Blog Archives

The Finance Minister Who Forgot His Own Institute: Biman Prasad’s 2023 Declaration Omits FIAS Directorship He Campaigned On. Once the votes were counted, seat won, the very title vanished-from his legal obligations

6/7/2025

Biman Prasad Boasted of FIAS to Win Votes — Then Hid It from the Law

In politics, credibility is currency. And during Fiji’s 2022 general election, Biman Prasad, leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) and now Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, traded heavily on his role as a respected academic and economist.

To seal his appeal, he flaunted a title: Director of the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS).

That title wasn’t incidental — it was central. It appeared prominently on the NFP’s campaign website and in public speeches. It was used to present Prasad as a man of ideas, independence, and global insight — the thinking voter’s candidate.

But once the votes were counted and the ministerial seat secured, that very title vanished — not from his résumé, but from his legal obligations.

In his 2023 statutory declaration of assets, liabilities and interests (for the year ending 2022), Prasad completely failed to disclose that he was a director of FIAS — the very organisation he invoked to earn public trust. This is not only hypocritical. It is, by any measure, a violation of the Political Parties Act, and potentially a criminal offence.

The Law Is Clear — And He Breached It

Under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, every party leader must declare all directorships or positions in organisations, whether paid or unpaid, in their annual declaration.

Prasad’s declaration for the year ending 2022 should have disclosed his FIAS directorship — the same role he had publicly highlighted during that year’s election campaign. He did not.

This makes his declaration materially false, in direct violation of Section 27(2)(g) of the Act. That provision makes it a criminal offence to:

“make a false declaration or provide false information in any statement or document required under this Act.”

The penalty? A fine of up to $50,000, five years’ imprisonment, or both — and in the case of conviction, automatic disqualification from public office for five years.

Two Faces of Public Life

The deeper problem is not merely legal — it’s moral. Biman Prasad presented one face to the public, and another to the law. To the voters, he was Director of FIAS — an intellectual heavyweight. To the Supervisor of Elections and the Registrar of Political Parties, he was — apparently — nothing of the sort.

That is not a minor oversight. It is a calculated act of omission. He used the FIAS title to enhance his credibility when it served his ambition — and then deliberately withheld it from the legal disclosure process once in power.

This is not just about paper trails. It’s about trust.

Why It Matters

Declarations exist for a reason: to give voters and regulators a full picture of any positions, affiliations, or potential conflicts of interest that public office holders may have.
When a senior minister withholds relevant roles, it undermines the system’s integrity — and sets a dangerous precedent for concealment and evasion.
Prasad’s directorship may have had policy relevance, influence, or funding implications — and the public had a right to know if he held that role during the election year.

Instead, they were sold a curated image — while the legally required facts were kept in the dark.

What Now?

This is not just a matter for public discussion — it is a matter for investigation.

The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) must launch a formal inquiry into this false declaration under Section 27.
The Supervisor of Elections and Registrar of Political Parties must also examine whether Prasad’s non-disclosure affects his standing as a validly declared official.
And if found guilty, the consequences must follow the law — including disqualification.

The law is not a tool for ordinary citizens and a shield for politicians. It must apply to all — especially those who write it.

From Boast to Breach

The man who boasted of FIAS when it suited him, now stands accused of hiding it when it mattered most.

That is not merely ironic — it is emblematic of the deeper rot in political accountability.
Biman Prasad should be held to account — not just for what he told the voters, but for what he failed to tell the law.

This is not a technical oversight — it is a matter of public integrity. A Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister who publicly promoted his directorship to voters, but failed to disclose it in a legally required statutory declaration, has breached the Political Parties Act and may have committed a criminal offence.

Prasad’s 2023 statutory declaration, filed pursuant to Section 24 of the Political Parties Act, makes no reference whatsoever to his directorship or involvement with FIAS.

This is a serious omission. Section 24(1)(f) of the Act requires party officials to declare:

“Any directorships or other positions held in any company or organization, whether or not remunerated.”

