Blog Archives

RABUKA'S Proposed PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE: "All Chiefs and No Indians". His proposed party treasurer JOSEVA LEANO was dismissed by FIRCA in 2007 after very serious allegations of Misconduct and ABUSE of OFFICE

24/8/2021

The proposed People's Alliance party symbol depicts a white dove on a maroon and dark blue background. The following office holders were listed by the proposed The People’s Alliance:
Party Leader – Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka
President – Ratu Vuniyani Navuniuci
Vice President – Nauludole Mataitini
General Secretary – Sakiasi Raisevu Ditoka
Treasurer – Joseva Namisi Leano

TAXGATE: JOSEVA LEANO had hit the national headlines in 2008 when the Fiji media zeroed in on Bainimarama's former Interim Finance Minister and FIRCA line-manager MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY's tax affairs. He met Bainimarama with a few scraps of Chaudhry's tax records and reported Chaudhry to the then Police Commissioner Esala Teleni. On 8 February 2008, the late and former Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter had written to our Founding Editor-in-Chief:

"Now I find more. There's a copy of a complaint to the police dated August 16, 2007 (a day after your original story, I think) that the daaku [Mahendra Chaudhry] should be investigated for tax evasion. This came from one Lepani Rabo, chief auditor, Risk and Compliance Division in FIRCA. No action was taken by the police on that complaint. Also there's a personal statement from Joseva Leano detailing his dismissal. Serious stuff. I'd better get this [Chaudhry's tax] file on the way to you as I've just been told FIRCA and daaku are fuming."

The same day, our Founding Editor-in-Chief contacted one of many DEEP THROATS inside FIRCA, and the person updated us on Leano and Rabo on 9 February 2008:

"Attached is soft copy of Leano investigation report (52 pages long)- hard copy was in a packet of docs I mailed to you yesterday. Leano and Rabo were two of the most corrupt managers in FIRCA that Parmod Archary and I mananged to get rid of. Leano had for many years been an enemy of Arvin Datt. When Arvin was appointed to the Board Leano knew he was in trouble and tried every trick to get Arvin and Daaku. He did not have an agenda against Daaku before this but Arvin's connection with Daaku prompted Leano to start stirring up the Daaku tax investigation angle. Rabo was Leano's sidekick and partner in crime. Arvin suspended Leano on 8 August 2007 and Rabo a few weeks later. In their last days when they knew the writing was on the wall Leano wrote to the Australia Tax Office requesting further information about Daaku's bank accounts and assets. Only Leano and Rabo knew about the letter. In early December 2007 the ATO [Australian Tax Office] replied directly to CEO Jitoko Tikolevu ( a 4 month lag in reply is not unusual). That was the first I came to know about the letter. Jitoko told Arvin about it who blew his top and wanted to know who in FIRCA had written to the ATO. Madhu [Sudhan] and I checked into it and found that no one then working in FIRCA had written the letter. When we were able to trace it back to Leano and Rabo which calmed Arvin down. The ATO response of course was not seen by myself or Madhu. I guess it has joined the original Daaku tax avoidance file in whatever bottomless pit it now resides in.
Rabo's complaint to the police must have been, I guess, part of the Leano-Rabo anti-Daaku campaign, which was not really concerned about Daaku being a tax avoider but another way to attack Arvin."

HANDS UP: Let us see if Mahendra Chaudhry will object to Joseva Leano

Fijileaks: We will publish in FULL the LEANO REPORT

RUSIATE TUDRAVU RESIGNATION REVEALED: He had refused to close drug case against Frank Bainimarama's son MELI after two Fiji POLICE Officers had found drugs following break-in at PM's Kiuva RESIDENCE

23/8/2021

On 9 August, Police reported that there was a break-in at Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama's Kiuva residence. Police spokeswoman Ana Naisoro said nothing was stolen as the intruder was disturbed by a caretaker who was inside the house
We have been informed by our reliable police sources that the INTRUDER was allegedly MELI BAINIMARAMA who was staying at the house, and Police allegedly found DRUGS
Apparently, Police were investigating Meli Bainimarama's alleged involvement in drugs
They had two Policemen assigned to the case when Frank Bainimarama directly intervened and instructed the then acting Police Commissioner to drop the case and dismiss the two police officers
Tudravu refused to dismiss his two officers as the drug case was already under investigation.
On 11 August Tudravu was forced to tender his resignation, ending 39 years of his illustrious police career, and his application for the Police Commissioner's job was consigned to the dustbin.
*We believe Meli Bainimarama, on the orders of his father, has been forced to remain at the house, guarded by soldiers in plain clothes

