on February 22, last year, was the chief guest at Nilsen College at its prefects’ induction ceremony on this anniversary." “I am glad to celebrate my first anniversary as a minister with student leaders of this school,” said Naupoto.

He braved the heavy rain and forecasted flooding just so that the students of Nilsen College were not let down . Naupoto told the story he knew best, that of his life. For him, sharing personal experiences and the struggles he went through would be more motivational and inspirational, reported Fiji Sun.

Naupoto, however, did not share one important aspect of his life with the students - that he joined the 2006 coup plotters to escape charges for his role in the brutal assault and beatings of George Speight, Jo Nata, Tevita Bukarau, Samu Konataci, Metuisela Mua, Rusiate Korovusere and Ilisoni Ligairi in July 2000.

Pita Driti and Speight Group: From RFMF Cell to Naval Base - Handover conducted between Driti and Naupoto

As I have written previously, the above lot, known as George Speight Group (GSG) were held at RFMF military cell after they had been arrested at different locations. At 3.30am on the morning of 29 July 2000 Lt Col Pita Driti, commanding officer, Logistic Support Unit (LSU) was given the task to transport the detainees from QEB to RFNS Stanley Brown. He was ready for the job, he told the Board of Inquiry (BOI).

The time for the actual transfer was for Saturday 29 July at 0400hrs. On the eve of 28 July at 2300hrs the Commander of the Land Force Command gave a very quick briefing as follows: (a) gag the detainees hands behind their backs, and (b) blindfold the detainees, but this was changed when Driti requested for confirmation.

By this time Driti had selected 10 military personnel from his unit for the operation. There was one Hino truck and two light vehicles for transportation. When Driti entered the cell block, he briefed the detainees and reassured them (also confirmed by the detainees to the BOI) about their safety and lives.

He also told them that they would be separated and their hands would be tied behind their backs. He then called out the list and the detainees followed the instructions. Warrant Officer Class One Ponipate Bainivalu tied their hands at the back one by one with pieces of ropes.

Major Ben Lomaloma was also present and he advised Driti to ensure that blood flow was not impeded around the detainees wrists. "We were psyched up and ready for any violent action or behaviour from the detainees. A chair was used to help them to board the vehicle. Once they were all inside the vehicle, I thanked them for their co-operation, but I did not inform them about their final destination. The time was approximately 0345hrs. At 0350hrs I boarded one of the light vehicles, which was the lead vehicle in the convoy and I had two escorts. WO1 Bainivalu was in-charge of the escorts and detainees in the main vehicle. Another light vehicle was the rear vehicle in the convoy," Driti told the BOI.

The initial plan was to go through Mead Rd, Princess Rd, Reservoir Rd, Queens Rd and into the Naval Base but Driti changed this as an element of surprise and used the Kings Rd, Edinburgh Drive to the Naval Base. When he arrived with the detainees at RFNS Stanley Brown base, he did not know who was in-charge. The whole base was dark and it was difficult to distinguish people.

"It took sometime before I could see LCDR NAUPOTO. I don't think he recognised me in the dark. During the briefing given by Comd LFC he had informed me to brief the naval counterparts to release the ropes tied behind the detainees backs once the ship left the pier. I did not inform him anything about the use of force but I was hopeful that he would have seen the manner in which we handled the detainees and it was firm but fair. When I briefed him about their hands tied behind their backs, he replied that he will decide since the detainees were under his responsibility" Driti told the BOI.

Bukarau, echoing other colleagues, told the BOI: "Lt Col Driti briefed us in Fijian saying, "So veikemudou ena vakarau kacivi na yacana mo dou vodo ena lori. Dou na kau ena vanua sega ni yawa mai Suva. Sega ni dua ena vakaleqai nona bula. O ni na yaco bula talega ena vanua ni na kau tiko kina", words to that effect."

The RFMF LSU officers who gave evidence along with Driti were Bainivalu, WO2 J. Caginidaveta, Staff Sergeant M. Rakabu, Sergeant V. Vasuca, Sergeant N. Tarovi, Sergeant T. Vakausausa, Corporal J. Turagaiviu, Lance Corporal S. Tamanivalu and Lance Corporal J. Senibici.

Operation Lighthouse

The navy personnel also gave evidence, and according to Commander Mosese Semi, chief of navy, it was he who recommended that the detainees be transferred to Nukulau Island (and not Makuluva) and the operation be called "Operation Lighthouse". Regarding the violence inflicted on the detainees, the navy officers claimed they were acting on the orders and instructions of Naupoto, who wanted to make a lesson of the GSG.

The operation was under MARCOM's (Maritime Command) command. Lieutenant Bradley Thomas Bower was the commanding officer of RFNS Kiro which transported the detainees to Nukulau.