False Declaration – Section 27(2)(g)

The failure to disclose a known, public, and self-declared leadership role constitutes a false declaration under Section 27(2)(g) of the Act, which states:

“A person must not make a false declaration or provide false information in any statement or document required under this Act.”

Statutory Offence and Penalties

A breach of Section 27 constitutes an offence under Section 27(5), punishable upon conviction by:

*A fine not exceeding $50,000,
* for up to 5 years, or
*Both.

Furthermore, under Section 27(6):

“A person convicted of an offence under this Act shall not be eligible to hold public office for a period of five years.”

From Fijileaks Archive, 10 August 2024

From: Ganesh Chand
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022, 11:37 am
Subject: FIAS
To: Nadesa Goundar , Biman Prasad, Ravindra Pillay, Rajni Chand Kaushal, Sunil Kumar, Chandra Dulare, sk.clabss

While CP is getting FIAS registered in Aus[tralia], for Fiji can you think on how we can get it legal again?
Options:
1. re-register as trust
2. register as non-profit entity
3. create an institute within P[acific] P[olytech] (like you have centres etc at USP)
4. create new entity - a new think tank (for which CP is writing the proposal for funding)
G [Ganesh]

Viti Pulse News Analysis

Controversial Rise of Pacific Polytech: Millions in Public Funds, Political Favouritism, and a Shadow of Conflict.

In just under two years, Pacific Polytech Institute has gone from a little-known private training provider to one of the most heavily funded tertiary institutions in Fiji, Drawing FJD 7 million in the 2025–2026 national budget, up from $5 million last year. The meteoric rise of this newly formed institution has ignited widespread public backlash, raising serious concerns about political favoritism, governance ethics, and the misdirection of taxpayer resources.

At the center of the controversy is Vice-Chancellor Ganesh Chand, a familiar and divisive figure in Fiji’s education landscape, and Finance Minister Biman Prasad, whose personal and familial ties to Pacific Polytech are under increasing scrutiny.

Fiscal Year Allocation (FJD) Notes
2022–2023 $0 No allocation; institute not yet listed
2023–2024 $1 million First direct grant via Higher Education Commission
2024–2025 $5 million Sharp increase, no public tender process
2025–2026 $7 million Current budget allocation

In contrast, institutions such as the University of Fiji and Sangam Institute of Technology, both with decades of service and thousands of students, received only $5 million and $546,000 respectively in the same budget cycle.

The controversy deepened following revelations that Minister Biman Prasad’s wife, Rajni Chand, was formerly a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute (GGI) — the very organization that seeded Pacific Polytech in 2021 with support from Ganesh Chand and international partners.

In 2023, the GGI received between FJD 200,000–500,000 in Girmit celebration funds, despite previously being deregistered by the Registrar of Companies for failing to submit audited financial reports. The organization was re-registered in under 24 hours, just days before receiving its government grant.

Public calls for transparency grew louder after the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) reportedly raided Pacific Polytech and related entities in 2024, searching for documentation on Girmit funding, budget allocations, and internal transfers.

Ganesh Chand’s tenure as founding Vice-Chancellor of the Fiji National University ended in scandal. In 2014, he was charged by FICAC for alleged abuse of office — charges later withdrawn — yet public distrust lingered.

Critics argue his return at the helm of a newly government-funded institution reflects a failure of vetting and a growing culture of political shielding. Internal whistleblowers also allege that resources were transferred from Chand’s other academic ventures, such as the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS), to support the launch of Pacific Polytech — a claim yet to be formally investigated.

Minister Biman Prasad has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Yet the proximity of his wife to the founding trust, his oversight of the national budget, and the extraordinary funding granted to a private institute have led to accusations of conflict of interest and political favouritism.

Former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and other political leaders have called for a full-scale audit and independent inquiry into all public monies disbursed to Pacific Polytech, GGI, and associated bodies.

“This is not just a case of misallocation — it’s the politicisation of public education funding at the expense of national integrity,” Chaudhry said in an earlier statement.

