Blog Archives

BLOODY FOREIGNERS. Malimali, 'How Insulting is it to be made to sit in my own country, as an indigenous person, and be lectured by someone from another country. Waqanika, 'Two foreigners patronising us-galling'.

17/6/2025

RETREATING INTO THE TRADITIONAL BURE: Misuse of Indigeneity to Undermine the Commission of Inquiry

It was deeply regrettable and politically dangerous that Barbara Malimali and Tanya Waqanika chose to invoke indigeneity in their criticism of Justice David Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason, the so-called foreign lawyers appointed to lead the Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of Barbara Malimali and other members of the Coalition government.

Their suggestion that they felt “lectured” or diminished “as indigenous women” was not only intellectually disingenuous—it was a deliberate attempt to racialise a lawful constitutional process and undermine its credibility.

This tactic misused the language of identity and empowerment to deflect from the serious constitutional issues under investigation. It distorted the genuine cause of indigenous rights by weaponising it against transparency, legality, and scrutiny. In doing so, it sent a dangerous message: that indigenous identity could somehow be used to exempt public officials from the rule of law or to discredit independent legal oversight.

Their attack on Mason and Lewis for being "foreigners" was a retreat into shallow nationalism--xenophobic in tone, and legally irrelevant. The Fijian legal and constitutional system has long accepted the role of foreign counsel in matters requiring impartiality, particularly in politically sensitive inquiries. To claim otherwise was to ignore precedent and erode public trust in the independence of the process.

Indigeneity was never meant to be a shield for misconduct or a tool to silence legitimate legal examination. By invoking it in this context, Malimali and Waqanika risked diminishing the very principles they purported to defend. They used identity not to elevate justice, but to obstruct it.

This conduct deserved to be called out for what it was: a reckless and divisive political manoeuvre, cloaked in the language of cultural grievance, but aimed squarely at undermining accountability from the 'Traditional Bure'. Justice Lewis has links with Fiji going back to the 1990s, and Mason's mother is from Fiji.

Moreover, Mason was on the panel that had chosen Sitiveni Rabuka to lead SODELPA into the 2018 elections. Waqanika failed to be elected but in 2020 she was nominated by SODELPA to take up a seat in Parliament following the resignation from Parliament of Rabuka, after he had lost the leadership of SODELPA. In the 2022 election she failed to be re-elected to Parliament as a SODELPA candidate, getting 558 votes.

Strange, Waqanika had never questioned Mason's 'foreign credentials'.

Dau veivakaisini levu. The usual fake Tagi ni i-Taukei in 2025.

From Fijileaks Archive, 17 January 2025

SODELPA’s Partnership with the GCC Is a Regressive and Dangerous Constitutional Gambit. Party is treating GCC as a political 'passenger', using its legal standing as vehicle to drive Chiefs agenda into courtroom

16/6/2025

"What's happening now is that SODELPA is treating the GCC as a political "passenger", using its own legal standing as a "vehicle" to drive the GCC's agenda into the courtroom (the Supreme Court of Fiji)-even though the GCC has no license, no wheels, and no constitutional right to be there - challenging the validity of the 2013 Constitution. This is not a cultural or a symbolic expression of indigenous heritage. It is a coordinated attempt to smuggle chiefly power back into constitutional politics through judicial proceedings - a move that is legally inappropriate, politically regressive, and constitutionally dangerous."

*Fijileaks to Sodelpa acting general secretary Viliame Takayawa:

"Why is Sodelpa trying to drag in a cultural body like GCC into constitutional matters before the courts?"

Takayawa: "We are the bondafide representatives of those that love Fiji as their home, especially indigenous people of Fiji. It is imperative, important to consult the Chiefs through the GCC on their stand on the [2013] Constitution. It is their choice, the GCC, if they want to join us as interveners or not. It is the Fijian thing to do."

Fijileaks: SODELPA’s Partnership with the Great Council of Chiefs Is a Regressive and Dangerous Constitutional Gambit

SODELPA’s recent decision to possibly partner with the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) in its legal challenge to the 2013 Constitution is not only constitutionally misguided but politically reckless. It represents a dangerous attempt to revive the failed ethno-traditionalist power structures that helped destroy the 1997 constitutional order and paved the path to the 2006 coup.

This move should be condemned outright—by citizens, lawyers, and the judiciary—not merely because of what the GCC symbolizes, but because of what its institutional re-entry into constitutional litigation implies: a rejection of democratic equality and a return to elite, race-based rule under the guise of cultural restoration.

1. The GCC Was a Political Actor, Not a Constitutional Guardian

SODELPA’s framing of the GCC as a legitimate stakeholder in constitutional matters ignores the institution’s own dismal record of political complicity and constitutional betrayal.

Under the 1997 Constitution, the GCC had limited but symbolic powers—nominating the President, appointing senators, and safeguarding iTaukei interests.
In practice, however, it functioned as an extension of SVT/SDL/SODELPA ethno-nationalist politics.
It endorsed unconstitutional legislation, failed to condemn the 2000 coup, and backed SDL’s race-based governance, even as that government was undermining constitutional mandates such as Section 99 (multi-party cabinet).

By 2006, the GCC had completely discredited itself as a neutral institution. It had become, in effect, a political organ cloaked in tradition, wielding authority without democratic accountability.

2. The Judiciary Is No Place for Hereditary Privilege

A legal challenge before the Supreme Court of Fiji must be guided by constitutional law, human rights, and democratic principles. It should not be distorted by hereditary privilege or traditional authority claiming political entitlement.

The judiciary is meant to uphold equal citizenship, not adjudicate on the relative power of chiefs.
The GCC, as an unelected, male-dominated, and hereditary body, has no standing as a constitutional claimant in a modern secular republic.
Allowing it to partner in legal proceedings opens the door to parallel systems of power—one democratic, the other feudal—thus undermining the integrity of the judicial process itself.

3. SODELPA’s Move Is Ethno-Nationalist Politics by Legal Means

This partnership is not a neutral cultural gesture—it is a political strategy to revive the same elite structures that enabled the SDL government to hijack the 1997 Constitution and marginalize large sections of Fiji’s population.

SODELPA’s agenda is clear:

Re-legitimize the GCC to act as a counterweight to Parliament and civic governance;
Restore a chiefly veto power over national direction and constitutional design;
Resurrect the 1997 framework, not to honor its inclusive promise, but to reclaim the failed ethno-nationalist dominance that led to its breakdown.

This is not legal advocacy—it is legal camouflage for political regression.

4. The GCC’s Return Threatens Constitutional Equality

The 2013 Constitution, for all its controversies, is grounded in the principle of equal citizenship. It makes no room for race-based privilege or chiefly entitlement. It was designed, in part, to end the dual sovereignty that existed under previous regimes—where elected governments governed in name, but the GCC and chiefly elites ruled in practice.

To allow the GCC back into the constitutional conversation now would be to:

Reinstate race and birthright as a basis for national power;
Undo hard-won reforms that protect the rights of Indo-Fijians, Other Minorities, and non-chiefly iTaukei citizens;
Signal to the nation that cultural identity can override democratic legitimacy.

5. The Legal System Must Reject Political Symbolism Disguised as Law

Courts do not adjudicate tradition. They adjudicate law, and the law must serve all citizens equally. SODELPA’s use of the GCC in its case is not a legal necessity—it is a symbolic maneuver, an appeal to nostalgia, hierarchy, and ethnic exceptionalism.

It is imperative that the judiciary and the legal profession resist this regression.

The GCC cannot be allowed to re-enter the public legal sphere as a co-litigant, amicus, or constitutional “partner.”
Its political bias, historical complicity, and structural exclusion of women and commoners render it inherently incompatible with modern constitutional governance.
Recognizing it in any formal legal submission would damage the impartiality of the court and the credibility of the Constitution itself.

This Is Not Cultural Representation—It Is Constitutional Sabotage

SODELPA’s call to bring the Great Council of Chiefs into its constitutional challenge is not about restoring balance. It is about restoring power to a discredited elite—power that was abused, never earned democratically, and was ultimately abolished for just cause.

Fiji cannot afford another cycle of ethnic division, political instability, and constitutional manipulation. The path forward must remain rooted in democratic values, civic equality, and the rule of law—not in the ghosts of a chiefly order that has failed the nation time and again.

