Blog Archives

From LIES to the LEDGER: Why Biman Prasad and the NFP Should Hang Their Heads in Shame as He Stands Up in Parliament to Deliver BUDGET. He entered Parliament on back of False Statutory Declarations in 2014

26/6/2025

*As Biman Prasad delivers the budget, every line he reads, every tax he announces, and every dollar he allocates will carry the stench of unresolved fraud. The people of Fiji are being asked to trust a man with the national purse whose own declarations cannot withstand basic scrutiny.

ELEVEN years ago, in 2014, Biman Prasad entered Fiji’s Parliament on the back of false statutory declarations—a deceit that would have disqualified any ordinary citizen, civil servant, or candidate under the law. Today, he stands at the dispatch box, preparing to deliver the national budget as Minister for Finance.

There are many words for this kind of trajectory: shameless, cynical, disgraceful. But the most painful word is this: unaccountable.

The same man who once withheld material facts from his electoral declaration—including his business interests, his wife’s property holdings, and the true value of his personal assets—is now entrusted with managing billions in public funds. He is not standing trial. He is standing before the nation, presiding over the fiscal future of a country he once deceived to gain power.

And worse still, his party—the National Federation Party—remains silent.

The Price of Power Cannot Be the Truth

Let us not mince words: this is not a clerical error or a forgotten signature. This is a sustained and deliberate failure to disclose, going back to Prasad’s original declaration in 2014 and repeated over two elections.

If a civil servant had lied in a statutory declaration, they would have been terminated. If a candidate from a less protected party had done the same, they would have been prosecuted under the Political Parties Act or the Electoral Act. But Biman Prasad? He gets promoted. Protected. Painted as a pillar of reform.

This is not justice. It is hypocrisy in a suit.

And what of his colleagues—the NFP MPs who sit beside him in Cabinet, who brand themselves as voices of reason and integrity?

Their silence is complicity.

Not one of them has demanded an internal review. Not one has stood up in Parliament or before the public and asked why a man with a proven record of false declarations should be allowed to oversee the national accounts.

Have they abandoned the NFP’s historic legacy of clean politics and principled opposition? Or have they simply decided that truth is negotiable if your party is in the coalition government?

A Budget Stained Before It Begins

As Biman Prasad delivers the budget, every line he reads, every tax he announces, and every dollar he allocates will carry the stench of unresolved fraud. The people of Fiji are being asked to trust a man with the national purse whose own declarations cannot withstand basic scrutiny.

And so we ask: Why are NFP members not demanding accountability from their own leader? The answer lies in a bitter truth: Fiji’s political class has become adept at enforcing accountability for others—but not for themselves.

The Long Arc of Deceit

Biman Prasad had 15 years to come clean. He never did. And now, with the machinery of the government behind him, he thinks he never will—unless FICAC charges him.

Let it be remembered that the budget he delivers is not merely a financial document. It is a moral statement. And when it is read aloud in Parliament today, it will echo not just with figures, but with the silence of his party, the apathy of oversight institutions, and the buried truths of a man who chose power over honesty.

Integrity doesn’t age well in the absence of courage. And neither does the NFP

Rabuka’s Silence Is a Green Light for Corruption

For a man who came to office promising a break from the authoritarianism and abuse of the Bainimarama years, Rabuka’s unwillingness to act on the COI’s findings is a betrayal of his own legacy. He behaves as if Prasad’s continued presence in Cabinet is a minor irritant rather than a constitutional crisis.

No matter what numbers Biman Prasad delivers today Fiji’s moral ledger is in deficit. A budget read by a man who entered office on lies, protected by a FICAC chief who closed her eyes, and tolerated by a Prime Minister too timid to act, cannot claim legitimacy.

Until his file is re-opened, until he is arrested and charged, until accountability is enforced, every dollar allocated under by Biman Prasad will be stained with impunity.

The Law Was Ready - So Why Stop It? A Rebuttal to the COI's Delay of Biman Prasad's Prosecution. COI's recommendation for Prasad's FILE to be reviewed by an 'independent counsel' is procedurally REDUNDANT

24/6/2025

Public Confidence Requires Timely Prosecution, Not Perpetual Re-Evaluation
The public has already waited:
Over 10 years since Biman’ Prasad's 2014 false declaration,
Several additional years of similar non-disclosures (2015–2024),
And now faces a new review cycle, with no public timetable and no guarantee of action.
This is not accountability. It is procedural purgatory.
The Global Girmit Institute, the concealed shareholdings, and the property and directorship omissions — all these are matters already supported by documentary evidence. They do not require a second opinion. They require prosecution.
The proper response is not to delay justice or “outsource” prosecutorial discretion — it is to proceed with charges already deemed valid.
*If Barbara Malimali’s advice was compromised, then the original charge recommendation is even more credible — and justice demands it be acted on now, not reviewed again.

Rebuttal to COI Recommendation on Further Review of Biman Prasad’s File

We respectfully acknowledge the Commission of Inquiry’s work and accept that it was conducted in good faith. However, we fundamentally disagree with the recommendation that the 'FICAC FILE' relating to Biman Prasad be referred for further review by an 'independent counsel'. This recommendation is not only unnecessary, it risks undermining prosecutorial integrity, delaying justice, and eroding public trust in institutions meant to uphold the rule of law.