While Pacific Polytech received an additional $2 million boost this year, others continue to struggle:
• University of Fiji: $5 million
• Sangam Institute of Technology: $546,000
• Fiji National University: $36.5 million
• USP: $38.5 million, including repayments of arrears

With enrolment figures at Pacific Polytech reportedly under 2,000 students, critics argue it is unjustified to prioritize it over larger institutions serving broader academic and regional needs.

As investigations continue behind closed doors, questions remain unanswered:
• Was there a formal and competitive process for funding allocation?
• Why were conflict-of-interest protocols not triggered within the Ministry of Finance?
• Have any of the entities involved — including Pacific Polytech and GGI — submitted publicly accessible audited accounts?

The funding of Pacific Polytech Institute is quickly becoming a symbol of what many see as increasing political capture of public institutions. Until independent audits are published and legal reviews conducted, the public trust remains compromised.

With the 2025–2026 budget now enacted and Pacific Polytech again among the top tertiary recipients, the question must be asked:

Is this truly about strengthening education — or rewarding loyalty?

Electing to Approve Travel Funds Without Authority. Election Supervisor Mataiciwa to Rabuka: 'Biman Prasad approved travel funds for Malimali, Atu Bain to observe India elections. He didn't have the authority to do so'

5/7/2025

If Fiji's Finance Minister Prasad allegedly approved travel funds for Barbara Malimali and Dr Atu Bain without having legal or delegated authority to do so, this could potentially amount to misconduct in public office, or breach of financial regulations. Fiji's Financial Management Act 2004, associated Financial Instructions, and the Constitution impose strict rules about how public funds are to be approved and disbursed.
If Malimali or Atu Bain knew the funding was improperly approved, they might also be exposed to:
Knowingly receiving unlawful benefits;
Participating in an abuse of office;
*Breach of public trust because they held public roles.

Outgoing Chair of ECF Barbara Malimali did not legally have the right to recommend individuals such as Daniel Fatiaki, Sevuloni Valenitabua or Walter Rigamoto as her permanent replacements.
All appointments require processing through the Constitutional Offices Commission and formal declaration by the President, per constitutional and electoral law.
*Basically, she had no constitutional or statutory power to attempt to steer appointments by naming individuals as her possible successors.

Malimali to COC: 'In the meantime, I recommend Dr Atu-Emberson-Bain for the position of Acting Chair of the Commission.'
*NO MANDATE, NO NEUTRALITY: Why Barbara Malimali's Succession Move Threatened Public Trust

Dr Atu Emberson Bain

Barbara Malimali had no legal authority to recommend Atu Bain or anyone else as the Acting Chair of the Electoral Commission, either formally or informally. Here’s why:

Legal Framework: Appointment of Electoral Commission Members and Chair

Under the Fiji Constitution (2013):

The Chair and members of the Electoral Commission are appointed by the President, on the advice of the Constitutional Offices Commission (CoC) — [s. 75(2)].
The Chair must be a legal practitioner with at least 15 years’ post-admission experience — [s. 75(4)].
There is no provision in law that empowers the outgoing Chair to:
- Nominate an Acting Chair, or
- Recommend appointments to the CoC.

What About Interim Leadership?

The Constitution and Electoral Act do not provide for an acting appointment process initiated by a sitting or outgoing member. Only the CoC can advise the President on such appointments.

If there’s a vacancy in the Chair, the CoC may meet to advise on a temporary or full replacement, but:

It is not triggered by recommendations from Commission members;
Any attempt by Malimali to recommend Bain was overreach or improper influence.

Why This Is Problematic?

Undermines Institutional Independence

Even an informal recommendation could:

Suggest preferential treatment or partisan intent;
Undermine public trust in a neutral appointment process
Improper political influence over the Electoral Commission;
Bias in succession planning — especially dangerous in an electoral body.

Violation of Good Governance Standards

This kind of informal recommendation violates:

Public service ethics;
Good governance principles expected of constitutional officeholders.