The Great Council of Chiefs may remain a respected cultural institution, if the iTaukei people wish it. But it must never again be allowed to interfere in constitutional law or national governance.

The courts must say so clearly—and without hesitation.

The GCC is hankering, with the support of ethno-nationalists (including some nationalist i-Taukei lawyers), to bring back the 1997 Constitution so s131(2) of the RFMF Act in the 2013 Constitution falls by the wayside, and the Chiefs and their political lackeys could once again cause murder and mayhem with impunity in the name of indigenous rights. Sadly, SODELPA leadership has decided to become that vehicle for chiefs to hitch a ride into the courtroom - to call for the destruction of the 2013 Constitution - and the restoration of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji.

Chief Justice Salesi Temo’s public suggestion that the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) may consider making a submission on the 2013 Constitution through the People’s Alliance Party (PAP) or the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (FHRADC) raises serious constitutional, legal, and ethical concerns.
While at first glance this might appear to be a procedural or inclusive gesture, the substantive implications are deeply troubling. Temo is mistaken to encourage or normalize the participation of the GCC—a non-democratic, ethnically exclusive, and politically compromised body—in formal constitutional proceedings. Such a move threatens the rule of law, constitutional equality, and judicial impartiality, even if routed through third parties.

1. Courts Must Not Invite Political or Cultural Elites to Shape Constitutional Law

Temo’s statement carries judicial weight. Even if informal, it signals to the public and the legal community that:

Extra-constitutional entities such as the GCC can re-enter the legal and constitutional discourse.
Unelected traditional authorities may indirectly influence constitutional reform via political or quasi-legal proxies.

This blurs the boundaries between law and political theatre. It risks turning the court into a platform for traditional and ethnonationalist power, not justice. No other cultural or ethnic body—Indo-Fijian, Chinese, Banaban and Other minorities—is invited by judges to file constitutional submissions via political allies. Why the GCC?

2. The GCC Has No Legal Standing—Direct or Indirect

The GCC is not established by any current law. It has:

No democratic mandate;
No statutory powers;
No constitutional recognition.

To permit the GCC to file submissions, even indirectly, would:

Violate the principle of legal standing (locus standi);
Allow a non-legal, non-citizen entity to influence public law;
Create a precedent where status and ancestry grant access to judicial forums.

This violates both natural justice and the foundational principle of the 2013 Constitution: equal citizenry.

3. The Fiji Human Rights Commission Must Not Be Politically Weaponized

Temo’s reference to the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (FHRADC) is particularly problematic. The FHRADC:

Exists to protect the rights of all citizens equally;
Has a statutory mandate to remain independent of political and traditional influence;
Cannot be used as a channel for political or cultural lobbying.

For the GCC to use the Commission to push ethno-traditional submissions is a direct abuse of the Commission’s neutrality and would severely damage its public legitimacy.

4. Political Parties Cannot Be a Constitutional Back Door for Chiefs

If the GCC partners with the People’s Alliance Party (PAP) to file submissions:

This effectively restores the GCC’s political role, despite its abolition.
It violates the separation of culture and constitutional power.
It repeats the SDL-era mistake of co-mingling race, tradition, and party politics—which directly led to the 2006 coup.

The Constitution must bind political parties, not become an instrument of their cultural or racial ideology.

5. Judicial Impartiality Must Remain Above Political and Cultural Influence

Temo’s suggestion, even if well-intentioned, undermines judicial impartiality. Judges must:

Remain strictly neutral;
Avoid giving political actors (especially discredited ones like the GCC) signals of welcome;
Uphold equal access to justice, not elite access via traditional status.

In a pluralistic democracy, no ethnic or cultural elite should receive judicial invitations to shape constitutional discourse. This opens the door to legal exceptionalism, exactly what the 2013 Constitution sought to close.

The Courts Must Reject GCC Submissions in All Forms

Whether through direct filings, or via the PAP or the Human Rights Commission, the GCC’s involvement in constitutional litigation:

Violates equal citizenry;
Restores a racially and culturally exclusive constitutional vision;
Undermines legal impartiality and the integrity of public institutions;
Encourages the political resurrection of a discredited body.

Temo should be respectfully but firmly reminded: the courts must protect the Constitution from the same forces that helped destroy it in the past. The GCC had its time, and it misused it. That door must remain closed—not reopened by the judiciary.
The Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) was restored in 2023 by the current Fiji Government under the People’s Alliance-led coalition, but only as a cultural advisory body—not as a constitutional or political authority. This distinction is critical.

Here’s the legal and constitutional reality:

The GCC has no standing under the 2013 Constitution.
It was not restored by statute or constitutional amendment to exercise any formal legal or political powers.
Its reinstatement was purely ceremonial and cultural, framed as a means of preserving iTaukei customs and identity—not influencing governance, legislation, or constitutional interpretation.
The GCC’s revived leadership (chairperson and deputies) exist under internal protocols, not under any law that gives them public or legal power.

Why This Makes the GCC’s Involvement in Legal Challenges Even More Problematic

Now that it is formally restored as a non-political cultural body, the GCC’s attempt—or encouragement by others—to engage in constitutional litigation or partner in a High Court challenge creates a dangerous contradiction:

1. Violation of Its Own Mandate

The GCC was explicitly restored without political or legal authority. If it begins to file constitutional submissions or make legal demands through parties like SODELPA or PAP:

It exceeds its mandate as a cultural institution;
It violates the trust and conditions upon which it was publicly restored;
It risks triggering renewed public division and constitutional instability.

2. Constitutional Incompatibility

The 2013 Constitution does not recognize any chiefly institution as part of the governance or legal system:

There is no legal path for the GCC to act as a co-litigant or constitutional adviser;
Restoring it informally cannot grant it formal powers;
Allowing it to file submissions would amount to judicial recognition of a parallel, unelected power structure.

3. Restored in Symbol, Not in Sovereignty

The GCC’s current restoration is symbolic, not sovereign. Its chair and deputies are not equivalent to the President, Parliament, or Attorney-General.

They have no authority to make legal claims on behalf of any citizen;
They do not represent all iTaukei, let alone the broader Fijian population;
They cannot claim any legal standing unless formally authorized by statute, which has not occurred

Why the Court Must Maintain the Line: Cultural Yes, Constitutional No

Temo and the judiciary must uphold this critical boundary:
Respect for culture must not override the rule of law and constitutional equality.
By engaging with the GCC—even indirectly—on matters of constitutional legality, the courts:

Risk breaching the separation of culture and state;
Allow a revived but unaccountable institution to interfere in public law;
Signal that traditional status still carries legal weight, even without constitutional authority.

The restoration of the GCC as a cultural institution must not be exploited by political actors like SODELPA or legitimized by judicial overtures.
If the GCC wants to advise on cultural matters—language, land tradition, ceremonies—that is within its non-political scope. But if it seeks to:

File court submissions;
Partner in constitutional litigation;
Influence the direction of Fiji’s national legal identity--

—then it becomes once again a political force outside the Constitution, and Fiji risks repeating the exact mistakes that collapsed the 1997 framework.

The lesson from the past is not that the GCC should be ignored—but that it must never again be allowed to decide the legal destiny of the Fijian state.

CROCODILES Closing In: 'Crocodiles' Named in COI Report Now Trying to Censure It. They are Pushing For Deeper Redactions To Whole Report after a COPY was allegedly leaked to them from the President's OFFICE

16/6/2025

0 Comments

'Me kua ni Soti na Boto'
LET THE SUN SPEAK:
What is Hidden Will Be Exposed, and Justice Cannot Be Redacted
"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs" - Luke 12:2-3:
This the clearest condemnation of those who operate in secrecy - trying to suppress or edit the truth. The Justice Ashton-Lewis Report must be proclaimed, not whispered

The Methodist lay preacher and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka who ordered the COI to 'flush out the crocodiles'

Let The Sun In: Crocodiles Shouldn't Get to Edit the Report That Named Them

Silence by Scissors
The so-called “Crocodiles”—named in the Justice Ashton-Lewis Commission of Inquiry (COI) Report—demand further redactions.
They must have no editorial control over a public interest report.
*They must NOT be allowed to Gut the COI Report That Exposes Them

Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason Applied Redactions With Care-Crocodiles Now Want to Tear Rest Apart

Why the Crocodiles Cannot Be Allowed to Re-write the Record

1. It Undermines the Rule of Law
The Commission of Inquiry was conducted under legal authority. Its findings are the product of sworn evidence, documentary review, and due process. Allowing those named to edit or delay the report’s release:

Subverts the entire process;
Undermines the authority of the Commission;
Send a chilling message that truth is negotiable if you have power.