The navy personnel who took part in escorting the detainees (and also those involved in the beatings) who gave evidence to the BOI were as follows: WO2 Valerio Codro Nawari, Leading Seaman Walesi Wainiqolo, Abel Seaman Jone Mateyawa, Lt Commander Joseva Atama Turaganivalu, WO2 Nacanieli Waqatoga, Lt Commander Sanaila Vitau Naqali ; Commander Mosese Semi, Chief Petty Officer Nemani Tabutabu, PO Apete Lagilevu, Lt Bradley Thomas Bower, Lt Humphrey Biu Tawake, Leading Seaman Simeli Tamani, and PO Sakiusa Rokotakala.

Naupoto's evidence before Board of Inquiry

FINGER on violent operation

"I was told that they were to be taken to Nukulau. I was informed on the 28th July. We were to make arrangements for their transportation. I tasked RFNS Kiro and also directed Lieutenant Commander Naqali to form a security team for the detainees. I was told that they were to be taken at 0400 hrs on 29th July. I directed LCDR Naqali not to show sympathy to them but to roughen them up. The detainees had their hands tied behind their back. I directed Naqali that they were to be held on deck rather than below decks (inside the ship). It is easier to sabotage the ship when you are inside rather than outside. I spoke to them when they were sitted on the forecastle and told them that "if you try anything you will die". I saw people punching them (detainees) but I did not stop them. I was in contact with Naqali throughout the operation and I was directing the operation from my office throughout. I told Naqali to call me when they handed over to the army personnel at Nukulau. The operation was codenamed Operation Lighthouse and the Operation Order was written and signed by myself. Everything that happened was done because I had directed LCDR Naqali to allow it to happen. The reason for my allowing those things to happen was a way of putting the security team on a psychologically higher platform than the detainees. It was better for them to be punched and sworn at rather than being shot because the people guarding them panicked. My task was to deliver them to Nukulau alive and that I did. I ask the Board [of Inquiry] that the information that is given to the Board today be safeguarded as it can be used against our families. If my actions are found to be wrong then I am prepared to face the consequences."

TALKING SHOP. As we reflect on 19 May 2000, strident calls for Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a waste of Taxpayers Money. Two decades on, our Editor-in-Chief is still finding new evidence on the Speight Coup

19/5/2024

The late Russell Hunter and I began investigating George Speight's failed 2000 Coup nearly two decades ago for a book we were jointly writing on coups in Fiji.
We have still not uncovered the 'Whole TRUTH'.
Sadly, Hunter was abducted from his Suva home, tortured, and deported to Australia after he dared to publish my two-year-long investigation that FLP leader and deposed Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry was hiding $2million in a Sydney bank account. In 2021, Hunter died a prohibited immigrant to Fiji, in Brisbane, Australia.

Chaudhry secretly got that money from India after he was released by George Speight following 56 days in captivity. The FLP leader denied hiding $2 million from Fiji's tax authorities.
As we have reminded Fijians for years, COUPS pay in Fiji, for overnight Chaudhry became a multi-millionaire from Speight and his shadowy coup conspirators that allegedly involved the current Vunivalu of Bau, Ratu Apenisa Cakobau, and the present Tui Cakau and Speaker of Parliament, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
As for Sitiiveni Rabuka's role in the Speight coup, the verdict is still pending.

"George Speight, Josefa Nata and Timoci Silatolu were found guilty of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment. Nata and Silatolu were released recently but Speight is still serving time. They are widely seen as the fall guys, the frontmen who took the rap. The question to this day remains: who are those figures in the shadows who are still walking free but were key players in the plot to oust the government? Commander of the 3 FIR in 2000, Lt-Col Viliame Seruvakula is on record as saying there were 7 key figures in the conspiracy. He has not named them. The Prosecution believed that Speight was about 6th in the line of those who conspired."
FLP statement, 19 May 2024

At 10.30 am on Friday 19 May 2000 George Speight with armed members of the CRW invaded Parliament and took Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and members of his Cabinet hostage in a bid to grab power.

Today, on its 24th anniversary, we denounce this act of treason which led to the most violent, turbulent and devastating of the four coups that have wrecked our nation since the first armed takeover of a democratically elected government in Fiji in May 1987.

The Prime Minister and most members of his government were held captive at gunpoint in Parliament for 56 days; riots in the city of Suva on the day of the coup resulted in widespread damage as Indian shops were smashed, looted and set alight. Damage was put at $38m.

The invasion of Parliament led to months of violence and lawlessness as Speight’s rebels terrorised the rural Indian community in the Tailevu area and later in the North, seizing their crops, vehicles and property, setting fire to homes, terrorizing women. Hundreds of families fled their homes in fear.

On the political front as the hostage crisis in Parliament deepened, President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara was removed from office as the Army took over executive authority, rebels seized Police stations, and later the Monasavu hydro power station creating frequent power disruptions and general mayhem. Thousands again fled the country seeking refuge overseas.