5 September 2024 and COI Report on Barbara Malimali. Former Deputy Acting Ficac Commissioner Francis Puleiwai wants Chief Justice Salesi Temo suspended before establishment of Tribunal for 'MISBEHAVIOUR'

4/7/2025

Can Chief Justice Salesi Temo Be Suspended for Misbehaviour for Allegedly Interfering With FICAC’s Prosecution of Barbara Malimali?

Yes. If the allegation is proven — that the Chief Justice interfered with a pending or intended prosecution by directing the Chief Registrar to prevent the laying of charges against Barbara Malimali — that would amount to serious judicial misbehaviour, justifying suspension and investigation under the Constitution of Fiji.

Legal Threshold for Suspension – Section 112 of the Constitution

Under the 2013 Constitution:

A Judge may be removed from office only for inability to perform the functions of office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause), misbehaviour or serious breach of a code of conduct.

If the Judicial Services Commission is satisfied that the matter should be investigated, the President must suspend the Judge while a tribunal conducts an inquiry.

Therefore, suspension is justified if there is credible evidence of misbehaviour, pending a full tribunal inquiry.

Why the Alleged Interference Is Misbehaviour

If the Chief Justice:

Used his judicial or administrative position to pressure or direct the Chief Registrar to interfere with prosecutorial decisions concerning FICAC, and
Caused the blocking of charges against FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, despite clear prosecutorial intent to proceed, this would constitute:

a.
Abuse of Judicial Power

The judiciary has no legal authority to direct or restrain FICAC or any delegated prosecutors in individual prosecutorial decisions. That is strictly prohibited under Section 117(3) of the Constitution.

b.
Obstruction of Justice

Stopping a lawfully contemplated prosecution, especially of a senior official under a corruption watchdog, is obstruction of justice, plain and simple. This is more serious because it concerns internal anti-corruption accountability.

c.
Undermining the Rule of Law

It violates the most basic principle of the rule of law — that no one is above prosecution, and that the judiciary must not shield any person, particularly a public officer, from due legal process.

3. Role of the Chief Registrar and Prosecutorial Interference

The Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu is not part of FICAC or the DPP’s Office, and has no prosecutorial authority. If the Chief Justice used the Chief Registrar to relay instructions to Ms. Puleiwai (a delegated prosecutor or legal officer handling the matter), this would amount to indirect interference with the FICAC's prosecutorial independence, which is constitutionally protected.

4. Why This Is Worse Than Interference With a Politician’s Case

This case concerned alleged corruption or misconduct by Malimali, Commissioner of FICAC, the very institution tasked with prosecuting corruption. If Salesi Temo was blocking internal accountability, it created a situation where there was no check on corruption at the top of FICAC.

The Chief Justice Salesi Temo's directive to Bainivalu was a systemic threat to:

Institutional credibility;
Public confidence in FICAC and the judiciary;
Constitutional independence of prosecutorial and oversight bodies.

Moreover, it was not correct for Temo to appoint Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner without requiring two written references, if that is a requirement under either the FICAC Act, relevant regulations, or judicial appointment protocols that guide such appointments.

His claim — that he appointed her based on observing her “capabilities” as a defence lawyer — does not satisfy objective appointment standards designed to ensure transparency, merit, and impartiality in public office appointments.

Key concerns:

Departure from procedure:
If the appointment process formally requires two referees or references, then skipping that requirement is a procedural irregularity. The Chief Justice does not have discretion to override formal legal criteria unless explicitly permitted.
Conflict of interest risk:
Appointing someone based on personal familiarity or subjective observation in court raises perception of bias or favouritism, especially in an anti-corruption role where independence and integrity are paramount.
Lack of vetting:
Objective references serve as checks against misconduct, fitness, and integrity. In Malimali’s case, there were known controversies (e.g., her drunken episode with a sitting Judge who was hearing her client's case in Tuvalu). Proper referee vetting might have flagged those issues.
Erosion of public confidence:
FICAC must be seen as politically neutral and professionally rigorous. Skipping formalities can undermine public trust, especially given widespread concern about politicisation and selective prosecution.