2. It Rewards Corruption with Control
These individuals are not neutral stakeholders. They are the very subjects of investigation. To allow them any role in determining what is published is akin to:

Letting suspects edit police statements;
Letting defendants redact judicial verdicts;
Letting history be written by its accused.

3. It Violates the Public’s Right to Know
This is not a private dispute. It is a public document, paid for by public funds, created in the public interest. Every delay and redaction is a violation of:

Freedom of information;

*The principle of open justice;

The constitutional right to transparency in governance.

A Dangerous Precedent
If these individuals succeed in diluting or delaying the report:

Future commissions of inquiry will be undermined before they even begin;
Powerful actors will be incentivized to intimidate or politically interfere with independent processes;
The public trust in institutions will collapse, confirming what many already suspect: that justice in Fiji remains hostage to the very networks it is trying to expose.

What Must Happen Now
The full, already redacted main body of the Lewis Report, must be released immediately. The Crocodiles must have no say in what the people are allowed to know about them.
Truth Must Not Be Redacted for the Comfort of the Powerful
The people of Fiji are not children. They do not need to be shielded from the truth. They need to be shown that justice can still mean something in a system long manipulated by the very people now asking to edit their own exposure. If the Lewis Report is rewritten to suit its subjects, then the Commission itself was a lie—a performance for international donors and the public, while the real decisions are made behind closed doors.
This must not be allowed. Let the people see the truth.
Let the Crocodiles face the sunlight. Me kua ni Soti na Boto

0 Comments

Richard Naidu May Be Sick of the COI — But Fijians Are Sick of the Delay. He Forgets Too Easily — The Lovo Smouldering Out of the 1987 Marches. Shockingly, he is supporting former convict Nawaikula's right to MARCH

15/6/2025

Shouldn't Richard Naidu Know Better?
*Richard Naidu, of all people, should know better. He was not just a bystander in Fiji’s democratic struggles—he was a fellow traveller with our Editor in 1987, standing in opposition to Sitiveni Rabuka’s two racist coups that toppled the democratically elected Bavadra government.

Given that shared history—of defending constitutionalism, denouncing military rule, and standing against ethno-nationalist authoritarianism—it is deeply disappointing to see Naidu now silent, or worse, complicit, in the face of serious concerns surrounding the rule of law and professional accountability in Fiji’s legal system. When voices are urgently needed to uphold the standards he once risked his reputation to defend, where is Richard Naidu? He witnessed first-hand the so-called 'peaceful marches against the Bavadra government and the 1970 Constitution'. He narrowly escaped being burned alive by Rabuka's coup supporters who had prepared a lovo pit outside Fiji's parliament. He survived that ordeal. He transitioned from being Dr Timoci Bavadra's spokesman into law, becoming one of Fiji's most prominent legal voices. Which is why his current silence-amid serious concerns about legal accountability, political compromise, and the erosion of public trust in the justice system-is both baffling and disappointing. If anyone understands what's at stake when justice is manipulated and the rule of law is selectively applied, it is Naidu. So why is he silent now?

Why Richard Naidu Is Wrong—And Why the Country Does Care

In a moment of public exasperation, seasoned lawyer Richard Naidu recently remarked that he was “sick of it,” lamenting that the rest of Fiji outside Suva doesn’t care about the unfolding Commission of Inquiry (COI) and related investigations. He hoped for a “COI-free weekend.”

But such sentiments, while understandable from a fatigued advocate, misread both the gravity of the moment and the growing national awareness—particularly outside the capital.

Naidu’s client, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Prasad, was on the brink of being formally charged on 5 September 2024. Naidu requested a deferral to 9 September. The public does know why the delay was sought—because the president of the World Bank Ajay Banga was in town. But what is abundantly clear is this: political elites, lawyers, and their preferred timelines are not the only stakeholders in this democracy. The people of Fiji—whether in Lautoka, Labasa, or Levuka—have a right to transparency, accountability, and timely justice.

For decades, many outside Suva have watched the capital operate like a cloistered city-state—where political, legal, and bureaucratic actors protect each other under the banner of “rule of law,” even as rural communities suffer the consequences of misgovernance, corruption, and impunity. When those in the corridors of power appear to enjoy delays, evasions, or selective outrage, it does not go unnoticed. And when figures like Naidu, who have long championed democratic reform, suddenly show signs of fatigue or cynicism, it risks demoralizing the very public they claim to speak for.

The significance of the Commission of Inquiry is not just about one case or one political figure. It’s about setting a precedent for credible, independent scrutiny of all those who wield public power—regardless of political stripe. That includes accountability for how taxpayer funds are spent, how appointments are made, and whether there are double standards in enforcing the law.

Naidu is wrong to think the rest of the country doesn’t care. People do care. But they care not just about the COI as a political theatre—they care about what it represents: whether justice is finally catching up with the powerful, and whether Fiji is truly moving toward a culture of accountability.

If anything, the nation needs more weekends where the public reflects on the COI, not fewer. The fatigue Naidu feels should not become an excuse for deflection or delay. The work of justice is not seasonal. It is urgent, ongoing, and must be immune to the comfort zones of the elite.

This is not just a Suva story. It is a Fiji story. And the rest of the country is watching.

Why Didn’t Naidu Deliver His Client to FICAC on 9 September?

Now that World Bank President Ajay Banga has left Fiji’s shores, it’s time for the country to ask a very serious question: Why didn’t Richard Naidu walk his client, Finance Minister Biman Prasad, into FICAC on 9 September, as he himself had requested?

It is now public knowledge that Prasad was scheduled to be charged by FICAC on 5 September 2024. But at the eleventh hour, his lawyer, Naidu, requested a deferral until 9 September. That request was reportedly granted.
And then? Silence. No charge. No handover. No explanation.

It is a pattern all too familiar in Fijian politics: delays dressed up as legal strategy, silence framed as discretion, and accountability pushed aside for the convenience of political optics. The timing matters. Ajay Banga’s high-profile visit began almost exactly in the window when Prasad was due to face charges. Was that a coincidence—or was Fiji’s criminal justice process paused to protect the government’s international image while the World Bank entourage was in town?

We need to be clear: nobody—no minister, no deputy prime minister, no political ally—should be above the law. If FICAC had determined that charges were ready by 5 September, then a delay should only have meant one thing: a confirmed, non-negotiable appearance on 9 September. Naidu asked for that date. So why didn’t he deliver?

What message does this send to the public? That high-level suspects can negotiate their way around law enforcement? That FICAC charges can be scheduled and then quietly shelved if the optics are inconvenient? That accountability is only enforceable when the cameras are gone and the foreign dignitaries have flown out?

This is not about Prasad’s guilt or innocence—that is for a court to determine. It is about process, credibility, and the rule of law. FICAC either had a case or it didn’t. If it did on 5 September, it should still have had one on 9 September. If something changes, the public has a right to know.

Fiji’s justice system cannot operate on a ‘wait-for-the-world-to-leave’ basis. Nor should any lawyer—however well respected—be able to act as both gatekeeper and gatecrasher to the halls of accountability.

Richard Naidu, who has built a public reputation for advocating for the rule of law, now has a responsibility to answer a simple question: Where was his client on 9 September?

Because FICAC was waiting.

And so was the country.

Let us be clear: Biman Prasad has not been charged. He has not voluntarily presented himself. There has been no public statement of explanation. And Richard Naidu—who personally sought the 9 September deferral—has had nothing to say about why his client did not show up.

The truth is grim: the legal process was hijacked, and the people of Fiji were denied what they were promised—a government committed to transparency and accountability.
Prasad is now effectively on the run. Not hidden, perhaps, but protected. Shielded by the convenient reshuffling of the very institution meant to investigate him. And FICAC, once ready to act, was gutted overnight.

This isn’t just a scandal—it’s a warning. It signals that our anti-corruption watchdog can be politically neutered at a moment’s notice. That legal accountability for the powerful is conditional. That even when law enforcement is ready to act, political interests will intervene.