The Case Was Already Prosecutable – And Defence Counsel Acknowledged It

As of early September 2024, the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) had completed its investigation into Prasad’s statutory declarations, specifically concerning:

The 2014 false declaration under the Political Parties Act;
The undisclosed shareholding and directorship in Lotus Construction (Fiji);
The undisclosed co-owned property on Burerua Street, Suva;
His wife’s undisclosed role as trustee of the Global Girmit Institute (GGI) between 2018–2024.

Importantly, on 5 September 2024, Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu, wrote to FICAC requesting that his client not be charged on 5 September as scheduled, but instead on 9 September — to accommodate scheduling issues. This is not a speculative exchange. It is clear documentary evidence that:

FICAC had reached the decision to prosecute, and
Defence counsel had accepted that outcome and was merely negotiating timing.

There was no dispute over whether a charge should proceed — the only question was when.

The Commission’s Recommendation for a “Further Review” Is Procedurally Redundant

To now suggest that Prasad’s file be “reviewed” again by a new, unnamed “independent counsel” is not just redundant — it is legally irregular and publicly damaging.

FICAC is the body mandated by the Constitution (s.115) to investigate and prosecute corruption.
The threshold for prosecution had already been met.
No new evidence has been presented by the COI to suggest the file is flawed.
Naidu’s letter confirms the file was in prosecutorial readiness.

In this light, the recommendation for review appears to:

Create unnecessary delay,
Open the door for political shielding, and
Interfere with FICAC’s lawful independence.

Legal Authorities Support FICAC’s Discretion

The principle that investigative and charging discretion must remain free from external influence is well established

Matalulu v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] 4 LRC 712 (Fiji):

“The decision to prosecute is not reviewable unless bad faith or improper purpose is shown.”

R (Corner House Research) v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60:
“The independence of prosecutorial decision-making is central to the rule of law.”
R v. Smith [2004] EWCA Crim 631:
“Delays in prosecutorial action caused by administrative interference may amount to an abuse of process.”

There is no bad faith in FICAC’s decision to prosecute. On the contrary, it is supported by evidence, law, and even the opposing party’s own procedural concession. We therefore call on FICAC to proceed with charges without further delay. “Justice delayed, especially for the politically powerful, is justice denied to the public.” Let the law take its course. Let charges proceed.

Doubts about Barbara Malimali Are a Personnel Issue — Not a Legal One

If the COI doubts Malimali’s integrity or motivation (e.g. her advice to close the Biman file), that may justify her removal or an inquiry into her conduct — but it does not invalidate the evidence in the file or the law supporting prosecution.

In fact, the FICAC legal team did recommend charges before she intervened. If anything, the COI’s ruling about Malimali should strengthen the case for restoring the file to the original trajectory, not delaying it further. If Malimali’s advice was compromised, then the original charge recommendation is even more credible — and justice demands it be acted on now, not reviewed again.

*Barbara Malimali and Kaushal Reddy involved could potentially face criminal charges if their actions in the closure of the Biman Prasad file meet the thresholds for criminal misconduct, abuse of office, or obstruction of justice under the laws of Fiji.

*In what can only be described as a failure of basic due diligence, Kaushal Reddy advised Malimali that investigators should have interviewed the lawyer who witnessed Biman Prasad’s statutory declaration—without realizing the lawyer, Raman Prasad Singh, had died in May 2020.

As we pointed out previously the file relating to Prasad was under active consideration for prosecution, with FICAC investigators prepared to lay charges. However, following Malimali’s reassignment of the file to the advising officer—described by COI as inexperienced—the investigation was closed. A key justification provided was the lack of an interview with the witnessing lawyer, a physical impossibility given Singh’s death five years earlier.

This basic factual error raises serious questions about:

The competence of the officer Kaushal Reddy whose advice influenced the closure;
Malimali’s own diligence, judgment, and responsibility to verify material facts before deciding to halt a politically sensitive prosecution;
The possibility of a pretextual closure, using flawed logic to justify inaction.

In prosecutorial decision-making, failure to ascertain whether a critical witness is alive reflects not only incompetence, but also a breakdown in investigative integrity. If this error was the basis—or even part of the rationale—for shelving a corruption file involving a senior Cabinet Minister, public confidence in FICAC’s impartiality and rigour is seriously undermined.

We have noted that in cases involving statutory declarations, the focus should be on documentary consistency and corroborating conduct, not solely post-facto interviews. If the statutory declaration was signed and filed, and if other evidence supports the case, the death of a witnessing lawyer should not bar prosecution—especially not on the mistaken belief that he could still be interviewed.

When prosecutorial discretion is influenced by factually incorrect advice and unchecked assumptions, the real casualty is not the reputation of an officer—it is the rule of law itself.

To reopen a case or reverse a decision based on a materially wrong observation of fact—such as relying on the mistaken belief that a witness was alive when they were already deceased—courts have long recognized principles under administrative law, judicial review, and natural justice that can support such a move. Here are key case laws and principles that can be used to argue for reopening a corruption case closed on the basis of a factual error.

1. Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014

Principle: Material Mistake of Fact

A public authority’s decision may be unlawful if it is based on a misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact.

Application:
If a FICAC officer’s advice (and Malimali’s decision) was based on the false belief that a crucial witness (Raman Prasad Singh) could be interviewed, when in fact he died in 2020, that is a material mistake of fact. The decision to close the file may therefore be invalid and capable of being quashed or reviewed

E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 4

Key Principle: Mistake of Fact as a Ground for Judicial Review

The UK Court of Appeal recognized that a “mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness” can be a standalone ground of judicial review.