Conclusion:

If the two-referee requirement was mandatory, then Chief Justice Temo’s appointment was procedurally improper. Even if it was only a best practice or standard guideline, ignoring it for personal judgment undermines the credibility and neutrality of both the judiciary and FICAC.

*Barbara Malimali had listed two lawyers, Filimoni Vosarogo and Tanya Waqanika as her potential referees for the Ficac Commissioner's job.

Rabuka’s So-Called ‘Pre-Emptive Strike’ was National Betrayal. Rabuka’s justification is both dishonest and cowardly. He did not act to defend the nation; he acted to prevent power from shifting to multi-ethnic Coalition

3/7/2025

Deposed PM Bavadra

In recent years, Sitiveni Rabuka has attempted to rewrite history — portraying his 1987 military coup as a “pre-emptive strike” intended to protect iTaukei Fijian interests. But the truth is much darker: the 1987 coup was not a defensive act, it was a naked power grab that shattered Fiji’s fragile democracy, institutionalized racial supremacy, and forced tens of thousands of citizens into exile. The cost was generational. The wounds are still open.

A Coup Against Democracy, Not a Threat

Let us be clear: the Labour-NFP coalition government overthrown in May 1987 was democratically elected, led by an iTaukei Fijian, Dr Timoci Bavadra. Its cabinet may have had significant Indo-Fijian representation, but it reflected the will of the people — not a threat to national security. Rabuka’s justification that his actions were a “pre-emptive strike” is both dishonest and cowardly. He did not act to defend the nation; he acted to prevent power from shifting to a multi-ethnic coalition that threatened elite, ethno-nationalist dominance.

What Rabuka pre-empted was not a coup — but equality.

The 1990 Constitution: A Blueprint for Apartheid

Rabuka’s betrayal deepened with the imposition of the 1990 Constitution — a document that enshrined racial supremacy into the heart of Fiji’s legal system. Under this racist regime:

Only iTaukei Fijians could become Prime Minister or President.
Electoral boundaries and parliamentary quotas were rigged to ensure Indo-Fijians — then nearly half the population — could never lead or govern.
Ethnic exclusion was baked into national identity, hollowing out the promise of constitutional democracy.

This was not governance — it was apartheid, island-style. And Rabuka was its chief architect.

SITIVENI RABUKA had appointed the late Professor Asesela Ravuvu to chair the Committee which came up with the racist 1990 Constitution that disenfranchised Indo-Fijians, Others, and i-Taukei Fijians from urban areas throughout Fiji

REMORSELESS RABUKA ON BAVADRA'S DEATH:
'On 3 November [1989] Dr Bavadra died after a long battle with cancer. Rabuka's reaction, he recalls, was to FEEL GOOD that his enemy was gone, for a major obstacle had been removed by his death. Bavadra's death confirmed for Rabuka the rightness of his action in May 1987' -
John Sharpham, Rabuka of Fiji, The authorised biography of
Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka

Collaborators by Omission: Fiji Media’s Complicity in Illegal Appointment of Malimali as FICAC Commissioner. When future generations ask HOW this was allowed to fester in plain sight - the watchdogs chose to SLEEP

2/7/2025

An Unforgivable Abdication
Now, in the wake of the Commission of Inquiry's revelations, the same media houses that refused to investigate are enthusiastically publishing cherry-picked extracts from a redacted version of the report, released by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka himself. What they will not tell their readers is this: they had the chance to break [or atleast follow up] this story — and they didn’t. They buried it. The media is not merely a bystander in Fiji’s democracy. It is a co-equal pillar, with a legal and civic duty to expose wrongdoing, not enable it. When that duty is cast aside, public institutions become playgrounds for impunity.
The real scandal isn’t just what politicians and officials did behind closed doors. It’s that they were allowed to do it without fear of exposure, because Fiji’s press corps — by and large — fetishizes proximity to power. Investigative reporting has been replaced by access journalism.