So we ask again:

Why was Francis Puleiwai removed on the very day Prasad was to be charged?
Who orchestrated the emergency installation of Barbara Malimali on 5 September 2024?
Why did Richard Naidu, who asked for 9 September, fail to bring his client forward?
Why hasn’t FICAC issued a bench warrant for Biman Prasad's arrest?

This country cannot function when the rule of law is only for the poor, the powerless, and the politically expendable. The people of Fiji deserve more than legal theatre. They deserve justice that is blind—not one that looks the other way when ministers are involved.

Until these questions are answered, 5 September 2024 will be remembered as the day accountability died.

In 1987, coupist Sitiveni Rabuka led two coups that overthrew a democratically elected government and dragged Fiji into political instability and ethnic division. In 2000, history repeated itself with another coup - George Speight’s failed coup but that succeeded in overthrowing the Chaudhry government - that tore through our institutions and deepened national wounds. These events were not moments of “correction” — they were disasters that set the country back decades.

The current discontent with the 2013 Constitution, while not unjustified, must not be allowed to open the door to renewed instability. Yes, the Constitution was imposed without full consultation. Yes, many believe it needs reform. But this reform must be achieved through calm, lawful, inclusive dialogue — not through street marches, political grandstanding, or revived ambitions from the past.

And this time, we must be very clear about one thing: never again must Fiji allow the Great Council of Chiefs—or any chiefly elite—to become powerbrokers or kingmakers in our national politics. Our democracy must belong to all citizens equally, not filtered through hereditary privilege or chiefly endorsement. Chiefs have an important cultural role, but in a modern democracy, political legitimacy comes from the ballot box — not the bure.

This is where the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) must hold the line. In the past, they were part of the problem. Today, they must be the protectors of peace, democracy, and constitutional order. We cannot afford to repeat the tragedies of 1987 or 2000. The nation must move forward, not back into the dark corridors of ethnic division, elite dominance, and political coups.

Fiji deserves a constitutional future that is truly by the people, for the people — all the people.

Political Legitimacy comes from the Ballot Box-Not The Bure. Ra Chiefs Should have been denied permit to march against the 2013 Constitution of Fiji.

The march by a group of traditional chiefs from Ra Province against Fiji’s 2013 Constitution are not just symbolic expressions of discontent—they are a dangerous step toward undermining constitutionalism, stoking ethnic division, and unsettling the very foundations of democratic governance. While all citizens, including traditional leaders, have the right to express political views, this march crosses a line. It risks inviting chaos where the legal process should prevail.

The 2013 Constitution is the supreme law of Fiji. It may have emerged from a turbulent and militarized process, but it now underpins the functioning of the state, judiciary, and Parliament. For any group to publicly demand its abolition—without parliamentary debate, legal challenge, or referendum—is not a constitutional dialogue. It is a constitutional defiance.

And when that defiance comes from traditional chiefs, cloaked in inherited authority, it risks being interpreted as a symbolic strike against the very concept of democratic rule. It signals that legitimacy flows not from elections or the law, but from lineage—a regressive message that Fiji cannot afford to entertain in 2025.

What makes this movement especially dangerous is its subtext. When traditional chiefly figures speak against the 2013 Constitution, they often frame it as a betrayal of iTaukei identity and land. This taps into old and inflammatory narratives that falsely present democracy as a threat to indigenous rights.

But this ignores the reality: the 2013 Constitution enshrines protection of iTaukei land, culture, and language. What it does not allow is a two-tiered citizenry. And that, in truth, is what some of these protests long for—a return to ethno-political dominance by hereditary elites.

Let us not forget that similar rhetoric helped justify the 1987 and 2000 coups. The country paid dearly for it in blood, in exile, and in broken institutions. To march backward now is to forget those lessons. The Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) holds a unique—and dangerous—position under Section 131(2) of the current Constitution. It is charged with the responsibility to uphold the Constitution itself. A public movement of chiefly figures denouncing the Constitution can be interpreted as a signal, or even an invitation, for the RFMF to “act.”

Such signaling must be condemned in the strongest terms. In a country with a coup-ridden past, even peaceful protests can have unintended consequences—especially when the military is always watching, and sometimes waiting.

It is important to distinguish cultural leadership from political opportunism. Chiefs carry enormous mana, but that mana must be exercised within the limits of law and democratic principles. By aligning themselves with a political campaign to delegitimize the constitutional order, these chiefs blur the lines between custom and sedition.

Moreover, many of these actors have no democratic mandate. They were not elected. They are not answerable to the public. Their intervention into national politics without constitutional basis is therefore profoundly undemocratic.

If there is genuine dissatisfaction with the 2013 Constitution, Fiji has mechanisms to address it. Political parties can bring it to Parliament. Citizens can file legal challenges. Governments can call referendums. None of these involve marching in chiefly attire to intimidate, divide, or resurrect lost regimes.

Don’t Romanticize Rebellion

There is a temptation to view the Ra march as a cultural expression or an assertion of indigenous rights. But in substance, it is a challenge to constitutional order. Fiji cannot afford another national crisis rooted in symbols of the past. Chiefs must lead with wisdom, not nostalgia. And the law must lead with firmness, not fear.

Political Legitimacy comes from the Ballot Box-Not The Bure housing Traditional Rulers.

Fijileaks: A Constitution in Question, and a Messenger in Doubt - Niko Nawaikula

Fiji finds itself once again at the crossroads of memory and law, tradition and reform. Former parliamentarian and convict Niko Nawaikula is now calling for a public march against the 2013 Constitution—a document he says has disenfranchised the iTaukei and erased indigenous protections once enshrined in earlier legal frameworks.

The right to protest peacefully is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy. But when the rallying cry comes from a man who was jailed for abusing parliamentary allowances, the message risks being drowned out by the baggage of the messenger.

The Messenger’s Dilemma

Nawaikula is no stranger to the law—both as a lawyer and a lawbreaker. In 2022, he was convicted of dishonestly claiming over $20,000 in travel allowances by falsely declaring his residence. That conviction disqualifies him from holding public office, but it also tarnishes his ability to lead a movement rooted in principles of justice and good governance.

Some may argue that having served his sentence, he deserves a second chance in public life. Perhaps. But leading a constitutional movement requires more than rhetorical zeal; it requires unassailable moral credibility. Right now, Nawaikula is not the man to embody that mantle.

From Fijileaks Archives

FICAC Gets COI Report But How Malimali’s Closure of the Biman Prasad File Undermined the Rule of Law While Under Her Own Cloud. By Closing One File, She Buried Them All—The Collapse of Ministerial Accountability

12/6/2025

*Barbara Malimali’s closure of only one narrow complaint — regarding superannuation — was used to shut down all broader allegations against Biman Prasad, including conflict of interest, procurement violations, and non-disclosure under the Political Parties Act. She had been in the job for just eight months and a Commission of Inquiry was in progress under Justice David Ashton-Lewis to establish if her appointment was done properly.

By Closing One File On Prasad-She Buried Them All

When the sacked former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali closed the investigation into Biman Prasad’s superannuation declaration, she was within her power to assess whether a specific legal breach occurred. But when that narrow finding — that the Minister had “breached no law” in relation to a superannuation declaration — was used to shut down all other live complaints against him, she crossed a line from adjudicator to shield.

That one action has caused irreparable harm to the rule of law in Fiji — not because of what it concluded, but because of what it allowed to vanish.

From Superannuation to Silence

The public deserves to understand what happened:

A file was submitted to FICAC alleging that Minister for Finance Biman Prasad failed to disclose superannuation interests in his statutory declarations.
After reviewing that complaint, Commissioner Barbara Malimali closed the file, stating that no law had been breached.
But in doing so, FICAC also buried multiple, unrelated and far more serious allegations, including:
- The $200,000 grant to the Global Girmit Institute (GGI), where his wife Dr Rajni Khausal Chand was a trustee;
- His failure to declare that trusteeship in his Political Parties Act declaration;
- The lack of public tender for GGI’s funding;
- The Cabinet’s role in approving the allocation, despite the conflict.

These matters — none of which had anything to do with superannuation — have since disappeared from public record and prosecutorial scrutiny.

A Dangerous Precedent for Selective Closure

By allowing a finding on one administrative issue to serve as a blanket closure of all complaints, Malimali set a devastating precedent:

"That a minister can face multiple legal and ethical complaints — and have them all erased by clearing the easiest one first."

No court ruled on the GGI allocation. No independent legal review addressed the conflict of interest. No procurement investigation was ever completed. Malimali simply folded the file, and with it, folded its credibility.

