Blog Archives

MY MEET-AND-GREET WITH THE COI: Why Justice Ashton-Lewis and the Senior Counsel Janet Mason Directed My Evidence Against NFP leader Biman Prasad, wife Rajni Chand, and Lotus (Fiji) to FICAC and Fiji Police

17/6/2026

Credit: Oxford Street Artist (OSA) London

On 22 November 2024, I participated in what the Commission of Inquiry (COI) described as a professional "meet-and-greet" session with the Commissioner, Justice David Ashton-Lewis, and Janet Mason, who was then acting as Senior Counsel Assisting the Commission.

The engagement was conducted via audio-visual link (AVL). It commenced at 10.00am Fiji time and lasted almost four hours. Because I was participating from Oxford, England, home to the world-renowned University of Oxford, the session began late on Thursday evening and concluded in the early hours of Friday morning.

This was not a public hearing. It was not sworn testimony. It was not an adversarial proceeding. Rather, it was a structured preliminary engagement designed to assess the nature of the evidence I wished to present, its relevance to the Commission's terms of reference, and whether it was appropriate for formal consideration by the COI.

The Procedural Background

The significance of that meeting cannot be understood without reference to the exchanges that preceded it.

On 16 November 2024, I received the following communication directly from Commissioner Ashton-Lewis: "Please understand that if the Commission of Inquiry is to allow your evidence to be given by video link then you will need to provide an affidavit to the Commission. I will ask Mrs Mason to correspond with you shortly."

Soon afterwards, Janet Mason wrote to me explaining the procedural safeguards that would apply if my evidence were to be received: "As a matter of natural justice your affidavit will be made available to the Hon. Biman Prasad and Ms. Malimali, and they will be permitted to submit reply evidence."

She added: "We assume that there will be matters of contention between your evidence, and that of the Hon. Biman Prasad and Ms. Malimali."

Those communications demonstrate that both the Commissioner and Senior Counsel approached the matter with procedural fairness, transparency and a clear commitment to natural justice. The rights of all affected parties were expressly recognised from the outset.

The Four-Hour Engagement

During the 22 November session, I outlined in detail the documentary material and contextual evidence in my possession relating to Biman Prasad, the NFP leader, former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, and Adjunct Professor Monash University and Adjunct Professor James Cook, Australia.

I explained the chronology of events, the provenance of documents, the sources of information, and the reasons why I believed certain matters warranted further scrutiny.

Both the Commissioner and Senior Counsel asked detailed questions. The discussion was probing but measured. Careful rather than combative.

At no stage was the engagement hostile, dismissive or predetermined. Instead, it reflected a Commission conscious of the limits of its mandate and the distinction between an inquiry and a criminal or regulatory investigation.

The Commissioner's Assessment

At the conclusion of the session, Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason reached a clear procedural view. While the material I outlined raised serious issues, they considered that it was not best tested through a Commission of Inquiry hearing.

Instead, they concluded that the substance of the evidence was more appropriately a matter for investigation by FICAC, and where relevant, the Fiji Police Force.

Accordingly, I was advised that the appropriate investigative pathway was through those agencies rather than through my appearance as a witness before the Commission.

Importantly, this was not a rejection of the material. Nor was it a finding on credibility.
It was a judgment about forum, jurisdiction and investigative responsibility.

That distinction is critical.

The Wider Context

During the course of the engagement, I was informed that the next individual scheduled to meet the Commission later that day was Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

I mention this merely to illustrate the systematic nature of the Commission's work. The COI was conducting an organised process involving individuals at the highest levels of public life and public administration.

What Happened Afterwards

By the time the Commission completed its work, it had already reached draft conclusions concerning the handling of Biman Prasad's file at FICAC. Among those conclusions was the view that, given the sensitivities involved, independent legal scrutiny of the file was necessary.

Those conclusions later found their way into the Commission's final report.

However, a separate development occurred before that report became public. In April 2025, Barbara Malimali, acting in her official capacity as FICAC Commissioner, closed the investigation file relating to Biman Prasad.

That decision was made after the Commission had substantially completed its work but before the report was released. Consequently, the COI report neither addressed nor evaluated the April 2025 closure decision. I draw no conclusion regarding the motive. I make no allegation of impropriety.

The point is one of chronology.

The Commission had already concluded that independent scrutiny of the file was required. Yet the final administrative decision to close that file occurred outside the report's scope and without reference to its conclusions. That sequence forms part of the public record.

Where Matters Stand Today

As matters presently stand, Adjunct Professor Biman Chand Prasad faces one formal criminal charge; additional complaints remain before the relevant authorities; and investigative processes continue. Those matters have not been finally determined.
They have not been judicially resolved.

Nothing in this article asserts guilt or predicts outcome.

The point is simply that the issues raised have not disappeared and continue to be subject to independent legal and investigative processes.

Why This Matters

The events of 22 November 2024 explain why the Commission directed my evidence towards FICAC and the Police rather than receiving it in a public hearing.

The Commissioner recognised that allegations involving a serving Cabinet Minister required proper investigative handling through the institutions established for that purpose.

That approach was entirely consistent with the manner in which Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason dealt with me throughout the process. They insisted upon affidavits.
They required disclosure. They protected the rights of reply. They observed the principles of natural justice.

Measured against that record, some of the allegations subsequently directed against the Commissioner and Senior Counsel sit uneasily with the conduct I personally witnessed during my engagement with them.

Conclusion

I did not ultimately appear before the Commission of Inquiry because, after careful consideration, Justice Ashton-Lewis, advised by Senior Counsel Janet Mason, concluded that my evidence belonged elsewhere.

That decision was reasoned.

It was procedurally fair.

What occurred afterwards, including decisions taken beyond the scope of the Commission's report, now forms part of the continuing public record.

That record should be stated accurately, carefully and without embellishment.

For my part, the events of 22 November 2024 remain a matter of fact, not speculation: a four-hour engagement in which the Commission determined that the appropriate forum for the evidence I possessed was not the COI hearing room, but the investigative agencies of the State.

Fiji High Court rejects stay proceedings - read here

TWO VILLAS: Why Did Biman Prasad Sign Agreements for Two LOTUS (Fiji) Ltd Units Worth $300,000 in 2014, and How Did Dr Rajni Chand Later End Up With Two Villas in 2017? Its time for Couple to provide ANSWERS

16/6/2026

0 Comments

These questions go beyond politics. They concern transparency, disclosure and the documentary history of significant property transactions involving a senior political leader and his wife:
Did Biman Chand Prasad pay the deposits required under the March 2014 agreements to buy two villas from his cousin?
Were subsequent payments made?
Were the contracts completed?
Were the contractual rights assigned to another person?
How did Rajni Chand acquire her interest in the villas?
Were the villas connected in any way to the later Burerua transaction?
Were all relevant interests disclosed in the statutory declarations filed over the years?

Why Did Biman Prasad Sign Agreements for Two Lotus Units Worth $300,000, and How Did Rajni Chand Later End Up With Two Villas?

When National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad recently complained that "this guy writes to my wife seeking information", he neglected to tell the public what those questions were actually about, and neither did Fiji Times' Anish Chand ask him.

The questions were not personal. They were not about his marriage. They arose from documents that place both Prasad and his wife, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, at the centre of a property trail stretching back more than a decade to the formation of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
At the heart of the story are two villa units.

On 12 March 2014, Biman Prasad signed agreements to purchase two off-plan villas, each priced at $150,000, giving a total contractual value of $300,000.

The timing is remarkable.

The agreements were signed only three days before Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd was incorporated on 15 March 2014.

That same day Prasad became a shareholder and director of Lotus alongside his cousin and business associate Sunil Chand. He did not disclose his directorship in Lotus (Fiji) in his 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 statutory declarations.

The existence of the sale and purchase agreements is not disputed. The unanswered question is what happened next.

The Missing Documentary Trail

The agreements required deposits and staged payments. Ordinarily, a transaction involving two villas worth $300,000 would leave an extensive paper trail deposit receipts; trust account records; bank transfers; mortgage documents; settlement statements; and title or sublease records.

Yet no public evidence has emerged showing how the two March 2014 purchases were completed. That absence does not prove that no payments were made. However, it raises an obvious question: Where are the records showing how the two villas were acquired?

Enter Rajni Kaushal Chand in 2017

Years later, documents emerged linking Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand to two villas in the Lotus (Fiji) development. Sunil Chand subsequently identified Rajni Chand as being associated with two villa units. If accepted, that statement establishes that villas were ultimately allocated to or acquired by Rajni Chand.

What it does not explain is how that occurred.

Did Rajni Chand purchase the villas independently?

Did she acquire them through an assignment of rights?

Did the villas originate from the two agreements signed by her husband in March 2014?

Or was there another arrangement altogether?

The available documents do not presently answer those questions.

The Burerua Street Property Connection

The villa story becomes even more intriguing when viewed alongside the sale of the Burerua Street property to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

Documents indicate that Biman Prasad and Rajni Chand sold the property to Lotus for a stated consideration of $550,000.

The transaction reportedly involved the discharge of mortgage liabilities and the payment of Capital Gains Tax.

The figures naturally attract attention.

The two villas signed for by Biman Prasad in March 2014 had a combined value of $300,000.

The two villas later associated with Rajni Chand were likewise valued at approximately $300,000.

Whether there is any connection between those transactions remains one of the central unanswered questions in the Lotus story.