Yet 24 years later, the nation is still looking for closure. We are still in the dark as to the main instigators of the mayhem that engulfed our nation in 2000.

George Speight, Josefa Nata and Timoci Silatolu were found guilty of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment. Nata and Silatolu were released recently but Speight is still serving time.

They are widely seen as the fall guys, the frontmen who took the rap. The question to this day remains: who are those figures in the shadows who are still walking free but were key players in the plot to oust the government?

Commander of the 3 FIR in 2000, Lt-Col Viliame Seruvakula is on record as saying there were 7 key figures in the conspiracy. He has not named them.

The Prosecution believed that Speight was about 6th in the line of those who conspired.

Who are these 7 people? Will the country ever know? Must we not make an attempt to identify these traitors? We believe they are some very prominent people who have escaped the brunt of the law.

George Speight refuses to divulge names, probably fearing for his life, but is on record as claiming: “If the Police were honest with even the shoddy evidence on the table at the moment my case was called, I would be in very distinguished company on Nukulau, not only in numbers but in names as well.”

There was plainly a conspiracy to silent Speight. He was given to understand that should he plead guilty, he would get away with a lighter sentence. Once he entered a guilty plea, the entire treason case collapsed and the nation was cheated of the truth about the 2000 crisis.

George Speight’s family felt betrayed and cheated after he was sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment (FT 19/2/2002). Speight’s brother said- “his brother had gone in good faith only to be betrayed by those with a special agenda.”

Several names, of course, have been in the forefront of those suspected in the conspiracy. One is that of former Commissioner of Police, the late Isikia Savua. The evidence against Savua was so strong that the Qarase government was forced to set up an inquiry. Shortly afterwards Savua was rewarded with a diplomatic posting.

He was despatched to New York as Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

The inquiry was headed by then Chief Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaqa who found him not guilty. The inquiry was held in camera and the report was never made public. When the DPP’s office began to look for the report, Tuivaqa said it was handed to the President’s Office. Government House said it didn’t have it. Check with the Police.

Police say it never came to them. Indeed, the DPP’s office at the time claimed its entire treason case was jeopardized because of missing files and documents.

There was a massive conspiracy in government circles to protect the perpetrators.

The nation needs a closure on these coups. That is why an immediate action on establishing a credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission is so imperative. The longer it takes to set one up, the more difficult it will be as people involved are ageing with some suspects having already passed on.

The 2000 Speight Coup: Mahendra Chaudhry's road to Millionairehood

2016, London. Finally, after three decades of co-operation, our Founding Editor-in-Chief and the late Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter met in person for the first time over a pint of beer and their favourite fish and chips in a Earls Court pub, London.

2024: Frank Bainimarama carted off to prison in handcuffs

Fiji Court of Appeal dismisses Chaudhry's appeal against his conviction, August 2014

Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry's appeal against his conviction have been dismissed and his sentence varied by the Court of Appeal in Suva today. In handing down its judgment, the appeals court affirmed Chaudhry's conviction and other orders in his initial sentence following his conviction for breaching the Exchange Control Act in April this year. A fine initially imposed on him however has been reduced to $F1million. The court said the initial fine of $F2million was excessive. On Chaudhry's appeal against his conviction, the court said there was lack of merit in the 10 grounds that was presented. "We reiterate our view that we expressed earlier regarding the proviso to section 23 (1) of the Court of Appeal Act (Cap.12) that there is no substantial miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the appellant as there was sufficient evidence to convict him," the judgement said. The ruling means Chaudhry would not be eligible to contest the forthcoming election. Addressing the media afterwards, Chaudhry declined to comment on the ruling saying he needed time to go over the judgment. He also says he remains the leader of the FLP and is expected to issue a statement later. Justice Suresh Chandra, Justice Salesi Temo and Justice Chandrasiri Kotigalage presided over today's seating.

Fijileaks: We wonder if it is time for Chaudhry to step down as FLP leader

FROM THE ARCHIVES

By VICTOR LAL
Fiji Sun, August 11, 2006

Fiji Labour Party needs leadership change

In another country, the Leader of the Opposition after loosing a parliamentary election for the second time in his political career might have gracefully stepped down. Even if the leader lost with a razor-thin minority, it is never prudent for him to cling on to the leadership. Such a practice is disdainfully frowned upon in most democratic systems, except in Africa, where dictatorial leaders hold on to party leadership in the hope of capturing power at the next election.

On the other hand, if the twice-defeated party leader in a western-style democracy refuses to relinquish control, he is humiliatingly forced out of the Opposition office through a ‘palace coup’ by one or some of his colleagues, supporters, or by a potential challenger.

Why should the Fiji Labor Party change its leader? Firstly, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry had his chance in 2001, and now again in the 2006 general election, to wrest political control of the nation from the Laisenia Qarase-led SDL party, but has failed.

This should be sufficient ground for him to take a parliamentary back seat, and let another Fiji Labor Party parliamentarian take the helm.