The Public Interest That Was Abandoned

The core issue was never superannuation. It was this:

A sitting minister allocated public funds to an entity governed by his spouse.
He did not declare that interest in his statutory political disclosures.
The grant was issued without a public tender.
The Cabinet, informed or not, rubber-stamped a conflicted process.

None of these were investigated by Malimali. None were referred to the DPP. And now, none are likely to see the inside of a courtroom — because one file was closed on technical grounds.

Who Benefits From Silence?

It is no coincidence that Biman Prasad has faced no investigation, no charges, no public inquiry, while DPP is actively pursuing long-past procurement breaches by former ministers — including Frank Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and Dr. Neil Sharma — for conduct dating back to 2011.

In those cases, FICAC insisted that procurement law matters, and that even procedural breaches were serious enough to warrant prosecution. But in the case of a sitting Deputy Prime Minister — with a conflict of interest, direct control of the funds, and active Cabinet involvement — the file was closed quietly and completely.

If that is not a double standard, what is?

FICAC Must Reopen the Files, or the DPP Must Act

Barbara Malimali is now gone. But the consequences of her decision remain.

If Fiji is to preserve its reputation as a country governed by law, not by political expedience, then:

The DPP must independently reopen the unresolved complaints;
The Public Accounts Committee and Parliament’s Standing Committee on Justice must demand answers;
FICAC’s new leadership must explain how one narrow finding erased a minister’s full accountability.
The law is not a tool to protect ministers. It is a shield for the public.

And in this case, it was lowered — deliberately.

REVOLT In The RANKS: A group of FIJI LAW Society lawyer members based in the western division of Fiji to meet and ask for Clarke to step aside as President until he clears his name over 'Malimali's great escape'

11/6/2025

*Meanwhile, senior Fiji lawyer Hemendra Nagin says FLP President Wylie Clarke has no authority to call for the resignation of Justice David Ashton-Lewis

Nagin, representing Justice Lewis

Wylie Clarke

We have the Law Society President barging into FICAC offices which [with] some other not so smart lawyers threatening FICAC officers with all sorts.

Finally, Kuliniasi Saumi Speaks Out about 5 September 2024. He was sacked by Barbara Malimali for recording the 'Gang of Five'.
*Saumi was the Ficac arresting officer.

Fijileaks: We have not corrected Saumi's language, as it appears to have been written in haste-in response to one Charlie Charters.

5 September 2024: Malimali arrested and detained in a FICAC cell

Time for Accountability – FLS Must Not Be Above Scrutiny

In any healthy democracy, institutions of accountability must begin by holding themselves to the highest standards. The Fiji Law Society (FLS), as the guardian of professional legal ethics and the rule of law in Fiji, must not exempt its own leadership from scrutiny.

Recent public concerns and allegations surrounding the President of the FLS, Wylie Clarke, have raised serious questions—not only about the substance of the claims but also about the Society’s ability to maintain credibility and public confidence in its independence. As members of the legal profession in the Western Division of Fiji, they are not only stakeholders in this matter—they are duty-bound to defend the integrity of their own professional body.

We, therefore, support the call, respectfully but firmly, for Wylie Clarke to step aside as President of the Fiji Law Society pending the full and independent resolution of the issues that now cloud his name.

This is not a presumption of guilt. It is a principled demand for transparency and accountability. We ask only what is expected of any public official or professional leader under scrutiny: to temporarily remove themselves from their role to preserve the integrity of the institution they lead.

We, and the FLS lawyer members in the western division, are not alone in this view. Around the world, leaders in comparable positions—whether in legal societies, parliaments, or the judiciary—have stepped aside in the face of serious questions. They do so not as an admission of wrongdoing, but as a sign of respect for the institution and its values. Unfortunately, the now sacked Barbara Malimali refused to step aside, nor the JSC or the sacked Attorney-General Graham Leung forced her to step aside despite a legal opinion that she could be asked to step aside, to allow FICAC witnesses like Kuliniasi Saumi and others to testify before the COI without fear.

We urge Clarke to consider the bigger picture. The Fiji Law Society cannot be an effective watchdog on matters of national legal concern if its own house is in disorder. A temporary stepping aside would allow due process to take its course, and, should he be cleared, return with renewed authority and legitimacy.

The rule of law begins at home. It is time the Fiji Law Society shows that it practices what it preaches. It is time Wylie Clarke stepped aside as President of the FLS, to await the COI findings.

PRESUMING Guilt or Preempting Justice? How can the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and LAWASIA jump to defend Clarke and Vaurasi, branding any charges as "abhorrent" when they have not seen evidence

10/6/2025

Fijileaks: "At the heart of the matter lies a troubling contradiction: how can any international body credibly denounce possible charges against Clarke as unjust or outrageous without access to the actual evidence or legal arguments underpinning them? Such pronouncements, absent public documentation, risk veering into the realm of political theatre rather than principled legal objection. It is a move that not only weakens the integrity of international legal institutions but also undermines the very transparency and accountability they are meant to uphold...Until the COI findings are made public, the principled stance is not to brand the unknown as “abhorrent,” but to demand transparency, due process, and accountability — for all sides."

As murmurs grow louder around the possible charges that the President of the Fiji Law Society (along with his immediate predecessor Laurel Vaurasi and three other lawyers) may face, a peculiar narrative is beginning to take shape — one that risks undermining both international legal norms and the principles of due process. Though the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report remains sealed, international law bodies like the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and LAWASIA and human rights observers have not hesitated to describe the prospective charges as “abhorrent.” Yet, without full disclosure of the facts, this rush to judgment warrants scrutiny. Only yesterday, Clarke was calling for the resignation of Justice David Ashton-Lewis as Fiji Supreme Court judge, saying Lewis was 'spilling the contents' of the COI Report when it has yet to be made public. But, it is perfectly fine for the two international law bodies to already brand any possible charges arising out of the COI Recommendations as "abhorrent". Bloody hypocrites.

At the heart of the matter lies a troubling contradiction: how can any international body credibly denounce charges as unjust or outrageous without access to the actual evidence or legal arguments underpinning them? Such pronouncements, absent public documentation, risk veering into the realm of political theatre rather than principled legal objection. It is a move that not only weakens the integrity of international legal institutions but also undermines the very transparency and accountability they are meant to uphold.

Equally concerning is the strategic communications campaign seemingly mounted by Wylie Clarke's allies. By portraying him as a potential victim of political persecution before the charges have even been formally laid or scrutinized, they appear to be engaging in a form of anticipatory deflection — seeking to poison the well of public opinion and frame any legal action as inherently illegitimate. While every accused individual is entitled to a presumption of innocence, the aggressive preemption of legal proceedings runs the risk of short-circuiting them entirely.

If the charges against Clarke are indeed fabricated or disproportionate, let the facts — once made public — speak for themselves. The proper arena for contesting them is in court or at an international tribunal, not in press releases or moral declarations untethered from evidence. Conversely, if the charges are grounded in credible findings of wrongdoing, then international law bodies risk eroding their own authority by condemning them in advance without full knowledge of the case.

Justice, if it is to mean anything, demands patience, impartiality, and a rigorous commitment to truth — not premature outrage or protective myth-making. Until the COI findings are made public, the principled stance is not to brand the unknown as “abhorrent,” but to demand transparency, due process, and accountability — for all sides.

When the Legal Watchdog Crosses the Line: Conflict Claims Cloud Law Society President Wylie Clarke's call for David Ashton-Lewis to resign as Supreme Court judge over comments regarding contents of COI Report

10/6/2025

Fijileaks: Integrity Begins at Home: Why Law Society President Must Step Back from calling for the resignation of Justice Lewis as Supreme Court Judge of Fiji
"This is not about whether Justice Lewis’s post-report comments were appropriate. Reasonable people can debate that. But the person making the loudest call for his resignation should not be someone whose own conduct is under inquiry scrutiny. That’s textbook conflict of interest.."

"Let’s be clear: the Law Society President was a witness in that inquiry. He gave evidence. He submitted an affidavit. And from all indications, he is allegedly cited in the report itself. That should have been the moment he stepped back and said, “I am personally involved, and I cannot speak for the Society on this matter.” Instead, he chose to wield his institutional authority in what increasingly looks like an attempt to discredit a process that touched too close to home...That’s textbook conflict of interest.."