When future generations ask how a scandal of this scale was allowed to fester in plain sight, we must answer honestly: because the watchdogs chose to sleep. The Commission of Inquiry Report has peeled back the facade of respectability that surrounded Fiji’s governing institutions. It has exposed deceit, concealment, and a systematic abuse of power. Yet the most glaring institutional failure not directly named in the report is one that enabled this all along: the collapse of independent journalism in Fiji.

Let us be specific.

Not a single mainstream media outlet investigated the highly questionable appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of FICAC. None asked what qualified her. None reported that she had been barred from practising in Tuvalu, a disqualifying fact in any credible jurisdiction. Instead, when FICAC officer Francis Puleiwai did what the law required and arrested Malimali on 5 September 2024, the Fiji media shamefully ran Graham Leung’s public attack on Puleiwai with top billing — without fact-checking, without balance, and without scrutiny of Leung’s own conflicts of interest.

This was not journalism. It was public relations — for power.

Now, in the wake of the Commission’s revelations, the same media houses that refused to investigate are enthusiastically publishing cherry-picked extracts from a redacted version of the report, released by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka himself. What they will not tell their readers is this: they had the chance to break this story — and they didn’t. They buried it.

An Unforgivable Abdication

What happened here was not a passive failure of judgment. It was an active choice to look away, to avoid controversy, to shield the politically connected. The appointment of a disqualified individual to the country’s top anti-corruption body should have triggered national outrage and front-page headlines. Instead, it received silence — because the truth was inconvenient, and those in charge were untouchable.

This is a constitutional matter. The media is not merely a bystander in Fiji’s democracy. It is a co-equal pillar, with a legal and civic duty to expose wrongdoing, not enable it. When that duty is cast aside, public institutions become playgrounds for impunity.

The Fiji media’s role in this saga is not peripheral. It is central.

The Cult of Power and Proximity

The real scandal isn’t just what politicians and officials did behind closed doors. It’s that they were allowed to do it without fear of exposure, because Fiji’s press corps — by and large — fetishizes proximity to power. Investigative reporting has been replaced by access journalism. Public accountability has been drowned out by “he said, she said” stenography. Worse still, some editors have become outright gatekeepers of what the public is allowed to know — filtering the news through layers of political caution and advertiser influence.

And when someone dares speak up — like the FICAC officer who arrested Malimali — they are vilified, not vindicated.

The Dangerous Illusion of “Neutrality”

Too many in the press have fallen back on the illusion of “neutrality.” But neutrality in the face of corruption is not objectivity. It is complicity. The media is not neutral between truth and falsehood, between legality and abuse, between impunity and accountability.

To print unverified attacks on a law enforcement officer doing their duty — and to never follow up with an investigation into the credibility of the person protected — is not journalism. It is a betrayal of the public trust.

A Call to Reckon — and Reform

Fiji needs a media reckoning. A review of editorial failures. A public apology to the people of Fiji. A renewed commitment to fearless, evidence-based reporting that serves the public interest — not political patrons.

Newsrooms must retool. Journalists must be trained in public law, ethics, and investigative technique. Editorial independence must be rebuilt from the rubble. And civil society must demand it.

This isn’t just about one scandal. It’s about whether Fiji still has a functioning democracy. Because a press that is silent when power breaks the law is not a press at all — it is camouflage for corruption.

The people were misled. The media knew — or should have known. Their silence helped protect a lie. Now, as the truth unfolds, Fiji must remember who told it — and who didn’t.

2008: Fiji Sun columnist Victor Lal and the paper's late Publisher Russell Hunter win the prestigious Robert Keith-Reid Award for Outstanding Journalism:
The former Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry's $2m tax scam

2025: The current Fiji Sun publisher is yet to publish an Opinion Piece by our Editor-in-Chief and the paper's former Opinion Columnist on Biman Prasad's threat to bring back media control. According to highly placed sources in the media industry, Prasad has allegedly threatened the Fiji Sun that any adverse commentary against him will result in him reviving the $1million defamation suit he had filed against the old guard.