POLICE & MILITARY BEAT UP ORDINARY DRUG SUSPECTS BLUE

ARREST PLOT THICKENS. GRAHAM DAVIS: 'Prime Minister allegedly ordered Pramesh Sharma's detention by contacting Sitiveni Qiliho in Britain and Qiliho then instituted the arrest over head of Rusiate Tudravu'

23/8/2021

Fijileaks Rejoinder: According to reliable "Coconut Wireless" stringers, PRAMESH SHARMA fell foul of Aunty Nur Bano Ali when, in his capacity as BSP Chief Investment Officer, he had instructed that a notice be issued to her company to pay up allegedly outstanding rent to BSP

By GRAHAM DAVIS on Sharma arrest

"The fact that there was no evidence against him also hasn't prevented the mendacious Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum from smearing Pramesh Sharma in the parliament, knowing full well there were no grounds to charge him and knowing full well that there is no comeback because anything he says in parliament is protected by privilege...Did this episode contribute in any way to Rusiate Tudravu's decision to resign altogether from the police force as soon as Sitiveni Qiliho returned from the UK?"

An important sidebar to the Attorney General's statement to the parliament last week in which he peddled the blatant falsehood that he doesn't direct the Fiji's Sun's coverage. Under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum also made the following false statement about the Oceania Hospitals Executive Director, Pramesh Sharma. Quote: “Recently, an executive of a company was charged by Police. Unfortunately he got off on a technicality. The lady had also gone to the Women’s Crisis Centre, We understand nothing happened. No-one came to the defence of that lady, no one commented that this person who has gone to New Zealand, now making comments from there. Why? Was it because he is anti-Government or made anti-Government comments that is why they are not saying anything about him?" Unquote.

FACT:
Pramesh Sharma did not "get off on a technicality". He was arrested but no charges proceeded to court in the normal manner because the evidence against him relating to alleged text messages between him and an unnamed woman did not warrant any charges being laid.

In fact, Sharma's arrest by the police as he was boarding a flight to New Zealand for medical treatment was illegal and Grubsheet understands that he is contemplating suing the authorities for wrongful arrest.

* Incredibly, we understand that the Prime Minister allegedly ordered Sharma's detention by contacting Sitiveni Qiliho in Britain before he returned to Fiji to resume his job as Police Commissioner and Qiliho then instituted the arrest over the head of the then Acting Police Commissioner, Rusiate Tudravu.

Those who have seen the texts say they are completely unexceptional and demonstrate no evidence that Sharma had been sexually harassing the woman in question. So why was Sharma arrested and publicly humiliated if there was no evidence against him?

Why was the case never formally dealt with by the Office of the DPP in the normal manner?
Why were normal police procedures breached on the alleged directive of the Prime Minister?

Well, it appears from reliable sources that Sharma's sole crime was to be regarded by the FijiFirst leadership as anti-government - something the AG confirmed in his statement to parliament.

Pramesh Sharma is innocent but that did not prevent the authorities from arresting him even though they evidently knew they had nothing on him. And the proof of that is that they did not refer the case to the DPP and were eventually obliged to allow Sharma to leave Fiji anyway for the medical treatment scheduled for him in New Zealand.

The fact that there was no evidence against him also hasn't prevented the mendacious Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum from smearing Pramesh Sharma in the parliament, knowing full well there were no grounds to charge him and knowing full well that there is no comeback because anything he says in parliament is protected by privilege.

A sordid and disgraceful case of which we have not heard the last. And then there are the supplementary questions.

What hold would any person with a grievance have over the Prime Minister that he would allegedly bypass normal legal procedures and order someone detained?

Did this episode contribute in any way to Rusiate Tudravu's decision to resign altogether from the police force as soon as Sitiveni Qiliho returned from the UK?

Do the Prime Minister and his sidekick realise that targeting one person they regard as being anti-government is absurdly pointless when there is an army of anti-government people in the country waiting to take to them with figurative baseball bats at the next election?

* And what kind of democracy is Fiji when individuals who disagree with government policy are hounded by the disciplined forces without any legal justification on the orders of politicians who may be here today but will be almost certainly gone tomorrow?