The Fiji Law Society is today calling on Justice David Ashton-Lewis to resign from the Supreme Court of Fiji or face disciplinary action. President of the Fiji Society, Wylie Clarke says the interview Justice Ashton-Lewis, the former Commissioner of Inquiry, gave to a Queensland radio station, in which he discussed a number of confidential COI matters, has now compromised both the COI and his judicial office.
Fijivillage* News, 10 June 2025

Law Society President Must He Held to the Same Standard He Defends - Fijileaks*

When institutions meant to uphold the law start crossing ethical boundaries themselves, public trust unravels quickly. That is exactly what is now happening with the Fiji Law Society, whose President has publicly called for the resignation of Justice David Ashton Lewis — the Commissioner of the recent inquiry into corruption and institutional misconduct. Let’s be clear: the Law Society President was a witness in that inquiry. He gave evidence. He submitted an affidavit. And from all indications, he is allegedly cited in the report itself. That should have been the moment he stepped back and said, “I am personally involved, and I cannot speak for the Society on this matter.” Instead, he chose to wield his institutional authority in what increasingly looks like an attempt to discredit a process that touched too close to home.

This is not about whether Justice Lewis’s post-report comments were appropriate. Reasonable people can debate that. But the person making the loudest call for his resignation should not be someone whose own conduct is under inquiry scrutiny. That’s textbook conflict of interest.

It is also dangerous. When senior legal figures use their office to protect themselves, they corrode the very foundation of public accountability they are sworn to defend. They also weaken the Law Society’s voice when it actually needs to speak — because who will trust it next time?

If the Law Society wants to remain credible, its President must recuse himself from all further public comment on the inquiry. If he won’t, the Society’s Council — and its members — must act. Integrity demands no less.

Legally, the President of the Fiji Law Society (FLS) can express an opinion or call for Justice David Ashton Lewis’s resignation from any public or judicial office as a matter of public advocacy—but the legitimacy and propriety of such a call is highly questionable if the President of FLS is himself allegedly cited or named in the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report.

Freedom to Comment or Call for Resignation
The FLS President:

Has the right to speak publicly on matters of judicial accountability;
May, in principle, call for the resignation of a judicial officer or commissioner, especially where public confidence in the process is at stake.

Conflict of Interest If Allegedly Cited in the COI Report
However, if the FLS President is:

Named, criticised, or allegedly cited in the COI report—whether directly or by implication--
Then any public call for Justice Lewis’s resignation would be viewed as conflicted, self-serving, or possibly an attempt to discredit the findings to avoid scrutiny.

This would violate natural justice principles and professional ethics, particularly:

The appearance of impartiality;
The obligation to avoid misusing a professional platform for personal defence.

Legal and Professional Consequence
If the FLS President:

Uses the office of the Law Society to launch attacks on a COI or judge when he is himself implicated,
He could be accused of:
- Abuse of office;
- Professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act;
- Undermining judicial independence or due process.

The appropriate action would be for the FLS President to:

Recuse himself from any FLS statements regarding the Commission;
Allow the Vice-President or Council to act independently;
Issue personal comments in his own name (if ethically defensible), but not in his institutional capacity

Conclusion

The President of the Fiji Law Society should not call for Justice Ashton Lewis’s resignation if he is allegedly cited in the COI report. Doing so would create a serious conflict of interest, raise questions about the integrity of the Law Society’s leadership, and could undermine public trust in both the legal profession and the inquiry process.
We refer the President of the Fiji Law Society and its members to go read the cases.

*Lal v President of the Republic of Fiji [2001] FJHC 321

Key Principle:
A public official must avoid making decisions or statements in circumstances where there is a real or perceived conflict of interest. This applies particularly where a person is both a participant and commentator in a matter of public importance.
Relevance: Supports the argument that the FLS President, as a COI witness, must not advocate for resignation of the Commissioner.

Goundar v Commissioner of Police [2011] FJHC 97

Key Principle:
The High Court emphasised that public officers involved in judicial or investigatory processes must uphold the appearance of impartiality, especially where their statements can influence outcomes or public trust.
Relevance: FLS President’s statements could undermine the COI findings and trust in due process.

Pinochet (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119 (House of Lords)

Key Principle:
A judge must be disqualified if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, including associations or past involvement with parties to the case.
Relevance: A Law Society president involved in a report cannot later act or speak against the findings—the dual role creates bias or its perception.

R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet (No. 1) [1998] UKHL 41

Key Principle:
The mere appearance of conflict is sufficient to disqualify a judge or decision-maker, even if no actual bias is proven.
Relevance: By analogy, applies to any legal leader (e.g. FLS President) who seeks to influence a matter where they are personally named or involved.

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Key Principle:
Any decision-maker (including public officials) must recuse themselves from matters where a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend bias.
Relevance: The FLS President must recuse from public comment because a reasonable observer would question his motives.

Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438

Key Principle:
The High Court held that public decision-makers must not participate in matters where they have a personal interest, even reputational.
Relevance: If the COI report touches on the FLS President’s conduct, he has a personal stake and must not lead institutional calls against the Commissioner.

'CROCODILE HUNTER': Rabuka to Justice David Ashton-Lewis, ‘David would you please reveal the crocodiles in the pond’ - and I have.' Lewis flushes out NINE (9) in COI Report but says DPP, Police have to takeover

9/6/2025

*In our editorial judgment, the redacted recommendations of the COI Report must be PUBLISHED, and NOW!
No more 'Crocodile Tears'.
CRY, OUR BELOVED COUNTRY

Here are the key highlights from Justice David Ashton-Lewis’s recent on‑air interview on 4CRB (Gold Coast), following the submission—but pre-release—of his COI report:
Top Highlights from Justice Lewis’s Interview
1. Nine individuals implicated for serious misconduct
He revealed that nine people, including some senior figures, were found to have lied under oath, committed perjury, or obstructed the course of justice during the appointment process reviewed by the COI.
2. Advice to Prime Minister to act swiftly
Lewis disclosed that he advised Prime Minister Rabuka to implement the COI recommendations before making the report public, to prevent anyone from seeking injunctions that could block release or implementation .
3. “Crocodiles in the pond” metaphor
Describing the political environment, he likened senior political circles to a crocodile-infested pond, highlighting the need for vigilance against entrenched, self-serving actors .
4. Reference to a “wannabe Prime Minister”
Though unnamed, he said one implicated person is a “wannabe PM” who publicly supports the government but secretly works to undermine it—widely believed to refer to Deputy PM Kamikamica .
5. “A particular woman… universally regarded as corrupt”
He implied one female appointee was brought in to protect those accused of wrongdoing, stating she was “universally regarded as corrupt”—a strong inference pointing to Malimali .
6. Acknowledgment of Janet Mason’s role
Despite later concerns, Lewis praised Janet Mason, his senior counsel, calling her “one of the best lawyers I’ve worked with in 50 years” .
7. Clarification on use of COI findings
He emphasized that while the COI uncovered potential criminal conduct, it is up to the ODPP and Fiji Police to pursue any charges. He noted that COI findings alone are not evidence in court .

The comments from Commission of Inquiry Commissioner and Supreme Court Judge Justice David Ashton-Lewis regarding the ‘wannabe Prime Minister’ certainly sounds like me but he needs to clarify who he is referring to.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Manoa Kamikamica stressed this after the COI Chair said that he revealed to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka the ‘crocodiles in the pond’ at Rabuka’s asking.

While speaking to an Australian community based radio station, 4crb, Justice Ashton-Lewis says there are always going to be aggrieved people who think they can do it better and one of these people that he identified was someone who is all smile at his face and will stab him in the back if they get the chance.
He says one of them is a ‘wannabe’ Prime Minister.

The Deputy Prime Minister says the Commissioner has abused the law because everyone was told that they can't talk about the report.

He says the rules were set for the COI that no one was to say anything until the President decides what to do with the report.

Kamikamica says he has refused to answer any questions on the COI because they were under direct instruction and he will reserve his comments when the report comes out. The Deputy Prime Minister further says he has publicly come out and posted on facebook that he is very supportive of the release of the report.
When asked if he ever intended to be the Prime Minister, Kamikamica says he never joined politics to become Prime Minister and he just wanted to get rid of the last government after 16 years of mismanagement and wrong rule.