As his deputy Poseci Bune indicated during the campaign, there are parliamentarians in the party who have the clout and the experience to even become Prime Minister.

Secondly, I still believe that it was a strategic blunder on the part of Mr. Chaudhry to have boycotted Parliament for a long spell over the issue of the allocation of Cabinet portfolios following the 2001 elections.

I pleaded with him to be visibly and vocally present in Parliament while continuing to pursue his legal case but it was to no avail. After all, his new found coalition partner Mick Beddoes, had stepped in and did a sterling job as Opposition leader.

Mr. Chaudhry’s entire political posture on the land issue, despite his genuine concern for the Indo-Fijian tenant farmers, was a potential vote loser among the Fijian voters.

It would be no exaggeration to suggest that its Coalition partner [Party of National Unity] PANU felt the full brunt of the Fiji Labor Party’s posturing on the land question at the ballot box.

The SDL was able to privately persuade the Fijian voters that PANU would not hesitate to ‘sell’ the landowners in a post Chaudhry-led government.

What other explanation can be put forward to explain why PANU was trounced in its own backyard in Ba and other western constituencies?

Cynics will attribute it to the politics of preference sharing and the electoral system.

Thirdly, despite being frequently described as a wily and cunning old political fox and one of the shrewdest of political operators in the country, I think Mr. Chaudhry miserably failed to take the Fijian pulse and gauge the political tempo of the 2006 election.

I was surprised that, having secured the Indo-Fijian communal seats through last-minute deals with the National Federation Party, he again popped up in the midst of electioneering to explain the alleged frauds and malpractices in terms of race i.e. that there was a sinister plot to disenfranchise the Indo-Fijian voters.

In the minds of many Fijian voters, he stamped an image of being a closet ‘Indo-Fijian nationalist and racist’, a charge that was frequently hurled at his political opponent and rival, Mr. Qarase.

In view of the dramatic shift in population where Fijians are now a majority race in the country, it is very important for any non-Fijian political leader to pitch at the Fijian voters, even if it means ‘betraying’ a part of the Indo-Fijian constituents. Elections, after all, are about winning, and Mr. Qarase played his cards very cleverly and strategically.

For example, once he forcefully made the point that Fiji was still not ready for an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, his view, even if it was construed as racist, was relegated to the political backburner.

Mr. Chaudhry did not have the same fall back opportunity. He still needed the Fijian voters to make up the winning numbers.

Worse, by speaking the counterfeit sudh (standard) Hindi, the Fiji Labor Party failed to reach the 30 per cent of Fijians who speak Fiji Hindi.

These are just some of the reasons why I personally think it is time for Mr. Chaudhry to honorably relinquish the party leadership.

And if he refuses to go, well, it is up to those parliamentarians with clout and experience to become the next Prime Minister to come out of his political shadow.

Leaders and supporters come and go but the party has a life of its own.

There is nothing stopping Mr Chaudhry from becoming the elder statesman of the party that he helped found in 1985 with many visionary and multi-racialist Fijians.

The Fiji Labour Party blunderingly placed all its political eggs in one basket: it calculated that if it won at least 30 seats, and PANU and UPP their share of seats, it would go on to form the next government.

It was also hoping that the leader of the National Alliance Party, Ratu Epeli Ganilau, was going to win his seat until the NFP disclosed its preference against the paramount chief.

It also seems likely that the Fiji Labor Party had expected that Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s frightening and threatening statements might just persuade a sufficient number of Fijian voters to swing the results in the Fiji Labor Party-UPP-PANU’s favour.

I had thought otherwise, that the Commodore’s intervention in politics would backfire on the Fiji Labor Party.

Why does the Fiji Labor Party need a new leader? There are other indisputable reasons.

This was the last general election where race really mattered. In 2011 the Fijians will be the majority of the voters, and fully groomed in democratic politics. For this reason, the Fiji Labour Party will have to broaden its outlook, and cannot rely on Indo-Fijian voters in the Open seats to win future elections.

It will need a leader who has a ‘clean slate’ and preferably speaks the Fijian language (there are many Indo-Fijian parliamentarians who are fluent in Fijian).

It must also stop clinging to the politics of land to win votes.

I also think the NAP should spend the next five years building up a multi-racial platform, and if need be, replace the Fiji Labour Party as a truly genuine multi-racial party.

Over the years, Fijians from outer islands and other areas of Fiji have migrated to these areas, and the SDL ‘secret agents’ had done preparatory election homework by routinely attending funerals, church meetings, weddings, solis etc, and were able to exploit demography and democracy to their electoral advantage.

Most commentators, including the Fiji Labour Party, were too busy concentrating on the displaced farmers from Labasa, while some parties were exploiting their misery for political purposes.

When his own political obituary is written one day, Mr Chaudhry’s Fijian political rivals will sorely miss him: his towering and controversial presence on the political stage has so far welded the taukei Fijians into one political unit.