Questions That Remain Outstanding

More than a decade after the original agreements were signed, several questions remain unresolved:

Did Biman Prasad pay the deposits required under the March 2014 agreements?
Were subsequent payments made?
Were the contracts completed?
Were the contractual rights assigned to another person?
How did Rajni Chand acquire her interest in the villas?
Were the villas connected in any way to the later Burerua transaction?
Were all relevant interests disclosed in the statutory declarations filed over the years?

These questions go beyond politics. They concern transparency, disclosure and the documentary history of significant property transactions involving a senior political leader and his family.

The Central Question

For years, Fijileaks has investigated Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, the company's ownership structure, the relationship between Biman Prasad and Sunil Chand, the Burerua property transaction, and the statutory declarations filed with the Fiji Elections Office.

Those investigations have established three facts.

First, Biman Prasad signed agreements on 12 March 2014 to purchase two off-plan villa units worth a combined $300,000.

Second, he later became a shareholder and director of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

Third, Rajni Chand subsequently emerged in documents associated with two villas in the same development.

What remains missing is the documentary bridge connecting those facts.

The documents reveal where the story began. They do not yet reveal how it ended.

More than a decade after Biman Prasad signed agreements to purchase two off-plan villas worth $300,000, and years after Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand emerged in documents associated with two villas in the same Lotus development, crucial questions remain unanswered.

We therefore call upon NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad and Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand to complete the missing chapter of this story.

Did Biman Prasad complete the purchases under the March 2014 agreements?

Were the contractual rights transferred or assigned?

How did Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand acquire her interest in the two villas?

Were the villas connected in any way to the later Burerua Street transaction?

These questions can be answered by the production of the relevant sale and purchase agreements, trust account records, settlement statements, title documents, sublease records and other transaction documents.

Until then, the Lotus villa story remains unfinished.

The public has seen the opening chapter.

It is now time for Biman Chand Prasad and Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand to provide the ending.

0 Comments

BIMAN PRASAD-RAJNI KAUSHAL CHAND: "This Guy Writes To My Wife Seeking For Information." Indeed. We wrote to ask why her husband did not declare the two villa units bought by her in 2017 from Lotus (Fiji) Ltd

14/6/2026

WHICH LOTUS VILLAS DID RAJNI CHAND BUY?
Sale Agreement Lists Units 7 and 9, Yet Sunil Chand Later Claimed She Purchased Units 9 and 11.
TIME FOR NEW CHARGES? Undeclared Lotus Directorship, Conflicting Villa Records and the Non-Disclosure of Rajni Chand's Two Units Demand Fresh FICAC, Fiji Police and DPP Action

The documentary record in our possession raises serious questions that cannot simply be ignored.

For four consecutive years - 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017- Biman Chand Prasad did NOT declare his directorship in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, despite later evidence from his cousin and co-director Sunil Chand identifying them as the company's two directors.

The documents also raise questions regarding the ownership and disclosure of the two villa units acquired by Rajni Kaushal Chand.

Compounding the matter is a significant inconsistency in the documentary trail. The Sale and Purchase Agreement identifies Rajni Chand as purchaser of Units 7 and 9, while Sunil Chand later stated that she purchased Units 9 and 11. That discrepancy demands a full explanation.

The time has come for FICAC, the Fiji Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to reopen and expand their inquiries into the Lotus affair.

Investigators should examine whether offences may have been committed in relation to the alleged non-disclosure of Prasad's Lotus directorship, the omission of assets and interests from statutory declarations, and the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and ownership of the villa units.

Authorities should also determine whether Rajni Kaushal Chand was an innocent recipient of the units or whether she knowingly participated in any alleged concealment.

That question can only be answered through a thorough investigation of the documentary evidence, financial records, property transactions and witness testimony.

If the evidence establishes that false declarations were knowingly made, or that material interests were deliberately concealed, then the public interest requires more than political explanations. It requires prosecution.

No public official, minister, spouse or business associate should be beyond scrutiny where credible documentary evidence raises questions about compliance with the law.

It also requires Biman Prasad's resignation from Parliament and as NFP LEADER.

Sunil Chand's Admission and Confusion regarding Rajni Chand's Units

"THE MISSING VILLAS: Did Biman Prasad Fail to Tell His Lawyer About Rajni Chand's Two Villa Purchases Before Filing His 2018 Declaration?"

LOTUS, TWO VILLAS, AND A MISSING DISCLOSURE: Biman Prasad Was a 50% Shareholder When Lotus (Fiji) Transferred Two Villas to His Wife. So Why Are They Absent from His 2018 Statutory Declaration?

Biman Prasad's 'Beer-Guzzling' Drunkard' of "Oxford Street" Meets the Former President of Fiji in London - Bearing a Signed Copy of Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention

The Lens@177: Before Biman Prasad Insults Me on Camera in interview with ANISH CHAND , I Wrote Privately to His Wife Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand The Untold Story Behind Prasad's Attack on the Fijileaks Editor-in-Chief

12/6/2026

Ad Hominem Instead of Answers: Why Biman Prasad Chose to Attack Me Rather Than Address My 2022 Letter to His Wife Rajni Kaushal Chand

*While Biman Prasad accused me of getting drunk on a few bottles of beer and then writing 'crazy stories', claimed that I hated everyone who speaks on Fiji, dismissed me as an irrelevant blogger living somewhere on London's Oxford Street, manufacturing fake stories, and insisted that his wealth was not 'Victor Lal's father's money', he never once addressed the contents of the private letter I sent to his wife in 2022.

"He writes to my WIFE seeking information" - Prasad to Anish Chand

"While I sought answers from his wife in a professional capacity, he was allegedly exchanging amorous text messages with the wife of one of his own NFP prospective election candidates."

WHAT HE DIDN'T TELL THE PUBLIC: I WROTE TO HIS WIFE IN PRIVATE ON 8 NOVEMBER 2022

On 8 November 2022, I wrote privately to Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand and attached a Fijileaks article concerning allegations involving her husband.

I did so out of respect, decency and concern, so that she would not first learn of the matter through headlines, social media, or political gossip.

I apologised in advance for any embarrassment, distress or discomfort the publication might cause her and her family.

Watching National Federation Party leader Biman Prasad's interview with The Fiji Times and Anish Chand, I was struck not by the insults themselves but by what was left unsaid.

In the closing moments of the interview, Biman Prasad laughed that after a few more beers I would "go crazy" and produce more stories about him. He portrayed me as a man sitting somewhere in London inventing allegations and manufacturing controversy.

The casual mockery may have entertained some viewers.

What it did not explain is why, years earlier, I had gone out of my way to write privately to his wife, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand.

"I don't want to even mention his name [meaning Victor Lal], ah, you know, guy sits there, somewhere in London, Oxford Street, I'm told, ah you know, like a fugitive...doctors, manufactures stories."
Biman Prasad to Anish Chand, The Lens@177

I did not write to embarrass her. I did not write to attack her. I wrote because I believed she deserved advance notice that allegations concerning her husband and another woman were about to enter the public domain.

That letter was sent on 8 November 2022. Attached to it was a Fijileaks article concerning allegations that Biman Prasad had exchanged inappropriate and allegedly amorous text messages with the wife of one of his prospective political candidates.

The purpose of the letter was simple. As someone who has spent decades exposing public figures, I believed it was only fair that Dr Chand should not learn about the matter from headlines, social media gossip or political opponents. I believed she deserved the courtesy of being informed beforehand.

The irony today is extraordinary. The same man who now portrays me as a reckless drunk making things up knows perfectly well that I dealt with the matter privately before it ever became public. I contacted his wife directly. I extended my sympathies to her. I apologised in advance for any embarrassment she might suffer. I treated her with dignity.

Years later, she remains silent. Biman Prasad, however, has chosen a different course. Instead of answering questions about the allegations, he attacks the messenger. Instead of addressing the contents of the reporting, he mocks the reporter.
Instead of confronting documentary evidence that Fijileaks has published over many years regarding declarations, companies, properties and financial interests, he invites viewers to believe that everything originates from beer-fuelled imagination.

That is easier than addressing documents. It is easier than addressing records. It is easier than addressing evidence. Most tellingly, during the interview Anish Chand never confronted him with the documents that have formed the basis of multiple public controversies.

There was no examination of declarations. There was no examination of company records. There was no examination of property transactions. There was no examination of the allegations concerning text messages. There was no examination of why I felt compelled to write to his wife in the first place.

Instead, viewers were treated to jokes about Oxford Street, beer bottles and Victor Lal supposedly going crazy. The personal attack misses the central point.

My letter to Rajni Kaushal Chand exists because I recognised that political scandals have human consequences. Spouses and families often become collateral damage. I understood that reality then. I understand it now.

The question that remains unanswered is not why Victor Lal wrote to Rajni Kaushal Chand.

The question is why Biman Prasad, years later, prefers to mock the warning rather than address the reasons it was sent.

For all the laughter in the interview, that question still hangs in the air.

And no amount of jokes about beer can answer it.

Biman Prasad Says I Vowed to Bring Him Down.
He Is Right

We will systematically dismantle other outrageous claims he made about me in his interview with Anish Chand. We will also take the unusual and rare step of revealing how he became one of many sources who supplied information to Fijileaks*, supported by documentary evidence in our possession, against his political opponents since 2012.

He is right about one thing: I vowed to bring him down. But that vow was not born of personal animosity. It arose after I stumbled upon huge troves of documents relating to his statutory declarations and began scrutinising them. The deeper I investigated, the more I became convinced that he had betrayed the trust of the Indo-Fijian community and, more importantly, the trust of the people of Fiji who expect honesty, transparency, and accountability from those who seek public office. My commitment thereafter was simple - to follow the evidence and place the facts before the public.