The Deputy Prime Minister adds that he never asked the Prime Minister to be Deputy Prime Minister.
Kamikamica says he finds the "wannabe PM" comment as pathetic and ignorant.

He adds it is also very insulting to him and his family.

Kamikamica says he and his wife sacrificed heaps to fight the last regime.

He stresses that he never asked the Prime Minister about being Prime Minister and never will. The Deputy Prime Minister says anybody that knows Manoa Kamikamica knows that he works hard and allows what he does in his career to determine progression. He says he is what they call a high performer, and he always believes if you work hard, you will find success, or more appropriately success will find you. Kamikamica stresses that his focus is to rebuild Fiji, they have no time to waste, they have one Leader, the Prime Minister whom he supports 100 percent.

COI Judge reveals: Intrigue, Deceit, Disloyalty, Lies.

Shocking revelation from Justice David Ashton-Lewis, Supreme Court judge who carried out the Commission of Inquiry: 9 people had lied under oath or had obstructed the course of justice.

This included members of Cabinet, including a “wannabe prime minister”, the Judge said in a surprising interview he gave to the Gold Coast, Australian Radio 4CRB’s The Judge programme on 29 May.

He also revealed that Prime Minister Rabuka had requested he speak out: ‘David would you please reveal the crocodiles in the pond’ - and I have,” the Judge said.

“ I found there were 9 people who had done things such as lied under oath. That’s called perjury.

“I found 9 of them obstructed the course of justice. And that they also perverted the course of justice in the appointment of this particular woman,” he said referring to former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali’s appointment.

“In other words it became apparent in the investigation that this particular woman was shunted very quickly through the processes to get in.

“Now the question then arises: Why? What was the hurry? Why was she so important? Well, the rest of the evidence showed she was so important because she would do evil people’s designs.”

His recommendations against the 9 are part of the 71 recommendations the Judge makes in the COI Report.

Justice Ashton-Lewis said they were, therefore, aware that attempts would be made to stop the report coming out through court injunctions to stop the report being made public.

His advice to the Prime Minister then was to act on the recommendations before releasing the report. “ This would cut the ground from under them.”

FLP has already criticized strong attacks made by some in the legal fraternity to undermine the credibility of Janet Mason, counsel assisting the COI.

Also interesting is Justice Ashton-Lewis’ comments on a “wannabe prime minister”:

“ One of these people (the 9) that I identified was someone who’s well known – they all smile at his face and stab him in the back if they get the chance. And one of them is a wannabe prime minister, and he thinks he should be.

“Well, if Sitiveni Rabuka acts, he’s never going to be prime minister, because I found disgraceful things that he was doing, yet smiling to the Prime Minister: I’m your greatest loyal man. Well, he wasn’t.

“ And in law… none protest their innocence so loudly as the guilty, none protest their honourability so loudly as the dishonourable. He fits into that category.”

No names were mentioned by the Judge.

To put the Judge’s remarks in context, he was asked to inquire into the “rotten” circumstances surrounding the rushed appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner on the very day Finance Minister Biman Prasad was to be charged by FICAC with multiple counts of making false declarations under the Political Parties Act.

Immediately on her taking office, the charges were dropped, and later she cleared him of any wrong doing.
Former minister Lynda Tabuya was also cleared of any wrong-doing.

Altogether 5 ministers had been referred to FICAC for investigation by the Registrar of Political Parties: others included DPM Manoa Kamikamica, Filimoni Vosarogo and acting AG Siromi Turaga.

What a government we have!

5 SEPTEMBER 2024 Letter to FICAC, Biman Prasad, Richard Naidu and Barbara Malimali. The order by Malimali to Ficac legal counsel NOT to Charge Prasad that day was interference by her in prosecutorial process

4/6/2025

Fijileaks: We call upon the new FICAC acting Commissioner to begin laying the multiple charges BIMAN PRASAD was facing on 5 September 2024. We will be providing FICAC and Fiji Police additional new evidence to lay further charges against Fiji's Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD

Richard Naidu wrote the letter and emailed it to Malimali in the middle of the day on 5 September. When did Malimali have the time to go through Biman Prasad's 'Ficac File' to order her legal team not to proceed with the charges?
She had only been at her new job from the afternoon of 4 September to the morning of 5 September when she was taken into custody at 8.50am.
*According to Prasad's affidavit (23 December 2024) to COI he told his lawyer Naidu to write to FICAC and ask for a deferment of the caution interview and possible charges on 5 September 2024?

*On 5 September Naidu transmitted the written request to FICAC, seeking a deferral of the intended charges until 9 September 2024, citing the World Bank President Ajay Banga's visit to Fiji and the potential reputational harm to Fiji if the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and NFP leader Biman Prasad were charged at that time.

Richard Naidu's letter to Malimali did not raise any legal objections to the charges. Naidu must have been aware that FICAC was acting under its statutory mandate and had already finalised its legal review.
Does he accept that a lawyer writing to delay criminal charges for non-legal reasons may obstruct the course of justice?
*The request was not grounded in legal invalidity, but rather in political optics.

*The action implicitly pressured FICAC to modify its charging timeline based on external political considerations, not on legal merits. The outcome was that the charges—already legally vetted—were halted by the new Commissioner of FICAC, Barbara Malimali.

It can be argued that Naidu, in writing the 5 September 2024 letter to the then FICAC Commissioner Malimali, was acting in his professional capacity as a lawyer seeking the best possible outcome for his client, Biman Prasad. This is a legally plausible defense, though not without limits.
As Prasad's lawyer, Naidu had a duty to zealously represent his client's interests within the bounds of the law. Recommending the timing of a charge be reconsidered (e.g. because of a diplomatic event or political context) can be seen as part of that advocacy. He was acting within his proper role as legal counsel to Prasad unless further evidence suggests coordinated efforts to undermine justice.
A further Police investigation is needed to establish whether Naidu's letter was part of a broader, orchestrated effort (e.g. involving Malimali) to suppress prosecution. If so, that could shift it from legal advocacy into obstruction of justice. What time was the letter e-mailed to Malimali? What time did she read it? Did she inform Naidu that Prasad was free to meet up with Banga?
As for Malimali, it is clear that her decision on 5 September to halt the charges against Prasad has led to allegations that she may have perverted the course of justice. Critics argue that her intervention disrupted due process and shielded a political leader from accountability. She made her decision on 5 September without examining the 'Ficac File' on Biman Prasad.

Malimali: Her Arrest and Detention
*On 4 September 2024, the Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu introduced the newly appointed FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali to her FICAC staff. The FICAC IT specialists at Reverend John Hunt House set up her email account: ([email protected]).

*Her first email that she sent from that official account was to the Chief Registrar at 4.52pm in the afternoon of 4 September to thank him for introducing her to FICAC staff, including to her deputy Francis Puleiwai and the legal team. Malimali had stayed in the office until 5pm and was later driven in a brand new FICAC Commissioner's official car to her home. She did not send another official email from that FICAC account until 6 September 2024. On Thursday 5 September, Malimali came into work before 8am. She asked her PA Miriama Qionibaravi to call for a Heads of Department meeting and that it was to be held at 9am.She has recalled that about 8.50am, as she was sitting in the Boardroom on the 4th floor of the Rev John Hunt House, the FICAC officers placed her under arrest. We have detailed the FICAC charges that had been prepared against her. She asked the arresting FICAC officers if she could call 'my lawyer'. The last person to call her was the President of the Fiji Law Society Wylie Clarke. He arrived with other lawyers and they met up with Bainivalu. Sometime between 12pm and 1.30pm, and after intense negotiations Puleiwai and her team agreed to release Malimali. She claimed that, 'I was so traumatised by the experience of having been detained and arrested and humiliated by my own officers that I told Kuliniasi Saumi that I could not go back to my office'. She decided to return in the morning, 6 September, preferably with a Police escort.

All Suited and Booted for Banga
How come Prasad, without receiving a response, was already in the morning of 5 September all suited and booted,* meeting up with the World Bank president Ajay Banga? He was required at FICAC but was running around as Finance Minister entertaining Banga.
We know from the affidavit of a senior legal counsel at FICAC that Malimali, after she was released from custody between 12.30pm or 1.30pm, made a call around 2pm to the senior legal counsel, instructing her to halt all investigations and charges unless Malimali authorised further actions.
When did Malimali first become aware of the letter from Naidu?