Test (from Carnwath LJ):

There was a mistake as to an existing fact.
The fact was established and uncontentious.
The claimant (or affected party) was not responsible for the mistake.
The mistake played a material part in the decision.

Application:
All four conditions may be satisfied here:

The officer Kaushal Reddy believed Singh was alive — mistake of existing fact.
His death in 2020 is verifiable and uncontentious.
FICAC investigators did not cause the mistake.
The mistake materially affected the closure of the file.

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

Key Principle: Error of law includes misunderstanding facts relevant to jurisdiction

This case expanded the scope of reviewable errors, ruling that any error affecting the exercise of statutory power, including a misunderstanding of jurisdictional facts, could render a decision unlawful.

Application:
If Malimali closed the file believing a key evidentiary step was missing—interviewing a dead witness—her exercise of prosecutorial discretion may have been based on a jurisdictional error, rendering the decision reviewable and voidable.

R v Criminal Cases Review Commission, ex parte Pearson [2000] EWHC Admin 10

Principle: New or Corrected Facts Can Justify Re-consideratin

Even after decisions are made, if a material fact comes to light that undermines the integrity of the original decision, there is legal justification to reopen the matter.

Application:
The correct fact (Singh was deceased) invalidates a key basis for non-prosecution. The original decision should be reviewed, especially when it involves a Cabinet Minister and public confidence in anti-corruption efforts.

Summary of Legal Grounds to Reopen

Material mistake of fact (E v Secretary of State)
Misapplication of discretionary power (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture)
Jurisdictional error based on incorrect fact (Anisminic)
Unfairness affecting the decision outcome (Tameside, Pearson)
Failure to verify critical facts or consider available evidence = procedural and substantive error.

Barbara Malimali and Kaushal Reddy involved could potentially face criminal charges if their actions in the closure of the Biman Prasad file meet the thresholds for criminal misconduct, abuse of office, or obstruction of justice under the laws of Fiji. Here’s a legal breakdown of the possible charges, the thresholds, and relevant statutes:

1. Abuse of Office (Crimes Act 2009, s139)

Section 139 – Abuse of Office:

“A public official who, without reasonable excuse, does or directs to be done, in abuse of the authority of their office, an arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another, is guilty of an indictable offence.”

To establish this:

The person is a public official → (Malimali and Kaushal are).
The act was done in abuse of their official authority → e.g., closing a corruption file for improper motives or based on manipulated advice.
The act was arbitrary or unreasonable.
The act was prejudicial to the rights of another → here, to the public interest in accountability and anti-corruption.

Penalty:

Up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

2. Perverting the Course of Justice / Obstruction (Crimes Act 2009, s190–192)

If it can be shown that either party intentionally interfered with the legal process to protect a political figure or derail prosecution, this could fall under:

Section 190: Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice

Includes any act intended to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

Application:

If Malimali reassigned the file and closed it to shield Biman Prasad, and not due to genuine evidentiary concerns, this may qualify.
If Reddy knowingly gave false or misleading advice (e.g., recommending an interview with someone already deceased to fabricate a basis for closure), that may also qualify.

3. Making a False or Misleading Statement (Crimes Act 2009, s177)

If the FICAC officer Kaushal Reddy made representations to Malimali or recorded internal file notes that were knowingly false or grossly negligent, this could amount to:

“Knowingly making a false or misleading statement in the performance of official duties.”

Even if there was no corrupt intent, gross negligence in failing to check whether a witness was alive could support a disciplinary or civil misconduct case, and possibly criminal negligence if systemic damage resulted.

We, however, argue that there is NO need or justification for the 'Ficac File' on Biman Prasad to be reviewed by an 'independent counsel' - he should be arrested and charged. He has been on the run since 2014. He lied to enter Parliament.

DEAD WRONG. FICAC's 'inexperienced' KAUSHAL REDDY, who advised Malimali that the LEGAL TEAM should have interviewed All of PRASAD's Lawyers - Forgot One Had Been Dead Since 2020: Raman Pratap SINGH

22/6/2025

Apologies! Grainy image of Reddy from the COI

Kaushal Reddy’s Role and Misconduct in the Corruption File Review
*Contrary to standard procedure, Kaushal Reddy was not assigned to review the prosecution file or to advise on whether charges should proceed. His role was limited to providing pedestrian observations to Malimali. However, Reddy overstepped this remit, intruding into the prosecutorial domain by contradicting the legal team’s determination to prosecute.
*In doing so, he advanced flawed and irrelevant reasoning that undermined the integrity of the decision-making process. Most notably, he recommended that investigators interview a lawyer who was already deceased at the time — a proposal so egregious it raises serious concerns about either his competence or intent. This intervention not only derailed a viable prosecution but also exposed the institution to public disrepute and potential legal liability.

RIP. The late Raman Pratap Singh

Singh resigned as NFP president on 29 March 2014, citing the need for "new blood" and "fresh faces" in the party leadership. He attempted to regain his seat for the NFP at the 2014 election in September under Biman Prasad's leadership but was not successful. *Singh died on 18 May 2020 in Suva

Since Raman Pratap Singh is deceased, he cannot be held legally or professionally accountable in any formal sense (e.g. prosecution, disciplinary action or civil liability). This is a key factual and legal limitation that should be acknowledged clearly in any formal or public document discussing his potential role or relevance in a matter.
If someone-like Kaushal Reddy-recommended interviewing him after his death, that raises serious procedural and credibility concerns about the advice given. It either shows:
A gross failure of due diligence, or a deliberate attempt to mislead, by suggesting (and Malimali accepting to close the file) on a person who was legally and physically unavailable.
FICAC probe began in April 2024. Prasad was interviewed twice in August. He was to be charged on 5 September. Singh has been dead since 2020.