Biman Prasad’s Media Threats Cloaked as Concern? Journalists Must Stand Firm

From VICTOR LAL at Oxford

When Finance Minister Biman Prasad appeared to caution the media about what he termed “misinformation” and suggested consequences for irresponsible reporting, the alarm bells rang across Fiji’s press corps. He may argue—perhaps sincerely—that his concern lies with the spread of fake news, particularly on social media. But that concern, however valid, cannot justify rhetoric that chills press freedom or threatens professional journalists.

We must make an important distinction here. Social media disinformation is a global challenge. It can mislead, distort, and provoke. Governments are right to be concerned about its impact. But conflating that problem with independent journalism is dangerous—and deliberate or not, it risks undermining the public’s trust in both the media and in democratic institutions.

If Minister Prasad is troubled by fake news, he should support media literacy, invest in fact-checking bodies, and engage constructively with the press.

What he must not do is issue statements that blur the line between criticism and intimidation. Language matters—especially when spoken by a senior member of the Cabinet. Warnings to the media, couched as concern, still carry the weight of threat. Journalists, for their part, should not overreact—but neither should they downplay the implications. The best defence against claims of misinformation is rigorous, ethical reporting. Let the facts speak. But when those in power appear to equate journalism with propaganda or misinformation, the response must be swift, united, and unapologetically clear: we will not be silenced.

There is room for dialogue. There is space for accountability on all sides. But there is no room for threats—no matter how politely phrased. The moment a government official hints at “consequences” for the media, a red line is crossed.

The minister’s concern about disinformation may be genuine. His choice of words, however, was reckless. The press in Fiji has fought hard for its voice. It must not be bullied into submission—by fear, by inference, or by the selective misuse of the term “fake news.”

This is a moment for the media to reaffirm its role. Not to provoke, but to persist. Not to retreat, but to report—with courage, and without compromise. In a chilling turn for Fijian democracy, Biman Prasad — once a vocal champion of media freedom — is now moving to silence the very institutions that helped restore it.

Recent signals from him indicate a push for tighter control over Fiji’s media, including the possible return of licensing regimes, restrictions on investigative reporting, and harsher penalties for what the government brands as “misinformation.”

Let’s call this what it is: a betrayal of principle and a dangerous slide into authoritarianism, dressed up in the language of national interest.

From Reformer to Enforcer

For years, Prasad positioned himself as a liberal reformer — a voice against the censorship and media intimidation of the Bainimarama era. He denounced the draconian Media Industry Development Decree, praised journalists as guardians of truth, and demanded space for dissent and critique.

But now that the media’s spotlight has turned to him — questioning his conflicts of interest, financial disclosures, and alleged interference in independent bodies — Prasad appears to be abandoning that high ground. The same free press he once defended is now, in his words, “divisive,” “irresponsible,” and “a threat to stability.”

It is not lost on the public that those now calling for tighter media control are the very ones facing hard questions.

The Dangers of Muzzling the Press

History — both in Fiji and abroad — teaches us that when governments move to control journalism, corruption flourishes, public trust collapses, and democracy becomes an illusion.

The media’s job is not to flatter those in power, but to challenge them. To investigate, expose, and inform. When journalists uncover mismanagement, abuse of power, or hidden financial entanglements, they are doing their duty — not committing a crime.

To suppress the press is to suppress accountability, and to turn politics into a closed shop for the powerful.

Not in the People’s Name

Let us be clear: there is no public mandate for media repression. Fijians have lived through years of gag orders, press intimidation, and newsroom raids. We know what it feels like to have our information filtered, our voices silenced, and our truths buried. We also know that the restoration of media freedom after the 2022 elections was one of the few bright lights in our democratic journey.

If Biman Prasad believes he can use his platform to bully editors, threaten journalists, or push for laws that stifle scrutiny, he is not acting in the public interest — he is acting in self-protection.

And the people will not forget.