*Only the last question can be answered with any certainty. Fiji is a democracy only in name.
The Dictator still calls the shots.

ROSY Akbar now Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation while Premila Kumar is Education Minister. GRAHAM Davis: "Reshuffling the deck chairs on Titanic...Business as usual on leaking ship of state.."

22/8/2021

Fijileaks: The reshuffle is a shrewd election move, for with the entry of Sitiveni Rabuka and his People's Alliance Party, for FFP the winning over of INDO-FIJIAN votes will be the key to holding onto power.
The i-Taukei votes will splinter and terrified Indo-Fijian voters will look up to someone who can STOP the fanatical and fake indigenous rights champion Niko Nawaikula. He should join Rabuka's party which, we have no doubt, will attract the most extreme i-Taukei voters.
Akbar and Kumar will be FijiFirst Party's Trojan Horse, for there is widespread belief that the affable Professor Biman Prasad, the NFP leader, is a cunning and slithering POLITICAL SNAKE who will sneak into Rabuka's political sulu just like the former NFP leader JAI RAM REDDY, to facilitate Rabuka recapturing political power in Fiji, and reducing Indo-Fijians once again to second-class citizens in the land of their birth.
Coalition politics is a recipe for instability and will sink any 'Titanic' coalition government. History will repeat itself.
What is the vote SPOILER JAGATH KARUNARATNE doing up there with party leaders? And, no doubt, FELIX ANTHONY, might crawl out of his cave with another new party, pitching at disgruntled workers and trade unionists?
Under Khaiyum's odious D'Hondt Voting System, parties need 5 per cent threshold to pass, to feast at the political table in Parliament.
There are rumours that Aiyaz Khaiyum might hold the election on 14 MAY or 17 SEPTEMBER, to remind the Indo-Fijians, of those two months in 1987 when SITIVENI RABUKA and his bogus nationalists introduced their TALIBANISTIC RULES AND RELIGION in Fiji, forcing thousands upon thousands of Indo-Fijians to flee the land of their birth.
Even the current "Bombmaker" allegations against Khaiyum might work in his political favour, for no doubt many in the Indo-Fijian community will be privately muttering, "He, atleast, tried his best to stop Fiji's Taliban Rabuka and the Rapes, Beatings and Lootings targetted against Indo-Fijians', unlike FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry who had been
hiding $2million from them in an Australian bank.
* We believe, if SODELPA kicks out Nawaikula, the party stands a better chance of attracting moderate i-Taukei voters under Viliame Gavoka. Also, Indo-Fijian voters will be reassured of their fate in Fiji, given his family connection with Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum. Votes are up for grabs!
Finally, with Rabuka having his own party, we must NOT rule out military intervention in Fiji politics - even though we deplore and discourage such a move. Rabuka's own party is a Godsend* GIFT to Khaiyum and Bainimarama and the 'Green Boot Boys' at the QEB.
COUPS have no place but Fiji is, after all, full of "SNAKES"
But just look at the political leaders below, all MALES, wanting power and control of Fiji, while keeping their women members, just like the Taliban, in the background.
Maybe, LENORA QEREQERETABUA replaced BIMAN PRASAD, who
will no doubt make a very good Minister of Finance?

KICK HIM OUT: FLP leader CHAUDHRY calls for REMOVAL of Elections Supervisor Mohammed Saneem following court ruling in Nawaikula case

21/8/2021

"The Speaker Epeli Nailatikau should have known better, and should at least have applied some common sense to have matters verified before moving to instantly remove Niko from Parliament. But he didn't. This makes Nailatikau incompetent and foolish, so he brought the embarrassment upon himself and his office. Remember, this is the same Nailatikau who ruled that the word IMBECILE was not an un-parliamentary word, because it was the AG Khaiyum who had said it! What an imbecile!" TRUTH FOR FIJI

"[Niko] Nawaikula took the matter to court when he lost his parliamentary seat as a result of the Supervisor’s actions. This is yet another Court decision, among several others, that has gone against the Supervisor of Elections. It brings disrepute to the high office of the Supervisor and shows that Mr Saneem is not competent enough to hold such an important constitutional office. As we move closer to the 2022 elections, it is crucial that a qualified, mature, competent and independent Supervisor of Elections be appointed." FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry

Fiji Labour Party official presss release: Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry has called for the removal of Mohammed Saneem as Supervisor of Elections following the ruling against him by the Court of Disputed Returns in the case of Sodelpa MP Niko Nawaikula.

In a landmark ruling on Tuesday, the Court of Disputed Returns presided over by Chief Justice Kamal Kumar and Justice Angela Wati, found that the Supervisor had acted “wrongfully and unlawfully” in removing Nawaikula’s name from the National Register of Voters because he had registered under his common name rather than that on his birth certificate.

Nawaikula took the matter to court when he lost his parliamentary seat as a result of the Supervisor’s actions.

"This is yet another Court decision, among several others, that has gone against the Supervisor of Elections.

"It brings disrepute to the high office of the Supervisor and shows that Mr Saneem is not competent enough to hold such an important constitutional office.

"As we move closer to the 2022 elections, it is crucial that a qualified, mature, competent and independent Supervisor of Elections be appointed," said Mr Chaudhry .

Mr Saneem’s appointment to the post in 2014 by the then President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau on the advise of the Attorney General and Minister for Elections Sayed-Khaiyum, without him meeting the minimum requirements of the office, was the subject of considerable controversy at the time.

Since then he has made a number of controversial decisions which call to question his maturity, independence and impartiality in dealings with opposition political parties and their members.

Opposition parties have repeatedly called for his removal but these have been ignored by the FF government.

Previous cases in recent years that have gone against Mr Saneem involve the former Fiji First Education Minister Mahendra Reddy, and former Sodelpa MPs Sitiveni Rabuka and Ratu Isoa Tikoca.

In November 2016, the Court of Appeal had ruled against the Supervisor in an action taken by the Electoral Commission regarding the eligibility of two elections candidates. He had disallowed the candidacy of Steven Singh of the Fiji Labour Party while allowing that of Praveen Kumar (Bala) of the Fiji First Party in 2014.

The Electoral Commission had ruled against his decision but Saneem refused to comply resulting in the Commission taking the matter to Court.

In its judgment, the Appeal’s Court strongly denounced Mr Saneem for ‘insubordination’ to the Electoral Commission and declared that he must comply with all decisions and directives given to him in the performance of his duties by the Electoral Commission.

Mr Saneem had said at the time that he would appeal the decision but an appeal was never filed.

It should also be noted that the Multinational Observer Group (MOG) in its 2018 Report had specifically noted that there is “lack of trust in some quarters” in the Fijian Elections Office.

Earlier that year the visiting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein had questioned whether Fiji’s constitutional offices including the Fijian Elections Office were “truly autonomous”.

FIJI'S DUMBEST MP: How could NIKO NAWAIKULA, a practising lawyer, stand up in Parliament and BRAG that the name on his Fiji VOTER ID is different from his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Lucky to be back in Parliament!

And, for Kalou's sake, don't flash your Indigenous Rights Champion Actor's Guild Card to project yourself as a victim of Aiyaz Khaiyum. Nawaikula's revelation reminds us of America's Dumbest Criminals, an American reality series that aired in syndication from September 1996 to 2000. While some captures featured in the show were easy and straightforward due to obvious oversights or mistakes by the offenders, many others were much tougher and sometimes required greater resources. Many criminals put together their game plan beautifully but were tripped up by a simple oversight (such as forgetting to fill the tank of the getaway car). Others actually got away clean, but without the goods, while others were captured because the arresting officers were not fooled by them.

USPGATE: As Aiyaz Khaiyum tries to hoodwink Fijian taxpayers on why he is holding back money to USP, we reproduce Narsey's grant analysis

20/8/2021

“USP: the illusion of Government grants”
(The Fiji Times, 24/10/2020)

**Would a consumer ever take a loaf of bread from a shop but inform the shop-keeper, “I am not going to pay you for this loaf of bread until you fix your management up”? - Wadan Narsey**

By Professor Wadan Narsey

Would a consumer ever take a loaf of bread from a shop but inform the shop-keeper,
“I am not going to pay you for this loaf of bread until you fix your management up”?

That is exactly what the public sees happening at The University of the South Pacific, the premier regional university.

One of the customers the Fiji Government, who is also a minority shareholder in the shop, is telling the USP Council that it is not paying its bill to USP for teaching Fiji Government sponsored students at USP until its “conditions” are met.

You know exactly what an ordinary shopkeeper would tell that customer anywhere in the Pacific.

But while the media is reporting that the Fiji Government is threatening the withholding of its “grant”, the public should be clear that the funds being withheld are NOT “grants” but legally required payments for a service being rendered by USP.

USP Council would be perfectly entitled to sue the Fiji Government or inform the students to go elsewhere (after paying for what they have already received).

Fortunately, the other regional governments and donors to USP are all too aware of the importance of maintaining USP as the productive tertiary training institution it really is and its great use to the region (including Australia and NZ).

So how do you explain the mess at USP?

One key problem is that the membership of USP Council does NOT represent proportionately the true shareholders of USP and the Fiji Government has an unfair government representation, out of proportion to what its contribution amounts to in USP’s Budget.

While it appears that only a few representatives of the Fiji Government are unhappy with the current USP management (some like Fay Yee are very quiet), the public needs to understand that the Fiji Government is NOT the majority contributor to USP’s budget, even if the largest proportion of USP’s students are from Fiji.

The Fiji public must also ask, why are some representatives of the Fiji Government interfering with the governance of USP, when there is a properly constituted USP Council responsible for its management.

This question is especially important given that the Prime Minister of Fiji (Bainimarama) is on record saying that he will not interfere with the running of boards of public enterprises like Fiji Airways or presumably USP.

This governance mess at USP requires the Fiji public to think seriously about the intellectual caliber of a few of the Fiji Government representatives on USP Council and indeed, their personal track records in national governance (which only the oldies will remember).

Who pays for USP?

Firstly, the public should be clear about who exactly pays (and how much) towards the running of USP, and whether these groups are proportionately represented and influential on USP Council.

The funding of USP, as of most universities globally, has always been a complex and changing affair involving a mix of taxpayer subsidies because tertiary education is usually considered a public good and private market demand.

USP’s funding formula is made more complex because instead of just one government, USP has had twelve regional governments, as well as a number of significant donors, including Australia, NZ, Japan, Canada, EU and others.

As my 1993 Consultancy Report for USP and IDP (Issues in the Financing of USP, 1993) pointed out, the formula for funds made available to USP often did not reflect the changing numbers of students, nor the vastly different costs of programs and levels. I note that the current formula does take into account the differential costs of programs but there are still fundamental faults.

In the early years of USP, the regional governments and donors paid for the bulk of the capital and recurrent costs while private student fees were but a small proportion of total revenues.

But not any more as with most universities the world over, USP’s funding has also gradually moved towards market principles, with the consumers bearing a heavier burden.

The graph shows the sources of USP’s Total Revenue in 1919, amounting to a total of $177 million (somewhat less than in previous years).

But while some representatives of one Government (Fiji) loom large in the media over the mess at USP, few members of the Fiji public understand that Total Government contributions from all the Member Governments have now declined to a mere 21% of total USP Revenue or $38 million altogether and the Fiji Government’s share is even less.

But private students’ fees contribute a massive $80 million or more than twice that of all the governments together. They are effectively the largest shareholder in the corporate entity USP. But they have little say.

Sharing of government contributions

Governments’ total contribution, now only 21% of total revenue, is decided every three years by the University Grants Committee but each government’s share of this portion by the Member Governments, is through two complicated formula.

One half is via the Student Grant or General Grant which is divided up among governments in proportion to their students enrolled .

The second half is now called the Campus Grant which is divided up among governments in proportion to the amounts USP spends on salaries in the respective territories. This second half is a crazy political “concoction” supposed to reflect the economic benefits each government receives by hosting USP facilities. Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu and Solomons usually pay a heavier proportion of this component because of the size of the facilities in their territories (there is another story to be told here).

But what each government gets from USP is astonishing as the following Table shows.

Fiji does contribute the most, some $34 million in 2019. But Fiji also has some 9930 Equivalent Full Time Fijian students at USP, effectively and crudely, costing them an average of only $3471. I suspect that this is way cheaper than what their students at FNU and Fiji University cost. ALL the member countries except for tiny Niue and Marshall Islands get an absolute bargain from USP.

If any regional member government were to send their students to an overseas university, you can guess yourself how much it would cost their taxpayers.

Of course, all these low average unit costs are subsidized by private students fees and donors contributions, as well as some independent incomes (consultancy fees, book centre, residential fees) earned by USP units and staff (some $30 million in 2019).

Then, what is often forgotten is that while donors to USP contribute almost as much ($30 million) to USP Revenues as Member Governments, in previous years they contributed even more, while financing the bulk of building construction at USP since its inception in 1968.

Of course the donors in Australia, NZ, Canada and US have had the great hidden benefit of obtaining tens of thousands of former USP graduates, at no cost to their own education budgets.

Unfortunately, while donors have a couple of representatives on USP Council, they probably decline to assert themselves because of political sensitivity to being “outsiders”.

But I suggest that the unfortunate result is then a dereliction of duty to the Pacific peoples who deserve good governance at USP Council and the help of strong, neutral, objective and knowledgeable voices which donor representatives can be, as they are usually senior Australian and NZ academics.

Who manages USP?

USP is supposed to be managed by USP Council which has representatives of Member Governments (around 19), Students (2), Staff (2) Donors (2) and an assorted five who are labelled “Co-opted”. Then there are the USP senior management who “attend” the meetings.

But if USP were a normal corporate entity, would the above representation of “Directors” to the governing board, represent the “shareholders”? I suggest no.

The public should be asking: why is one Board Member of USP Council, a minority member at that, interfering with the internal management of USP, which is properly the domain of the USP Council?

It is quite clear that the Fiji Government reps are usually the most dominant in USP Council. This dominance rose to unprecedented levels when the Bainimarama Government’s pressure on management for academic censorship of staff and students was capitulated to by the previous Vice Chancellor, who I personally know (I was a close friend then) felt beholden to them for his appointment.

In turn, the USP management, staff and student representatives to USP Council have usually been those sympathetic to the directions given by the previous Vice Chancellor, and USP Council has sadly not had the benefit of independent voices from within USP as used to be the case before the previous VC.

The public would have noted the completely opposite stance taken by the Prime Minister of Fiji who has declined to interfere with the Fiji Airways decisions on staff laid off allegedly because of COVID-19.

So why does the Prime Minister of Fiji allow one of his ministers to interfere with the governance at USP while he himself says nothing. Does the Prime Minister of Fiji have no concern that while he has often (correctly) condemned a previous government’s involvement in the NBF disaster, one of his own very prominent representatives at USP Council is the same one who not only presided over the NBF disaster but who at a public lecture at USP not too long ago pronounced that the NBF losses were exaggerated?

It is fortunate for USP that the smaller Government representatives are taking an independent approach to the governance of USP and not giving in to these few Fiji Government representatives.

But still, there is a mess that has been inherited by the current Vice Chancellor.

What is the USP mess?

For decades, USP quietly operated turning out qualified graduates and contributing to the wider intellectual life of the region with little public rancor.

Until academic censorship began under the previous vice chancellor, with staff (including myself) being pressured to leave because of concerns over Fiji Government funding.

It is a tragedy that there have been so many accusations and counter-accusations flying around in the media, and even more in the social media and blogs, without the public being informed accurately of what the problems are.

Under the governance of the previous vice chancellor, even this premier university has gone into secrecy mode deliberately denying the public access to USP policy documents (which USP management now calls “internal” as one just did recently to me in an email communication).

The current Vice Chancellor (Ahluwalia) made a formal complaint to USP Council with many serious allegations about appointments, promotions and emoluments, which has not been made “public” although the blogs have had a field day.

Those of us who know the inner workings of USP think that most of these allegations have substance.

But one Fiji Government representative who was the Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee commissioned an outside supposedly independent investigation (by BDO Auckland) of the Ahluwalia allegations and produced a Report which has not been officially released to the public, although the social media have been circulating it.

Those of us who know the inner workings of USP over the recent years feel that the BDO Report fudged most of its conclusions on the Ahluwalia allegations, especially on alleged favoritism by the previous Vice Chancellor towards a few chosen staff, who would not be characterized as “outstanding” in any way whatsoever. The BDO Report did, however reluctantly, , admit to a few “substantiated” and “partially substantiated” allegations.

Perhaps USP Council might want to ask why this particular accounting and audit company was selected by the Chairman of the USP Audit and Risk Committee to conduct the investigation.

I won’t go into the details of the Ahluwalia allegations or the BDO Report findings, but suggest that any intelligent person who reads USP Financial Statements to USP Council ought to be asking how it is that under the previous VC, the administration became so totally top-heavy and emoluments escalated.

These Financial Statements (on the USP website) reveal that the number of senior management staff who received more than $300,000 went from 0 in 2008 (when the previous VC was appointed), to 5 in 2017 and then to 11 in 2018, just before the previous Vice Chancellor departed.

I won’t go into the several blatant cases of renewal of a few selected senior contracts at the end of the previous VC’s tenure when the agreement with the USP Chairman of Council (Thompson) was that the new VC would be consulted given that these senior staff would be part of his Senior Management Team (quite reasonable I would think).

I won’t even go into the shocking approval of multiple responsibility allowances to mediocre management and especially one individual who ensured that the photo of his boss appeared on as many pages of university publications as possible.

Or into the roles of that senior management whose exorbitant charges for consultancy services were shockingly approved out of donor funded projects that he had been given responsibility for.

I won’t even go into all the glossy public relations reports released by USP, including a whitewashed “history” of USP@50) which glosses over the many fundamental problems currently faced by USP such as: the mirage of healthily growing enrolments when a large part over the last five years has been due to the inclusion of a large Pacific TAFE technical training program, declining quality of students and staff, stagnant quality of research and public policy output, increasing legitimate competition from national universities in Fiji, Samoa and Solomon Islands and Fiji government censorship of academic staff and students.

There is also the frequent resurrection of the false bogey of “Fiji hogging all the benefits” of USP, recently even repeated by a senior Fiji academic who should know better given his eighties experience (another story sometime).

These are all questions (and more) which should be asked by USP Council and answers sought not from the USP management either, given that the current management might also have the same incentive to produce the self-promoting advertising dross that the previous Vice Chancellor had so usually delivered.

A better USP Council?

I would point out that there is an urgent need to ensure that USP Council better reflect the real shareholders or financiers of USP who deserve a quality vibrant university that serves the region independently and fearlessly, as it has been until the censorship years of the Bainimarama Government.

First, the majority of USP Council should comprise representatives who hold themselves accountable to the private students and parents of the region who contribute the most to USP’s revenues.

I would suggest to all political parties in the region that they announce policies to strengthen “people’s representatives” to USP Council whose primary brief must be to fight for the interests of parents and students who contribute more to USP than the governments do, even though all that the governments do is contribute taxpayers’ money.

Second, Government representatives should represent both Government and major Opposition parties and not just the ruling party which has an incentive to stifle independent thinking at the university.

Third, donor representatives must be specifically requested by USP Council to more assertive in the governance of USP, so that USP is better accountable for the use of donor money.

Fourth, USP Council has to explicitly espouse a culture of openness and accountability to the Pacific public, which it has sadly lost in recent years.

Fifth, USP Council needs to commission an independent USP@50 Review Team made up of knowledgeable former USP academics and international education experts to record where USP has come from and chart where it should be heading in the future, for the collective interests of the Pacific peoples.

A Psychiatrist will have field day with Khaiyum: 'We won't release money to USP because we don't recognise Pal Ahluwalia as Vice-Chancellor and new appointment is illegal.' Khaiyum, in 2009, Court ruled regime illegal

19/8/2021

TRULY, this is a KaiIndia untroubled by any SHAME, except he is a COWARD who refuses to admit he was the
MASTER BOMBMAKER who betrayed his JUNIORS in 1987:

Dr Rajni Chand

LOCK HIM UP AT ST GILES

GRAHAM DAVIS CALLS OUT LIES: 'Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has committed the grave offence of misleading the Fijian Parliament with his claim that the government does not tell the Fiji Sun what to put on its front page...'

18/8/2021

"On multiple occasions when I was the government's principal communications advisor, the AG directed me to contact the publisher of the Fiji Sun, Peter Lomas, and instruct him to put a particular story on the front page...But I did it as part of my duties and do not recall an occasion on which Lomas resisted. In the light of the AG's statement to the Parliament on August 18 that no such instruction has been given, I am prepared to attest under oath in a court of law or any other appropriate forum that it is false."

And LYNDA TABUYA gives MAHENDRA REDDY "A Flea in His Ear" for insinuating that she was dressed in Parliament like she was in a Flea Market

"I am also willing to swear on oath that I was informed by Peter Lomas that the AG had instructed him to withhold opinion polling commissioned by the Fiji Sun before the 2018 election that showed the erosion of the FijiFirst vote." - Graham Davis

BY GRAHAM DAVIS

*Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has committed the grave offence of misleading the Fijian Parliament with his claim that the government does not tell the Fiji Sun what to put on its front page.

* It is a lie. On multiple occasions when I was the government's principal communications advisor, the AG directed me to contact the publisher of the Fiji Sun, Peter Lomas, and instruct him to put a particular story on the front page.

*"Tell him to put it on the front page", he would say and I would telephone Peter Lomas to relay the instruction. I felt uncomfortable doing so because I believed it was inappropriate for the government to give such an instruction to a supposedly independent media organisation.

* But I did it as part of my duties and do not recall an occasion on which Lomas resisted. In the light of the AG's statement to the Parliament on August 18 that no such instruction has been given,

* I am prepared to attest under oath in a court of law or any other appropriate forum that it is false.

* I am also aware of, and sometimes witnessed, multiple instances in which the AG gave other instructions to the Fiji Sun to cover certain stories or ignore others.

* Many of these were conveyed personally by the AG to the Fiji Sun's News Editor, Jyoti Pratibah.

* I am also willing to swear on oath that I was informed by Peter Lomas that the AG had instructed him to withhold opinion polling commissioned by the Fiji Sun before the 2018 election that showed the erosion of the FijiFirst vote.

*It is contrary to all principles of proper parliamentary conduct that the people's house should be misled by the Attorney General - the chief law officer of the state, who has responsibility for supervising Fijian law and advising the government on legal matters.

*The AG's economy with the truth is a grave violation of his duty to maintain the highest standards of probity in the conduct of his official duties and an assault on democracy that makes him unfit for high office.

SACHIDA NAND IN PARLIAMENT, 'I Come With An Open Mind' to replace Mereseini Vuniwaqa, to represent the People of Fiji. No, NAND, you are in Parliament with 472 VOTES under the ROTTEN D'Hondt Electoral System

18/8/2021

SACK HIM FOR INSUBORDINATION AND FLAWED LEGAL ADVICE TO SPEAKER: As Chief Justice Kumar and Justice Wati rule that Nawaikula must be reinstated as MP, we say it is time to sack Saneem as the SOE

17/8/2021

As Attorney-General and Minister for Elections, Aiyaz Khaiyum had recently approved the renewal of Mohammed Saneem's contract subject to an appeal by the Solicitor-General against a High Court decision that convicted Saneem of gross insubordination in the performance of his duties as SOE under the former Fiji Electoral Commission

Chief Justice Kamal Kumar

Solicitor General, Sharvada Sharma had said in his submission that the Supervisor of Elections was justified in his action to strike Nawaikula’s name from the National Register of Voters because he provided incorrect information to the Fijian Elections Office

Fijileaks:
The Opposition should demand review of the legality of the renewal of Mohammed Saneem's current contract as Supervisor of Elections, especially since it is the Constitutional Services Commission whose Chair and Deputy Chair are Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum respectively;
As Attorney-General and Minister for Elections, Khaiyum had recently approved the renewal of Saneem's contract subject to an appeal by the Solicitor-General against a High Court decision that convicted Saneem of gross insubordination in the performance of his duties as SOE under the former Fiji Electoral Commission;
* The Opposition should request a team of lawyers to investigate why Saneem’s appointment was not immediately terminated upon his conviction by the High Court as is the normal practice in the
Public Service;
Since Saneem was appointed by Khaiyum, why did the AG’s Office fail to issue his letter of termination following his conviction by High Court ?
Is this reason why the appointment of chairman and lawyer Young and members of his Electoral Commission was not renewed by Khaiyum?
Is this also the reason why Khaiyum appointed a completely new Electoral Commission to replace that one headed by Young so that Saneem could continue to serve as SOE?
The renewal of Saneem’s appointment by the Constitutional Services Commission is therefore improper and highly irregular because of his High Court conviction for gross insubordination in the performance of his duties as Supervisor of Elections; plus the fact that the appeal by the AG’s Office is still to be heard by the High Court.?
This is criminal and a travesty of justice and totally unprecedented in the public service.
It is like re-employing an Accountant who has already been convicted by the Courts for embezzlement whilst serving as Accountant in the same Department but whose appeal is pending?
This is a terrible joke
As we are aware, Khaiyum had recently introduced into the House various legislative measures to amend Fiji’s Electoral laws to give more power to the SOE but it was quite obvious that the exercise was aimed at giving more independence to the SOE to ensure that he is not hauled back to the High Court again for gross insubordination by any future Electoral Commission
So does not that prove that the incumbent Electoral Commission is just a puppet of the SOE who will ensure that he and the Commission are totally compliant with Khaiyum's demands ?
READ FULL JUDGMENT BELOW:

<<Previous

Forward>>