His presence has suppressed the politics of tribalism and regionalism so rampant on the continent of Africa, where their own ‘Chief Lutunasobasobas’, after expelling or marginalising the Asians (Indians) in their midst, are tearing their countries apart as they vie for political, economic, and military supremacy.

The Fiji Labor Party needs a complete political makeover if it is to win the next general election.

It needs to attract significant taukei Fijian political ‘kai vatas’ of its own to achieve that goal.

And the Indo-Fijian farmers will have to realise that in the rapidly changing demography they, and not their political representatives, will ultimately pay a price if they leave the decision on the land question in the hands of their new chosen Fiji Labour Party Members of Parliament..

And any new Fiji Labor Party leader must begin his leadership on that cautionary note.

*Shockingly, we didn't know in August 2006 that since 2000, Chaudhry was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account. It was only in February 2008 our Editor-in-Chief revealed the $2million that we still believe was given by India to assist the Indo-Fijian victims of George Speight's 2000 failed coup.

NFP's own 'Jahaji Bhais'. The discombobulated Excel Sheet PRASAD sprung on Fiji to stop the searchlight on 2023 Girmit Celebration Funds reveal private sponsors donated to the NFP in 2023: $1,000, $3, and $2

16/5/2024

*FICAC must forensically establish if any Girmit related contracts were awarded to any of the sponsors

$5,000. Precision Pacific Construction Ltd is listed as having donated $5,000 towards the 2023 Girmit celebrations.
One Rajesh Swami Naidu is listed as director of the company. Moreover, one Rajesh Naidu is listed as having donated $1,000 to NFP in 2023 (Receipt Number 1056).
*Another Naidu, Richard Naidu donated $10,000 to NFP on 11 October 2023 (Receipt Number 410).

ZAR LOGESTICS. The Ponga Professor's hastily prepared Excel Spreadsheet wrongly spelt the sponsor's company name. It is
ZAR LOGISTICS

$30,000. ZAR 'Logestics' donated $30,000 (SCC, $20,000 and MoF, $10,000).
The Ponga Finance Minister does not spell out SCC or MoF.
SCC - Suva City Council?
MoF - Ministry of Finance?
When did the company donate $30,000 towards the 2023 Girmit Celebrations?

$5000. Vision Investments Limited is listed as having donated $5,000 towards the 2023 Girmit celebrations. Once again, we are not informed when and who received the $5,000.
*TUNNEL VISION: Biman Prasad must reveal which 'Vision' company donated $5,000 towards the 2023 Girmit celebrations - Vision Investments Limited or Vision Investment (Chunilals as Directors)

Dilip Khatri, Chairman

Dinesh Patel, Director

*Vision Investments Limited is a publicly listed company since February 2016 and is amongst one of the largest companies listed on the South Pacific Stock Exchange (SPX) with a market capitalisation of approximately $420 million.
*Key institutional shareholders in VIL include Fiji National Provident Fund, International Finance Corporation, BSP Life (Fiji) Limited, Fijian Holdings Unit Trust, Unit Trust of Fiji and Na Hina Limited.

*We notice that one of the key institutional shareholders in Vision Investments Limited is BSP LIFE (Fiji) Ltd. BSP is listed as having donated $20,000 towards the 2023 Global Girmit celebrations.

The Other 'Vision' Investment is managed by the CHUNILALS
*In the 2023 NFP donor list, one PRAVIN is listed as having donated $3 on 12 March 2023.

TOUR MANAGERS FIJI donated $7,500 towards 2023 Girmit celebration

*FICAC must forensically establish if any Girmit related contracts were awarded to any of the sponsors

Finance Minister Biman Prasad is lying to the nation when he says that his wife used to be a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute “many years ago” in response to the controversy over the allocation of $200,000 to the defunct and discredited organisation of which his wife and a political ally, Ganesh Chand, were trustees at the time.

“She was certainly one of the trustees of the GGI last year (February 2023) when it applied for re-registration along with Ganesh Chand and Hirdesh Sharma. We have documentation to prove this,” said Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry in response to a statement made by Minister Prasad on Fiji Village (14 May). (Refer doc below)

Interestingly, a search at the Registrar’s office shows the file on the GGI is now classified as “Protected”. It is no longer accessible to the public. The Registrar’s approval is required to access it. How does the Registrar justify this? Is he protecting the Finance Minister? Or is the file holding State secrets?