Did she consult FICAC's legal team before halting the charges?
What was her reason for overruling the charging process already underway?
Did she consider the implications for prosecutorial independence?
Does she accept that her actions, in context, may appear politically motivated?

The role of Barbara Malimali is criticial - it substantially deepens the case for a multi-layered alleged conspiracy to obstruct justice, possibly involving retaliatory or self-protective acts by a newly appointed official under imminent prosecution herself.
Malimali's Conflict of Interest and Misuse of Authority:
As the subject of a pending charge, Malimali used her position-within 24 hours of appointment-to abort her own criminal process and of the NFP leader, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Prasad.
Re-evaluation of Biman Prasad and Richard Naidu's roles:
This evidence raises the stakes for Prasad and Naidu. Naidu's letter, timed between arrest and release, could have been designed not just to delay, but to signal to Malimali that charges must be halted.
Biman Prasad's instruction to send the letter on that precise day while hosting a high-profile international guest indicates premeditated use of political power and distraction. Hence a Police investigation is needed to establish facts.
Inference of Coordinated Interference:
This entire sequence forms a chain of causation:
1. Malimali is arrested for FEC conduct;
2. Prasad is about to be charged;
3. Naidu writes letter requesting delay;
4. Malimali is released and regains control;
Charges against both are halted by the very person under charge.
*No legitimate legal process would allow a person under imminent charge to decide whether they - and a political leader - should be prosecuted. This is institutional sabotage of FICAC's core function.

The new acting FICAC Commissioner LAVI ROKOIVA has the authority to reopen previously closed cases, including the file concerning Biman Prasad.
In summary, while the case against Prasad was closed by Malimali (re superannuation and dividends), the new acting Commissioner holds the legal authority to reopen the investigation, justified by new evidence or procedural concerns.

There is no express prohibition in the FICAC Act preventing a new Commissioner from revisiting closed files.
Richard Naidu's 5 September 2024 letter was an admission that Biman Prasad was an 'office holder' under the Political Parties Act but could the charges be deferred until 9 September while Banga was still in town.
Biman Prasad has been on the run since 5 September 2024. He MUST be arrested and charged by FICAC.
We call on the RFMF and Fiji Police to locate and deliver Prasad to FICAC - so he can be charged, as FICAC was planning on 5 September.
'Bangra Dancing Was Over When the World Bank president Ajay Banga departed Fiji.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The Commissioner of Police RUSIATE TUDRAVU and RFMF Commander Ratu Jone Kalouniwai

*On or about 5 September 2024, the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) had prepared to lay criminal charges against the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Professor Biman Chand Prasad, under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.
On that date, Mr. Richard Naidu, a legal practitioner acting for Professor Prasad, transmitted a written request to FICAC, seeking a deferral of the intended charges until 9 September 2024.
In his correspondence, Mr. Naidu did not dispute:
• The authority of FICAC to bring such charges;
• The legal sufficiency or evidentiary basis of the proposed charges;
• The procedural regularity of the process under FICAC’s mandate. Rather, Mr. Naidu’s representations focused on reputational and timing concerns, specifically referencing the official visit of the President of the World Bank, Ajay Banga, and the diplomatic and economic implications of charging a Cabinet Minister during such time.
It is my opinion that this letter constitutes a tactical concession on the part of Professor Prasad’s legal team, acknowledging:
• That a charge was lawfully contemplated;
• That FICAC possessed jurisdiction to proceed;
• That the defence’s concern was with optics and political timing, not legality.
*We, therefore, call for a JOINT Military and Police Operation to locate Biman Prasad and deliver him to FICAC so they can proceed with charging Prasad as planned on 5 September 2024.

Sworn Affidavit of Hon. Biman Prasad (23 Dec 2024)

“I instructed Mr Naidu to write to FICAC… requesting, in view of my commitments that week, that FICAC take a more reasonable approach to this.”
Legal Analysis
A. Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice
Prasad initiated and authorised a communication to FICAC with the intent of deferring a lawful charge. The purpose was not legal defence but delay for personal and political convenience. This is a classic form of improper influence under s.190 of the Crimes Act.
B. Abuse of Office
Prasad, while holding executive office, used his political standing to manipulate prosecutorial timing for private benefit.
C. Conspiracy to Defeat Justice
The affidavit confirms agreement and coordinated action between Prasad and Naidu to alter the normal prosecutorial process.
Request for Action
We respectfully request that:
A criminal investigation be opened by the Fiji Police Force (CID).
Conclusion
This matter raises serious questions about ministerial integrity, the politicisation of prosecutorial discretion, and obstruction of the justice process in Fiji. The sworn admissions and surrounding conduct warrant a full criminal investigation and, if evidence is substantiated, the laying of appropriate charges.

The question of whether Barbara Malimali, the former FICAC Commissioner could face charges centers on her actions surrounding the events of
5 September 2024.
FICAC was prepared to charge Biman Prasad with multiple counts related to alleged false declarations under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013. However, on that same day, newly appointed Commissioner Malimali was detained by her own staff.
Richard Naidu wrote to Malimali, urging her to delay any charges against Prasad. He cited the ongoing official visit of World Bank President Ajay Banga to Fiji and argued that charging the Finance Minister during this period would not be in the country’s best interest.
Barbara Malimali:
Her decision to halt the charges against Prasad has led to allegations that she may have perverted the course of justice. Critics argue that her intervention disrupted due process and shielded a political leader from accountability.

Meanwhile, Barbara Malimali’s conduct on 24 December 2024 provides direct evidence of intentional suppression of a lawful prosecution, and exposes her to serious criminal and professional consequences.
On 24 December 2024, FICAC Commissioner Malimali instructed staff to “find files” to silence or neutralize critics — indicating a politically motivated use of prosecutorial power. When Manager Legal Kauliniasi Saumi informed her that Biman Prasad’s file was ready for charges, Malimali refused to proceed, allegedly saying:
“No, I don’t want election-related files.”

Legal and Ethical Consequences
1. Abuse of Office ( Crimes Act 2009, s.139 )

*Malimali had a statutory duty to act independently and based on law, not political convenience or image management. Choosing not to proceed with a charge because it is related to elections, or due to political optics, is a clear abuse of discretion and authority.

2. Obstruction of Justice ( s.190 )
If the file had met the charging threshold and Malimali blocked it for non-legal reasons, this could amount to deliberate interference with a prosecution in progress.
3. Misuse of Public Office for Political Motive
Using prosecutorial files to “shut up critics” (i.e., suppress political dissent or criticism) is not only unethical — it could also be considered malfeasance in office or perversion of constitutional obligations.
We call on Fiji Police and the RFMF to instruct FICAC to charge Biman Prasad with multiple counts he was facing on 5 September 2024.
As for Barbara Malimali she must be arrested and questioned over the WhatsApp message she sent to FICAC staffer to ignore Prasad's file.

*Fiji's SLEEPING MEDIA PUSSIES: GO BACK INTO YOUR CAT CAGES

Fijileaks: We call upon the new FICAC acting Commissioner to begin laying the multiple charges BIMAN PRASAD was facing on 5 September.

<<Previous

From Fijileaks Archive, 17 January 2025

Let The Sun In: Crocodiles Shouldn't Get to Edit the Report That Named Them

Silence by Scissors*The so-called “Crocodiles”—named in the Justice Ashton-Lewis Commission of Inquiry (COI) Report—demand further redactions.​*They must have no editorial control over a public interest report.​*They must NOT be allowed to Gut the COI Report That Exposes Them

Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason Applied Redactions With Care-Crocodiles Now Want to Tear Rest Apart

From Fijileaks Archives

*Meanwhile, senior Fiji lawyer Hemendra Nagin says FLP President Wylie Clarke has no authority to call for the resignation of Justice David Ashton-Lewis

Finally, Kuliniasi Saumi Speaks Out about 5 September 2024. He was sacked by Barbara Malimali for recording the 'Gang of Five'.*Saumi was the Ficac arresting officer.

Fijileaks: We have not corrected Saumi's language, as it appears to have been written in haste-in response to one Charlie Charters.

5 September 2024: Malimali arrested and detained in a FICAC cell

*Law Society President Must He Held to the Same Standard He Defends - Fijileaks

*In our editorial judgment, the redacted recommendations of the COI Report must be PUBLISHED, and NOW!No more 'Crocodile Tears'.CRY, OUR BELOVED COUNTRY