COMING SOON: Biman Prasad's Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd business partner and cousin Sunil Chand's Lotus Construction Pty Ltd in Australia Collapses owing A$1.24m. A$650,000 in Potential Director Loans identified by Liquidators in ASIC investigations. Biman Prasad did not disclose in his statutory declarations that he was co-director of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

From 'Fugitive' to 'Blogger': Biman Prasad's Broadside Against Victor Lal in Full with Fiji Times' ANISH CHAND

I Am Not a Blogger, and Fijileaks Is Not "Just a Blog"

During his interview with Anish Chand, Biman Prasad was invited to respond to allegations and documents that have been published over many years. Instead of confronting the substance of those documents, he chose to attack me personally.

In introducing me to viewers, Anish Chand repeatedly referred to me as a "blogger", while Biman Prasad dismissed my work as the product of someone who supposedly "hates everybody".

Let me correct the record.

I am not a blogger, and Fijileaks, it is not "just a blog".

Since its establishment in 2012, Fijileaks has published thousands of documents, exposed major scandals, broken stories later confirmed by official investigations, and provided a platform for whistleblowers who had nowhere else to turn. Many of the stories first published by Fijileaks have subsequently been reported by mainstream media, examined by commissions of inquiry, investigated by regulatory authorities, or debated in Parliament.

A blog is an opinion diary. Fijileaks is an investigative publication built around documentary evidence.

The distinction matters.

When politicians cannot challenge the authenticity of documents, they often resort to attacking the person who publishes them. That tactic is neither new nor original.

I was subjected to similar attacks during the Bainimarama era. In 2012, Frank Bainimarama dismissed both me and the late Russell Hunter as lacking credibility.

Fourteen years later, I find it remarkable that some of the very people who once complained about attacks on media freedom now employ similar language when they themselves come under scrutiny.

The issue has never been Victor Lal.

The issue is whether the documents published are genuine, whether the facts are correct, and whether public officials can adequately explain them.

That is the test of journalism.

If the documents are false, prove they are false.

If the facts are wrong, correct them.

But merely calling someone a blogger, a hater, or an irrelevant commentator is not a rebuttal. It is an admission that the argument has shifted from the evidence to the messenger.

The public deserves better than that.

FRCS Asset Declaration Drive, 'Explain Your Assets': Should Authorities Ask Rajni Kaushal Chand What She Knew About Joint Assets Declared and Undeclared by her husband, former Finance Minister Biman Prasad

8/6/2026

“Even some government people are responding to these so-called whistleblowers, bloggers, self-style analysts. Some of the individuals behind misinformation campaigns were based overseas and were deliberately spreading false narratives to target people they disliked. Some are leaving, some who have left the country 30 years ago, 40 years ago, sitting somewhere overseas, are fabricating, concocting, doctoring information to create dislike of people they don’t like. The spread of manipulated and misleading information posed a challenge for public discourse and decision-making. So, what I am saying is, my message to the people is, trust the mainstream media. Read the mainstream media. Listen to the mainstream media for credibility.”
Biman Prasad was speaking on The Fiji Times online portal The Lens@177 with NFP sympathizer Anish Chand, whom Lenora Qereqeretabua welcomed in her speech at Rakiraki as a "Friend of the NFP".

***Fijileaks:* *The Documents Give a LIE to Biman Prasad's Claim***

How come NFP leader and former USP professor didn't remember his WIFE buying two units worth $300,00 from Lotus (Fiji) and Sunil Chand. Biman Prasad has not disclosed these two units in his Statutory Declarations from 2017 to 2024.
Biman Prasad with a security guard at the Westfield Villas', Legalega, Nadi.

APOLOGY: When we first began examining Biman Prasad's statutory declarations and subsequently publishing our findings, we went out of our way to privately apologise to his wife, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, for any embarrassment, discomfort, or distress that our investigations might cause her and her family.

However, as the evidence trail expanded, it became increasingly apparent that questions also arise regarding assets held jointly or connected to Dr Chand herself. As a result, we believe these matters now warrant proper scrutiny by the relevant authorities.

Whether Dr Chand was fully aware of the matters under investigation, or whether she was simply an innocent spouse relying on the representations of her husband, is not for us to determine. Those are questions that can only be answered by Dr Chand herself and, if necessary, through inquiries conducted by the appropriate authorities.

“Every sole trader that owns assets will have to declare what their assets are. If they have five properties or 10 cars or real estate it will have to be declared. They might have gotten them through legitimate means and that is fine. But from a tax point of view we will be looking at that, and you will need to explain whether they paid taxes on it or how they got them.”
FRCS CEO Udit Singh

FRCS chief executive Udit Singh’s warning is simple: from 2027, Fijians with multiple properties, vehicles, or unexplained assets may have to show not merely what they own, but how they acquired it, whether taxes were paid, and whether the declared income supports the asset trail.

For ordinary taxpayers, this is a future compliance burden. For former Finance Minister and NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad, it raises a sharper question: why should FRCS wait until 2027 to ask questions that were already staring the State in the face from his own statutory declarations?

If a sole trader with five properties or ten vehicles must explain the source of wealth, then a former Finance Minister who allegedly failed to disclose interests in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, off-plan villa arrangements, related-party property transactions, and capital gains tax payments deserves no softer standard.

The heart of the matter is not whether assets can be lawfully acquired. Of course they can. The issue is whether those assets, interests, benefits, and transactions were truthfully disclosed, properly taxed, and consistent with declared income.

Udit Singh’s new policy may be aimed at the shadow economy. But in Fiji, the shadow economy does not always wear a sulu and operate from a roadside stall. Sometimes it sits in Cabinet, signs declarations, holds shares in private companies, disposes of property to related entities, and then asks the public to believe that everything was properly declared.

Fijileaks’ position is straightforward: if FRCS expects ordinary citizens to explain their assets, then Biman Prasad must be made to explain his.

As far back as 20 July 2025, we called on FRCS CEO Udit Singh to launch an investigation into Biman Prasad, Rajni Chand, and Sunil Chand over the sale of the Burerua Street property to their own company, Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd. To date, we have heard nothing from FRCS.

Earlier, on 16 September 2024, we also called on the then Attorney-General Graham Leung, Minister for Justice Siromi Turaga, and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka to investigate the transaction, particularly given that Biman Prasad, as Minister for Finance, was also the line minister responsible for FRCS.

Instead of ordering an independent inquiry, they chose to bury their heads in the sand. Nearly two years later, the public is still waiting for answers regarding the circumstances surrounding the sale, the payment of Capital Gains Tax, and the broader financial arrangements connected to the transaction.

DECLARATION VERSES DEED: NFP leader BIMAN Chand Prasad listed CT11907 as His Asset. But Land Transfer, Sale Document, Reveals Joint Ownership With Wife and $550,000 Sale to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd

The CT 11907 Trail: What the Documents Reveal About Biman Prasad, Rajni Kaushal Chand and the Burerua Street Transaction:

In politics, allegations come and go. Documents endure. For several months, questions have surrounded the sale of CT 11907, the Burerua Street property in Suva jointly owned by Biman Chand Prasad and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand.

The transaction was never a simple property sale but part of a wider arrangement involving a company Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd linked to the vendors, the payment of Capital Gains Tax by Lotus, the discharge of a mortgage, and the acquisition allegedly of two villa units subsequently associated with Rajni Chand.

What distinguishes the CT 11907 controversy from the usual exchanges of political accusation and denial is that the debate is not built upon rumour, anonymous gossip, or partisan speculation. It is built upon a documentary trail.

The documents reproduced in the accompanying graphic above tell a story that deserves careful scrutiny.

First, there is the Pacific Valuations report prepared for ANZ Bank, which assessed the Burerua Street property at approximately $2.815 million in September 2015. Yet only months later the property was transferred to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd for a stated consideration of $550,000.

Second, there is the Fiji Revenue and Customs Service (FRCS) receipt showing that Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd paid $34,600 in Capital Gains Tax in the name of Biman Chand Prasad.

Third, there are banking records showing that the ANZ mortgage over the property, amounting to $236,806.65, was discharged.

Fourth, there are sale-and-purchase agreements relating to two off-plan villa units, each priced at $150,000, producing a combined value of $300,000. Those agreements identify Rajni Kaushal Chand as the purchaser of the villa units.

Individually, each document raises questions. Collectively, they create a transaction trail that invites closer examination.

The central issue is not whether a property may be sold below valuation. Such transactions occur every day. Nor is it unusual for related parties to engage in commercial dealings. Business relationships frequently intersect with family relationships.

The issue is whether the full economic substance of the transaction was reflected in the public declarations and explanations subsequently provided. The figures speak for themselves.

A property valued at $2.815 million was transferred for $550,000.
Capital Gains Tax of $34,600 was paid by the purchasing company.
A mortgage of $236,806.65 was discharged.
Two villa units worth $300,000 appear in the documentary record.

Taken together, these figures amount to more than $1.12 million in payments, benefits, and transfers associated with the transaction, exclusive of the valuation-to-sale-price differential of $2.265 million.

Viewed collectively, those figures raise an obvious question: what was the total value exchanged between the parties?

That question has become even more relevant following FRCS Chief Executive Udit Singh's announcement that Fiji intends to introduce a more robust asset declaration regime requiring individuals to explain how significant assets were acquired.