Minister Prasad is not only lying, he is trying to throw in all sorts of red herrings to cloud the issue. The facts of the case are as follows:

1 .Finance Minister Biman Prasad gave a $200,000 allocation to organise a Girmit conference to a discredited and defunct organisation which had been de-registered in 2022 for failing to submit financial accounts and annual returns since its registration in 2017
2. In February 2023 GGI applied for re-registration. At the time of application, his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand, Ganesh Chand and Hirdesh Sharma were listed as trustees of the organisation. This is hardly “many years ago”, Mr Prasad!
3. Re-registration was granted within a record 24 hours of the application being launched and in spite of the fact there is no provision in Fiji’s laws for the re-registration of a charitable organisation once it had been deregistered. The re-registration was, therefore, unlawful.
4. The proper procedure would have been for the Finance Ministry to call for expressions of interest from organisations interested in organising the Girmit conference. This was not done.
5. University of the South Pacific or one of our other two universities would have been quite capable of organising an international conference of the nature envisaged. But the Minister chose a defunct and discredited organisation of which his wife was a trustee, for the grant.

Minister Prasad says the Solicitor General had approved the grant to GGI – all they required is that the “organisation is registered”, he added.

“This makes the Solicitor General party to an unlawful act. He should have carried out due diligence on the organisation before allowing such a large sum of public money to be entrusted to it.

Particularly as the GGI was de-registered, thus discredited, for failing to provide audited financial accounts. He also failed in his fiduciary duty to find out how the GGI managed to obtain re-registration in breach of our laws.

“No amount of mudslinging and counter-accusations by Biman Prasad will absolve him of the charge of nepotism and cronyism.

“The requirements of accountability and transparency demand that he provide audited accounts for the $500,000 allocated for the 2023 celebrations. He must provide a detailed breakdown of all categories of expenses he has listed. A generalised list is not acceptable,” Mr Chaudhry said.

* Document below: Submission from GGI for re-registration on 22 February 2023 shows his wife listed as one of the trustees of the Institute.

TERA KYA HOGA KALIA, BIMAN PRASAD. Reserve Bank of Fiji's APRIL Economic Review BAD NEWS as Prasad runs to Police to file complaint against FFP'S Rinesh Sharma for allegedly sabotaging Fiji's ECONOMY

15/5/2024

"The Fijian economy remains vulnerable to several challenges and ongoing issues which could impede growth prospects. These include geopolitical conflicts, the shortage of skilled labour, ageing infrastructure, high cost of doing business, hotel capacity constraints, slow uptake in investment, and the constant threat from natural disasters and climate change." - Reserve Bank of Fiji

Click to read RBF April Review

Police are investigating FijiFirst MP Rinesh Sharma’s comments to the Australian media for the case where an Australian man had a self-inflicted wound after he argued with his wife in Ba.

Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad told fijivillage News that Sharma made these comments without understanding all the facts and is allegedly trying to sabotage Fiji’s economy.

In response to Professor Prasad’s comments, Sharma has called on the Deputy Prime Minister to get his facts right as he has not spoken to any Australian media, but rather news.com.au has taken a quote from his social media post where he requested the Fiji Police Force to increase presence and caution people on being safe.

This afternoon, FijiFirst MP, Viliame Naupoto says Professor Prasad’s call for the Fiji Police to investigate Rinesh Sharma for his comments on crime and high cost of living is disastrous to building up our democracy.

Naupoto says Prasad makes the call for Police investigations even when he himself is factually wrong in his attribution to Sharma.

He says in a democracy everyone has a right to speak freely on issues that they feel that are important to them and to the people.

Naupoto says as a Member of Parliament, Sharma posted on the very serious matter of the high cost of living currently experienced in Fiji and the rising crime rate as reported widely by the media, obviously contrary to Prasad’s view.

He says Prasad should be reminded that to air an opposing view to his is not an offence, and the usual response is to rebut with facts.

Naupoto says the fact that Prasad as a Deputy Prime Minister has publicly called on the Police to investigate Sharma puts pressure on the Fiji Police to do so and he hopes that the Fiji Police is not pressured because this call is public and is coming from a Deputy Prime Minister.

He also hopes that Prasad’s antics will not deter those who want to speak out on issues that matter to them.

MISTAKEN IDENTITY: 'My wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there.'
Biman Prasad is LYING through his teeth. She, along with Ganesh Chand, re-registered the GGI on 23 February 2023.
We wonder if he is really talking about his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand?

Fijileaks to Biman Prasad, re acting CJ Salesi Temo

In his oath of Allegiance, before His Excellency the President, Bainimarama said the following:
“...I, Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Republic of Fiji, according to law, and I will obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji.
So help me, God!”

The above oath of office and allegiance speak for themselves. The oaths required the first respondent (Bainimarama) to “obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution...and all other laws of Fiji,” 24 hours 7 days a week. The oaths were a promise by the first respondent to protect the people and the nation of Fiji 24 hours 7 days a week, however, within the four corners of the law. By telling the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, between July and September 2020, at Suva in the Central Division, to stay away from the USP investigation that was reported under CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, was certainly a breach of the above oaths and the public trust.

