Blog Archives

Justice Ashton-Lewis Slams Rabuka and Ratu Naiqama: FICAC Inquiry Recommendations Ignored. COI called for removal of Temo for alleged perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of office, but Rabuka fails to ACT

20/8/2025

Justice David Ashton-Lewis, Judge of the Supreme Court of Fiji and Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the appointment of the former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, has issued an extraordinary public statement condemning the government’s failure to act on the COI’s 17 recommendations — more than 14 weeks after they were handed to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Key points in his public statement:

Ignored Recommendations: Only 2 out of 17 COI recommendations have been implemented.
Removal of Top Officials: The COI called for the removal of Chief Justice Salesi Temo for alleged perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of office, but Rabuka has failed to advise the President. Ashton-Lewis suggests political interference because Ratu Naiqama and Temo are close friends and related by marriage.
Barbara Malimali’s Dismissal: While Malimali has been removed as Acting FICAC Commissioner, her deputy Lisiate Fotofili was rehired in the Office of the DPP — against COI advice.
Conflict of Interest at ODPP: The COI found that Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva and Deputy DPP John Rabuku are “conflicted” and lack impartiality. Despite this, they remain in office and control investigations into figures implicated in the COI report.
Threat to Rule of Law: Ashton-Lewis warns that allowing implicated officials to oversee investigations “makes a mockery of justice” and breaches the independence of Fiji’s criminal justice system.
Call for Action: He appeals to the President, Prime Minister, and Judicial Services Commission to uphold constitutional duties and act decisively against corruption.

“Anything less would be a betrayal of the people of Fiji, and a mockery of justice", says Justice David Ashton-Lewis This statement signals a deep constitutional crisis, suggesting political protection of allies and undermining public confidence in Fiji’s justice system.

Fiji Must Stop Securing World While Leaving Its OWN People Exposed. The former RFMF commissioned officer of the pre-1987 Coup Jim Sanday Is Right. It’s Time Fiji Put Its Own Security First. Peacekeeping MIRAGE

19/8/2025

*For more than 45 years, Fiji has earned global recognition as one of the world’s most consistent peacekeeping nations. From Lebanon to Sinai, from Iraq to the Golan Heights, our soldiers have stood watch in some of the most dangerous corners of the earth. It is a proud tradition, a legacy of sacrifice and service that has put our small nation on the world map.
But as retired senior military officer Jim Sanday argues in his timely commentary, pride must never blind us to reality: Fiji has done more than its fair share for the world. Now it is time to secure Fiji itself.

For more than four decades, Fiji has proudly worn the mantle of peacekeeper to the world. From Lebanon to the Golan Heights, from the Sinai to Iraq, over 50,000 Fijian soldiers have rotated through some of the planet’s most dangerous flashpoints.

The service has been courageous, professional, and selfless. It has also brought Fiji recognition far greater than its size, securing an outsized reputation in global security circles.

But let’s speak plainly: our pride in global peacekeeping cannot blind us to the costs.

Every dollar spent on deploying Fijians to remote conflict zones is a dollar not invested in securing our coastlines, protecting our cyber networks, or building resilience against climate shocks. Every life risked in a desert warzone is a reminder of how little has been invested in safeguarding our people from rising seas and internal instability. For too long, Fiji has been the “blue-helmet superpower” of the Pacific, yet the walls at home have remained dangerously thin.

The Peacekeeping Mirage

The uncomfortable truth is that Fiji’s global peacekeeping record is subsidized by ordinary taxpayers. UN reimbursements often arrive months late, are incomplete, and never cover the true cost of deployments. Meanwhile, the social toll falls squarely on Fijian families—lost income, unemployment, strained healthcare, and the relentless cycle of farewells and funerals.

Yes, peacekeeping has brought honor. But it has also created a policy mirage: that Fiji’s security role abroad equates to security at home. In reality, the two are not the same.

A Nation Strategically Placed, But Exposed

Geographically, Fiji is not peripheral—it is central. Sitting at the intersection of Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia, we are the natural hub for Pacific diplomacy, disaster response, and security coordination. That is both a privilege and a burden.

Yet our strategic assets—ports, undersea cables, fisheries, and exclusive economic zone—remain vulnerable. While we pour resources into faraway missions, transnational crime, illegal fishing fleets, and cyber threats chip away at our sovereignty. In short, we have secured the world while leaving Fiji dangerously exposed.

From Scattered Missions to Coherent Strategy

The recently launched National Security & Defence Strategy (2025–2029) offers a path forward. But strategy without courage is nothing more than paper. If government simply rubber-stamps the status quo, Fiji will squander yet another opportunity.

Our new priorities must be crystal clear:

Fiji First – Protect our borders, our data, and our people before anything else.
Pacific Stability – Take leadership in regional security and climate resilience, coordinating humanitarian and disaster response across island states.
Selective Deployments – Contribute to UN peacekeeping only where Fiji’s own security and diplomatic leverage are directly strengthened.

This is not isolationism. It is realism.

Credibility Reframed

Fiji’s credibility on the international stage will no longer be measured by the length of time our soldiers guard checkpoints in the Sinai Desert. It will be measured by whether we have the courage to safeguard our own house and to act as the true regional hub the Pacific so desperately needs.

Global missions may earn us applause, but they do not stop rising sea levels, they do not deter narcotics traffickers, and they do not prevent corruption from undermining our institutions. Our children will not eat applause.

A Call for Balance

Fiji’s soldiers have already paid their dues to the world—often with their lives. The time has come for the government to pay its dues to the soldiers, and to the nation they swore to defend.

We must continue to serve the world, but no longer at the expense of our own security. To do otherwise is not sacrifice—it is negligence dressed up as diplomacy.

God bless Fiji and its people.

Jim Sanday

The article by Jim Sanday, titled “Securing the World While Leaving Itself Exposed” (Fiji Sun, Aug 16–17, 2025), makes the following key points:

Summary of Jim Sanday’s Article

Fiji’s Peacekeeping Legacy

Since 1978, over 50,000 Fijians have served in UN and multinational peacekeeping missions.
Fiji has the highest per capita contribution to UN peacekeeping globally, a record of pride but also heavy cost.

Hidden Costs on Fiji

Deployments are largely funded by Fijian taxpayers.
Families already face daily struggles (living costs, unemployment, weak services), while peacekeeping reimbursements arrive late and are inadequate.
Every dollar spent abroad is a dollar not spent on Fiji’s own security, policing, cyber defence, and climate resilience.

Scattered Commitments, Weak Strategy

Fiji has long been engaged in global missions without coherent strategy.
This leaves the nation itself more vulnerable.

National Security & Defence Strategy (NSDS)

The recently approved NSDS (2025–2029) provides a framework for aligning foreign and domestic security.
Sanday argues it should not be a rubber stamp but a serious re-focusing of Fiji’s priorities.

Fiji’s True Role – Regional Hub

Fiji is strategically central in the Pacific (Melanesia, Polynesia, Micronesia).
Its leadership should focus on regional coordination — disaster relief, climate adaptation, humanitarian work, combating transnational crime.

Redefining Security Priorities

Clear line must be drawn:
- Fiji first (defend borders, people, resilience).
- Protect Pacific stability.
- Lead humanitarian and disaster response.
- Only selective overseas missions where Fiji’s interests benefit.

Measuring Credibility Differently

Fiji’s global standing should not be judged by how long soldiers serve in Sinai or the Golan Heights.
It should be judged by whether Fiji can protect its people and lead the Pacific towards stability and peace.

Closing Appeal

Fiji’s soldiers have already paid their dues to the world.
Now government must pay its dues to the soldiers and to Fiji itself.
“God bless Fiji and its people.”

In short: Sanday praises Fiji’s peacekeeping tradition but warns it has come at the cost of neglecting domestic and regional security. He calls for a strategic shift: Fiji first, Pacific stability second, and selective global missions only when in Fiji’s interest.

“Great Idea, Minister! Let’s Put the Watchdog on a Leash Too”. Tabuya Wants to Guard the Online Safety Commission. Rabuka reminds He's Still Chief Censor-in-Chief. Was Tug-of-Control Division or Political Theatre?

16/8/2025

When Information Minister Lynda Tabuya announced her bright idea that the Online Safety Commission should be absorbed into her own Ministry, one could almost hear jaws dropping across Suva. After all, what better way to promote “independence” than to bring a regulatory body under direct political control?

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka wasted no time shooting down the proposal, and rightly so. The OSC, however imperfect, is meant to be a watchdog—not a lapdog. Its credibility rests on being separate from the very political machinery it might one day have to scrutinise. Moving it under the Ministry of Information would be like asking the fox to run the henhouse—efficient, perhaps, but disastrous for the hens.

The episode raises larger questions about how government business is being conducted. Was Rabuka briefed in advance, or was he blindsided by his own minister? Either answer is troubling. If he was not told, it signals a breakdown in cabinet discipline. If he was told and allowed the announcement only to then reject it, it suggests political theatre at the expense of public confidence.

Meanwhile, the citizens—those supposedly being “protected” by online safety laws—are left wondering whether their leaders are serious about strengthening institutions or just squabbling over who gets to control them.

The Online Safety Commission does need reform. But the solution is not to hand it over to a Ministry whose job is to spin government messages. Strengthening its independence, expanding its legal authority, and resourcing it properly would do far more for online safety than turning it into another political department.

At the very least, the episode reminds us why watchdogs need freedom from their masters. Because when politicians start designing cages, the public should be the first to worry.

The absurdity is this: the Online Safety Commission is meant to protect people online, yet its future is being fought offline by politicians who can’t even agree which ministry gets the keys to the modem.

Lynda Tabuya sought to bring the Online Safety Commission under the Ministry of Information to streamline oversight of digital communications and online conduct. Her rationale was that the Commission’s mandate aligns closely with her ministry’s responsibility for information management, public communications, and media policy.

Centralising these functions, in her view, would create more coherent regulation and allow for better coordination in addressing issues such as cyberbullying, misinformation, and online harms.

In her "Straight Talk With Vijay Narayan", she revealed that she has been “lobbying for the Online Safety Commission to come under the Ministry of Information to streamline services.” She argues the Ministry can investigate and prosecute, protect privacy rights, and give the Commission stronger enforcement powers.

From a legal perspective, this raises several red flags. The Online Safety Act 2018 created the Online Safety Commission as a separate statutory office. Its independence is deliberate: it was designed to regulate harmful online content in a way that avoids political capture.

The friendly "punch-up" between Tabuya and Rabuka may just be a stage quarrel, with Rabuka playing referee and ringmaster at the same time. It is starting to resemble shadow boxing-Rabuka throws the punches, but the outcome is already fixed. Once again, did Tabuya discuss her plan with Rabuka before 'straight-talk'- or was the 'disagreement' just part of his script?

From Fijileaks Archive, 5 May 2025

CYBER BULLING: Commissioner, CUT THE CRAP. The Acting Prison Commissioner, drunk, wearing a white shirt with the Fiji Prison logo on it, was annoying young party-goers and ended up punching one of them

Sleeping Beauty in the Back of the Ambulance: When a Joyride Becomes a Crime. Ambulances with sirens aren’t theatre props. Someone’s life is on line. Only siren the two deserved was to be taken speedily to COURT

15/8/2025

*The assumption by everyone on the road was clear: a life was in danger, so give way. Except it wasn’t. Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu has revealed the truth: the driver on 19 February 2025 was using a life-saving vehicle to jump traffic. In short, he treated a sacred trust like a taxi shortcut. This was the second time that the same ambulance had been booked for using the siren and flashing lights when it was not an emergency. But what about the figure stretched out in the back, motionless like a patient on the brink? Turns out it wasn’t a casualty at all, but the driver’s own relative, obligingly playing the part of a dying swan. Let’s call him Sleeping Beauty—a passenger turned prop in a roadside theatre.
*Both the ambulance driver and his relative passenger-a 'dying swan'-should have found themselves answering not just to public outrage but to the law.

From Grave Robbers to Fake Patients: Fiji’s Strangest Police Rounds

As a young reporter on the original Fiji Sun in the 1980s, I stumbled across more than my share of weird and wonderful incidents, especially on weekend police rounds—the early morning CID briefings at Suva Police Station were a goldmine. We knew in advance who was appearing in court on Monday morning, and for what crimes, from drunk revellers to the white-collar criminals. We made sure we were up early and in court.

One of the most bizarre involved a gang of so-called robbers locked up for digging up the freshly buried grave of a well-known English-born physician who, according to their tale, had failed to pay them for certain “services rendered". The police spokesman that morning nearly tied himself in knots trying to explain what on earth the suspects meant.

That sort of gallows humour was part of newsroom life. But fast forward to 19 February 2025, and the antics of an ambulance driver and his so-called “Sleeping Beauty” passenger at 9 miles in Nasinu are no laughing matters. When an ambulance flips on its siren and flashing lights, every driver on the road knows it could mean the difference between life and death. To fake it is not just bizarre—it’s dangerous.

A police officer stopped an ambulance after it suddenly flicked on its siren and flashing lights at a busy junction. The assumption by everyone on the road was clear: a life was in danger, so give way. Except it wasn’t. Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu later revealed the truth: no medical staff were on board, no emergency existed, and the same ambulance had already been booked before for misusing sirens. The driver was using a life-saving vehicle to jump traffic. In short, he treated a sacred trust like a taxi shortcut.

Enter “Sleeping Beauty" - Stretched Out in the Back

But what about the figure stretched out in the back, motionless like a patient on the brink? Turns out it wasn’t a casualty at all, but the driver’s own relative, obligingly playing the part of a dying swan. Let’s call him Sleeping Beauty—a passenger turned prop in a roadside theatre. By pretending to be a patient, he wasn’t just along for the ride; he was helping the charade, lending credibility to the fake emergency.

Sleeping Beauty in the Backseat: Can a Fake Patient End Up in the Dock?

Background

An ambulance at 9 Miles was stopped by police amid claims it was rushing a patient to hospital. The drama deepened when Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu revealed the truth: the “patient” lying in the back was no medical emergency at all, but the driver’s relative, picked up from home. No medical staff were present, and this was the second offence by the same ambulance for misusing sirens.

This begs a deliciously awkward question: can a passenger playing possum face the law? The passenger wasn’t just a passive traveller. By lying in the back and allowing the pretense of an emergency, he effectively assisted the driver’s unlawful use of sirens. He should have been charged.

Far from being an innocent “motionless victim,” he was the co-star in a roadside pantomime that endangered public safety, wasted police time, and undermined trust in emergency services. The driver was the lead actor, but the passenger played a willing supporting role.

And in law, supporting actors can earn starring roles in court. The law does not reward “fake fainting” in ambulances. If you want to lie down in traffic, better to book a yoga class than a criminal defence lawyer.

The Driver’s Deception

Ambulances with sirens aren’t theatre props. They mean someone’s life is on the line. Abuse that trust and motorists may hesitate next time, wondering whether they’re clearing the road for tragedy or tomfoolery.

The Legal Reckoning

Both, the driver and his passenger should have faced the law:

Driver – misuse of sirens (Land Transport Act), dangerous driving, abuse of office, dishonest advantage, obstruction of police.
Passenger – aiding and abetting, obtaining dishonest advantage, obstruction, even conspiracy if proven–faster transport through deception.

When the video first surfaced of a police officer stopping an ambulance at 9 Miles, outrage was instant. The footage appeared to show a motionless “patient” in the back while the driver argued that he was rushing to hospital. Social media buzzed with accusations that police had heartlessly delayed an emergency.

But the truth, as Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu has now clarified, is far more troubling—and not for the officer. The so-called ambulance was not carrying medical personnel, nor was it engaged in any registered emergency. The “patient” sprawled in the back was not a casualty at all but the driver’s own relative, collected from home and transported under the false cloak of urgency.

This is not a misunderstanding. It is a serious abuse of public trust. Ambulances exist to save lives. Every time a driver flicks on the siren and flashing lights, other motorists yield, pedestrians scatter, and police direct traffic—all on the assumption that seconds matter.

To fake that urgency is to cry wolf in the most dangerous way. What if, at that exact moment, another ambulance with a genuine cardiac arrest case (maybe the patient was former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum) had been delayed by this charade?

Grave-diggers in the 1980s raised eyebrows, but at least they endangered no one. This driver and his Sleeping Beauty did. Fake emergencies are not just foolish—they’re criminal.

And the only siren they deserved was the one that took them straight to the court.

VODAFONE Defended New E-Ticketing Rollout in Letter to Kamikamica, Rejected Minority BUS Operators’ Demands for Free Telemetry. Beyond Tap-On: Why Vodafone’s E-Ticketing Standoff Missed the Bigger Picture

14/8/2025

VODAfone CEO Elenoa Biukoto

Suva, 7 January 2025. Vodafone Fiji defended its new national e-ticketing system in early January, rejecting calls from a small group of bus operators to waive telemetry charges entirely.

In a letter to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade Manoa Kamikamica, Vodafone CEO Elenoa Biukoto said the dissenting operators—described as a “minority group”—were seeking exemptions that would have been “unfair” to the majority of operators who had already signed agreements under standard commercial terms.

Biukoto explained that Vodafone’s commission and telemetry rates were uniform across the industry and had already been reduced following government-led negotiations. To ease upfront costs, the company had also provided interest-free leasing for bus terminals.

The letter outlined a staged rollout of “tap-on tap-off” (TOTO) technology, starting with a tap-on phase to minimise disruption before full implementation once regulatory approvals and GPS mapping were completed. Vodafone said the system met all tender requirements and was supported by Datec Fiji, its wholly owned ICT subsidiary.

Passengers had been allowed to continue using existing bus cards during the transition, with new cards and app-based features— ncluding NFC top-ups, QR code payments, and debit/credit card acceptance—planned to follow. A passenger mobile app, modelled on Australia’s Opal system, was scheduled for launch in March 2025.

Vodafone also confirmed that the new system would not use paper tickets or on-board printers, with all transactions stored electronically to reduce costs for operators. Hardware upgrades included IP65-rated validators with QR scanners and improved displays, backed by a spare-parts network across major centres.

While most operators had agreed to the upgrade, Vodafone made it clear in its correspondence that it would not grant special commercial concessions to the remaining hold-outs, citing the need to protect fairness and recover costs.

The exchange set the stage for potential further negotiations—or an ongoing standoff— between the government-backed e-ticketing provider and the minority of operators resisting the change.

Telemetry in the E-Ticketing Context

In Vodafone’s bus e-ticketing system, telemetry refers to the automatic transmission of data from each bus terminal or validator back to a central server via the mobile network. This allows Vodafone, the Land Transport Authority (LTA), and bus operators to receive near real-time updates on passenger boardings, fare collections, validator status, and system health without manual data extraction.

In practical terms, telemetry, we are informed, means:

Data capture and transfer: Every time a passenger taps their card (or uses QR/debit), the transaction is logged and sent to Vodafone’s central system.
Monitoring and maintenance: Operators can track revenue instantly, while Vodafone can detect hardware issues or tampering.
Regulatory compliance: Authorities can audit routes, revenue, and usage to ensure accuracy and prevent fraud.
Connectivity costs: This requires a SIM card and mobile data plan for each bus device — the source of the “telemetry charge” operators are disputing.

Critique of Vodafone’s Response

Vodafone’s January 2025 letter to Deputy PM Kamikamica frames the minority operators’ request for a full waiver of telemetry charges as unreasonable, emphasising fairness to those already signed on. While the fairness argument has weight, several weaknesses and gaps in Vodafone’s position stand out:

Lack of cost transparency
Vodafone asserts that telemetry has a “cost for connectivity over the mobile network” but does not disclose the actual cost per bus or how it compares to the fee being charged. Without a cost breakdown, operators and policymakers cannot verify whether the charges are proportionate to Vodafone’s expenses or simply a revenue line.
No exploration of phased or conditional waivers
The company adopts an all-or-nothing stance, rejecting any waivers outright rather than considering temporary subsidies, government-backed offsets, or discounts during the system’s initial rollout. Such transitional measures could have encouraged buy-in from reluctant operators.
Fairness argument oversimplified
Vodafone’s main defence—that waiving charges for a few would be unfair to the rest—assumes all operators have the same financial resilience and route profitability. This ignores that smaller or rural operators may be disproportionately impacted by ongoing connectivity fees.
Missed opportunity to shift debate to service value
The letter focuses on defending charges rather than demonstrating the tangible benefits operators get from telemetry — such as reduced fraud risk, faster reconciliation, and potential savings from less manual reporting. A more persuasive approach would have been to show how telemetry could increase operators’ net revenue.
Overreliance on “meets tender requirements”
While compliance with tender terms is important, Vodafone uses this as a blanket shield rather than engaging directly with operator concerns. Meeting minimum contractual obligations is not the same as ensuring stakeholder satisfaction, especially when public service delivery is involved.

I am pleased to provide an update on the current E Ticketing issue as part of our public awareness effort to keep our valued public transport users informed of our progress in this undertaking.

The attached Total Trips Per Tap (TTPT) summary are the total number of successfully completed trips under the E Ticketing system, since its introduction in 2017 and it includes completed trips up to June 30 2025.

As you will see, far from being a troubled system, over the 2,828 days since E Ticketing commenced in 2017 a total of 669.3 million Total Trips Per Tap have been completed successfully. Which averages 236,693 trips per tap per day as at June 30th 2025.

Over the 181 days from January 1st to June 30th 2025 a total of 37.3 million Trips Per Tap have been successfully completed and based on the complaints received from Consumer Council of Fiji which was presented to me at our Fri June 27 meeting in Suva, There was a total of 364 complaints with 171 from the Central -East, 155 from the West and 38 from the North and Outer Islands.

As a % of the 37.3 million successfully completed Trips per Tap over 181 days from January 1 to June 30 this year the 364 complaints represent 0.0010% of 1%.

By any measure, and in any Industry, the fact that 99.999% of 37.3 million Trips in 6 months were completed successfully is commendable.

The Consumer Council of Fiji’s list of complaints that I requested were grouped into 6 categories which was helpful because now I have a broader understanding of where the issues are.

I will be addressing all of the complaints listed as part of my Fiji wide visit to meet all member companies of the FBOA to discuss not just the complaints, but various ways we can change current practices to not only minimize and eliminate recurring problems, but to improve the overall service delivery standards of all FBOA members.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank and congratulate each of them for their part in delivering this extraordinary result of HALF A BILLION successfully completed e Ticketing Trips per Tap to June 30 2025.
Mick Beddoes

Breaking the E-Ticketing Monopoly: Coalition government’s own legal advisors have quietly ruled that there is NO legal reason why Fiji’s BUS e-ticketing system must remain in hands of a single provider -Vodafone

12/8/2025

Busting the E-Ticketing Myth: The Law Never Demanded a Monopoly

For years, Fiji’s bus e-ticketing system has been held up as a shining example of modernisation.

And in some ways, it is—passengers no longer fumble for coins, operators have cleaner books, and the days of fare dodging are mostly over.

But it’s also been a closed shop. Vodafone Fiji Ltd has enjoyed an exclusive hold over the market since the system’s inception, defended not by law, but by government choice.

In the background, there have been players like Semi Tukana—not arguing that the monopoly was legally required, but trying to get the contract himself without going through a proper tender. His pitch wasn’t about competition or technology—it was about “indigenous entitlement.” In other words, a private allocation of a public contract.

The recently obtained legal opinion from the Solicitor-General’s Office makes clear that both the monopoly and Tukana’s backdoor approach were unnecessary and legally indefensible.

The Ministry of Public Works had asked a straightforward question: Does the law allow more than one e-ticketing provider? The Solicitor-General’s reply was unequivocal:

“The Act does not contain any express provisions that neither permit nor prohibit the operation of multiple e-ticketing service providers but Section 12(1) stipulates that the Permanent Secretary can give accreditation to applicants. This solidly implies that the Act allows for multiple solution providers.”

No hidden clause bans competition. No fine print mandates exclusivity.

The opinion also points to the 2013 Constitution’s Section 32, which guarantees every person “the right to full and free participation in the economic life of the State.” As the Solicitor-General put it:

“This is a right that curbs the Government’s freedom to create monopolies in Fiji.”

Perhaps most importantly for people like Tukana—and anyone else hoping to skip competitive procurement—the Solicitor-General stressed:

“The grant of accreditation does not oblige the Government to ‘automatically’ transact with those service providers. The Government’s actual engagement is still governed by the legislated tender process.”

Translation: you can’t simply be handed the contract, whether you’re Vodafone or an “indigenous” aspirant. The rules demand a transparent tender.

The Fiji Competition and Consumer Commission exists to prevent exactly this kind of market lock-up and insider deal-making. While monopolies are sometimes tolerated in utilities or essential services, they are supposed to be regulated to stop price gouging and poor service. Public transport fares are already tightly controlled—so why not open the technology side to competitive forces?

Bus operators have been raising the alarm for years about the practical downsides of a single provider: slower system upgrades, patchy support, and little incentive to innovate. A second accredited provider wouldn’t destroy the system—it would sharpen it. Competition forces service improvements, drives down costs, and creates resilience if one provider’s system fails.

The legal green light has now been switched on. If the Ministry of Trade, Co-operatives, SMEs, and Communications keeps the monopoly intact, it won’t be because the law demands it—and it certainly shouldn’t be because of quiet deals for those who never even tendered.

Fiji’s commuters deserve better than a one-provider ride or a backroom carve-up.

Fact Check: The E-Ticketing Monopoly & Tukana’s Bid

1. What the Law Says

Electronic Fare Ticketing Act 2014 does not mandate one provider.
Section 12(1) allows the Permanent Secretary to grant accreditation to more than one applicant.
The 2013 Constitution (Section 32) protects the right to full and free participation in the economy— which limits government-created monopolies.

2. What the Solicitor-General Confirmed

This solidly implies that the Act allows for multiple solution providers.
This is a right that curbs the Government’s freedom to create monopolies in Fiji.
The grant of accreditation does not oblige the Government to ‘automatically’ transact with those service providers. The Government’s actual engagement is still governed by the legislated tender process.”

3. Why Vodafone’s Monopoly & Tukana’s Approach Fail

Vodafone’s exclusivity is a policy choice, not a legal requirement.
A second provider can be introduced through a proper tender.
Tukana’s attempt to secure the contract without tender—citing “indigenous entitlement”—bypasses the very transparency and competition the law demands.

The door to multiple e-ticketing providers is wide open—and the only thing keeping it shut is the government’s willingness to leave it that way.

Fijileaks: From a legal analysis point of view, the Solicitor-General’s advice in the memo is largely correct, but it’s framed very narrowly and leaves out some important practical realities.

Where the Advice is Correct

The Act Allows Multiple Providers

Section 12(1) of the Electronic Fare Ticketing Act 2014 is indeed worded to allow accreditation of more than one “solution provider.
There is no legal clause in the Act that mandates a single provider.
The Constitution’s Section 32 on economic participation does bolster the idea that monopolies without strong justification are undesirable.

Tender Process Still Required

Accreditation equals eligibility to provide the service.
Government engagement equals separate, transparent procurement process.
This is accurate and consistent with public procurement law.


No Legal Risk in Having Multiple Providers

The advice correctly notes there’s nothing in the Act that would expose the Ministry to legal liability for accrediting more than one provider.

Where the Advice is Incomplete or Potentially Misleading

Oversimplifying the Monopoly Issue

The advice leans on the Constitution to say monopolies are restricted, but Fiji law does allow regulated monopolies where there is a public service rationale.
It doesn’t address whether the Vodafone arrangement might already be considered a sanctioned monopoly under FCCC oversight—which could make change slower.

No Mention of Contractual Barriers

Even if the Act allows multiple providers, Vodafone’s existing contract terms could be a bigger obstacle than the law.
If the current tender agreement has exclusivity clauses, breaking them might require renegotiation or payment of compensation. The opinion doesn’t deal with that.

No Operational Impact Analysis

Legally possible and practically easy. Introducing a second provider means integration of payment systems, settlement processes, and enforcement protocols — and those aren’t covered here.

Final word on the Government’s Advice

Legally correct: Multiple providers are permitted by law; monopoly is a policy choice, not a legal mandate.
Practically incomplete: The advice skips over the contractual and operational hurdles that would decide how soon and how easily a second provider could enter.

Coming: The Shaheen Ali-Semi Tukana Correspondence and Exchanges

Ganesh Chand to Semi Tukana, 'Just because you are I-Taukei, you have NO automatic TICKET to get the TENDER'. iTaukei Tender Expectations and Questions Over Tukana’s Fiji Airways Debt Collection - Any Update?

12/8/2025

As debates flare over procurement fairness in Rabuka’s Fiji - fuelled by Ganesh Chand’s pointed Facebook remark that ‘being indigenous’* is no excuse to skip tenders - attention also turns to the progress, or lack of updates, on Semi Tukana’s crowdfunding to settle the pilgrims’ Fiji Airways debt, amid talk that Tourism Minister Viliame Gavoka was expecting to be charged by FICAC over the Israel pilgrimage flight.

Ganesh Chand

Manoa Kamikamica says SOLE Fintech was not part of the tender process for the Vodafone e-ticketing system

Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica has gone on record rejecting claims that the tender process for the Vodafone e-ticketing system was bypassed. His comments came after SOLE Fintech founder Semi Tukana lamented that his company was still waiting for an opportunity to be considered, suggesting that doors had been kept closed.

But what really set the social media circuit alight was Ganesh Chand’s blunt post, skewering what he describes as a dangerous mindset: “Just because I am an indigenous, just give government contracts to my company. I don’t have to bid when tenders are called.” Chand’s point is not subtle - it’s an indictment of a creeping sense of entitlement he believes is breeding corruption, inefficiency, and, ultimately, the decay of democratic norms.

We have been warning for months that under Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s leadership, some in the iTaukei business community appear to think that their ethnicity is now a business qualification in itself. The return of the vakavanua old boys’ club has, in certain quarters, morphed into the belief that being iTaukei automatically puts you at the front of the queue for government projects, grants, and concessions - regardless of merit, cost-effectiveness, or capacity.

This is not an abstract concern. Fiji’s history is littered with the wreckage of state contracts handed out as political favours, leading to inflated costs, failed projects, and, worse, a public culture where competence is secondary to connections. When that happens, public procurement ceases to be about delivering services - it becomes a currency of political reward.

Kamikamica, to his credit, has publicly rejected the idea that SOLE Fintech was ever in line for the e-ticketing contract without going through proper process. But his remarks alone will not undo the growing perception that “our time to eat” has replaced “the best company for the job” as the operative procurement philosophy.

The danger is not just financial. As Chand points out, this mentality - ethnic entitlement to state resources - can be the seed from which racism, abuse, and dictatorship grow. Once it becomes normal for one group to believe the machinery of the state exists to enrich them first, the constitutional promise of equality before the law is quietly hollowed out.

And here’s the rub: if this culture takes root now, it will be wielded just as easily by tomorrow’s political enemies. Corruption and entitlement are non-partisan diseases; they spread quickly and they survive regime change.

So yes, let’s reject the claim that tender processes can be skipped. But let’s also reject the dangerous fiction - being whispered in business circles and hinted at in public - that being iTaukei under Rabuka’s government is a procurement advantage in itself. Because if the only real tender is to “our own”, then the tender process isn’t just broken - it’s irrelevant.

*A stark reminder from Fiji’s economic history: the collapse of the National Bank of Fiji in the 1990s - looted to destruction largely through unsecured and un-repaid loans to politically connected iTaukei borrowers - remains one of the country’s most costly and avoidable financial scandals, and a warning that cash-cow connections and Christ must never come into play when public money or national assets are at stake.

From Coupfourpointfive, 26 May 2010

From Fijileaks Archive, 23 February 2024

*SEMI TUKANA was one of the 'Pilgrims to Israel' but paid his airfares. At the heart of the Fly Now, Pay Later Scam is the role of Fiji Airways in accepting a meagre $400,000 out of $3million to fly the 'pilgrims' into Israel, and after the Hamas attack, to fly them back to Fiji.

Michael Mausio of Pacific Voyager

Pilgrims’ Debt to Fiji Airways: Crowdfunding, Clarifications, and a Growing Question Mark

When Semi Tukana, founder of SOLE Fintech, announced earlier this year that he was helping facilitate the repayment of a multi-million-dollar debt owed to Fiji Airways for a charter flight to Israel, it sounded like a rare moment of corporate and community solidarity. The October 2023 charter had been organised for a group of Christian pilgrims, many of whom were caught in travel chaos as the Israel–Hamas war erupted. But behind the pious mission lies an uncomfortable reality - Fiji Airways is still waiting for its money.

The Numbers That Won’t Go Away

The debt - reported at roughly FJ$3 million - was incurred by Pacific Voyager, the charter organiser. While some payments may have been made, sources indicate that the shortfall is still in the range of FJ$2.5 million. In plain terms, the airline has not been made whole, and the outstanding sum is large enough to raise red flags in any corporate ledger.

The SOLE Crowdfunding Push

Tukana’s proposal was not for SOLE itself to foot the bill. Instead, his platform would host a crowdfunding drive, overseen by a trustee group, with weekly payment schedules published for transparency. The plan was marketed as a community effort, with every contribution channelled directly toward the debt.

SOLE had been careful to clarify that:

Customer funds are safe in regulated trust accounts monitored daily by banks and the Reserve Bank of Fiji.
No SOLE account balances would be used for this purpose.
The crowdfunding initiative is facilitated, not owned, by SOLE.

Transparency Promises vs. Delivery

Tukana promised public updates, including on a dedicated Facebook page. But as of now, it is unclear:

How much money has been collected;
Whether Fiji Airways has received any significant payments;
Whether the trustee group has been formally announced or is operating as described.

For a platform that claims to champion openness, the silence on these specifics is deafening.

The Bigger Picture

This is more than a church-group debt story. It raises governance questions about:

The prudence of Fiji Airways’ risk assessment in approving the charter;
The accountability of Pacific Voyager in meeting its obligations;
The transparency of high-profile crowdfunding campaigns, especially when linked to political or faith-based networks.

And hovering in the background is the spectre of FICAC. If public money, political influence, or preferential treatment for certain groups is in play, the anti-corruption watchdog may be obliged to take a closer look. Is it true that Ficac has closed the File?

Constipated Memory: BIMAN PRASAD and Politics of Selective Outrage. Prasad blasts Mahendra Chaudhry, ‘Blame me for your constipation too’. He should first flush the NFP's history through pipes of public memory

11/8/2025

History Repeats Itself. Biman Prasad’s ‘Reddy-Rabuka Revival Tour’ Complete with the Classic Handshake Pose

When Biman Prasad rails against political opponents for aligning with coup-born regimes, he should first flush his own party’s history through the pipes of public memory. Right now, his outrage is less moral conviction and more constipation of historical fact.

Recently, Prasad took aim at a political rival, the FLP leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, reminding the nation that the man had joined the post–5 December 2006 military regime in January 2007, a government born out of Commodore Bainimarama’s coup against the SDL/FLP multi-party administration. He went further, dredging up Chaudhry's criminal convictions - one for drunk-driving causing death, the other for breaching exchange controls to the tune of AUD$1.5 million. Prasad's subtext was clear: such a man has no moral authority to lecture anyone. But Prasad forgets that moral authority is a two-way mirror. Look into it for long enough, and you’ll see your own party’s reflection - and it’s not spotless.

The NFP and Rabuka’s 1990 Constitution

In the early 1990s, under the leadership of Jai Ram Reddy, the National Federation Party struck a cooperative arrangement with none other than Sitiveni Rabuka. This was not post-redemption Rabuka under the more inclusive 1997 Constitution. This was Rabuka the coup-maker, presiding over the overtly racist 1990 Constitution, which deliberately skewed Fiji’s parliamentary representation in favour of iTaukei and against Indo-Fijians - NFP’s own core constituency.

Reddy’s NFP helped rehabilitate Rabuka’s political image. In 1999, they went further, entering a formal coalition with him for the general election. Alongside Reddy, prominent figures such as Biman Prasad and Wadan Narsey were part of the NFP leadership circle. The result? A total wipe-out at the hands of Mahendra Chaudhry and his coalition allies, with Chaudhry becoming Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister - only to be toppled a year later by George Speight’s coup.

From Defeat to Deputy PM and Finance Minister

After the 1999 humiliation, Prasad’s road back to political relevance took 15 years. In the 2014 election - under the 2013 Constitution and its new nationwide proportional voting system - he returned to Parliament with just two other NFP MPs. Today, the party has five seats, and Prasad himself holds the positions of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. Meanwhile, Wadan Narsey has reappeared on the scene, working alongside former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki to design a new electoral system - yet another reminder that yesterday’s coup critic can be today’s constitutional engineer.

Selective Condemnation

If joining a coup-born regime is the unforgivable sin Prasad claims it to be, then where is his condemnation of his own party’s political history? Where is the mea culpa for NFP’s role in legitimising Rabuka long before he was re-branded as a statesman?

Prasad’s selective outrage isn’t new in Fijian politics - but it’s particularly galling from a man who positions himself as the conscience of clean governance and democratic purity. A full historical accounting would show that NFP itself once traded in political compromise with the very architect of modern Fiji’s coup culture.

Moral Authority Demands Consistency

This isn’t about re-litigating the past for the sake of point-scoring. It’s about the simple fact that moral authority in politics comes from consistency. You cannot condemn one man for bedding down with a coup regime while ignoring your own party’s record of doing the same - especially when the regime in question was far more racially toxic and constitutionally unjust than the one you’re denouncing.

Until Prasad can acknowledge this, his political commentary will remain exactly what it is now - a case of constipated memory.

Sidebar: NFP’s Political Timeline – From Rabuka to Today

1987: Sitiveni Rabuka stages two military coups, toppling the Bavadra led NFP-Labour coalition government. Fiji’s democratic order collapses.

1990: Rabuka imposes the 1990 Constitution, heavily skewed toward iTaukei dominance. Indo-Fijians, NFP’s base, are structurally disadvantaged.

Early Mid 1990s: Under Jai Ram Reddy, NFP enters a cooperative arrangement with Rabuka’s SVT government, helping to rehabilitate his political image.

1999: NFP and SVT form a formal coalition for the general election. Led by Reddy, with Biman Prasad and Wadan Narsey in senior roles, the coalition suffers a crushing defeat to Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour-led alliance. Chaudhry becomes Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister.

May 2000: George Speight stages a coup, deposing Chaudhry’s government. The democratic experiment collapses again.

5 December 2006: Commodore Frank Bainimarama stages another coup, removing the SDL/FLP multi-party government.

2013: New 2013 Constitution introduced, creating a nationwide proportional representation electoral system.

2014: NFP re-enters Parliament under Biman Prasad’s leadership with three seats. Prasad becomes the public face of the party’s revival.

2022: NFP wins five seats and forms a coalition government with Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party. Prasad becomes Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.

2025: Former NFP stalwart Wadan Narsey resurfaces, working with ex–Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki on a new electoral system.

Should a Formerly Defeated 1999 NFP Candidate Be Designing Fiji’s New Electoral System?

Fiji is once again standing at the crossroads of electoral reform. Whether the country clings to its 2013 Constitution’s nationwide proportional representation system or ventures back toward variants of the 1997 Constitution’s Alternative Vote (AV) model will determine the shape of its democracy for decades. In such a high-stakes national conversation, the integrity, neutrality, and perceived impartiality of those tasked with designing a new system are paramount.

This is why the participation of Wadan Narsey, a former failed 1999 National Federation Party (NFP) candidate, as co-principal architect of any new electoral framework warrants careful scrutiny.

1999: The Historical Context

The 1999 general election, conducted under the 1997 Constitution’s AV system with both communal and open constituencies, is one of Fiji’s defining political turning points.

The NFP, in coalition with Sitiveni Rabuka’s Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT), suffered a historic defeat, winning no seats despite securing around 15% of the national vote.
Narsey, contesting as an NFP candidate, was among those rejected by the electorate.
The loss wasn’t just numerical - it was a crushing repudiation of the coalition’s credibility, the AV system’s susceptibility to ethnic bloc voting, and the inability of NFP–SVT preference-swapping to overcome deep political distrust.

Any electoral reform discussion led by a figure tied directly to that electoral debacle is inevitably coloured by this historical baggage.

The Legal–Constitutional Dimension

Electoral systems are not merely mechanical vote-counting devices - they are constitutional architecture. Under Fiji’s legal framework:

Legitimacy: Any reform must meet the tests of impartiality and be defensible under the principles of political rights in Sections 23 and 26 of the 2013 Constitution, or equivalent rights clauses in any future constitutional order.
Conflict of interest: A lead designer with a past as a partisan candidate -especially one defeated in an election under a proposed or similar model - invites both actual and perceived conflicts of interest. This opens reform to judicial challenge on the grounds of procedural bias.
Process integrity: International standards, such as the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, emphasise that electoral law reform should be the product of broad, cross-party consensus and independent expert input, not the legacy project of a former partisan.

Political Perception Risks

Perceived partisanship:
- Opponents will argue that the reforms are designed to favour NFP’s structural interests or to rehabilitate a discredited AV model that failed the NFP in 1999.
- Even if this is untrue, perception is politically fatal.
Historical baggage:
- The 1999 wipe-out remains in political memory. A reform package associated with that failure risks being dismissed as an attempt to rewrite the rules in favour of those who lost under them.
Loss of public trust:
- Fiji’s electoral system has already been contested terrain since 1987. Trust will not be rebuilt by placing it in the hands of actors with a partisan past unless they are visibly balanced by figures from across the political spectrum

Wadan Narsey should be one voice among many - perhaps contributing as a technical economist or academic analyst - not as a co-architect of a new electoral system.

Conclusion

Electoral reform in Fiji must pass two tests: constitutional defensibility and political legitimacy. Appointing a 1999 NFP candidate like Wadan Narsey as the designer of a new system risks failing both.

Even if his technical competence is not in question, the optics are terrible, the historical record is unforgiving, and the risk of perceived partisanship is unacceptably high. Fiji cannot afford to taint the next chapter of its democratic evolution with the ghosts of 1999.

“If Mahendra Chaudhry is constipated then Biman Prasad is to be blamed. But it is not surprising because this is the only brand of politics that Chaudhry has played throughout the term of the Coalition government – blame me for all the problems,”
Prof Prasad said.
“This is coming from a person whose political credibility drowned in a cesspool when he happily joined a military regime in January 2007 that was born out of the 5th December 2006 coup, which toppled a democratically elected SDL/FLP multi-party government,” he added.
Professor Prasad also said, “A man twice convicted of criminal offences, once for causing the death of a pedestrian while driving when drunk, and then for breaching Exchange Control regulations after keeping AUD$1.5 million abroad that he claimed was raised to resettle his family in Australia, should be the very last person to lecture me or anybody else.”

COMING SOON:
Constipated for a Decade: Biman Prasad’s Ten-Year Struggle to Pass the Truth

When Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Biman Prasad told Mahendra Chaudhry that if he was “constipated” it was Prasad’s fault, he probably didn’t expect the metaphor to bounce back with such force. Because if political constipation means holding something in far longer than is healthy, then Prasad’s record on asset declarations under the Political Parties Act is a textbook case from 2014 to 2024.
*We repeat that he must be charged and expelled from Parliament.

Identity Crisis? Try Leadership Crisis — and DON'T You Dare Say So if You’re Not iTaukei. A Riposte to Semi Koroilavesau's lament on i-Taukei identity crisis, especially among its Urban YOUTH. Who can blame them?

10/8/2025

All one has to do is open the Commission of Inquiry Report to see the problem in plain sight: the vast majority of those accused of various offences are iTaukei — spanning chiefs, commoners, men and women alike. Only two notable exceptions stand out: Biman Prasad and Wylie Clarke, both non-iTaukei.

Semi Koroilavesau

Ah yes - another week, another solemn warning in Parliament about the iTaukei “identity crisis.” This time it’s Opposition MP Semi Koroilavesau, gravely informing us that the very fabric of iTaukei culture and tradition is under threat.
Well, if by “fabric” he means a tattered masi* being pulled in three different directions by chiefs, politicians, and elite commoners who are either breaking laws, dancing naked in videos, or answering to the Fiji Corrections Service, then sure - it’s in danger.

If you’ve already fled your cultural obligations, why expect the youth to carry them alone? It’s rich to condemn urban youth for not “absorbing tradition” when the most visible iTaukei leaders have already traded their Mataqali* obligations for political alliances, business ventures, and weekend getaways in Port Denarau. If the so-called guardians of culture have abandoned the blueprint, why should the next generation be shamed for following the example?
Koroilavesau calls for a holistic approach, balancing cultural preservation with economic development. But maybe he should start with a simpler, more honest step: have the cultural elites and political chiefs go home, reconnect with their own tikina* and yavusa, and show - not just tell - the youth what it means to live those values.

Fijileaks, Let’s be blunt: the “identity crisis” didn’t just fall from the sky. The very people lamenting it in Parliament — iTaukei MPs, both male and female — long ago abandoned the daily practice of their own traditions.

Chiefs who once presided over village ceremonies now preside over parliamentary committees.
Commoner politicians who once talked about service to the vanua now talk mostly about their portfolios.
*Both sides of the aisle happily enjoy lifestyles that quietly tell youth that success is found far from the village.

In Parliament this week, Opposition MP Semi Koroilavesau declared that the iTaukei face an “existential” identity crisis. Urban youth are losing their Mataqali knowledge, kinship roles are fading, traditions are unravelling. Colonial reforms, modernization, and economic pressures have all played their part.

So far, so reasonable. But then comes the part they never say out loud: just don’t point this out if you’re not iTaukei. Because nothing unites the elite faster - chiefs, thieves, commoners, men, women, government, opposition - than a chance to swat down “outsiders” who dare to hold up a mirror.

Let’s be blunt: the “identity crisis” didn’t just fall from the sky. The very people lamenting it in Parliament, iTaukei MPs, both male and female, long ago abandoned the daily practice of their own traditions.

Chiefs who once presided over village ceremonies now preside over parliamentary committees.
Commoner politicians who once talked about service to the vanua now talk mostly about their portfolios.
Both sides of the aisle happily enjoy lifestyles that quietly tell youth that success is found far from the village.

The Silencing Game

And heaven help the non-iTaukei who dares to point any of this out. Suddenly, the conversation is no longer about the loss of tradition, it’s about “outsiders interfering,” “not understanding our ways,” or “showing disrespect.”

It’s a handy way to avoid answering the awkward question: if you’ve already fled your cultural obligations, why expect the youth to carry them alone?

The Example They’re Setting

When the most visible iTaukei leaders treat tradition as a speech prop, land as a transaction, and criticism as an insult, especially from non-iTaukei, the next generation gets the message loud and clear: the rules are flexible if you’re powerful, and sacred only when you want to lecture someone else.

A Real Holistic Approach

Koroilavesau calls for mapping traditions, teaching protocols, and celebrating heritage. Fine. But first, map the gap between what leaders say in Parliament and what they do in real life. And if non-iTaukei voices happen to notice that gap, maybe don’t shoot the messenger, especially when they’re pointing out the truth you already know.

Let’s see i-Taukei political leaders, all of them, spend real time in their villages, participate in ceremonies without the media in tow, and demonstrate that the vanua is more than a talking point.

Until then, the only “mapping” the youth will follow is the one charted by their role models - away from tradition and toward wherever the perks, contracts, and social media likes are richest.

The Leadership Gap

If the iTaukei elite, chiefs and commoners, men and women alike, have distanced themselves from their own cultural obligations, why are the youth expected to absorb, maintain, and pass on traditions alone? Leadership is supposed to model behaviour. Right now, it’s modelling abandonment.

From Vanua to VIP

It’s not just the traditional chiefs who have swapped the village green for the parliamentary green benches. Plenty of commoner politicians have done exactly the same, rising to office on the rhetoric of service to the vanua but returning home only for funerals, campaign launches, or the annual photo-op in a bula shirt.

They speak passionately about “reclaiming” tradition while living lifestyles that quietly demonstrate to young people that the real rewards come from leaving it behind.

The Chiefs in Parliament

What about the parliamentary chiefs - those noble guardians of culture who have taken on the sacred duty of voting on how many duty-free hybrid cars MPs can import. Nothing says “protect the vanua” quite like signing off on perks while rural villages are still waiting for clean water. And of course, cultural leadership here often means delivering a stirring speech about tradition - right before crossing the floor for a coalition job.

The Chiefs Who Party

Then there are the chiefs who have embraced the modern age so completely that their biggest cultural contribution is an appearance at Suva’s weekend party circuit. These are the champions of “keeping traditions alive” by hosting Instagram-worthy kava sessions in hotel conference rooms, usually sponsored by the same corporate interests bulldozing ancestral land for a resort. Who needs a chiefly council when you have a VIP booth?

The Chiefs in Prison

And, finally, the chiefs who have traded their chiefly regalia for prison overalls. Some went down fighting for their interpretation of “traditional authority” (armed insurrection has a way of clashing with democratic constitutions). Others took a more entrepreneurial route, dipping into land trust funds or development grants. Either way, their leadership is now exercised from behind bars, with visiting hours replacing the traditional village talanoa.

Not to mention elite commoner iTaukei who return to their villages from prisons, forced to inform the youth of the villages that they served prison sentences for swindling taxpayers over travel parliamentary allowances. Isa, Tagi Mada, Na i Tovo Vaka iTaukei.

Returning to the Moment:

Why Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara's Installation as Tui Nayau and Tui Lau Still Resonates

Sometimes, we at Fijileaks feel like a vaka in rough seas - just as you set a course, new swells rise up, demanding you steer hard in another direction. That’s what happened with this piece on Ratu Ului Mara's installation. We had it in mind, notes ready, reflections formed and written - then a tide of urgent stories came in, each needing to be told right away. Now the choppy waters have settled a little, and it’s time to return to this moment of tradition and meaning. Here’s why Ratu Ului's installation matters, and why it stays with us.

The Vanua Calls Again - Reflections on the Installation of Ratu Tevita Ului Mara as Tui Nayau and Tui Lau

Let me begin with a full and heartfelt declaration of interest. My ties to the Mara family and to the ideals they have long represented are both personal and political, forged across generations. In the 1970s, my late father served as the President of the Alliance Party’s Tailevu branch - a vital grassroots role in Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara’s national political movement. His brother, my uncle, was an Alliance Party - backed Lord Mayor of Suva and contested two general elections - in 1972 and again in 1975 - proudly under Ratu Mara’s leadership. As a young man, I campaigned for Ratu Mara, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and Ratu Sir George Cakobau in both these elections.

These are not casual associations. They are foundational. They form the core of my political upbringing and ethical compass. Ratu Mara was not just a national leader to my family - he was a source of principle, stability, and inspiration in turbulent times.

It was with this enduring loyalty that I received a personal invitation to witness the installation of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara — Roko Ului — as Tui Nayau, Sau ni Vanua o Lau, and Tui Lau. Though I was unable to attend in person, I followed every moment of that historic occasion with reverence and hope - for Lau, for Fiji, and for the vanua itself.

What unfolded in Lakeba was not merely ceremonial. It was a national turning point. A restoration of dignity, tradition, and chiefly authority at a time when the country is searching for deeper roots and firmer ground.

A Sacred Reconnection

For over two decades, the chiefly titles of Tui Nayau, Sau ni Vanua o Lau, and Tui Lau had remained unoccupied. Since the passing of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara in 2004, the people of Lau - and Fiji more broadly - had lived with the absence of not just a high chief, but a spiritual anchor. The silence left behind was more than symbolic. It reflected a deeper uncertainty about the place of traditional authority in a modern state.

Ratu Ului’s installation is not just about filling a void. It is about reawakening a sacred relationship between the vanua and its people - one that is grounded in ancestral memory, cultural stewardship, and chiefly obligation.

The revival of ceremonies, the lifting of taboos, the presence of traditional leaders and Pacific royals - these are not nostalgic gestures. They represent the living strength of indigenous institutions, the resilience of their cultural systems, and the capacity of iTaukei to find belonging in the wisdom of their forebears.

The Man, the Journey, the Mantle

Ratu Ului Mara’s return to this role was not inevitable. His path has been marked by public service, military rank, political upheaval, and years of exile. For some, those chapters remain contentious. But for others - including those of us who have stood with the Mara family through the best and worst of times - this moment marks not a return to power, but a return to purpose.

As the only surviving son of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Ratu Ului was always destined to carry the weight of legacy. But now he carries something even greater: the responsibility to define that legacy anew. Not through the lens of the past, but through the needs of the present and hopes for the future.

What Fiji now faces is not whether chiefly titles still matter - they clearly do. The question is how chiefly leadership can responsibly evolve. Ratu Ului’s challenge is to serve not only as custodian of culture, but as a model for ethical leadership, generational guidance, and principled stewardship in a rapidly changing world.

Police Commissioner Steps Up for Religious Freedom: Rusiate Tudravu Reverses Permit Ban in the Spirit of Common Sense and Constitutional Duty. Tudravu Gets It Right. The Indo-Fijians must Fight for their RIGHTS

8/8/2025

In Fiji today, a small but important victory has been won for the Constitution, for human rights, and for plain old common sense.

When the Fiji Police Force reversed its earlier decision to block a Hindu spiritual gathering in Suva, Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu didn’t just avoid a public relations headache - he put policing back in step with the law.

Section 22 of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji makes it crystal clear: every person has the right to practise their religion, privately or in public, without interference. International law says the same. By cancelling the permit without explanation, the earlier decision risked looking like an arbitrary restriction - the very thing the Constitution was designed to prevent.

But Tudravu’s statement has hit all the right notes. He acknowledged that no permit was even required, commended the organisers for cooperating with police, and focused on what matters most: ensuring safety and security, not shutting people out of their place of worship. And yes - he apologised.

This is how a secular state should work. You don’t suppress faith; you protect the space for it to flourish. In reversing the ban, Tudravu has shown that the Police Force can be a guardian of rights, not a barrier to them.

In times like these, that’s more than good policing - it’s leadership.

But One Good Decision Doesn’t Erase a Pattern. Police Must Make Rights Protection the Rule, Not the Exception.

Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu deserves credit for reversing the decision to block a Hindu spiritual gathering in Suva. His move was swift, sensible, and legally correct.

But let’s be clear - must become the standard practice, not an occasional concession when public pressure mounts.

The original permit was granted on 31 July, then cancelled on 6 August without explanation. That unexplained U-turn was more than a scheduling hiccup - it was a rights issue. Section 22 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both protect freedom of religion. Any restriction on that right must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Silence on the reasons fails that test.

Tudravu’s reversal fixed this particular problem, but the fact that it happened at all shows there’s work to do. Fiji Police must adopt a “facilitate first” approach to religious and community events. This means:

Immediate written reasons for any cancellation or restriction.
A presumption in favour of the event unless there’s a genuine and provable threat to public safety.
Early engagement with organisers to manage risks rather than block gatherings.

Rights are not a privilege to be granted and withdrawn at will. They are the starting point from which any state action must justify its limitations If we treat Tudravu’s decision as a one-off act of goodwill, we’ve missed the point. If we treat it as a precedent - a model for handling such cases - we strengthen both our democracy and public trust in law enforcement.

Fiji’s secular state exists to protect the freedom to worship - or not - without fear of arbitrary interference. The police can, and must, be the front line of that protection every single time.

Hindu Unity Gathering Organiser Sandeep Singh

Alefina Vuki, FHRADC Commissioner

'Fiji is a Secular State, and every person has a right, either individually or in community with others, in private or in public, to manifest and practise their religion...'

In October - shortly after Diwali - Rabuka began the "rapes and beatings of pagan Indo-Fijians" in 1987

"As Minister for Internal Security, Mr Rabuka had extraordinary range of powers, which violated international standards of human rights, including the detention of any person for two years; order restriction of movement, freedom of expression, employment, residence or activity; prohibit the printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation or possession of any written material, and prohibit its communication through word of mouth etc. And yet Mr Rabuka was free to publish his book “No Other Way”. But no criticism of his book was permitted, and one USP Indo-Fijian lecturer who dared to criticise it, was detained and severely beaten up."
VICTOR LAL, The Fiji Sun, 29 December 2006

CHAPTER 10—IMMUNITY
Immunity granted under the 1990 Constitution continues
155. Notwithstanding the abrogation of the Constitution Amendment Act 1997 and despite the repeal of
the Constitution of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji (Promulgation) Decree 1990, Chapter XIV of the
Constitution of 1990 continues in force in accordance with its tenor, and the immunity granted in Chapter XIV of the Constitution of 1990 shall continue.
Immunity granted under the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 continues
156.—(1) The immunities granted to prescribed persons for prescribed political events under the Limitation of
Liability for Prescribed Political Events Decree 2010 shall continue in existence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, the Limitation of Liability for Prescribed Political
Events Decree 2010 shall, in its entirety, continue in existence and shall not be reviewed, amended, altered, repealed or revoked by Parliament.
Further immunity
157. Absolute and unconditional immunity is irrevocably granted to any person (whether in their official or
personal or individual capacity) holding the office of, or holding the office in, as the case may be--
(a) the President;
(b) Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers;
(c) Republic of Fiji Military Forces;
(d) Fiji Police Force;
(e) Fiji Corrections Service;
(f) Judiciary;
(g) public service; and
(h) any public office,
from any criminal prosecution and from any civil or other liability in any court, tribunal or commission, in
any proceeding including any legal, military, disciplinary or professional proceedings and from any order or
judgment of any court, tribunal or commission, as a result of any direct or indirect participation, appointment
or involvement in the Government from 5 December 2006 to the date of the first sitting of the first Parliament
elected after the commencement of this Constitution; provided however any such immunity shall not apply to
any act or omission that constitutes an offence under sections 133 to 146, 148 to 236, 288 to 351, 356 to 361, 364 to 374, and 377 to 386 of the Crimes Decree 2009 (as prescribed in the Crimes Decree 2009 at the date of the commencement of this Constitution).
Immunity entrenched
158.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, this Chapter and any immunity granted or
continued in this Chapter shall not be reviewed, amended, altered, repealed or revoked.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no court or tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to
accept, hear or make any decision or order with respect to any challenge against the provisions of this Chapter and any immunity granted or continued in this Chapter.
(3) No compensation shall be payable by the State to any person in respect of damage, injury or loss to his or
her property or person caused by or consequent upon any conduct from which immunity has been granted under this section.

Fijileaks: Validity and Legal Origins of Sitiveni Rabuka’s Claimed Immunity

*Sitiveni Rabuka’s current immunity from prosecution for his role in the 1987 coups is not grounded in any democratically enacted legal framework. Rather, it derives from decrees he himself issued as a military usurper and was later entrenched in the imposed 1990 Constitution. This immunity lapsed with the enactment of the 1997 Constitution, which contained no such protection. The 2013 Constitution’s Section 157, which re-establishes immunity, lacks legal legitimacy due to its non-democratic origins and cannot override the legal and constitutional rupture created by the 2006 coup.
If the 1997 Constitution is restored, Rabuka’s immunity collapses with it.
A Full Legal Analysis soon.

<<Previous

Forward>>