Blog Archives

Marching with a Conviction: How a Fraudster Gets to Protest the 2013 Constitution — While Hindus Are Denied the Right to Gather and PRAY; One that has its roots in the first RABUKA military coup of 14 May 1987

7/8/2025

The police have suddenly revoked the permit for Saturday’s Hindu Unity Gathering, forcing organizers to cancel the spiritual event planned. Organiser Sandeep Singh said police first approved the permit on July 31.
He said they then recalled it on August 1 for amendments and finally revoked it without giving any reason.

“As citizens of a democratic society, we have the right to transparency. This is unacceptable.”

Singh explained that over $15,000 was already spent, with more than 2,000 devotees expected, including visitors from Vanuatu. He states this decision has shocked the Hindu community and raised questions about transparency. The gathering aimed to promote unity, interfaith respect, and speak on issues like drugs and domestic violence. Singh is urging Hindus to chant Hanuman Chalisa at home instead.

The organising committee says it will follow all legal steps in future and stresses its only goal is to bring people together in faith. In response, Policing Minister Iowane Naivalurua confirmed receiving information from the police regarding the withdrawn permit, further stating that it is within the jurisdiction of the police to make changes in permit issuance.

In today’s Fiji, the police are entertaining a permit application from a convicted fraudster who seeks to march against the very Constitution that protects him — while revoking a permit for peaceful Hindu citizens to hold a unity gathering rooted in prayer, nonviolence, and spiritual reflection.

This is not merely a lapse in judgment. It is the latest expression of a pattern of institutional bias, one that has its roots in the first military coup of 14 May 1987, when Sitiveni Rabuka and ten hooded soldiers --- including current Police Minister Iowane Naivalurua --- stormed Parliament and overthrew Fiji’s first multiracial elected government.

That coup did not just remove a government. It unleashed violence, rape, beatings, and terror against Indo-Fijians, and set into motion a campaign of religious and ethnic persecution: Hindu temples and mosques were desecrated, Indo-Fijian homes and businesses were targeted, and a “Sunday observance ban” was enforced in the name of Christianity --- while Rabuka referred to Hindus and Muslims as “pagans.”

And now, as history echoes loudly, those who should speak out remain silent. Most striking is Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad --- a Hindu and self-proclaimed advocate for multiculturalism --- who has offered no protest, no objection, and no defence of the very community whose rights are being trampled. His silence is not neutrality. It is political self-preservation.

For if Biman Prasad dares to open his mouth, Sitiveni Rabuka might well hand him over to FICAC --- not for justice, but for leverage. In the new Fiji, compromise has become complicity.

"If I raise my FINGER, Rabuka will send me to FICAC."

1987 and 2000 Coups Began with a March: Fiji’s History Warns Us About What Comes Next when iTaukei Take to the Street in Guise of Protest

When self-appointed iTaukei patriots take to the streets in Fiji — often wrapped in flags and shouting about “indigenous rights” - history teaches us to look not at their slogans but at their destination. Because in 1987, and again in 2000, it began with marches - and ended with overthrown governments, burned temples and mosques, beaten minorities, and suspended constitutions.

Now, as another so-called unity march awaits police approval, led by a convicted fraudster, the alarm bells should ring again. And the silence from those in power, especially from those who should know better, is deafening.

Nawaikula and his lot want 2013 Constitution gone, and with it s131 (2)

Flaming Red Pantsuit Information Minister LYNDA Tabuya lashes out at the Chaudhrys. 'Thanks for the Ammo, Victor!'. Tabuya cites $2m BANK Deposit (Exposed by Fijileaks and former Fiji Sun columnist) to Hit Back

5/8/2025

'The Convicted Criminal Mahendra Chaudhry was hiding millions from the Reserve Bank of Fiji' - Sitiveni Rabuka's new Minister for Information

Rabuka puts political survival above principles and integrity

The reappointment of disgraced Lynda Tabuya to Cabinet as Minister for Information is not just politically irresponsible—it is a blatant assault on the values of integrity, accountability, and public decency that every democracy must uphold.

Let us not forget: Hon. Tabuya was previously stripped of her ministerial role and Deputy Leader status following highly publicised misconduct, including the fallout from an inappropriate personal relationship with a fellow Minister and the viral circulation of a video with explicit content.

Her reinstatement to such a strategic portfolio—responsible for shaping the government’s public communications and media strategy—demonstrates a shocking disregard for the standards the people of Fiji expect from their leaders.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka must now answer one critical question: Is this the leadership he promised the people of Fiji?

At a time when public trust in government is fragile, the Prime Minister’s decision to recycle individuals mired in scandal sends a disturbing signal — that loyalty to political survival takes precedence over principles, ethics, and public accountability.

“The Ministry for Information is not a rehabilitation centre for political allies. It is the voice of the nation. Giving it to someone who has repeatedly undermined public confidence makes a mockery of Cabinet responsibility,” says Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

And sends the Prime Minister’s own credibility to the dust bin:

Just a few months ago, he was quoted in the Fiji Times (18 March 2025) stating quite categorically in reference to Lynda’s comeback: “Why should she come back and go straight to the front bench … [when] there are other MPs who had behaved and acted in accordance with Cabinet rules?”

The past two and half years of Rabuka’s leadership has been littered with instances of similar gross inconsistencies to the point where the nation no longer attaches any significance to his comments and statements – for what he says today, he revokes tomorrow.

“This is not about personal attacks. It is about standards. It is about responsible leadership. And under Sitiveni Rabuka’s leadership, those standards continue to erode before our eyes,” Mr Chaudhry said.

“Rabuka must stop using ministerial portfolios as instruments of political convenience.

“People of Fiji expect him to uphold standards of integrity and show greater respect for the people’s mandate,” Mr Chaudhry said.

Chaudhry's Old Tax File: Fijileaks* Vows to Hunt Down Others in 2025

Fijileaks to Prasad: Chaudhry has faced the brunt of the law

STILL Hiding the Truth: HECF Report Gathers Dust as Minister-Appointed Review Team Seeks to Muzzle Independent Findings. We've had all three reports on FNU, USP and UoF for months but we are releasing them NOW

4/8/2025

"Fiji National University seemed to reject the report in its entirety, citing a lack of credibility, methodological flaws, and the inclusion of defamatory statements against its senior leadership. University of Fiji, while acknowledging minor factual errors, accepted the report in good faith and is now working towards its full implementation. University of the South Pacific offered a professional rebuttal, asserting that the report was methodologically weak and professionally inadequate."
Minister Radrodro

Fijileaks: Since November 2024, the long-awaited HECF report has remained buried, despite growing public demand for transparency. Media reports now suggest the government wants to “review” the independent findings—an act that would compromise the very integrity the report was meant to uphold. Appointed by the Education Minister Aseri Radrodro, the review committee lacks independence, and if there are genuine integrity concerns, both the Minister and the HECF Chair should resign first. One read of the suppressed report is enough to understand why it’s being kept from the public—and why it likely never will be released.
*Let us begin with the Report on USP.

NEXT: The Report on the Fiji National University

Stroke of Fate, Stroke of Strategy? Critics want accountability. Lawyers want certainty. Court must choose Patient, NOT the Politician. Richard Naidu legally correct on Police overreach in visiting Khaiyum in hospital

3/8/2025

*If the prosecution disputes the medical evidence provided by the defence, the correct approach is:
To seek an independent medical opinion or Request the court to order a court-appointed medical assessment.

Aiyaz Khaiyum’s controversial past may be on trial, but his stroke isn’t.

My encounter with Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum began in the aftermath of the 1987 Sitiveni Rabuka coups, during a time when many young dissidents, including Richard Naidu -and ourselves - were searching for a solution - to peacefully or violently - end Rabuka and his racist i-Taukei thugs reign of terror, violence, looting, beatings, and rape in Fiji.

Over the years, my path intersected professionally and politically with Khaiyum, but we ultimately parted company after the 2006 Bainimarama coup, which he not only supported but came to architect and defend through law and rhetoric.

Since that time, Khaiyum has hounded me at every turn—using state machinery, legal threats, and political pressure—because of my efforts through Fijileaks to hold him and others in power to account. I have become one of his fiercest and most consistent critics, exposing what I believe to be abuses of office, breaches of public trust, and the erosion of democratic institutions under his legal stewardship.

Yet principles must endure even when tested by those who once defied them. If Aiyaz Khaiyum has truly suffered a life-threatening stroke and cardiac arrest, then the question of whether he should be allowed to travel overseas for urgent medical treatment is no longer a political matter—it is a legal and humanitarian one. The courts of Fiji must judge his present medical condition, not his past abuses of power. Justice demands consistency, and if due process is to mean anything, then it must apply even to those who once denied it to others.

We refuse to sink to the low level that the 1987 coupist and once again Prime Minister and Methodist lay preacher Sitiveni Rabuka sank to when he heard that the democratically elected Prime Minister he had deposed in 1987 - Dr Timoci Bavadra - had succumbed to cancer. He felt good that his enemy had gone. His coup was 'right'.

REMORSELESS RABUKA ON BAVADRA'S DEATH:

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

Selective Scrutiny: The Double Standard in Investigating Medical Absences

SODELPA MP Adi Litia Qionibaravi’s lawyer told the Suva High Court in 2022 that she was unfit to attend proceedings due to having suffered a stroke. The court ordered that a certified medical certificate be filed to substantiate her condition.

Yet this court process proceeded with little drama, no police visits to verify her medical condition, and no prosecutors rushing to the hospital. Contrast that with the treatment of former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum: when he claimed medical incapacity during a pending matter, officers from the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), on the instructions from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), saw fit to show up at the hospital to check on him personally.

Why the double standard?

Both Adi Litia and Khaiyum are high-profile figures. Both cited serious health issues. But only one was subjected to invasive and public verification by enforcement agencies.

Adi Litia was alleged to have falsely stated that her permanent place of residence was in Ucunivanua, Verata, Tailevu and allegedly obtained $15,480 in parliamentary allowances between August 2019 and April 2020. She was charged with one count each of false information to public servant and obtaining financial advantage.

FICAC told the Fiji High Court the nolle prosequi was being filed because of Adi Litia’s medical condition - she had suffered acute stroke.

Richard Naidu is largely correct in his statement, both legally and ethically.

1. Police Are Not Medical Experts

Police officers are not medically trained to assess, verify, or interpret a patient’s medical condition. Any assessment they attempt would be:

Legally unreliable,
Ethically problematic,
Potentially a violation of patient privacy or medical confidentiality.

Legal principle: Medical evidence must come from a qualified health professional, typically through a formal medical report or affidavit.

2. Defence Can Rely on Medical Evidence

If a defendant seeks to vary bail due to medical issues (e.g. illness, hospitalisation), they must provide certified medical documentation. That satisfies the evidentiary burden from the defence.

3. Prosecution Must Respond With Its Own Expert Evidence

If the prosecution disputes the medical evidence provided by the defence, the correct approach is:

To seek an independent medical opinion or
Request the court to order a court-appointed medical assessment.

Incorrect approach: Sending police to the hospital to “check” on a patient’s condition informally. This has no probative value and can amount to harassment or interference with patient care.

4. Constitutional and Human Rights Implications

There are also possible breaches of:

The right to privacy (e.g. if police request or access medical records without consent),
The right to liberty and security of the person (if improper evidence is used to deny bail).

Conclusion

Naidu’s argument is sound. If the prosecution wishes to rebut medical evidence submitted by the defence, it must do so through proper legal and medical channels—not by relying on informal, extralegal “checks” by police officers. Doing otherwise undermines due process and the integrity of medical confidentiality.

Shailendra Gopal Raju’s View (Politically Motivated & Legally Flawed):

Raju frames police actions as “just doing their job” to help DPP oppose bail variation.
He assumes police can or should “check if Khaiyum was physically incapable”- but this is not their role.
Even if intentions are legitimate (i.e. to prepare for court), methods must be lawful and procedurally fair.
He sidesteps legal boundaries around medical confidentiality and due process.
His argument lacks an understanding of the rules of admissible medical evidence.

Raju’s language (“only doing their job”, “let the DPP do what is needed”) shows a presumption that Aiyaz Khaiyum is abusing the system—suggesting his view is shaped more by animus than legal principle.

Bottom Line:

Richard Naidu is right: medical evidence must come from professionals, not the police.
Shailendra Raju’s justification ignores the legal and ethical constraints on police conduct in a medical context.
The DPP’s job is not to rely on police impressions but to obtain formal, admissible evidence to challenge or test a bail variation.

Surah Al-Anbiya (21:107)
“Keitou sega ni talai iko (o Muhamedi) me dua na ka tale, ia mo dua na loloma vei ira na vuravura taucoko.”

Forward>>