Biman Prasad gave to his wife and Ganesh Chand (Trustees of the Global Girmit Institute) $200,000 of taxpayers money without TENDER contrary to the Procurement Regulation 2010.
Tera Kya Hoga Kalia,* BIMAN PRASAD?
*Most likely you will join Bainimarama and Qiliho, so stop bloody beating around the bush regarding your wife's link to the Global Girmit Institute, and the lie that she resigned from GGI many years ago.

DRUG SUSPECT FRONTS COURT: THAKOR PUNJA, grandson of Hari Punja and son of Ajay Kumar Punja charged with possession of drugs

15/5/2024

The 24-year-old THAKOR PUNJA was allegedly found with 16.6 grams of cannabis sativa, 0.841 grams of methamphetamine and 5.447 grams of cocaine. He will appear in court on 5 June to take plea. On bail of $5000.
Mysteriously, Fijivillage which allegedly depends on advertising from the Punjas, has not reported Thakor Punja's court appearance.

Son of a prominent businessman Thakor Punja appeared before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad charged with three counts of being found in possession of illicit drugs.

Police Prosecutor informed the court that the accused was released by police yesterday despite the remand order by the court. The case was initially called yesterday where the court ordered the accused to get sureties for bail which he failed and the court had ordered for him to be remanded.

According to the prosecution the accused was released by the police without any further directive from the court.
Prosecution stresses that the police is conducting an internal investigation on that issue.

Meanwhile, the case was called again this morning where the counsel for the accused again applied for bail.
The Magistrate has granted to Punja with strict bail conditions where he has to pay a bail bond of $5000.

He has been ordered to reside at 6 River side Denarau, not to interfere with prosecution witness and to report to the Nadi Police Station once a week.

STRAIGHT LIES. Last week SASHI Kiran told Fijivillage Straight Talk that Auditor-General is auditing the Girmit Celebrations 2023 accounts and on completion the final approved report will be submitted to PARLIAMENT

14/5/2024

Now, the NFP leader Biman Prasad has produced a questionable 'Excel Sheet', and published by the same Fijivillage*, claiming that the Girmit Celebrations 2023 expenses are in order.

*LISTEN to Sashi Kiran, saying the accounts are being audited by the Auditor-General's Office and on completion will be tabled in Parliament.

*We wonder why Fijivillage's Vijay Narayan didn't put it straight back to Prasad that only last week his Assistant Women's Minister Sashi Kiran shut down FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry on the issue

Kiran informed the Fijivillage* Straight Talk audience that the accounts are still being audited by the Auditor-General?
Prasad also claims that some 'deranged bloggers' are claiming that he (Prasad) gave money to his wife Rajni.
He was indirectly calling our Editor-in-Chief the 'deranged blogger'.

If anyone who is DERANGED and a BLOODY LIAR, it is Prasad who falsely claimed that his wife Rajni had long ago ceased to be a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute, which received $200,000 to organize a two-day international conference at USP where she is employed by Pal Ahluwalia who was the keynote speaker at the conference.
In fact, the 'Excel Sht doesn't even reveal how much Ahluwalia and the USP were paid to organize the conference.
The Global Girmit Institute must provide a comprehensive breakdown of the $200,000 it received from Prasad, without the tender process.

BIMAN PRASAD continuing with his PACK OF LIES:
Professor Prasad says in 2023, the total budget was $500,000 but the total expenditure was $380,308.76. He says from this money, $125,000 came through sponsorship and the government utilised $255,308.76.
He further says the Global Girmit Institute was the only institute who could organise an international conference in such a short period of time.
He says his wife was a trustee of the organisation many years ago and is no longer there.
* Professor Prasad says for them to say that he gave money to his wife is the type of warped logic they are trying to come up with.

The financial report on Fijivillage online news site by Biman Prasad must have a authority indicating its official figures.
If Kiran had any knowledge about these accounts (she was Deputy Chair of the celebrations) why didn't she state during the Straight Talk about the accounts?
Where is the Office of the Auditor-General's seal?
Why was the account over budgetted?
How do we rule out that sponsors were brought in after the event? - To show low cost/spending.
The $50,000 for admin is too vague and significant portion of total cost of event and warrants further breakdown.

MISTAKEN IDENTITY: 'My wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there.'
*We wonder if he is really talking about his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand?

From Fijileaks Archive, 16 May 2023

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

Professor Excel Sheet explaining away 2023 Girmit Celebration Expenses

Prasad says his wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there. Arre, Jhootha,* only last year your Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told us that you had declared to his Cabinet that your wife is a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute

<<Previous

Forward>>

BORN AGAIN, Niko Nawaikula. Even the convicted swindler who was jailed for fiddling with his parliamentary allowances, has condemned the hefty pay rises for President, Speaker, Prime Minister, Ministers and Assistant Ministers

RABUKA PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH TAXPAYERS MONEYJust like under his watch, Looters bankrupted National Bank of Fiji

The former Media Advisor - Office of the Prime MInister at Fiji Government

​NO SHOW ON EMOLUMENTS COMMITTEE: If the Baimaan Party was serious, it should have nominated one of its MPs to the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee, and later that NFP MP could have refused to sign off the Final Report

SAVED BY RABUKA's GONG. 'RATU 652 Votes': PAP loser and SODELPA defector Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu was nominated by PAP-NFP-SODELPA to be the new SPEAKER, the man who wanted GEORGE SPEIGHT and other 2000 coupists freed from NABORO PRISON.