The Media Must Not Back Down

This is a time for courage.

Fiji’s independent media must hold the line — not with partisanship or sensationalism, but with relentless integrity. The job of journalists is not to be liked, but to be feared by those who abuse power.

Civil society, legal advocates, academics, and ordinary citizens must speak out now — before the space for criticism disappears again.

A Warning, Not a Whisper

To Biman Prasad and those in government flirting with censorship: this is your warning. The Fijian people did not vote for silence. They voted for transparency, accountability, and reform.

Clamp down on the press, and you will not be remembered as a protector of the people. You will be remembered as just another politician who feared the truth.

And the truth — however inconvenient — will outlive you.

Graham Leung’s Outburst Against the COI Report Is a Legal and Ethical Travesty. The nation should not be cowed by the bravado. What he has offered is a political tantrum wrapped in a Lawyer’s ROBE against COI

1/7/2025

Fijileaks: Every document cited by us contains Leung's fingerprints.
According to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka's affidavit to the COI, he had instructed Leung NOT to approve Malimali's appointment

When a former Attorney-General labels a legally constituted Commission of Inquiry (COI) Report as “absurd,” the nation should not be cowed by the bravado — it should ask: What is he trying to hide?

Graham Leung’s public denunciation of the COI Report is not just disrespectful — it is dangerous, dishonest, and self-interested. This was not merely a difference of opinion or spirited legal debate. It was an outright dismissal of a constitutional process, laced with contempt and timed suspiciously as the Commission’s findings cast serious allegations his way.

Let us not mince words: the COI findings reportedly implicate Leung in alleged abuse of office, perjury, and obstruction and perversion of the course of justice — specifically relating to the appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). This is not a minor administrative footnote; it strikes at the heart of public sector integrity and the rule of law.

Rather than respond to these grave accusations with clarity, evidence, or legal rebuttal, Leung chose to impugn the entire process — branding it “rubbish” with the flippancy of someone used to immunity from accountability. But unlike the courtroom, where evidence is tested and arguments are grounded in law, Leung offered nothing more than political theatre. No rebuttal of findings. No engagement with facts. Just bluster.

This is particularly egregious given Leung’s past posturing as a reformer and champion of judicial independence. When faced with allegations of dishonesty and abuse of legal process himself, the mask drops — revealing someone who will trash a constitutional body rather than face scrutiny.

The public must be clear-eyed: this is not about freedom of speech or a principled critique of institutional findings. This is an attempt by a politically connected figure to delegitimise a lawful inquiry that has dared to examine the conduct of the powerful. It is obstruction by narrative — a smear campaign against the very concept of public accountability.

Worse, Leung’s comments have a chilling effect on public confidence. If a former A-G can so casually denounce a Commission chaired by a senior jurist, with witnesses testifying under oath, then what is left of lawful oversight? It sends the message that in Fiji, if you’re elite enough, you can mock the system and intimidate it into silence.

It is worth remembering that Barbara Malimali’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner was deeply controversial from the outset, marred by concerns over political interference and questionable vetting. The COI was tasked with investigating precisely these kinds of potential abuses. If the findings now show that Leung played a central role in manipulating or deceiving that process — through dishonesty or obstruction — then he should face the consequences in law, not hide behind insults.

No one is above the law — and certainly not those who once held the office of Attorney-General. If Leung believes the COI has erred, he knows the proper legal avenues: judicial review, formal legal response, or factual rebuttal. What he has offered instead is a political tantrum wrapped in a lawyer’s robe — unworthy of the profession and deeply corrosive to public trust.

In Fiji’s long journey to institutional integrity, this COI may yet mark a turning point. But only if the public rejects attempts to bully or shame it into irrelevance. Graham Leung’s performance is not just a disgrace to his office — it is an insult to the Fijian people’s right to the truth.

If there is evidence to be tested, let it be tested in a court of law. Until then, the Commission of Inquiry Report stands. And those named in it — including Leung — must answer, not attack.

Forward>>