If ordinary citizens are expected to account for their wealth, then the same principle must apply to public office holders, ministers, and political leaders. The credibility of any asset declaration system depends upon one simple principle: equal treatment under the law.

It cannot be one rule for the market vendor and another for the Deputy Prime Minister. It cannot be one rule for the small business owner and another for a Cabinet minister.

The purpose of the accompanying graphic is therefore not to pronounce guilt or innocence. That remains the responsibility of investigators, regulators, and, where appropriate, the courts.

Its purpose is more modest but equally important.

It is to place the key documents before the public and allow readers to judge for themselves whether the CT 11907 transaction has been satisfactorily explained.

For in any democracy, transparency begins with evidence.

And evidence begins with documents.

*What happened to Biman Prasad's $296,548.30 balance from $550,000? On 4 May 2017, Rajni Kaushal Chand was transferred TWO UNITS ($150,000 each) to the sum of $300,000. Biman Prasad has not disclosed these two units in his Statutory Declarations from 2017 to 2024.

Market Valuation of C.T. 11907 (Burerua Street, Raiwai, Suva): What the July 2015 Report Reveals About Biman Prasad, Rajni Chand, and the Proposed 14-Apartment Development

The July 2015 valuation report commissioned for Certificate of Title No. 11907 at Burerua Street, Raiwai, Suva is a significant document because it captures the state of the property immediately before its eventual transfer to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd and before the subsequent allocation of villa/apartment interests associated with the development.

Prepared by Pacific Valuations Ltd for ANZ Bank, the report values the property on the assumption that a proposed four-level apartment complex comprising fourteen apartments would be completed in accordance with approved plans. The report was addressed to ANZ and signed by registered valuer Vinod Bala.

The Property Was Registered in the Names of Biman Prasad and Rajni Chand

The report expressly identifies the registered proprietors as: "Biman Chand Prasad aka Biman Chand (Mr Puran aka Puran Mal) and Rajni Kaushal Chand (Mrs Ram Sewak)"

The valuation was therefore undertaken on the basis that Biman Prasad and Rajni Chand were the owners of the property.

This is important because later transactions involving Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, a company jointly controlled by Biman Prasad and Sunil Chand, involved this same property.

The July 2015 Pacific Valuations report is a potentially important evidential document. It shows that Biman Prasad and Rajni Chand owned CT 11907, that the property was intended to be redeveloped into a fourteen-unit apartment complex, and that the completed project was expected to be worth approximately $2.815 million while generating $266,400 annually in rental income.

In the broader debate over declarations, Lotus Construction, and the later allocation of apartment or villa interests, the report provides an independent professional valuation prepared before the key transactions occurred. For that reason alone, it is likely to be regarded as one of the more significant contemporaneous documents in reconstructing the chronology and economic substance of the Burerua Street development.

Who was legally liable for the CGT? Who actually paid it? Did Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd confer a private benefit on one of its directors/shareholders by paying that liability?
Was that benefit disclosed in statutory declarations?
* Under Fiji's CGT regime, the taxpayer disposing of the property is generally the person liable for the tax arising from the disposal.
*The CGT legislation treats the tax as attaching to the gain made by the seller, not the purchaser.

Defence Minister and National Federation Party Cabinet Minister Pio Tikoduadua has challenged party members to focus on strengthening the NFP’s public image and relevance as Fiji moves closer to the next general election.

Speaking at the NFP Working Committee meeting in Rakiraki on Saturday, Mr Tikoduadua said the party needed to look beyond its own internal assessments and consider how it was viewed by the wider public.

“But let me challenge us today,” he told party members, noting that the period leading into the election would place greater demands on the party’s communication and engagement efforts.

Mr Tikoduadua said while NFP members may have a clear understanding of the party’s values and achievements, the more important question was whether ordinary Fijians shared the same perception.

“We know ourselves and we know what we stand for, but what do the people think about us?” he asked.

He said the party needed to honestly assess its standing among voters and determine whether its foundations, policies and principles continued to resonate with the wider population.

“How relevant are we today?” he questioned.

Mr Tikoduadua stressed that political success would depend not only on the party’s record in government but also on its ability to communicate effectively with voters and remain connected to their concerns.

He urged members to focus on developing the image and competency of the NFP so that it remained a credible and relevant political force.

“The best way forward from here is to develop the image and the competency of the NFP so that it is relevant,” he said.

Mr Tikoduadua told party supporters that internal meetings and discussions were important, but they must ultimately translate into stronger engagement with communities and the public.

“It is good for us to meet among ourselves, but we must ensure that what we stand for reaches the people and remains relevant to them,” he said.

His comments come as political parties across the country begin preparing for the 2026 General Election, with voter engagement, policy delivery and public perception expected to play a major role in shaping the electoral landscape. Source: Fiji Times

Fiji Times online The Lens: Biman Chand Prasad Hints at Political PLOT Behind His Resignation. Through Fijileaks Lens (2014–2026), the REAL Story Is Written in His Own Declarations, Company Records, Public Files

6/6/2026

Why I Am Writing This: Biman Chand Prasad's recent suggestion that political forces may have worked against him before his resignation as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance has prompted me to place a number of facts on the public record.

I do so in a dual capacity: first, as Editor-in-Chief of Fijileaks, which for years published a series of investigations into Prasad's statutory declarations and related matters; and second, as a complainant who repeatedly brought documentary evidence to the attention of the relevant authorities.

I also write as someone who has known Prasad for decades. Long before he entered frontline politics, we enjoyed a cordial relationship. Indeed, when Prasad first declared his intention to contest the 2014 general election, Fijileaks provided him with space to explain his decision, articulate his political vision, and communicate directly with the electorate. Over the years, Fijileaks carried numerous statements, interviews and commentaries involving Prasad, just as it did for many other political figures across Fiji's political spectrum.

That history is important because it demolishes any suggestion that my interest in Prasad's statutory declarations arose from personal animosity, political hostility or some long-running vendetta. It did not. The issues raised by Fijileaks emerged not because of who Prasad was but because of what the documentary record appeared to reveal.

Because Prasad has now raised the possibility of a "plot" and because some of his supporters have sought over the years to portray the investigations into his declarations as politically motivated, it is important that the public understands precisely how these matters came to light.

This is not an attempt to influence proceedings presently before the courts. Those proceedings must be determined solely on the evidence and according to law. Rather, it is an attempt to correct any impression that the allegations arose from a covert political campaign, a personal crusade, or some orchestrated effort to bring down a Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, who is also leader of the NFP.

They did not.

Every major allegation published by Fijileaks concerning Prasad's statutory declarations was based upon documentary evidence. Company records, Registrar of Companies filings, shareholding records, certificates of title, land transfer documents, statutory declarations, official correspondence and other public records formed the basis of the questions that were raised.

We did not begin with rumours.

We did not begin with political instructions.

We did not begin with anonymous whispers from shadowy figures.

We began with documents.

Moreover, after publishing those investigations, I frequently emailed links to the relevant Fijileaks articles and supporting material to public authorities and office holders for their consideration.

At various times these communications were sent to FICAC, DPP, the Fiji Police Force, the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, Members of Parliament including Pio Tikoduadua and Lenora Qereqeretabua, and, during her brief but controversial tenure as Acting FICAC Commissioner, Barbara Malimali.

I simply invited them to examine the evidence and determine for themselves whether the matters warranted further inquiry.

The distinction is critical.

A conspirator seeks to manipulate an outcome.

A journalist places evidence before the public.

A complainant places evidence before the authorities.

The decision whether to investigate, ignore, reject, or pursue a matter rests entirely with those institutions.

If there were political plots operating within government, within the coalition, or elsewhere, that is a matter for Prasad to explain and substantiate.

As far as my role is concerned, there was no conspiracy, no secret campaign and no hidden agenda.

There was a decades-long friendship.

There was investigative journalism.

There was documentary evidence.

And there was a consistent effort to place that evidence before both the public and the relevant authorities for independent scrutiny.

That is why I consider it necessary to place this response on the public record. The public deserves to understand that whatever political intrigues Prasad may believe surrounded his departure from office, the questions raised by Fijileaks arose from documents, not from plots.

FROM LOTUS TO PLATINUM: The Charges Biman Prasad Faces Today Are Entirely Different From Those FICAC Was Preparing On 5 September 2024. Will The Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd File Be Revived?

ESCAPE FROM FICAC? Biman Prasad Was Set To Face Multiple Lotus Construction Charges On 5 September 2024 But The Arrest of Barbara Malimali And Lawyers' Intervention Threw The Investigation Into Chaos

The Lotus (Fiji) File That Refused to Wilt. The Crucial Distinction: The September 2024 Lotus Charges Are Not The Charges Before The Court Today

One point cannot be stressed strongly enough.

The charges that Biman Chand Prasad and his legal team are currently contesting are not the charges that FICAC lawyers were preparing and recommending in September 2024.

The present prosecution concerns Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd, a company in which Prasad allegedly held shares and a directorship during 2015–2016 and which FICAC alleges was not properly disclosed in his statutory declarations.

The documentary record emerging from FICAC, however, points to something entirely different in September 2024.

At that time, senior FICAC investigators and legal officers had completed a separate investigation centred on Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd and related declaration issues stretching back to 2014. Draft charges had been prepared. Legal opinions had been obtained. Senior counsel had concluded that a prima facie case existed. Internal memoranda expressly recommended prosecution and sought the Commissioner's approval to proceed.

Those recommendations survived internal scrutiny.

Indeed, when Barbara Malimali later returned to FICAC, the file was revisited. Far from abandoning their original position, senior legal counsel reportedly reaffirmed their view that prosecution should proceed. As late as January 2025, the legal advice remained substantially unchanged: the evidence justified criminal charges and the matter should advance.

That is why the events of April 2025 remain so controversial.

Rather than authorising the charges repeatedly recommended by her legal team, Malimali closed Prasad's entire file. The closure was reportedly justified on the basis that Prasad had declared his shares.

Yet the legal officers who had worked on the matter had never treated the investigation as a simple question of whether shares appeared somewhere in a declaration.

Their concern extended to a wider pattern of alleged omissions and non-disclosures involving Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, including questions relating to directorships, corporate interests, property transactions and other matters required to be disclosed under the Political Parties Act.

The result is that the public is now witnessing litigation over a completely different prosecution.

The current Platinum Hotels charges arose from a separate set of facts, a separate company, a separate period, and a separate alleged failure to disclose.

Consequently, even if Prasad were ultimately to succeed or fail in the Platinum Hotels case, that outcome would not automatically determine the fate of the dormant Lotus Construction file.

The central unanswered question remains: What became of the multiple Lotus Construction-related charges that FICAC lawyers believed were justified in September 2024, reaffirmed again after Malimali's return, and continued to support in January 2025 before the entire file was abruptly shut down in April 2025?

Until that question is answered, it would be inaccurate to portray the current Platinum Hotels prosecution as the entirety of Prasad's legal exposure arising from his statutory declarations.

The available evidence suggests that the Platinum case is merely one branch of a much larger investigation that, for reasons still not fully explained, was never allowed to reach court.

FICAC Senior Counsel to Barbara Malimali:
"Biman Prasad's Charges Stand", September 2024, January 2025

First She Closed His FICAC File. Then Comes Selfie: Malimali's 'Yeeha!' Celebration with Biman Prasad

From Fijileaks Archive, September 2024

Lenora's Leadership Question: If NFP Must Prepare the Next Generation, Why Hasn't It Asked Biman Prasad to Step Aside?

FCCC's Annual Report Celebrates Research Papers But Omits Names, Payments and Questions Behind Them - Biman Prasad, Joel Abraham and Paresh Narayan whose private APAEA signed MOU with the FCCC

3/6/2026

*On page 27 of its 2023–2024 Annual Report, FCCC proudly listed five research papers published under its collaboration with the Asia Pacific Applied Economics Association (APAEA), including papers on fuel prices, inflation, LPG pricing, energy markets and FCCC's own price-control measures. Yet nowhere on page 27, or elsewhere in the report, are the authors identified, despite Fijileaks investigations having identified FCCC chief executive Joel Abraham, former Finance Minister Biman Prasad, Monash University economist Paresh Narayan, his wife Seema Narayan, Akeneta Vonoyauyau, Vinitesh Kumar and others as contributors to some of the publications. Nor does the report disclose how much public money was spent on the research programme.

Tick-Tock: One Month On, Biman Prasad, Paresh Narayan and Joel Abraham Remain Silent as Lambs Over Research Paper Questions

25 May 2026

Dear Professor Biman Chand Prasad, Professor Paresh Narayan, and Mr Joel Abraham,

I write in the public interest concerning the 2023 research paper titled How Effective are Price Regulator’s Price Control Measures?, published in the Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking and co-authored by the three of you.

Recent public statements concerning the FCCC-APAEA research collaboration, including claims that approximately $200,000 was expended on consultancy and professional fees associated with the project, have given rise to several important governance and transparency questions.

In particular, Professor Paresh Narayan has publicly stated that “research is not free” and that the Memorandum of Understanding between FCCC and APAEA contained “fees and compensation arrangements”.

The following questions therefore arise.

The 2023 Research Paper

What was the precise role played by each of the three co-authors in producing the 2023 paper?
Who conducted the econometric and statistical analysis?
Who drafted the paper?
Who supplied the FCCC data used in the study?
Did FCCC staff assist in compiling, analysing, or cleaning the data?
Was the paper independently peer-reviewed prior to publication?
Did FCCC management review or approve the paper before publication?

The FCCC-APAEA Arrangement

Can the FCCC-APAEA Memorandum of Understanding be publicly released?
Was the reported figure of approximately $200,000 accurate?
What precisely did the reported expenditure cover?
Who authorised the expenditure?
Did the FCCC Board approve the arrangement?
Was any procurement or tender process undertaken before the engagement?
If no competitive process occurred, what was the legal or administrative basis for sole engagement?

Payments and Compensation

Professor Narayan has publicly stated that the MoU provided for “fees and compensation arrangements”. Can each of you therefore clarify:

(a) whether any of the three co-authors personally received payments, fees, allowances, consultancy income, reimbursements, or other benefits arising from the project;
(b) the amounts received, if any;
(c) the dates of such payments; and
(d) the entities through which such payments were made?

Did Professor Biman Prasad personally receive any payment or financial benefit connected to the research project?
If Professor Prasad did not receive payment, can documentary confirmation be publicly provided?
Were any payments made to universities, consulting entities, or third-party organisations associated with any of the authors?
Were taxpayer funds used to finance publication, conferences, dissemination, or travel associated with the research?

Governance and Conflict Questions

At the time of publication, Professor Biman Prasad was Fiji’s Finance Minister while Mr Joel Abraham was Chief Executive of FCCC.

Given those positions:
(a) was any conflict-of-interest assessment undertaken;
(b) was any declaration of interest made;
(c) was Cabinet informed of the arrangement; and
(d) was legal or ethics advice sought?

How was the institutional independence of FCCC protected where the head of the regulator co-authored a paper defending the effectiveness of FCCC regulatory interventions alongside the serving Finance Minister?
Do the authors accept that even if lawful, the arrangement may still give rise to legitimate public-interest concerns regarding institutional proximity and regulatory independence?
Were the payments and research arrangements disclosed in FCCC annual reports, audited accounts, or parliamentary disclosures?
In the interests of transparency, will all relevant documents now be released publicly, including:

(a) the MoU;
(b) approval documents;
(c) payment schedules; and
(d) procurement or Board records relating to the project?

I would appreciate your responses within a reasonable timeframe.

Yours faithfully,
Victor Lal
Editor, Fijileaks

From Fijileaks Archive, 26 September 2025

One Commissioner, Many Questions: Does Fiji’s HIGHER EDUCATION Commission Reflect the Nation It Serves? If the non-iTaukei showed no interest in applying, the obvious question for Government becomes why?

2/6/2026

The recent swearing-in of the new Higher Education Commission should have been an uncontroversial moment in Fiji's public life. Instead, it raises an important question about representation, inclusion, and the meaning of national unity in a modern, multicultural state.

In a country that proudly describes itself as multiracial and multicultural, how is it that only one commissioner appears to come from a non-iTaukei background?

This is not an argument against any individual commissioner. Nor is it a suggestion that appointments should be determined by ethnicity rather than merit. Public institutions must always be led by individuals of ability, integrity, experience, and professional competence.

Yet representation matters.

It matters because public institutions derive their legitimacy not only from the qualifications of those who serve on them but also from the confidence of the people they are appointed to serve.

The question is particularly relevant in the case of the Higher Education Commission.
This is not merely another government board or statutory body. It is a national institution entrusted with helping shape the future of tertiary education in Fiji. Its decisions influence educational standards, accreditation, institutional development, vocational training, and ultimately the opportunities available to future generations of Fijians.

Education is unlike any other sector of national life.

Every child who walks into a classroom today carries in his or her school bag the future of Fiji.

Within those bags are the ambitions of future teachers, nurses, engineers, doctors, scientists, tradespeople, entrepreneurs, civil servants, academics, and national leaders. The Higher Education Commission helps shape the pathways that those young people will follow.

That responsibility belongs to every community in Fiji.

The classrooms of Fiji are not occupied by one ethnic group. They are shared by children from diverse cultural, religious, linguistic, and ethnic backgrounds. They learn together, compete together, and increasingly see themselves as citizens of a common nation.

One might therefore reasonably ask whether the institution helping to guide their educational future should visibly reflect that same diversity.

For decades Fiji has wrestled with questions of race, identity, and political representation. Governments of different political persuasions have repeatedly promoted the ideal of "One Fiji", urging citizens to move beyond the divisions that have too often defined the country's history.

That aspiration is commendable.

But national unity cannot be sustained solely through slogans. It must also be reflected in the composition of the institutions that govern public life.

The issue is not whether the current commissioners are qualified.

The issue is whether the appointment process adequately considered the broader principle that national institutions should, where possible, reflect the diversity of the nation itself.

Universities and tertiary institutions are among the most diverse environments in Fiji. Students and academics come from every ethnic community. Intellectual life thrives through the exchange of different experiences, perspectives, and ideas. Diversity is not a threat to excellence; it is often one of its foundations.

Yet when the public examines the composition of important national bodies, questions inevitably arise when entire communities appear to be largely absent from positions of governance and oversight.

Would the reaction be the same if the situation were reversed? Would there be silence if a major national commission responsible for higher education consisted overwhelmingly of Indo-Fijians, Rotumans, Europeans, Chinese, or members of any other community, with only a single iTaukei representative?

It is doubtful.

Most reasonable observers would recognise that such an imbalance would invite scrutiny and public debate. That is because representation is not merely symbolic. It affects perceptions of fairness, legitimacy, accountability, and inclusion. No one is advocating quotas. No one is suggesting that appointments should be allocated according to rigid ethnic formulas.

But there is a significant difference between rejecting quotas and ignoring representation altogether.

A society as diverse as Fiji cannot credibly claim that questions of inclusion become irrelevant the moment appointments are made. Indeed, the more important the institution, the more important those questions become.

The Higher Education Commission occupies precisely such a position.

Its work touches the aspirations of families throughout the country. It influences institutions attended by iTaukei, Indo-Fijian, Rotuman, Banaban, Chinese, European, and other communities that together form the fabric of modern Fiji.

For that reason, the public is entitled to ask whether the Commission adequately reflects the society whose future it helps shape. The question is neither radical nor divisive. It is a question about national confidence. It is a question about whether public institutions genuinely embody the values of equality and inclusion that successive governments have championed.

And it is a question that becomes impossible to avoid when one considers the central role education plays in the life of the nation.

For every child who walks to school each morning carries more than books, exercise pads, and lunch.

Each child carries the future of Fiji.

The institutions entrusted with shaping that future should strive to ensure that every community can see itself represented at the table where the nation's educational destiny is being discussed. Only then can the promise of a truly inclusive and united Fiji move from rhetoric to reality.

If No One Applied, Why Did No One Apply?

Education Should the Minister argue that only one non-iTaukei was appointed because few or no non-iTaukei candidates expressed interest, that explanation merely shifts the debate to a different level.

The obvious question becomes: why?

Was the vacancy widely advertised across all communities? Were professional bodies, universities, educational institutions, and civil society organisations encouraged to nominate suitably qualified candidates? How many applications were received? How many came from non-iTaukei applicants? How many were shortlisted? How many were interviewed?

Without transparency regarding the appointment process, the public is simply being asked to accept an assertion.

Moreover, Fiji is hardly lacking in qualified non-iTaukei educators, academics, researchers, school administrators, accountants, lawyers, business leaders, and professionals with experience in tertiary education and governance. The country has produced generations of distinguished citizens from every community who have served universities, colleges, professional bodies, and public institutions.

If such individuals did not apply, that may indicate a deeper problem. It may suggest a perception that appointments are predetermined, that applications are unlikely to succeed, or that certain communities feel increasingly disconnected from public institutions.

That would be a matter of concern for any government genuinely committed to building a shared national identity.

The purpose of raising these questions is not to demand appointments on ethnic grounds. Rather, it is to ensure that the nation's institutions attract and retain the confidence of all citizens.

A truly inclusive appointment process should not merely be open in theory. It should also inspire participation in practice.

For if significant sections of society no longer believe that their applications, expertise, or perspectives are valued, then the problem is not simply who was appointed. The problem is the growing perception that some citizens are becoming spectators rather than stakeholders in the governance of their own country.

In the context of higher education, where the future of every Fijian child is at stake, that is a question worth asking.

From a policy perspective, however, a Minister would have a stronger defence if the Government could produce evidence showing that positions were publicly advertised, applications were open to all, and appointments were made from the pool of candidates who actually applied. In that case, the criticism would shift from the Government's selection decision to broader questions about participation and public confidence in the appointment process.

Current school enrolment figures paint a stark picture of Fiji’s demographic future. Out of 242,665 students enrolled in early childhood, primary, and secondary education, 182,840 are iTaukei, while only 49,723 are Indo-Fijian. That means Indo-Fijians now make up just one-fifth of the school-age population, while iTaukei children constitute three-quarters.

www.fijitimes.com.fj/opinion-a-vanishing-minority-indo-fijians-and-fijis-changing-ethnic-balance/

'Constitutional Crisis!' Claims Malimali's lawyer Waqanika as PM Appeals Fiji High Court Ruling But Her Narrative Collapses Under Legal Scrutiny

1/6/2026

"An appeal is a constitutional right, not a constitutional coup. Waqanika's attempt to portray ordinary appellate proceedings as a threat to democracy confuses political rhetoric with constitutional law."

The appeal arising from the High Court's decision concerning the removal of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali remains before the courts. Fijileaks does not seek to determine the outcome of that appeal, nor does it purport to substitute its views for those of the Court of Appeal.

However, it is entirely legitimate in a democratic society for journalists, lawyers, academics, commentators, and members of the public to analyse legal arguments that have been advanced in open court and reported in the media. Such commentary forms part of the wider public discussion surrounding constitutional governance and the rule of law.

This article does not comment on evidence that remains subject to judicial determination. Instead, it examines the legal reasoning publicly advanced by lawyer Tanya Waqanika and assesses whether those arguments withstand scrutiny when measured against established constitutional principles, the appellate process, and the constitutional framework itself.

The courts will ultimately determine the merits of the appeal. In the meantime, fair comment and informed legal analysis remain not only permissible but essential to public understanding of matters of significant constitutional importance.

Waqanika’s Constitutional Crisis Narrative Collapses Under Legal Scrutiny

Waqanika

The latest submissions by lawyer Tanya Waqanika in the ongoing litigation surrounding the removal of Barbara Malimali reveal an increasingly political argument dressed in constitutional language.

Her claims that the President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu faces a Judicial Services Commission tribunal, that Fiji is experiencing a constitutional coup, and that the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s appeal itself somehow threatens judicial independence may generate headlines, but they are considerably weaker when examined against established constitutional principles and the actual findings of the Fiji High Court.

At the centre of Waqanika’s argument lies a fundamental contradiction. Only a few months ago, following the High Court ruling, she publicly welcomed the Government’s decision not to appeal, describing it as a victory for the rule of law and acknowledging the constitutional role of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in resolving the matter. At that stage, the Government itself stated that it respected the Court’s ruling and recognised the JSC’s constitutional mandate.

Now, however, the filing of an appeal is portrayed as evidence of a constitutional crisis. That proposition is difficult to sustain. An appeal is not a constitutional crisis. It is one of the most basic constitutional rights available within a legal system governed by the rule of law. Indeed, if a party is prohibited from appealing a constitutional judgment merely because the judgment concerns a constitutional office holder, then the appellate structure itself becomes meaningless.

The irony is striking. Waqanika appears to be arguing that because the President may potentially face criticism, scrutiny, or even legal consequences arising from constitutional actions already undertaken, the Prime Minister should somehow be prevented from exercising a lawful right of appeal.

That is not how constitutional litigation operates.

Courts exist precisely because constitutional actors frequently disagree about the scope of their powers. The filing of an appeal does not undermine judicial independence. It invokes it. Nor does the possibility that an appellate court may reverse a lower court decision somehow weaken the judiciary. On the contrary, appellate review is one of the principal safeguards of judicial legitimacy.

More troubling is Waqanika’s attempt to characterise the matter as a threat to the President. According to her submissions, the appeal was necessary because the President allegedly faces the prospect of a JSC tribunal.

Yet the legal relevance of such a proposition remains highly questionable.

The appellate court’s task will not be to determine whether the President faces political discomfort, reputational consequences, or possible institutional scrutiny. The appellate court will determine whether Justice Dane Tuiqereqere correctly interpreted the Constitution and the FICAC Act.

Constitutional interpretation cannot be influenced by speculation about future consequences for office holders.

If it were otherwise, courts would cease interpreting the law and instead begin calculating political outcomes. The judiciary has consistently rejected such reasoning across Commonwealth jurisdictions. The legality of an act depends on constitutional authority, not on the status of the person who performed it.

Equally problematic is Waqanika’s repeated invocation of phrases such as “constitutional crisis” and “constitutional coup.” These are politically loaded expressions. A constitutional coup ordinarily involves the unlawful seizure, suspension, or displacement of constitutional authority.

Nothing remotely comparable has occurred here. The High Court delivered a judgment. The losing side filed an appeal. The appellate process is proceeding through established judicial mechanisms. No court has been suspended. No constitutional institution has been dissolved. No emergency powers have been invoked. No constitutional safeguards have been set aside.

In fact, the very existence of ongoing litigation demonstrates that constitutional processes remain operational. One may agree or disagree with the Prime Minister’s position. One may agree or disagree with the High Court’s interpretation. But disagreement within constitutional institutions is not evidence of constitutional collapse. It is evidence that constitutional institutions are functioning.

Waqanika’s criticism of the Prime Minister’s role in advising the President similarly overlooks the central issue now before the appellate courts. The legal question is not whether Cabinet should have influence over constitutional offices in the abstract.

The question is whether Section 82 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the FICAC Act can be reconciled, and if so, how. That is a genuine constitutional question.

Reasonable lawyers may disagree. Indeed, the very fact that senior counsel and constitutional lawyers continue to advance competing interpretations demonstrates that the issue is far from settled.

The existence of a genuine legal dispute is precisely why appellate courts exist. Waqanika’s attempt to portray alternative constitutional interpretations as evidence of bad faith therefore risks prejudging the very issue currently before the courts.

Her description of Acting Commissioner Lavenia Rokoika as a “usurper” is similarly problematic. That language belongs more naturally in political campaigning than constitutional litigation. Until the courts finally determine the legality of appointments and removals, constitutional office holders continue to operate under colour of authority.

The doctrine of institutional continuity exists precisely to prevent governmental paralysis while legal disputes remain unresolved. Otherwise every contested appointment would immediately render all decisions taken by that office void. Such a position would create precisely the instability Waqanika claims to oppose.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the hearing was the acknowledgment by Deputy Solicitor-General Eliesa Tuiloma that Government counsel agreed with Justice Tuiqereqere’s reasoning, while confirming that the Prime Minister nevertheless wished to pursue an appeal.

Far from proving constitutional misconduct, this demonstrates something quite different. It illustrates that constitutional litigation frequently involves disagreements not only between opposing parties but sometimes between political decision-makers and their own advisers.

The constitutional system anticipates such disagreements. That is why appellate courts, rather than lawyers or politicians, ultimately resolve constitutional disputes. The broader danger in Waqanika’s approach is that it transforms every constitutional disagreement into an existential crisis.

If every appeal becomes a constitutional coup, then constitutional language loses its meaning. If every disputed appointment becomes institutional usurpation, then constitutional governance becomes impossible.

And if every challenge to a judicial ruling is characterised as an attack on democracy, then the right of appeal itself becomes suspect. None of these propositions strengthen constitutionalism.

They weaken it.

The real test of Fiji’s constitutional order is not whether one side wins or loses this case.

It is whether all parties accept that constitutional disputes are resolved through courts, appeals, statutory interpretation, and judicial reasoning rather than political rhetoric.

By that measure, the filing of an appeal is not evidence of constitutional breakdown.
It is evidence that the constitutional system is still working exactly as it was designed to work.

“THE DE FACTO SHIELD”: FIJI HIGH COURT SIGNALS THAT LAVI ROKOIKA’S APPOINTMENT CHALLENGE CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY COLLAPSE FICAC PROSECUTIONS
*We had intended to publish a detailed legal assessment. However, a series of other developing stories demanded our immediate attention and publication priorities shifted accordingly.

The Fiji High Court has sent the clearest judicial signal yet that challenges to the appointment of Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika will not, by themselves, automatically invalidate prosecutions authorised under her tenure. In doing so, the Court has revived and reinforced one of the oldest doctrines in common law public administration: the de facto officer doctrine, a doctrine argued by Fijileaks for over a year.

At the centre of the controversy lies a constitutional and administrative question that has haunted Fiji’s legal and political establishment since the removal of Barbara Malimali and the subsequent appointment of Rokoika in May 2025. Critics have argued that Rokoika’s appointment was constitutionally defective because the Judicial Services Commission, rather than the Prime Minister and President acting alone, should have been centrally involved in the process. Supporters of that challenge have sought to use the alleged defect as a basis for permanently staying criminal proceedings brought under her authority.

But Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull’s ruling in the stay proceedings involving former Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica has drawn a sharp distinction between two entirely separate legal questions. The first is whether Rokoika’s appointment was lawful. The second is whether every prosecutorial act undertaken during her tenure must therefore be treated as void. The Court’s answer was emphatically no.

The ruling held that any challenge to the legality of Rokoika’s appointment belongs in judicial review proceedings within the civil jurisdiction, not in collateral attacks mounted through criminal stay applications.

That distinction is not a technicality. It goes to the heart of how constitutional systems preserve continuity in public administration.

The Court noted that Rokoika had acted continuously in the office since 29 May 2025 and had exercised the functions of Acting Commissioner throughout that period. On that basis, Justice Bull held that the de facto doctrine applied, meaning that actions undertaken under her authority, including criminal charges already filed, remain legally valid unless and until a competent court directly rules otherwise.

The doctrine itself is ancient and deeply embedded in common law jurisprudence. It exists for reasons of public policy and institutional survival. Without it, every disputed appointment to public office could trigger legal chaos. Courts would face endless collateral attacks on prosecutions, judicial rulings, administrative decisions, warrants, contracts, disciplinary actions, and executive acts.

The doctrine recognises that a person may occupy office “under colour of authority” even if some later defect is discovered in the appointment process. The law therefore protects the validity of official acts already performed, especially where third parties and the public relied on the apparent authority of the office-holder.

In practical terms, the doctrine prevents government machinery from collapsing every time an appointment is challenged. That principle has not emerged in isolation in Fiji. It has a substantial judicial lineage.

The current controversy has revived earlier precedents involving prosecutorial authority in Fiji, particularly the decisions in Peniasi Kunatuba v State and Chaudhry v State, where Fiji’s courts refused attempts to invalidate prosecutions by attacking the appointment status of prosecutors.

In the Kunatuba case, Justice Nazhat Shameem rejected attempts to derail criminal proceedings by questioning whether the DPP was properly qualified for office. The Court upheld the presumption of regularity attaching to official appointments. Later, in Chaudhry v State, Justice Paul Madigan applied similar reasoning when Mahendra Chaudhry’s defence challenged the authority of Acting DPP Aca Rayawa. Madigan held that even if defects existed, the de facto officer doctrine protected prosecutorial acts from collapse.

Those cases are now returning to the centre of Fiji’s constitutional litigation.

Indeed, Justice Bull’s ruling strongly suggests that the courts remain unwilling to allow criminal proceedings to become indirect battlegrounds for broader constitutional disputes about appointments. That position carries enormous implications for ongoing and future FICAC prosecutions.

For Manoa Kamikamica, it means his prosecution proceeds despite the unresolved controversy surrounding Rokoika’s appointment. For Biman Prasad, whose legal team has similarly challenged the legality of Rokoika’s authority, the ruling presents a serious obstacle to any argument that the prosecution automatically collapses because of alleged appointment defects.

The judgment also reveals a wider constitutional tension within the State itself.

The Prime Minister reportedly acknowledged in correspondence that legislative amendments might be needed to alter the appointing mechanism for FICAC leadership, replacing the Judicial Services Commission with the Constitution Offices Commission. That admission has been seized upon by critics as evidence that the Government itself recognised legal weaknesses in the appointment process.

At the same time, Justice Dane Tuiqereqere’s earlier ruling that the Prime Minister lacked authority to remove Barbara Malimali continues to cast a constitutional shadow over the entire episode. Yet even that ruling did not automatically invalidate Rokoika’s acts. That is precisely where the de facto doctrine becomes decisive.

The doctrine does not determine whether an appointment was lawful. Rather, it determines whether the public administration can continue functioning while those disputes are litigated.

Critics of the doctrine argue that it risks insulating unconstitutional conduct from immediate consequences. They contend that where constitutional breaches are known and publicly disputed from the outset, reliance on de facto authority becomes harder to justify. Barbara Malimali’s legal team has already advanced precisely that argument, contending that the doctrine should not apply where the alleged defect was widely known and actively contested.

But the countervailing concern is institutional paralysis.

If every criminal accused could suspend prosecutions merely by alleging defects in an office-holder’s appointment, the administration of justice itself could become unworkable. Prosecutors, judges, commissioners, ministers, magistrates, and senior officials would all become vulnerable to endless collateral litigation.

That is why common law systems historically erected the de facto doctrine as a stabilising mechanism.

The broader constitutional battle is therefore far from over. Judicial review proceedings concerning Rokoika’s appointment remain active, and future courts may yet rule on the legality of the appointment itself.

But what Justice Bull’s ruling now makes unmistakably clear is that Fiji’s courts are presently unwilling to permit criminal defendants to short-circuit prosecutions through indirect constitutional attacks mounted within stay applications.

The High Court has effectively drawn a procedural boundary line.

If the appointment is to be challenged, it must be challenged directly, against the proper constitutional actors, in the proper jurisdiction, with the proper remedies sought.

Until then, the machinery of prosecution continues to operate under the protection of the de facto officer doctrine.

And for now, that doctrine has become the legal shield preserving Lavi Rokoika’s prosecutorial authority.

The Fiji High Court dismissed National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad’s application for a permanent stay of criminal proceedings brought against him by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).

The ruling, delivered on 18 May 2026 by Justice Bull, constitutes one of the most important recent judicial pronouncements on the intersection between criminal process, constitutional legality, statutory disclosure obligations, and the de facto officer doctrine in Fiji.

At the centre of the proceedings is a criminal charge alleging that Prasad failed to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Ltd in his 2015 statutory declaration filed under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 (“PPA”). Alternatively, he is charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration.

The judgment is legally important for several reasons. First, it addresses whether the legality of Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika’s appointment could invalidate criminal proceedings initiated under her authority.

Secondly, it revisits the controversial “office holder” interpretation under section 24 of the Political Parties Act.

Thirdly, it examines whether a delay of nearly ten years in bringing charges amounted to abuse of process. Finally, it clarifies the High Court’s reluctance to permanently halt criminal prosecutions except in the clearest and rarest cases.

The Charges Against Biman Prasad

The first charge alleges a failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to section 24(5) of the Political Parties Act 2013, read together with section 24(1)(b)(iv).

The alternative charge alleges that Prasad provided false information in a statutory declaration contrary to section 27(1)(c) of the Act by failing to disclose his directorship in Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Ltd in his declaration filed on or about 30 December 2015.

The alleged omission was said to have rendered the declaration materially false.

Importantly, the Court did not determine whether Prasad was guilty. The application before the Court was confined solely to whether the criminal proceedings themselves should be permanently halted before trial.

The Grounds Advanced by Prasad

Prasad’s legal team advanced four principal arguments:

Lavi Rokoika was unlawfully appointed Acting FICAC Commissioner and therefore lacked legal authority to institute charges.
There had been prejudicial delay by FICAC in bringing the prosecution.
Prasad was not an “office holder” within the meaning of section 24 of the Political Parties Act.
FICAC failed to caution interview him before filing charges, allegedly demonstrating bad faith and abuse of process.

These arguments collectively sought the extraordinary remedy of a permanent stay.

The “Office Holder” Argument

One of the most politically significant aspects of the case concerned whether Prasad, as leader of the National Federation Party, fell within the definition of an “office holder” under the Political Parties Act.

An affidavit filed by NFP General Secretary Kamal Iyer argued that the NFP leader was elected by parliamentary members or caucus candidates rather than directly by party members, and therefore Prasad did not fall within the statutory definition.

The defence relied heavily on the earlier FICAC v Rabuka decision.

However, the High Court refused to determine this substantive question within a stay application. Justice Bull held that the merits of the charge itself were matters for trial, not for interlocutory proceedings seeking a stay.

This was a critical finding. The Court effectively distinguished between whether the charge was ultimately legally sustainable; and whether the prosecution process itself was abusive. The judge concluded that disputes over statutory interpretation should ordinarily be determined during the substantive criminal trial.

The De Facto Officer Doctrine and Lavi Rokoika

The most consequential constitutional aspect of the judgment involved the status of Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika. Prasad’s legal team argued that Rokoika’s appointment was unlawful because the Judicial Services Commission allegedly did not recommend her appointment to the President. It was also argued that Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka himself had publicly stated that Rokoika had been appointed because cooperation had broken down with Barbara Malimali.

The defence further argued that Rokoika knew or ought to have known that her appointment was legally defective, thereby rendering the charges a nullity.

The Court rejected this argument.

Justice Bull relied extensively on the de facto officer doctrine, a long-established common law principle holding that acts performed by a person exercising the apparent authority of public office remain legally valid even if defects later emerge in the appointment process.

The Court cited numerous authorities from Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States, including:

GJ Coles v Retail Trade Industrial Tribunal
Muri v State
Norton v Shelby County
Campbell v Walsend Shipway
Ex Parte Strang

Justice Bull emphasised that the doctrine exists to protect public administration from paralysis and uncertainty. The Court held that even if Rokoika’s appointment were defective, she nonetheless functioned as a de facto public officer because she occupied the office publicly; performed its duties openly; signed official documents; and exercised the powers of the office in apparent authority.

The Court therefore concluded that all documents signed by her, including criminal charges and information, remained valid unless and until a competent civil court ruled otherwise.

This is perhaps the single most important legal consequence of the judgment.

Why the Court Refused to Determine the Legality of Rokoika’s Appointment

The Court repeatedly stressed that a stay application was not the correct procedural vehicle to determine the legality of Rokoika’s appointment.

Justice Bull held that such questions belonged properly within judicial review or constitutional proceedings, especially because other parties, including the President and Prime Minister — were not before the Court in the criminal proceedings.

This reasoning was heavily influenced by concerns that criminal courts should avoid becoming forums for collateral constitutional litigation unless absolutely necessary. The Court warned against allowing accused persons to derail criminal prosecutions by mounting indirect constitutional attacks through abuse-of-process applications.

The Delay Argument

Prasad also argued that the nearly ten-year delay in bringing charges caused unfair prejudice and amounted to abuse of process.

The Court acknowledged that substantial delay may, in exceptional cases, justify a permanent stay. However, Justice Bull emphasised that delay alone is insufficient. The applicant must prove actual prejudice affecting the fairness of the future trial.

The Court noted that there is no statutory limitation period for such criminal charges; allegations of lost evidence were speculative; no concrete examples of unavailable witnesses or destroyed records were established; and there was insufficient evidence showing that Prasad could no longer receive a fair trial. The judgment relied on several authorities emphasising that permanent stays are extraordinary remedies reserved for the clearest cases of oppression or impossibility of a fair trial.

Failure to Conduct a Caution Interview

Prasad’s legal team further argued that FICAC acted in bad faith because investigators did not caution interview him before filing charges.

The Court rejected this argument decisively.

Justice Bull stated that although caution interviews are an important investigative practice, there is no absolute legal requirement that an accused person must be interviewed before prosecution.

The judge further observed that an accused person who remains silent during a caution interview would be in no materially different position from a person who was never interviewed at all.

This aspect of the ruling significantly strengthens prosecutorial discretion in Fiji.

Abuse of Process and the High Threshold for a Stay

Throughout the judgment, the Court repeatedly stressed that permanent stays are exceptional remedies. The Court adopted the orthodox common law position that criminal proceedings should only be halted where a fair trial is impossible; or continuation of proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The judgment cited leading authorities from Fiji and other Commonwealth jurisdictions establishing that courts should be extremely cautious before preventing a prosecution from proceeding to trial. Justice Bull concluded that Prasad failed to meet this very high threshold.

The Wider Constitutional and Political Significance

The ruling carries implications extending well beyond Biman Chand Prasad himself.

First, it substantially strengthens the legal position of decisions made by Acting Commissioner Lavi Rokoika despite ongoing controversy surrounding her appointment.

Secondly, it signals judicial reluctance to allow collateral constitutional challenges to derail criminal prosecutions.

Thirdly, it narrows the practical usefulness of abuse-of-process applications in politically sensitive prosecutions unless overwhelming prejudice can be demonstrated.

Fourthly, the ruling implicitly leaves unresolved the substantive constitutional legality of Rokoika’s appointment itself. The Court carefully avoided definitively validating the appointment. Instead, it merely held that her acts remain effective under the de facto officer doctrine unless overturned elsewhere.

Finally, the judgment also weakens attempts by political office holders to rely on technical interpretations of party constitutions or internal party structures to evade disclosure obligations under the Political Parties Act before a full trial on evidence.

The High Court’s dismissal of Biman Prasad’s stay application represents a major victory for FICAC and for the continuity of criminal process in Fiji.

The ruling confirms that even controversial or disputed public appointments will not automatically invalidate prosecutions carried out under apparent lawful authority. It also reinforces the principle that permanent stays remain exceptional remedies reserved only for the most extreme cases of unfairness or oppression.

At the same time, the judgment leaves significant constitutional questions unresolved, particularly regarding the legality of Lavi Rokoika’s appointment and the continuing fallout from the Barbara Malimali saga.

For now, however, the Court has made one point unmistakably clear: the criminal proceedings against Biman Prasad will proceed to trial.

"As to the 'office holder' argument, even if the legal position advanced by his counsel were accepted, Biman Chand Prasad nevertheless remained under a statutory obligation pursuant to section 24 of the Political Parties Act to make full, honest, and truthful disclosures in his declarations as an election candidate and thereafter as a Member of Parliament."

Why Biman Chand Prasad Was Still Required to Disclose Even If He Was Not An "Office Holder"

A great deal of attention has been devoted to the argument advanced on behalf of Biman Chand Prasad that he was not an "office holder" within the meaning of the Political Parties Act. Yet even if that proposition were accepted in its entirety, it would not necessarily relieve him of the obligation to make full and truthful disclosures under section 24.

The reason is straightforward.

Section 24 was not drafted to apply exclusively to office holders. The heading itself makes that clear. It refers to: "Applicants, office holders of political parties and independent candidates to Parliament to declare assets and liabilities."

Parliament therefore created a disclosure regime covering multiple categories of persons involved in the electoral process. The statutory obligation was not confined solely to party office holders.

At the time of the declarations in question, Biman Prasad was not merely a private citizen. He was an election candidate seeking public office and later a Member of Parliament. The purpose of section 24 was to ensure transparency regarding the financial affairs and interests of those seeking or holding public power.

Consequently, even if he were correct in arguing that he was not technically an "office holder" for a particular purpose, that argument would not necessarily answer whether he complied with the disclosure obligations applicable to him as a candidate and elected representative.

The underlying objective of the legislation was transparency. Voters were entitled to know the financial interests of those seeking election. Regulators were entitled to receive complete and accurate declarations. The public was entitled to have confidence that those entrusted with public office had disclosed their assets, liabilities, directorships, shareholdings and other interests honestly and truthfully.

Indeed, the logic of the contrary argument produces an obvious difficulty. If only office holders were required to make accurate declarations, then candidates who were not office holders could potentially escape scrutiny altogether. That would defeat the very purpose of the disclosure regime established by Parliament.

The legal issue, therefore, is not confined to whether Biman Prasad was an office holder. The more important question is whether the declarations he submitted under section 24 were complete, accurate and truthful. If any asset, directorship, shareholding, property interest or other matter required by law was omitted, then the issue becomes one of compliance with the disclosure provisions themselves rather than the label attached to the person making the declaration.

In short, the "office holder" argument may be relevant to one aspect of the statutory framework. It does not necessarily dispose of the broader question: whether a candidate for election and later a Member of Parliament complied with the disclosure obligations imposed by section 24 of the Political Parties Act.

If Fijileaks were setting out a proposed charge for FICAC's consideration, it might be drafted along the following lines:

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

Contrary to section 24(5) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.

Particulars of Offence

BIMAN CHAND PRASAD, on or about 30 December 2015 at Suva in the Central Division, being a person required under section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 to submit a declaration of assets, liabilities and income to the Registrar of Political Parties, failed to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Pte Limited in the said declaration, thereby committing an offence contrary to sections 24(1)(b)(iv) and 24(5) of the said Act.

Statement of Offence

PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION IN A STATUTORY DECLARATION

Contrary to section 27(1)(c) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.

Particulars of Offence

BIMAN CHAND PRASAD, on or about 30 December 2015 at Suva in the Central Division, being a person required under section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 to submit a statutory declaration of assets, liabilities and income to the Registrar of Political Parties, recklessly provided false information in the said declaration by failing to disclose his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Pte Limited, which omission rendered the declaration false in a material particular, thereby committing an offence contrary to section 27(1)(c) of the said Act.