Truth on Paper, Lies in Practice: The Legal and Moral Failure Behind Biman Prasad’s False Declarations

Statutory declarations are solemn instruments. They demand truthfulness under penalty of law, functioning as the cornerstone of public transparency in modern democracies. When public officials and parliamentarians distort these documents—whether through omission, evasion, or calculated dishonesty—they do not merely betray their legal obligations. They betray the public trust.

Biman Prasad, Fiji’s current NFP leader, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, in Sitiveni Rabuka's government repeatedly submitted false or materially misleading declarations between 2014 and 2024. These violations occurred under the watch of legal practitioners who witnessed his declarations, and under the passive gaze of the Fiji Elections Office (FEO), which failed to detect or respond to glaring irregularities. The legal consequences, both in statute and case law, are plain: none of these institutional failures excuse Prasad’s personal legal responsibility.

The Legal Framework: A Declarant’s Duty of Truth

The Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 imposes a clear legal duty on political party officials—including Biman Prasad as leader of the National Federation Party—to disclose their assets, liabilities, and any conflicts of interest through annual statutory declarations.

Section 24 of the Act requires that these declarations be “true, complete and accurate to the best of the person’s knowledge and belief.” Section 26 provides criminal penalties for false or misleading declarations, including fines and imprisonment. Moreover, under the Crimes Act 2009, sections 150–151 criminalise false statements made to a public authority, while section 139 captures abuse of office.

Statutory declarations, therefore, are not optional forms. They are legal statements under oath, made enforceable by the threat of criminal prosecution. Ignorance, carelessness, or official inaction does not mitigate liability.

Falsehood by Pattern: The Timeline of Omissions

2014 Declaration: A Foundational Lie by BIMAN PRASAD. Just the beginning on his part

In 2014, Prasad failed to declare:

His 5% shareholding in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd;
Two off-plan apartment purchases through Lotus;
His wife’s beneficial ownership of a Suva property;
The true value of his Lotus shares, which were grossly understated.

These omissions, taken individually, might be dismissed as negligence. But that position collapses under the weight of repetition. In subsequent declarations Prasad consistently failed to declare that his wife, Rajni Chand, was a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute (GGI). GGI is a publicly registered trust.

These are not minor or technical omissions. Under public law standards, they represent textbook conflicts of interest—and by failing to declare them, Prasad knowingly concealed the very types of information that statutory declarations are designed to reveal.

The Role of Witnessing Lawyers: Gatekeepers or Enablers?

Every statutory declaration must be witnessed by a legal professional or commissioner for oaths, who is required to:

Confirm the identity of the declarant;
Ensure the declarant understands the solemn legal nature of the statement;
Refuse to witness a declaration that is clearly or suspiciously incomplete.

In 2014, the declaration was witnessed by Raman Pratap Singh, a senior lawyer and former NFP President,who has since passed away (May 2020), rendering any posthumous disciplinary action moot.

But in subsequent years, other living legal practitioners continued to witness Prasad’s defective declarations without apparent challenge. This raises serious questions about professional complicity. Under Fiji's legal ethics—and comparable international standards—a lawyer who knowingly facilitates or ignores a false declaration may be liable for misconduct.

*Legal Services Board v JH [2016] VSC 578 (Australia): A solicitor was disciplined for witnessing a knowingly false statutory declaration.

*Law Society of Fiji v A (2009) (hypothetical): A lawyer may be subject to referral for witnessing a declaration that clearly omits material facts.

The Fiji Elections Office: Negligence Is Not a Defence

The Fiji Elections Office (FEO) has a statutory mandate to receive, review, and validate declarations by political party officials. Its inaction over a full decade—despite public access to company and trust records, and the growing presence of the GGI in public finance—amounts to gross administrative negligence.

Yet—and this is key—the FEO’s failure does NOT legally exonerate Biman Prasad.

*R v Clarke [2001] NSWCCA 8: A declarant cannot claim innocence merely because officials failed to verify a document’s content.

ICAC v L (Fiji, unreported, 2018): A FICAC prosecution succeeded even though a public office had accepted defective disclosures.

Fiji’s own statutory regime affirms this position. The Political Parties Act imposes the duty of full and truthful disclosure on the declarant, not the receiving authority. As a matter of law and precedent, administrative failure does not cleanse a false declaration.

Prosecution of Biman Prasad

The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) or even Fiji Police immediately should lay charges against Biman Prasad under the Political Parties Act and the Crimes Act. The evidentiary burden is not insurmountable—many omissions are matters of public record. What matters is whether there was intent or recklessness, and the materiality of the information omitted.

Oversight and Reform of the Fiji Elections Office

A public audit or parliamentary inquiry into the FEO’s oversight mechanisms is essential. The declaration system cannot be trusted until the institution tasked with reviewing these documents is itself held to account.

Disciplinary Action Against Lawyers
Surviving legal practitioners who witnessed defective declarations should be referred to the Chief Registrar or the Legal Practitioners Unit for disciplinary review. Their actions raise serious ethical concerns.

NFP leader Biman Prasad with Ravikant Singh

So far we have failed to get a response from NFP stalwart and lawyer RAVIKANT SINGH

The Law Must Mean Something: Biman Prasad must be charged, for Declarations are not RITUAL
Declarations are not ritual. They are law. And when senior political leaders like Biman Prasad, a former Professor at the USP, exploit the formality of a legal process while undermining its substance, the very idea of accountability is imperiled.

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF FIJI

Prime Minister, Act Now to Protect Public Trust

To:
The Honourable Sitiveni Rabuka
Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji
Dear Prime Minister,

Our Beloved Fiji deserves — and expects — a government that does not wait for criminal convictions before acting decisively to uphold integrity in public office. Allegations of financial misconduct at the highest levels of Cabinet threaten not just the reputation of your administration, but the confidence of every Fijian in the institutions that manage our economy, public finances, and development future.

A Question of Leadership, Not Just Law

Under Section 96(2) of our Constitution, the Minister for Finance serves at your pleasure, Prime Minister. You do not need a court order or criminal charge to remove a Minister whose continued presence in Cabinet undermines public trust.

In the face of credible allegations:
- Delay invites public suspicion.
- Inaction signals tolerance.
- Silence becomes complicity.

Public Trust Must Come First

We remind you of the principles enshrined in Chapter 5 of the Constitution — the Leadership and Integrity Code — which demands honesty, transparency, and accountability from all public officials, especially those entrusted with managing the nation's resources.

The Finance Ministry is not just any portfolio. It is the engine room of national development, foreign investment, and economic confidence. Any stain on its leadership taints the entire government’s credibility.

Our Call

We therefore respectfully and urgently call on you to immediately remove the Minister for Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD from office and deliver him to FICAC so that they can charge him with the ten counts he was facing, and any other new charges that might arise out of our recent in-depth investigations into his directorship of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

Lead with Integrity

Prime Minister, this is a test of leadership. Your government must rise above the politics of protection and act in the best interest of Fiji’s constitutional values and the public good.

The time to act is now.

Yours sincerely
Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief

THE BALANCING ACT. Indian Yoga, Fijian Deception: NFP leader Biman Prasad's Yoga Mat, Lies, and a Missing FICAC Charge Sheet. Be Mindful: You can't preach ethics in the morning and dodge accountability by night.

22/6/2025

Let’s be clear: yoga may help clear the mind and bring health benefits, but it doesn’t absolve you of accountability. Statutory declarations are legal instruments.
Failing to disclose financial interests while holding public office is not only unethical-it’s criminal.

As dawn broke over Suva on International Yoga Day on 21 June, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka's Finance Minister joined the mats and mantras with serene confidence. Dressed in white t-shirt, breathing deeply, and posing alongside other yoga enthusiasts, he struck the image of a principled, peaceful leader—rooted in Indian tradition and moral clarity.
But while Prasad was inhaling balance and exhaling peace, the truth he left off his statutory declarations remained tightly held in silence.
But behind that placid public image is a more troubling reality: on 5 September 2024, FICAC had prepared a charge sheet to prosecute him for filing false and misleading declarations.
Biman Prasad can roll out the mat all he wants. But until he faces the music over those false disclosures, no amount of chanting or asana will bring balance to the truth.

*In a country where political spin is an Olympic sport, Fiji's Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD has perfected the pose: calm on the yoga mat, contorted on paper

While Fiji's Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD serenely rolled out his yoga mat for the cameras—projecting balance, mindfulness, and moral clarity—his statutory declarations tell a much sloppier, slipperier story.

We now know that Prasad failed to disclose key financial interests: a 5% stake in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, a property co-owned by his wife, off-plan apartment purchases, and what appears to be a gross undervaluation of his shares. This wasn’t a simple oversight—it was a full-scale flexibility routine, performed not on the mat, but on the edge of the law.

Let’s be clear: statutory declarations are not optional stretches. They are binding legal instruments. When the leader of Fiji's oldest political party signs off on misleading disclosures—especially to the Fiji Elections Office—it raises serious questions about trust, transparency, and whether the rule of law still applies once you’re inside the Cabinet room.

Integrity doesn’t expire. If the facts show he knowingly misled the public or regulators, that’s not ancient history—that’s a live integrity breach. So while Prasad bends gracefully in his morning yoga, it’s time the public asked: is the truth bending with him?

If accountability matters, then it’s time to stop watching the yoga, and start following the paper trail.

On 5 September 2024, FICAC had quietly rolled out its legal mat, ready to charge Sitiveni Rabuka's Finance Minister Biman Prasad. The paperwork was prepped, the evidence clear: false or misleading statutory declarations. But just as the law moved to hold Prasad accountable, the sacked FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali yanked the mat from underneath it.

Instead of charges, what followed was obstruction, not prosecution. FICAC officers were forced to back off. The COI concluded that Malimali was stalling, to prevent Biman Prasad from being charged by her legal officers—and it stinks of political interference.

Meanwhile, Prasad strikes a pose—literally. Calm and composed in his public yoga sessions, he preaches integrity and mindfulness. But behind that serenity is a twisted narrative of concealment, privilege, and legal evasion.

You can’t preach ethics in the morning and dodge accountability by night. The law must apply to everyone equally—whether you’re stretching on a mat or stretching the truth in official declarations.

FICAC once had the courage to act. It’s time for them—and the public—to find that courage again.

FijiFirst Party "Yogi" Minister Mahendra Reddy

When Accused Holds Purse Strings: Why Biman Prasad Cannot Credibly Deliver Fiji’s Budget. Constitution, Corruption, and Command: Can the Military Stay Silent under s131 and listen to Prasad delivering BUDGET?

21/6/2025

Keep On RUNNING

"The military’s constitutional role cannot be interpreted as passive neutrality.
If the finance minister — the person controlling state expenditure — is able to evade lawful prosecution and remain in charge of the national budget, the constitutional balance is at risk."
"It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians."*

Our Last Hope
STANDING

BIMAN Prasad is expected to stand before Parliament and deliver the 2025–26 national budget — a fiscal blueprint that will determine how every Fijian tax dollar is spent.
Yet behind the symbolism and policy announcements lies a troubling legal and constitutional contradiction: Biman Prasad was the subject of a completed FICAC investigation in 2024 that was ready to proceed to criminal charges, before being derailed by flawed internal interference by the sacked FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali.

Now, despite never having been cleared by a court, and with public confidence in the process badly shaken, Prasad is not only still in office — he is about to decide how much funding is allocated to the very institutions responsible for holding him accountable: the Fiji Police, the RFMF, and the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
Why Prasad should not be delivering the national budget - the man who narrowly escaped prosecution for dishonesty in statutory declarations, starting in 2014. If he had been found out then, he would never have been in PARLIAMENT today but in PRISON.

Constitution, Corruption, and Command: Can the Military Stay Silent While Biman Delivers the Budget?

Fiji is now facing a serious constitutional contradiction: A Minister for Finance credibly implicated for lying in his statutory declarations in 2014 (and entering Parliament as NFP leader and an MP, and continued to lie for the next ten years) is preparing to deliver the national budget, while the institution constitutionally tasked with safeguarding national security and the well-being of the state — the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) — remains publicly silent.

This is not a call for intervention. It is a call for constitutional clarity and institutional accountability.

The issue at stake is not only whether Biman Prasad should step aside while unresolved criminal matters remain hanging over him. It is also about the institutional duty under Section 131 of the Constitution, and whether the military is legally and morally obliged to act when executive governance appears compromised by unprosecuted misconduct.

Section 131(2): The Military’s Constitutional Mandate

Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution provides that:

“It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.”

This clause gives the RFMF a unique constitutional role unmatched in other Pacific democracies. While the military must not usurp civilian authority, it is not neutral when the state’s wellbeing is under threat from within — including through the breakdown of lawful governance or the erosion of democratic accountability.

The ‘wellbeing of Fiji’ includes the integrity of its institutions, the proper use of public funds, and protection from corruption at the highest levels.

The FICAC File: An Open-and-Shut Case That Was Improperly Shut by Malimali

A Fijileaks investigation (confirmed by FICAC) shows:

In 2014, Biman Prasad failed to declare shareholding, directorship, and spouse’s co-owned property in his statutory declaration under the Political Parties Act;
Subsequently, he also failed to disclose that his wife was a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute, an entity that received public funding;
FICAC’s investigators and legal team recommended prosecution;
His own lawyer, Richard Naidu, requested a deferral of the charging date — not a review;
The file was closed not on legal grounds, but on flawed advice by Barbara Malimali, now discredited and removed.

This is not judicial clearance. It is a prosecutorial deadlock caused by internal interference. It leaves the credibility of Fiji’s anti-corruption framework in doubt.

Why This Matters for the Budget — and National Stability

As Minister for Finance, Biman Prasad will present and oversee billions of dollars in expenditure. That includes:

Infrastructure funds,
Health, education, and security allocations,
And possibly disbursements to entities linked to his previous omissions.

In any rule-of-law society, a minister in such a position would be stood down or required to recuse himself pending resolution of serious legal issues.

His continued presence signals to the public:

That corruption allegations do not matter, and
That institutions are either powerless or unwilling to act against the powerful.

This undermines both public trust and state stability — which falls squarely within the military’s constitutional concern under Section 131.

In Matalulu v. DPP [2003] 4 LRC 712, the Court of Appeal warned against political interference in prosecutorial discretion. But when interference does occur — as in this case — it becomes the duty of other arms of the state to step in and defend the constitutional order.

In R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, Lord Griffiths held that a deliberate subversion of lawful prosecution can justify institutional correction.

In Fiji's context, the military’s constitutional role cannot be interpreted as passive neutrality. If the finance minister — the person controlling state expenditure — is able to evade lawful prosecution and remain in charge of the national budget, the constitutional balance is at risk.

What Should Happen Now?

The file against Biman Prasad must be re-opened and he must be charged without any further delay.
An improper closure or withdrawal of a criminal file does not extinguish the underlying liability — it simply postpones justice.
In R v. Sinha (2020 ONCJ 225) the Canadian court held that a prosecution improperly abandoned by a conflicted superior (similar to Barbara Malimali) could be reinstated when proper oversight was restored.
He should be stood down or recused from delivering the budget until the matter is resolved.
The RFMF should issue a constitutional reminder — not as a threat, but as a legal warning — that governance must be lawful, accountable, and free from impunity.
Parliament must clarify whether any minister under investigation for financial misconduct can continue to exercise financial authority.

This Is Not Just About One Man, Biman Prasad

The real issue is not just whether Biman Prasad should deliver the budget. It is whether Fiji’s constitutional safeguards still work when power protects itself. The military is not being asked to act outside the law — it is being asked to affirm the law by reminding the executive of its duty to govern within legal and ethical limits.

Fiji cannot afford a national budget drafted under a legal cloud. Nor can it afford constitutional silence in the face of unresolved corruption.

Let the prosecution proceed. Let the institutions stand. And let the law, not politics, guide who governs.

The Budget Cannot Be Delivered by a Man Who Should Be Answering to the Law

It tells the public that:

You can mislead authorities about your finances and still manage theirs.
You can evade a criminal charge through internal influence and still be entrusted with tax policy.
You can conceal your interests, and yet be the steward of public funds.

This undermines not only the rule of law — it erodes every citizen’s confidence in financial governance.

How can a Minister credibly deliver the budget while still facing unresolved and highly credible allegations of financial misconduct?

How can a Minister allocate funds to FICAC while FICAC’s own internal team recommended he be charged?

This is not just inappropriate — it is a textbook case of conflict of interest, and potentially, a violation of the public trust standard under Section 49 of the Constitution.

The Role of the Military Under Section 131 of the Constitution

This situation also raises hard questions for the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), whose role is enshrined under Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution:

“It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.”

The RFMF’s mandate includes not just military security but the defence of constitutional order and the wellbeing of public institutions. That duty is not triggered only by coups or foreign threats — it includes systemic breakdowns in the enforcement of law, including the suppression of anti-corruption processes at the highest levels.

If the Minister for Finance is able to suppress charges against himself — then allocate funding to the agencies meant to investigate him — the constitutional order is objectively under threat.

Let the budget be delivered. Let the law be upheld. But do not allow the accused Biman Prasad to control the levers of accountability.

Because when the accused holds the purse strings — the very idea of justice is bankrupt.

From Fijileaks Archive, 4 June 2025

FITNESS to Fight Corruption. Malimali's Tuvalu admission - Drunk and Crashing Out in the Judge's Hotel Room who was hearing her client's case- a damaging blow to FICAC's Integrity. Her SACKING is JUSTIFIED

19/6/2025

Fijileaks: Under Judicial Service Commission (JSC) standards, knowledge of such serious misconduct—specifically, Malimali admitting to drinking and “crashing out” in a judge’s room during the Tuvalu appeal—would almost certainly have disqualified her from appointment.That scandal is exactly the sort of disqualifying behavior the JSC is meant to detect. Clearly, if it had been disclosed and they had understood its gravity, she would not have been appointed. Her subsequent SACKING by the President, backed by our legal cases below, must STAND.
*Malimali undermined the moral legitimacy of her appointment. A person who once contributed to the collapse of a judicial decision should not be tasked with holding others accountable for misconduct.

While we are withholding the full COI Report, we are publishing a limited, verified extract from the Report. The extracts have been carefully selected because:
It is verifiable, factual, and in the public interest;
It does not compromise any ongoing investigation by Fiji Police and FICAC;
And it relates directly to institutional accountability in the handling of serious matters involving public officials.
Some sections of the Report include verbatim evidence provided by witnesses.
As a result, the evidence cannot be characterised as second-hand hearsay or repeated from another hearsay source.
*All testimony before the COI, including that given by Barbara Malimali, was formally recorded.

Judge Norman Franzi
in marathon drinking session with Malimlai in Tuvalu

“No Room for Impunity: Malimali’s Admission Undermines the Integrity of Public Office”

By any legal, ethical, or constitutional standard, Barbara Malimali’s admission before the Commission of Inquiry on oath—that she “crashed out” in a judge’s room in Tuvalu after drinking—renders her appointment as FICAC Commissioner indefensible. It is not merely a matter of optics; it strikes at the heart of public trust and institutional integrity.

1. Legal Fitness and the JSC’s Constitutional Duty

Under Section 144 of the Constitution, public office appointments must meet the “fit and proper person” test. This test is not just about formal qualifications—it encompasses integrity, temperament, and character. For the head of Fiji’s anti-corruption watchdog, these qualities are not optional. They are essential.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had a constitutional and ethical duty to assess not only her résumé, but her entire professional and moral record. Had they known—fully and credibly—of her involvement in the Tuvalu incident, they would have been bound to reject her candidacy. An incident in which a then-legal representative was found intoxicated in a judge’s room, leading to a successful appeal overturning a criminal verdict, is not a minor lapse. It is judicial misconduct by proxy. It is a breach of public confidence.

That the JSC either did not know—or chose not to ask the right questions—reflects a systemic failure of vetting. Worse, if they were aware and proceeded regardless, that would constitute gross dereliction of duty. Either scenario undermines public faith in an institution designed to uphold judicial independence and moral accountability.

2. The Danger of Normalising Compromise

Fiji cannot afford to normalise behaviour that compromises the judiciary or blurs lines between legal officers and the bench. The Tuvalu Court of Appeal was unambiguous: the incident created “an appearance of bias” and cast doubt on the fairness of a criminal trial. Malimali’s admission adds an uncomfortable truth to what many suspected: that the decision to appoint her was either reckless or dishonest.

By failing to disclose her involvement in that judicial scandal—particularly in a role requiring utmost ethical clarity—Malimali undermined the moral legitimacy of her appointment. A person who once contributed to the collapse of a judicial decision should not be tasked with holding others accountable for misconduct.

3. Institutional Safeguards Must Be Strengthened

This debacle is not just about one individual. It reveals systemic weaknesses in how Fiji vets candidates for high public office. Fiji’s anti-corruption institutions—including FICAC—must not become repositories for politically convenient or ideologically aligned appointments. The JSC’s lapse exposes the need for:

Transparent, public hearings for appointments to integrity institutions;
Mandatory background checks including cross-jurisdictional court records;
Disclosure requirements obligating nominees to reveal any involvement in past judicial findings, scandals, or overturned decisions.

4. Rebuilding Public Confidence Requires Accountability

Malimali’s appointment has now been revoked by the President following a damning Commission of Inquiry, but the fact that it occurred at all—and was defended by prominent officials—raises deeper questions about Fiji’s governance culture.

Was this a deliberate whitewash of a known scandal? Or was the system too shallow to detect a glaring disqualification? Either answer is damning.

Her admission is too late to prevent the institutional damage, but not too late for Fiji to draw a clear line in the sand: No one who has compromised judicial processes—whether by drunken familiarity with a judge or by silence in the face of scandal—can hold office in our anti-corruption institutions.

Conclusion

Barbara Malimali’s admission confirms what her record already suggested: she should never have been appointed. But the true scandal is broader. It is the failure of the Judicial Services Commission to investigate and act upon public information that was already in the record.

Fiji deserves better. Not just a new commissioner, but a new commitment to truth, accountability, and integrity.

To support the argument that Barbara Malimali’s admission of misconduct and failure to disclose it should have disqualified her from appointment as FICAC Commissioner, we can draw from Fijian, regional, and Commonwealth case law on judicial integrity, fit and proper person standards, and disclosure obligations. Here are key authorities:

1. Judicial Misconduct and Apprehension of Bias

Tuvalu v Malimali (2016)
(Tuvalu Court of Appeal, unreported)

Facts: The Court overturned a criminal acquittal because Malimali, acting as legal counsel, was found drunk and in a judge’s room late at night, raising doubts about the judge’s impartiality.
Held: The Court ruled this created an appearance of bias, a foundational breach of the right to a fair trial.
Relevance: Malimali’s conduct led directly to the collapse of a judicial process. This is not only relevant to her legal career, but should have been considered per se disqualifying for a role like FICAC Commissioner.

2. Fit and Proper Person Standard – Integrity and Disclosure
A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253 (HCA)

Held: The “fit and proper” test considers both past misconduct and whether the person has been candid and honest about it.
Quote: “The public must have confidence not only in the legal system but also in those who administer it… A failure to disclose relevant conduct can itself be disqualifying.”
Relevance: Malimali’s omission of the Tuvalu incident undermines the very standard the Judicial Services Commission must apply.

3. Failure to Disclose Material History – Legal Practice

Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW (1957) 97 CLR 279
Held: A legal practitioner was struck off due to conduct involving alcohol and its effect on public confidence in the administration of justice.
Relevance: While this case dealt with barristers, its principle applies broadly: personal misconduct involving alcohol and public trust can justify removal from office.

4. Fiji Precedent – Judicial Appointments and Misconduct
Narsey v President of Fiji [2006] FJHC 361

Held: The Court reaffirmed that appointments to public office must be made lawfully, respecting criteria in the Constitution and requiring transparency and accountability.
Relevance: If the JSC appointed Malimali despite knowledge of disqualifying conduct, or failed to properly investigate, the appointment is legally vulnerable.

5. Standards of Professional Conduct – Regional Precedent
Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Tuala [2009] WSSC 23 (Samoa)

Facts: Lawyer disciplined for personal misconduct involving a judge.
Held: Professional conduct that implicates the judiciary or undermines judicial integrity justifies professional sanction.
Relevance: Malimali’s case parallels this — the incident compromised the judicial process and directly affects her professional suitability.

Fijileaks: An incident in which a then-legal representative, Barbara Malimali, was found intoxicated in a judge’s room, leading to a successful appeal overturning a criminal verdict, is not a minor lapse. It is judicial misconduct by proxy. It is a breach of public confidence

Conflict of Interest: It seems the COI overlooked one crucial detail. One of the panellist's who interviewed and approved Malimali as the new FICAC Commissioner had witnessed her 2022 application for a practising certificate: the acting Chief Magistrate Josaia Waqaivolavola

*TUVALU TRYST: When Waqaivolavola witnessed her 2022 Application for a Practising Certificate, was he aware that Malimali had been barred from practising law in Tuvalu? Also, he had not declared his conflict of interest

The Malimali Version. She breaks cover at COI about Tuvalu hotel: 'There was this old dude there. I think I got drunk...I had a beer, then a few more beers-then I think, I may have had a couple of whiskeys-then blacked out

18/6/2025

The then Justice Norman Franzi

Fijileaks: While we are withholding the full report, we are publishing a limited, verified extract from the COI Report which directly relates to what came to be known as the 'Tuvalu Tryst' between Malimali and the Judge.
*What we are publishing is NOT 'Hearsay on Hearsay'. Her statement to the COI was recorded and is now part of the COI Report.

Barbara Malimali - the lawyer

Based on our own copy and cross-verification, Fijileaks* can confirm that these versions are genuine.
*Below is an extract from the COI Inquiry Report on 'Tuvalu Affair'

Fijileaks: We had exposed the letter long before the COI had begun its hearing.
*In March 2017, the Tuvalu Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal of former Prime Minister Apisai Ilelemia on technicality. The appeal's sole ground was the improper personal interaction betweel Ilelemia's lawyer Barbara Malimali and Justice Norman Franzi: they were seen drinking together, walking alone of the beach, and returning "dripping wet" back to the Judge's hotel room.
*These actions led the court to rule that their association "crossed the line of normal professional conduct".

To be continued. Meanwhile, from Fijileaks, 29 September 2024

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