BIMAN PRASAD, 'Proof of Roti and Dhal is in the Eating'

NEGOTIATING THE ROUGH SEAS: Sitiveni Rabuka's revelation about meeting Bainimarama regarding the commissioning of RFNS PUAMAU should raise eyebrows. Bainimarama must be treated like any other common felon unless Rabuka is frightened of Bainimarama's navy boys, and their game plan

LURKING BEHIND. Bainimarama Learning How to Carry Out a Coup

From Fijileaks Archive

Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Will we reach the depth for truth?

The Testimonials of George Speight Group to Board of Inquiry

The 2000 Speight Coup: Mahendra Chaudhry's road to Millionairehood

2016, London. Finally, after three decades of co-operation, our Founding Editor-in-Chief and the late Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter met in person for the first time over a pint of beer and their favourite fish and chips in a Earls Court pub, London.

2024: Frank Bainimarama carted off to prison in handcuffs

Fijileaks: We wonder if it is time for Chaudhry to step down as FLP leader

*FICAC must forensically establish if any Girmit related contracts were awarded to any of the sponsors

ZAR LOGESTICS. The Ponga Professor's hastily prepared Excel Spreadsheet wrongly spelt the sponsor's company name. It is​ZAR LOGISTICS

$30,000. ZAR 'Logestics' donated $30,000 (SCC, $20,000 and MoF, $10,000).*The Ponga Finance Minister does not spell out SCC or MoF.SCC - Suva City Council?MoF - Ministry of Finance?*When did the company donate $30,000 towards the 2023 Girmit Celebrations?

*We notice that one of the key institutional shareholders in Vision Investments Limited is BSP LIFE (Fiji) Ltd. BSP is listed as having donated $20,000 towards the 2023 Global Girmit celebrations.

The Other 'Vision' Investment is managed by the CHUNILALS*In the 2023 NFP donor list, one PRAVIN is listed as having donated $3 on 12 March 2023.​

TOUR MANAGERS FIJI donated $7,500 towards 2023 Girmit celebration

*FICAC must forensically establish if any Girmit related contracts were awarded to any of the sponsors

​*Now, the NFP leader Biman Prasad has produced a questionable 'Excel Sheet', and published by the same Fijivillage, claiming that the Girmit Celebrations 2023 expenses are in order.

*LISTEN to Sashi Kiran, saying the accounts are being audited by the Auditor-General's Office and on completion will be tabled in Parliament.

*We wonder why Fijivillage's Vijay Narayan didn't put it straight back to Prasad that only last week his Assistant Women's Minister Sashi Kiran shut down FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry on the issue

MISTAKEN IDENTITY: 'My wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there.'​*We wonder if he is really talking about his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand?

From Fijileaks Archive, 16 May 2023

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

Professor Excel Sheet explaining away 2023 Girmit Celebration Expenses

*Prasad says his wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there. Arre, Jhootha, only last year your Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told us that you had declared to his Cabinet that your wife is a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute

Archives

RABUKA PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH TAXPAYERS MONEY
Just like under his watch, Looters bankrupted National Bank of Fiji

NO SHOW ON EMOLUMENTS COMMITTEE: If the Baimaan Party was serious, it should have nominated one of its MPs to the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee, and later that NFP MP could have refused to sign off the Final Report

ZAR LOGESTICS. The Ponga Professor's hastily prepared Excel Spreadsheet wrongly spelt the sponsor's company name. It is
ZAR LOGISTICS

$30,000. ZAR 'Logestics' donated $30,000 (SCC, $20,000 and MoF, $10,000).
The Ponga Finance Minister does not spell out SCC or MoF.
SCC - Suva City Council?
MoF - Ministry of Finance?
When did the company donate $30,000 towards the 2023 Girmit Celebrations?

The Other 'Vision' Investment is managed by the CHUNILALS
*In the 2023 NFP donor list, one PRAVIN is listed as having donated $3 on 12 March 2023.

Now, the NFP leader Biman Prasad has produced a questionable 'Excel Sheet', and published by the same Fijivillage*, claiming that the Girmit Celebrations 2023 expenses are in order.

MISTAKEN IDENTITY: 'My wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there.'
*We wonder if he is really talking about his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand?

Prasad says his wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there. Arre, Jhootha,* only last year your Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told us that you had declared to his Cabinet that your wife is a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute