Blog Archives

Battle for the Heart and Soul of Cane Farmers: Charan Jeath SINGH vs Mahendra Chaudhry. Singh and Chaudhry locked in a bitter war of words over allegations of arson at mill, negligence, and political responsibility

30/9/2025

Singh

Sugar Minister Charan Jeath Singh should be investigated for spreading fake news and inciting fear and ill-will in the sugar industry, says the National Farmers Union.

He claims “attempted arson” at the Lautoka Mill and also at the Rarawai Mill (two weeks ago) by “a group of disgruntled people whose self interests were more important than farmers”. Has he reported this to the Police?

Bagasse can be seen lying all over the floor at the Lautoka Mill

Instead, he is proposing that the Fiji Military Forces station soldiers at the Mills to ensure security.

“The minister is making very serious allegations. But has not provided a shred of evidence to back up his claims. He must be investigated for making wild, inflammatory statements to create fear and alarm,” says NFU general secretary Mahendra Chaudhry.

The minister’s so-called claims of a “mill arson attempt” at the Lautoka Mill which received front page headlines in the Fiji Times (29 Sept) turns out to be the burning of rubbish dumped in the mill yard by FSC, well away from the mill – as shown in the pics below.

The minister also claims that the fire at the Rarawai Mill was “an act of arson”.

His claim is absurd as noted from a statement by the National Fire Authority (FT 24 Sept) that the fire involved “diesel fuel, machinery and electrical components and may have been fuelled by bagasse scattered on the floor”.

This coincides with a Labour Party statement that the fire intensified through negligence with “diesel drenched bagasse lying scattered on the floor”.

Bagasse can be seen lying all over the floor at the Lautoka Mill in the pictures. This is a serious fire hazard but it continues to be ignored by mill management despite the warning from NFA.

“The Minister’s ‘conspiracy’ theories are designed to divert attention from the failures occurring under his watch. He is desperately looking for scapegoats as the mills move from one crisis to another.

The Minister should have the decency to take responsibility and resign.

Battle for the Heart and Soul of Fiji’s Cane Farmers: Charan Jeath Singh vs Mahendra Chaudhry

The simmering tensions within Fiji’s sugar industry have exploded into public view, with Sugar Minister Charan Jeath Singh and National Farmers Union (NFU) leader Mahendra Chaudhry locked in a bitter war of words over allegations of arson, negligence, and political responsibility. At stake is more than just the future of the sugar mills. It is a struggle for credibility, control, and the loyalty of the nation’s struggling cane farmers.

Arson or Alarmism? Singh's Explosive Allegations

The immediate spark for the latest clash came from Minister Charan Jeath Singh’s sensational claim that attempts had been made to sabotage two of Fiji’s key sugar mills - the Lautoka Mill and the Rarawai Mill - through acts of arson. According to Singh, a “group of disgruntled people whose self-interests were more important than farmers” were behind the incidents, and he even suggested deploying the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to guard the mills.

Such a claim, implying deliberate sabotage of critical national infrastructure, would normally trigger criminal investigations and public concern. But Singh has not, according to Chaudhry, provided any evidence to support his allegation or referred the matter to the police. Instead, his public comments have been accused of inflaming tension and spreading fear among already anxious farmers.

Chaudhry Strikes Back: “Minister Must Be Investigated”

Mahendra Chaudhry, NFU General Secretary and one of Fiji’s most seasoned political figures, wasted no time in firing back. Calling Singh’s claims “wild, inflammatory statements designed to create fear and alarm,” Chaudhry demanded that the minister himself be investigated for spreading false information.

“The minister is making very serious allegations. But he has not provided a shred of evidence to back up his claims,” Chaudhry said. “He must be investigated for making wild, inflammatory statements to create fear and alarm.”

Chaudhry’s comments were bolstered by reporting from the Fiji Times and the National Fire Authority (NFA), which both contradicted Singh’s narrative. The so-called “attempted arson” at Lautoka Mill, for instance, was reportedly nothing more than the burning of rubbish in a yard owned by the Fiji Sugar Corporation (FSC), far from the mill itself.

Similarly, the NFA concluded that the Rarawai fire likely involved diesel fuel, machinery, and scattered bagasse, pointing more to industrial negligence than deliberate sabotage.

Political Subtext: A Struggle for Farmer Trust

Beneath the surface of this dispute lies a much deeper political battle - one that has defined Fiji’s sugar industry for decades. Both Singh and Chaudhry are vying to present themselves as the true champion of cane farmers, a crucial political constituency whose loyalty can shape electoral outcomes and national policy.

Chaudhry, a former prime minister and long-time farmers’ advocate, has built his political career around the NFU and the grassroots struggles of rural Fiji. For him, Singh’s talk of sabotage is a cynical attempt to shift blame for the mills’ chronic failures -breakdowns, inefficiency, and declining productivity-away from government mismanagement and onto imagined enemies.

“The minister’s ‘conspiracy’ theories are designed to divert attention from the failures occurring under his watch,” the Labour Party statement declared. “He is desperately looking for scapegoats as the mills move from one crisis to another.”

For Singh, however, the narrative is different. He has positioned himself as a reformer willing to speak uncomfortable truths and tackle vested interests, including elements within the industry that, he argues, resist modernization and accountability. His arson claims, even if unproven, speak to a broader message: that powerful forces are undermining the government’s efforts to revive a struggling sector.

Safety vs Negligence: A Battle Over Accountability

The NFA’s findings, particularly the reference to “diesel-drenched bagasse lying scattered on the floor”, have become a focal point in this debate. Labour argues that such conditions are a glaring sign of FSC’s negligence, which has been repeatedly flagged but ignored by management. Bagasse, a fibrous byproduct of sugarcane, is highly flammable, and its careless handling poses an ongoing fire risk.

Photographs of mill conditions, with piles of combustible material strewn across factory floors, have further strengthened Chaudhry’s argument that management incompetence, not sabotage, is the root cause of the problem.

Singh’s critics argue that instead of calling in soldiers or blaming invisible saboteurs, the minister should be enforcing safety standards and holding FSC leadership accountable. They insist that leadership responsibility, not political scapegoating, is the only way to prevent future disasters.

A Crisis of Confidence

This latest clash is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in Fiji’s sugar industry, one that has seen decades of decline, politicization, and mistrust. Once the backbone of the national economy, the sector now faces mounting challenges: outdated infrastructure, falling yields, climate impacts, and growing disillusionment among farmers.

In such a context, the Singh-Chaudhry feud is not just a personal spat; it reflects two competing visions for the industry’s future. Singh represents a more centralised, state-driven approach focused on security, discipline, and modernization. Chaudhry embodies a populist, farmer-first model that seeks accountability, transparency, and grassroots empowerment.

Farmers Caught in the Crossfire

For Fiji’s sugarcane farmers, however, this political drama offers little immediate comfort. What they want is not accusations of arson or fiery press releases, but concrete solutions: reliable mills, fair prices, transparent governance, and an industry leadership they can trust.

Until that happens, the war of words between Charan Jeath Singh and Mahendra Chaudhry will continue, a proxy battle for the heart and soul of Fiji’s sugar belt, where the stakes are not just political careers, but the very survival of an industry that has shaped the nation’s history.

IMMUNITY Über Alles. How the Supreme Court ruling upholding Immunity allowed Bainimarama to escape $184,000 BACK PAY SCAM. 'Corruption between 2006-2014 not corruption - constitutionally protected innovation'

29/9/2025

And so the back pay story, like so many scandals of the Bainimarama years, ends not with justice but with immunity. Not with accountability, but with a shrug from the bench. Fiji deserves better. But for now, Frank Bainimarama can keep his back pay. The Supreme Court (indirectly) says so.
However, sources claim that Bainimarama paid back all the leave pay.

*It was I who, in 2010 on Coupfourpointfive (C4/5), blew the lid off Bainimarama’s back-pay scam. In the wake of the 2006 coup, I exposed how the dictator and his then Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry quietly engineered a $205,000 leave payout while the nation was reeling under military rule.
*The expose was based on Bainimarama's own curriculum vitae - leaked to me along with hundreds of highly sensitive documents from the RFMF headquarters by military officers opposed to the 2006 coup.
*Years later, Fijileaks faithfully reproduced the evidence, reminding readers how power and guns - not law or justice - delivered that windfall.

**When Fijileaks’ founding Editor-in-Chief exposed the scandal, it stood as proof that raw power had replaced the rule of law.**

Understanding the Bainimarama Back-Pay Table

The table shows how Bainimarama’s 698 days of leave, supposedly carried forward from 1978 onwards, was converted into a massive payout in 2007 after the coup. Here’s what those numbers really meant:

698 days leave

This was the foundation of the claim: almost two years’ worth of leave supposedly never taken, rolled forward over nearly three decades. In any normal civil service system, leave expires or is capped - not banked indefinitely like a savings account.

Daily rate: $293.28

His back pay was calculated using a 2006/2007 salary rate, not the lower rates he was actually on in the 1980s and 1990s. This inflated the value of each “old” leave day, multiplying the payout by tens of thousands.

Basic Pay: $204,703.29

Multiplying the 698 days by the daily rate produced this staggering figure. This was the core of the back pay — but it was essentially fictional, because it assumed all those days were carried forward and all were payable at the highest rate.

Allowances (stacked on top):

Service allowance: $29,139.11
Duty allowance: $23,013.92
Gratuity allowance: $24,069.00
Expense allowance: $3,832.02
Overtime & miscellaneous: $20,057.50

These extra allowances were layered on top of the basic leave claim, fattening the payout even further. In effect, Bainimarama was paid as though he had “served” those leave days while simultaneously being absent.

Gross total: $224,814.84
This was the combined sum of the basic leave payout plus all allowances.

Less FNPF deduction: $20,406.71
A compulsory Fiji National Provident Fund deduction was subtracted. This gave the scheme a veneer of “legitimacy” — as if the payout was just another salary item with proper statutory deductions.

Net pay-out: $205,147.29
This was the figure Bainimarama pocketed.

Why the Table Matters

Impossible Leave Accrual: No military or civil service regulation allowed 698 days to accumulate across 30 years.

Wrong Salary Base: Calculating at 2006 daily rates for leave allegedly earned in the 1970s–90s massively inflated the payout.

Stacked Allowances: He wasn’t just paid basic salary for unused leave; he claimed every conceivable allowance too.

Cosmetic Deduction: The FNPF deduction was designed to make the payment look legitimate, but it only disguised a politically driven cash grab.

Basically, Bainimarama’s “leave back pay” was not a routine HR matter. It was a coup dividend, conjured by decree and approved by his political ally Mahendra Chaudhry.

Frank Bainimarama has been having a rough season. His pension got sliced down in court, a humiliating moment for a man who once treated public coffers like his personal wallet. One might think that the gods of accountability were finally catching up. But no. Along comes the Supreme Court like a guardian angel with Section 157 in its robes, waving away any thought of dragging the former Commander into court over his infamous 2007 back pay.

Yes, you remember it. The $184,000 “back pay” for unclaimed leave. Leave that, by the way, he was never entitled to claim in the first place, since soldiers are paid to serve, not to hoard fictional holiday entitlements like frequent flyer points. And who signed off on this fantasy payout? None other than Mahendra Chaudhry, then Interim Finance Minister. The whole deal stank then, and it stinks now.

But here’s the punchline: the Supreme Court has just reminded us all that in Fiji, corruption committed between 2006 and 2014 is not a crime. It’s a constitutional right. Section 157 of the 2013 Constitution ensures that. Immunity! Absolute. Untouchable. A get-out-of-jail-free card written in permanent ink.

So while Bainimarama may have to count his cents in retirement, and yes, his pension loss must sting, he can still sleep soundly knowing no prosecutor will ever darken his doorstep over the back pay scam. The judges have ruled it so. The Constitution demands it. The rule of law, apparently, requires that the law not apply to him.

Let’s be clear: if the 1997 Constitution still governed us, Bainimarama and Chaudhry would be ripe for prosecution. Abuse of Office. Corrupt Practices. Stealing by Public Servant. Pick your poison. There’s no statute of limitations for fraud. They could be hauled to court tomorrow. But alas, Section 157 slammed that courtroom door shut and welded it closed.

And the irony? Bainimarama with the help of Aiyaz Khaiyum (the very architect of the 2013 Constitution), has now been saved by his own handiwork. Imagine that: drafting your own immunity clause, enforcing it at gunpoint, and years later, having the nation’s highest court validate it as perfectly lawful. You could almost admire the foresight, if it weren’t so nakedly corrupt.

Meanwhile, ordinary Fijians have no such protections. Steal a tin of fish from MH, and you’ll be paraded through court before the week is out. But help yourself to $184,000 from the Treasury, and the Constitution itself becomes your lawyer, your judge, and your jury. “Case dismissed - permanently.”

So, let’s raise a glass to the Supreme Court’s ruling. It has ensured that Bainimarama’s pension may be trimmed, his reputation may be in tatters, but his criminal liability is safe, secure, and untouchable. Fiji’s founding fathers never dreamed of such a Constitution. Only Bainimarama could have invented it, and only Bainimarama could have needed it this badly.

As for Mahendra Chaudhry, well, he too can breathe easy. His signature on the back pay cheque will never be Exhibit A in a trial. Immunity covers him like a warm blanket. The taxpayers may gnash their teeth, the Auditor-General may shake his head, but the law - such as it was in Bainimarama’s Fiji - is clear: corruption between 2006 and 2014 is not corruption. It is constitutionally protected innovation.

And so the back pay story, like so many scandals of the Bainimarama years, ends not with justice but with immunity. Not with accountability but with a shrug from the bench. Fiji deserves better. But for now, Frank Bainimarama can keep his back pay.

The Supreme Court of Fiji says so. Sources claim Bainimarama paid back the money.

CHAPTER 10—IMMUNITY
Immunity granted under the 1990 Constitution continues

From Fijileaks Archive, 2 March 2015

Interim Finance Minister Chaudhry’s Cover Story: Defending the Indefensible

When Mahendra Chaudhry stood before the press and declared there was “nothing sinister” about Bainimarama’s $205,000 back-pay, he was not acting as a custodian of public finance. He was acting as the dictator’s treasurer. With a few sharp words, he tried to smother debate, telling the nation that critics had no evidence and that the money was legitimately owed.

But what he really did was flip the burden of proof. In any functioning democracy, when a minister signs off on a massive payout to the man holding the guns, the responsibility lies with him to show the public the paperwork: the leave records, the salary calculations, the audit trail. Instead, Chaudhry dared the critics to disprove what his own ministry had quietly engineered.

The claim itself was preposterous. 698 days of leave supposedly rolled over since 1978? Paid out not at the rates of the 1980s or 1990s, but at Bainimarama’s 2006 salary level? And fattened further by service allowances, duty allowances, gratuities, and expenses stacked on top? No civil service rulebook in the world allowed such a bonanza. It was a fiction that grew into a fortune, sanctioned by decree and rubber-stamped by a interim finance minister who should have known better.

Chaudhry’s attempt to shift blame to “previous governments” was an evasion, not an explanation. If leave management had been lax, that called for reform, not a jackpot for the coup leader. If records were missing, that called for scrutiny, not a payout. What the country got instead was silence and stonewalling.

Years later, Fijileaks reproduced the evidence in full, exposing the arithmetic tricks and allowances that turned a questionable claim into a $205,000 windfall. The truth was clear: this was not a debt owed to Bainimarama: it was a dividend for seizing power.

So was Chaudhry “right” to defend and shut down debate? No. He was politically useful to Bainimarama, but he was wrong by every legal and ethical measure. By suppressing scrutiny, he helped entrench a culture where coups carried cash rewards, and where accountability could be shouted down by authority.

Today, with Bainimarama’s pension claim rejected in court, the irony is complete. The same man who once needed only a rifle and an interim finance minister to conjure $205,000 out of thin air has now discovered that the rule of law has no room for manufactured entitlements. And Chaudhry’s old defense reads less like truth and more like the cover story it always was.

THE MONEY MAN: Chaudhry striding with Bainimarama into Parliament to deliver post 2006 coup BUDGET

NFP's $1.8 million Property Mogul and Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation SASHI KIRAN Urged to Honour Dr MRIDULA Prasad with a Blue Plaque on her former house on Bakshi St as Lasting Tribute

28/9/2025

Dr Mridula Prasad passed away on 19 September 2017

If we truly wish to honour the late Dr Mridula Prasad for her remarkable courage and advocacy for women's health and HIV/AIDS, a small public marker - such as a blue commemorative plaque - on the house she once called home would speak far more than any Facebook post.
From Sashi Kiran's 2023 statutory declaration, we note that the Coalition's NFP Minister Kiran is now the owner of her friend, the late Dr Mridula Prasad's former residence at 7 Baskhi St, Samabula, Suva.
*Placing the plaque on this prominent residence would not only honour her memory and lifelong contributions, but would also ensure that all who pass by the property, currently worth $580,000, are reminded of the late Doctor's enduring legacy and advocacy for women's health in Fiji.

From Warning to Tribute: Blue Plaque Honouring Late Dr Mridula Prasad Could Be Placed Above Burglar Sign at Her Samabula Home

*A fitting tribute to the late Dr Mridula Prasad could be the installation of a blue commemorative plaque above the existing blue sign that currently serves as a burglar deterrent on the gate of 7 Bakshi Street, Samabula, Suva.

*Placing the plaque in this prominent position would not only honour her memory and lifelong contributions but also ensure that all who pass by the property are reminded of her enduring legacy. It would transform a practical security feature into a meaningful landmark, celebrating Dr Mridula Prasad’s life and achievements in a location closely connected to her story.

*A blue plaque is a commemorative sign, usually a round, blue enamel or ceramic disk, installed on a building to mark its historical significance by celebrating a notable person who lived or worked there, or an important event that took place there.

It's always inspiring when the wealthy take time out of their busy property managing, asset declaring schedules to offer life lessons to the poor. Minister for Women, Children, and Poverty Alleviation Sashi Kiran called on Fiji's welfare receipients to take charge of their futures, encouraging them to "earn their own income" and "graduate from dependence" by - wait for it - selling vegetables at the market.

It's an uplifting message, really. And who better to deliver it than someone who has successfully "graduated", from being the founder and director of the Foundation for Rural Integrated Enterprises & Development Services (FRIENDS) to becoming an NFP parliamentarian, by accumulating three prime properties worth $1.74 million, including a 2009 X-Trail worth more than what some of her target audience earns in two years or more? She also generated additional supplementary income by renting out two of her properties (one in Suva and one in Lautoka) for $12,000 and $14,400 per annum, respectively. As CEO of FRIENDS she was on $95,000 annual salary.

Yes, the Honourable 'Poverty Alleviation' Minister knows exactly what it takes to get ahead. And her formula is simple:

Buy $580,000 worth of property in Samabula, Suva.
Add a state lease on Ratu Mara Road for $400,000.
Throw in a Simla, Lautoka, freehold title worth $765,000.
Diversify your holdings with a little over 3,000 units in Fijian Holdings Ltd (FHL) Fund Management, valued at $2,936.62.
Collect a combined annual income of nearly $200,000 plus from government salaries, and rentals.

*At the Time of Filing Her 2023 Statutory Declaration, Sashi Kiran Was Assistant Minister of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation, Earning a Salary of $90,000. She was sworn-in on 24 December 2022.

83-year-old Satya Wati. The land belonged to
the Fiji Muslim League,

Poverty Advice From the Penthouse

Kiran’s statutory declaration under the Political Parties Act gives us an unfiltered look into a politician’s reality. She preaches the gospel of empowerment:

“The Ministry encourages welfare recipients to create their own opportunities, to start small businesses, and to earn their own income.”

After all, as Cabinet Minister Kiran’s own inspiring journey proves, the secret to escaping hardship is simple: just summon a little entrepreneurial fair, and, of course, casually have a spare $765,000 lying around to snap up a Simla, Lautoka, freehold title. Poverty, clearly, is just a mindset.

Satya Wati

How do we help the case of 83-year-old Satya Wati, whom the Fiji Muslim League had served notice in November 2024 to leave its Nabua Muslim League settlement in Suva. She had lived there most of her life and "I should have died before seeing this day". As she pondered on how or where she would go, she lamented that 'this is the worst Christmas" for her.

Two years earlier, on 22 December 2022, it was the best Christmas for Kiran and her party, the NFP, as they joined Rabuka's coalition government after wandering in political wilderness since the election defeat in 1999. But go ahead and try telling that to the likes of Satya Wati.

The View From Bakshi Street

And if all else fails, perhaps ask a well-connected lawyer like Richard Naidu for a $4,000 “campaign donation” - that seems to work, too.

Donations for the ‘Self-Made’ from 'Friends of NFP'

Curiously, despite her near-millionaire status, Kiran’s 2023 disclosures also reveal that she accepted political donations to fund her election campaign:

$4,000 from Richard Naidu.
$1,000 from Daniel Naidu.
$1,500 from Ramesh Prasad.

Of course, there’s nothing improper about this. After all, the wealthy Suva lawyer and die-hard NFP stalwart is (or was) a Board member of FRIEND whose CEO, before she resigned to contest the 2022 election under the NFP banner, was Sashi Kiran.

But in the context of her ministerial pep talks on financial independence, one might have expected a self-funded campaign as a living example of her message: why can’t a property-owning, six-figure-earning election candidate do the same?

The total of the declared expenses shown in the declaration is $9,500. The Naidus and a Prasad donated $6,500. Kiran forked out only $3,000

Cash from Dad, Banners from Son: The Naidu Family Discount Package
*Senior lawyer Richard Naidu came bearing $4,000 in cold, hard cash, while his lawyer son Daniel Naidu chipped in $1,000 for campaign banners. For 2022 election candidate Kiran, it seems the Naidus were a one-stop shop: dad bankrolls, son decorates, and the campaign rolls on.

From Fijileaks Archive, 6 June 2021

Just as many blue plaques have been erected around the world, a similar tribute should be erected at 7 Bakshi Street, Samabula, Suva to commemorate the late Dr Mridula Prasad, a pioneering advocate for women's dignity, equality, and justice in Fiji

*On 21 June 2008, Dr Mridula Prasad became a new trustee at FRIEND's annual general meeting at Natabua High School hall in Lautoka

Remember her name, remember her contribution:
Dr Mridula Prasad – Rest in Power and Love

27 September 2017: The Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) sends its sincere and warm condolences to the family and friends of the late Dr Mridula Prasad who passed away early last week. The health practitioner served on FWRM’s management committee for more than five years prior to the 2000 political crisis and was a long time member of the feminist organisation.

Dr Mridula was a strong advocate for the advancement of women’s health, in particular women’s sexual and reproductive rights at a time when these issues were considered private and often only discussed in the context of sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDs. Some of the early work that FWRM initiated on sexual and reproductive rights was under the guidance of Dr Mridula. The United National Population Fund in September 1999 recognised her strong advocacy for women’s sexual and reproductive rights and awarded her with a regional award for Reproductive Health and Rights.

FWRM members have many anecdotes about Dr Mridula.

Raijeli Drodrolagi shared, “a vivid memory that I have of Dr Mridula as a strong advocate for women’s health and rights, is when she convinced some of the FWRM staff and management committee members to trial the female condom. She made it necessary that if we were to speak about contraceptives then weneeded to come from a place of knowledge and experience. This was Dr Mridula – very matter of fact.”

Praveen Sharma noted that “Dr Mridula was the other side of the coin for FWRM – one side was focused on legal and economic rights and she was focused on healing and empowering from within, protecting women against sexual violence, empowering women to take control of their sexuality, making informed decisions. She made us complete.”

Dr Mridula was a member of the FWRM management committee up until the 1999 national elections, the first polls under the progressive 1997 Fiji Constitution. Dr Mridula resigned from the civil service and FWRM’s governance body to stand in the elections. Dr Mridula was one of the few Fijian women at the time that stepped up as a candidate for Fiji’s legislature. After the elections, she went into private practice and continued to contribute her knowledge on women’s health to a wide variety of community groups such as the Fiji AIDS Task Force and FRIENDS.

Dr Mridula was passionate in her beliefs and stood up for vulnerable women and men. She is remembered as a strong, dedicated and tireless campaigner for women’s health and empowerment. She will be missed by FWRM, the women’s and feminist movement of Fiji and we thank Dr Mridula for being part of our journey.

Fijileaks: A fitting tribute to the late Dr Mridula Prasad could be the installation of a blue commemorative plaque above the existing blue sign that currently serves as a burglar deterrent on gate of 7 Bakshi Street, Samabula, Suva.

CELEBRATING NFP's 62 Years. But its leader Biman Prasad Hid Shares, Directorships, Properties, and Family Business Deals. And MALIMALI's Convenient Case Closure Lets Him Take the PODIUM at the Celebration

26/9/2025

Once the nation's corruption watchdog, Barbara Malimali's FICAC office became a nursery, coddling the powerful while starving justice.
"Bottle-Fed, Untouchable: How Malimali Turned Prasad Into Little Lamb."

Biman Prasad’s 2014 FALSE statutory declarations should have barred him from Parliament of Fiji

From concealing his shareholding and directorship in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, to hiding two villa units acquired from his company, to undisclosed transactions with his cousin, Biman Prasad’s 2014 false statutory declarations should have barred him from Parliament.
Instead, selective justice has turned corruption into a qualification for leadership.

And with Malimali burying the case, even the dead lawyer he lied to in 2014, can’t stop the NFP party on Saturday.
But, for how long, Biman Prasad?
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness."
Isaiah 5:20
(NIV: Corruption, Falsehood, Injustice)

A three-year investigation by Fijileaks* into the statutory declarations filed by NFP leader and Finance Minister Biman Prasad between 2014 and 2024 appears to reveal multiple potential breaches of Fiji's anti-corruption and governance laws. We are now prepared to resubmit (with documentary evidence) our 150 page findings to FICAC against Biman Prasad, and call that he be charged, for alleged:
(1) False declarations under the Political Parties Act 2013 (s.24);
(2) Abuse of office under the Crimes Act 2009 (s.139);
(3) Bribery and corrupt transactions under the Prevention of Bribery Act 2007 (ss.4–5);
(4) Fraudulent tax evasion under the Tax Administration Act 2009; and
(5) Breach of fiduciary duties and potential misstatements under the Companies Act 2015.

*The omissions in his 2014 statutory declaration individually constitutes a breach. Taken together, they paint a picture of a systemic pattern of alleged concealment designed to mislead the Supervisor of Elections and the public ahead of the 2014 general election.

Implications for Legitimacy of Prasad's 2014 Election Nomination

Because the omissions occurred before nomination, they strike at the legality of Biman Prasad’s candidacy itself. Under Fijian electoral law:

A candidate must submit a true and complete declaration before being accepted onto the ballot.
If that declaration is false, the Supervisor of Elections had no lawful basis to register him as a candidate.
This opens the door to an argument that Prasad's election to Parliament was constitutionally invalid from the outset.

The passage of time does not extinguish strict liability.

In summary:

The breaches are not minor clerical oversights. They go to the heart of electoral integrity and public accountability.
They occurred at the most sensitive moment, just before the 2014 election, while Biman Prasad was NFP party leader and election candidate.
They involved multiple undeclared interests, including directorship, shareholding, property ownership, gifts, and related-party dealings.
This creates a compelling basis for a criminal complaint and possibly even a constitutional challenge to the validity of his election to Parliament in 2014.

The slogan "Change is Coming" and the tree logo were part of the NFP's 2014 campaign branding, used widely in that election. The three-digit candidate number (596) was a new feature introduced under the 2013 Constitution's single national constituency system, first used in the September 2014 election. Prasad received 5,386 votes as a candidate. The NFP won three seats.

The Arch of Irony: First They Sue Me, Now NFP and Prasad Quote Me

"It is very obviously by the slant given to these distorted and less than factual stories that Fiji Sun and Victor Lal are driven by a political agenda."
Jitoko Tikolevu, CEO, FIRCA

People sometimes ask me why I “have a biff” with Pio Tikoduadua. The truth is: I don’t. I have no personal quarrel with him. But after the 2006 coup, those of us who remained on the outside had a ringside seat to see how state power was wielded, who stood up, and who caved in.

And in 2025, when those same individuals now hold the levers of power, history demands an accounting.

That is why I write about Pio Tikoduadua. Not because of personal animosity, but because of the record.

The $2 million revelation that shook Fiji

Back in 2007-2008, I published articles in the Fiji Sun revealing that Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry had secretly stashed away $2 million in a Sydney bank account. For the average Fijian taxpayer, that was not a small detail. It was a betrayal of public trust. If the Interim Finance Minister and FIRCA's line-manager in the post 2006 coup Bainimarama government himself was concealing millions offshore, what hope did ordinary taxpayers have of fair treatment?

Instead of dealing with the substance of those revelations, the Fiji Islands Revenue & Customs Authority (FIRCA, now FRCS) and its board, including Pio Tikoduadua, turned their fire on me and the Fiji Sun.

FIRCA’s board goes to war with the press

In 2008, FIRCA filed a writ in the Fiji High Court. Represented by MC Lawyers, the plaintiffs were FIRCA itself and four of its board members: Peceli Vocea, Arvin Datt, Pio Tikoduadua, and Jitoko Tikolevu. Their Statement of Claim insisted that my reporting defamed the Board by suggesting dishonesty, incompetence, conspiracy, and misuse of funds.

On our side, the Fiji Sun and I were represented by Patel Sharma & Associates. I still recall the fax they sent me on 10 June 2008: a request to provide a “paragraph-by-paragraph response” so they could draft a Defence before the 16 June deadline.

I refused to play ball. I would not dignify a lawsuit that tried to flip the story, making the exposure of wrongdoing the offence, instead of the wrongdoing itself.

The irony of MC Lawyers

FIRCA had chosen MC Lawyers as its legal sword. Years later, the irony became unavoidable. One of its partners, Suresh Chandra, also the chair of the Electoral Commission, was found guilty of professional misconduct for misusing over $2 million in client trust funds. The Independent Legal Services Commission declared him unfit to practice law.

The very firm that once tried to muzzle me and the Fiji Sun collapsed under the weight of its own dishonesty.

Tikoduadua’s role

And there was Pio Tikoduadua, then a member of FIRCA’s board. He could have said: “Let’s confront Chaudhry, let’s prove to the public we are serious about tax integrity.” Instead, he joined the chorus that decided: “Let’s sue Victor Lal and the Fiji Sun.”

That’s the record. That’s what I mean when I say being on the outside after 2006 coup gave me a ringside seat. I saw who lined up to protect the powerful, and who paid the price for exposing them.

The boomerang of history

But history has a wicked sense of humour. Fast-forward to August 2025. Who is standing at a podium calling Chaudhry a “crook” for hiding that very same $2 million in Sydney? None other than Biman Prasad, the leader of the National Federation Party, and today the political boss of none other than Pio Tikoduadua.

In 2008, my reporting was defamatory, scandalous, and actionable. In 2025, the very same reporting is a convenient weapon for Pio Tikoduadua's political allies.

They sued me for it. They quote me for it.

So when I focus on Tikoduadua, it is not personal. It is historical. It is about showing that those who now preach integrity once presided over an institution that hounded journalists instead of holding politicians accountable. It is about pointing out that the very disclosure they tried to suppress has become the stick they now use to beat Chaudhry.

That is why I keep reminding readers: you cannot understand Fiji’s politics in 2025 without remembering what happened in 2008.

They Attacked Me. Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter: tortured and deported

But the story’s darker turn involves the late Russell Hunter, Fiji Sun’s publisher and someone who stood by the story when many would not. He paid a heavy price: abducted from his Suva home, tortured, and forcibly expelled from Fiji, all because he dared to publish the $2 million exposure.

In 2008, the interim regime under Bainimarama deported Hunter, and he was banned from returning. Reporters Without Borders condemned the move, saying it was a shocking signal to other journalists that exposing powerful wrongdoing would bring reprisals.

Yet today, those same people who once sought to silence that disclosure now quote and weaponize it. They litigated against the truth. Then recycled it when it suited their politics.

How Bainimarama attacked me

It wasn’t just Hunter who was targeted. Frank Bainimarama himself took aim at both of us. He publicly claimed I and Hunter were engaged in a “personal vendetta.” He challenged our credibility, saying “Victor Lal runs down everyone in Fiji” and that Hunter’s expulsions motivated his activism.

He tried to frame our journalism not as public service, but as vendetta, a tactic meant to delegitimise exposure by shifting the frame to personal bias. In doing so, he attempted to turn the spotlight away from Chaudhry, and onto us.

The full arc of irony

When I write about Tikoduadua now, I don’t do so from vendetta. I do so from memory. From the vantage point of someone who watched power misuse legal machinery, who saw intimidation deployed against media, who saw a publisher abducted. I refuse to let that history be erased.

Because those who forget it are doomed to replay it: sometimes as villains, sometimes as self-appointed arbiters of virtue.

When Prosecutors Prejudge: Assistant DPP’s FACEBOOK Post Raises Serious Ethical and Legal Concerns. LAISANI Tabuakuro, "Mohammed Saneem for you. When he is convicted, he must repay $55,000 to State"

24/9/2025

On the Court’s Own Motion (Suo Motu)
The Chief Justice Temo may initiate contempt proceedings if he believes serious interference with the administration of justice has occurred. This is called acting suo motu* (Latin: “on its own motion”).

*The Chief Justice could, for example, issue a summons requiring the Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro to appear and explain why she should not be held in Contempt of Court.

*These screenshots below strengthen the legal argument because they show a pattern of public engagement by the Assistant DPP on platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn about an active criminal case against Mohammed Saneem and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum she is not prosecuting. That conduct goes beyond one prejudicial post. It becomes a course of conduct that heightens the risk of perceived bias and institutional prejudice, especially when the DPP is prosecuting the case.

The rule of law depends not only on the fair administration of justice but also on public confidence that prosecutors, as officers of the court, act impartially, uphold the presumption of innocence, and avoid conduct that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings. When those entrusted with prosecutorial authority use their public platforms to comment on active cases, they risk eroding that confidence and undermining the integrity of the justice system itself.

That concern is now squarely before Fiji's general public following revelations that a senior Assistant DPP Tabuakuro, though not a member of the prosecuting team, has repeatedly used social media platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn to post commentary and news stories about the ongoing criminal trial of former Attorney-General Aiyaz Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem.

Prejudicial Commentary: “When He Is Convicted…”

In one of the most troubling examples, the Assistant DPP Tabuakuro personally posted a Facebook comment declaring: “When he is convicted, he must repay the $55,000 as restitution to the State. #justicealwaysprevails.”

This was not an offhand remark by a private citizen. It was published by a senior state prosecutor on her own social media page. The language--“when he is convicted”—presupposes guilt, anticipates sentencing, and dismisses the presumption of innocence.

For any prosecutor, such language would be inappropriate. For a senior Assistant DPP, it is profoundly damaging. It gives the appearance that the prosecutorial office itself regards a conviction as a foregone conclusion, a perception fundamentally incompatible with the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Fiji.

A Pattern of Public Engagement, Not an Isolated Incident

The prejudicial post is not an isolated lapse. The Assistant DPP’s own LinkedIn and Facebook activity show repeated sharing and amplification of news stories about the pending trial of Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem including:

A Mai TV post announcing that the High Court has scheduled their trial for 15 September to 3 October 2025, referring to the charges they face.
An FBC News report headlined “Court told no tax relief approved for Saneem”, shared on her LinkedIn profile.

While the content of those media articles is public, the fact that a serving Assistant DPP is reposting and circulating them in connection with a case she is not prosecuting reinforces the appearance of institutional interest and personal involvement. In the public mind, these actions, especially when combined with her earlier comment predicting conviction, risk transforming the ODPP’s role from impartial prosecutor into partisan commentator.

Ethical Duties of Prosecutors and the Risk of Bias

The Constitution requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to act independently and “without fear, favour, or prejudice.” That duty extends to all officers acting under the DPP’s authority, including Assistant Directors. Independence and impartiality are not merely operational obligations, they include a duty to avoid public conduct that undermines confidence in the fairness of proceedings.

The United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) provide that prosecutors must:

“Perform their duties fairly, consistently, and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights.”
“Refrain from public statements that may prejudice ongoing proceedings.”

The Assistant DPP Tabuakuro’s repeated posts and comments, especially those suggesting an inevitable conviction, appear to violate each of these core principles.

Sub Judice and Contempt: A Real Risk of Prejudice

Under Fiji’s common law of contempt, any public statement that creates a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial can constitute sub judice contempt. This risk is amplified when the speaker is a state prosecutor, whose words carry institutional weight.

The repeated online activity by the Assistant DPP could be argued to have:

Influenced public opinion by presenting guilt as a certainty.
Created apprehension of institutional bias within the ODPP.
Compromised the perceived impartiality of the prosecution service as a whole.

Even if intended as “private” or “personal” activity, prosecutors are held to higher standards precisely because their words can affect the administration of justice.

Privacy Is No Defence: Closed Pages Still Carry Consequences

It is also understood that at least one of the prejudicial posts (on Facebook) was made in a closed or semi-private social media group before being leaked. That does not mitigate the seriousness of the conduct. Courts and disciplinary bodies have consistently held that prosecutorial misconduct is not excused by privacy settings.

If a post concerns an active case, prejudges its outcome, and is foreseeably shareable, the prosecutor remains responsible for its impact, regardless of where or how it was published. Indeed, the use of a closed group may suggest an awareness that the content was inappropriate for public view, aggravating the misconduct rather than excusing it.

Possible Consequences and Institutional Remedies

Given the seriousness of the conduct, several remedies are available:

Internal Disciplinary Review: The ODPP should investigate the Assistant DPP’s conduct and consider disciplinary measures for prejudicial commentary.
Referral to the Legal Practitioners Unit: The conduct may constitute professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act.
Judicial Remedies: Defence counsel may seek judicial acknowledgment of the prejudicial conduct or request assurances of prosecutorial impartiality.
Public Accountability: The ODPP should publicly reaffirm its commitment to independence and distance itself from any statements or conduct suggesting bias.

Conclusion

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Public confidence in the rule of law depends on the impartiality of those who administer it.

By repeatedly posting and sharing commentary about an ongoing criminal trial, including a direct statement that a defendant “will be convicted”, Tabuakuro has crossed a bright ethical line. Whether on a public platform or a closed page, such conduct risks contaminating the judicial process and weakening the credibility of the ODPP itself.

The issue is no longer just about one trial. It is about the integrity of Fiji’s justice system, and whether those entrusted with prosecutorial power, are willing to respect the constitutional principles that give that power legitimacy.

The Chief Justice (or any judge of the High Court or Supreme Court) can initiate contempt of court proceedings against a prosecutor, including an Assistant DPP, if her conduct poses a real risk of prejudicing an ongoing trial or undermining the authority and integrity of the judicial process.

However, there are important procedural and constitutional nuances one can conclude that such an order is likely or straightforward.

The Legal Basis: Contempt of Court in Fiji

Fiji’s courts derive their contempt powers from:

The Constitution of Fiji (2013), which vests “inherent jurisdiction” in the High Court and Supreme Court to protect the administration of justice.
The High Court Act and common law principles, which recognise both civil and criminal contempt, including sub judice contempt.
The Administration of Justice Act (read with common law), which recognises the High Court’s power to punish for contempt committed “in the face of the court” or “tending to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice.”

Sub judice contempt - the relevant type here - arises where any publication creates a “real risk” of prejudice to pending legal proceedings. This is especially serious if the publication:

Prejudges guilt or innocence;
Comments on evidence or witnesses before trial;
Is made by someone in a position of legal authority.

A Facebook or LinkedIn post by a serving Assistant DPP stating “when he is convicted” clearly engages this test because it:

Anticipates a guilty verdict;
Concerns an ongoing criminal trial;
Comes from an officer whose words carry institutional weight.

Who Can Initiate Contempt Proceedings?

In Fiji and other common law jurisdictions, there are three main ways contempt proceedings can begin:

(a) On the Court’s Own Motion (Suo Motu)

A judge, including the Chief Justice, may initiate contempt proceedings if he believes serious interference with the administration of justice has occurred.
This is called acting suo motu (Latin: “on its own motion”).
The Chief Justice could, for example, issue a summons requiring the Assistant DPP to appear and explain why she should not be held in contempt.

(b) By the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

Ordinarily, the DPP prosecutes contempt proceedings. But this is complicated here because the person accused works for the DPP.
If the DPP has a conflict, the court may appoint an amicus curiae (independent counsel) or direct the Solicitor-General or a private practitioner to conduct the prosecution.

Defence counsel for Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum or Mohammed Saneem could apply to the High Court for leave to bring contempt proceedings against the Assistant DPP.
If the court is satisfied that there’s a prima facie case, it can allow the matter to proceed.

The Legal Threshold: “Real Risk of Prejudice”

The court will only order contempt charges if two key elements are met:

Publication during pending proceedings:

The posts clearly refer to a trial that is in progress, meaning the matter is “pending” and sub judice rules apply.

Real risk of serious prejudice or interference:

A senior prosecutor’s post stating “when he is convicted” is textbook prejudgment.
Her reposting of trial updates reinforces the perception that the prosecution service has already decided the outcome.

If both elements are satisfied, the court can order that Tabuakuro be charged with contempt, even if the original post was “private” or “leaked.”

Chief Justice’s Powers and Role

The Chief Justice of Fiji, as head of the judiciary and presiding officer of the Supreme Court, has inherent power to:

Summon the Assistant DPP Tabuakuro to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be brought.
Refer the matter to a disciplinary tribunal or recommend that the DPP suspend her pending inquiry.
Order an independent contempt prosecution if the case is sufficiently serious.

Why This Case Is Serious

Several aggravating factors make contempt proceedings more likely here:

Laisani Tabuakuro is not a private citizen but a senior prosecutor. Her words carry official weight.
The statement was not neutral reportage but a declaration of guilt.

She is not part of the prosecution team, which removes any justification for commenting at all. The conduct shows a pattern of online engagement, not a one-off slip.

Together, these factors amount to more than just poor judgment. They could be seen as an attempt to influence public opinion and undermine the integrity of a pending trial.

Realistic Outcome if the Chief Justice Acts

If the Chief Justice initiates contempt proceedings, the likely steps are:

Order to Show Cause: The Assistant DPP is summoned to explain the conduct.
Hearing on Prima Facie Case: If the explanation is insufficient, the court may order formal contempt proceedings.
Possible Sanctions if Convicted:
- Public reprimand and formal censure;
- Fines and costs orders;
- Suspension from legal practice;
- In extreme cases, imprisonment (rare but legally possible).

Even short of conviction, the Chief Justice could issue a stern warning or judicial direction to the ODPP about prosecutorial conduct and public commentary. In the meantime, Laisani Tabuakuro must be forced to reveal her entire private chat history regarding the trial of Saneem and Khaiyum before the Chief Justice Salesi Temo.

Pension Hypocrisy: The Man Who Denied Qarase His Dues Now Loses in Court Over His Own Payouts. Frank Bainimarama Loses Pension Battle. Fiji High Court Dismisses His Claim and Orders Him to Pay $5,000 Costs

24/9/2025

Justice Goundar rules Parliament's salary cut stood until changed by law.
“How the late Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase must be feeling, somewhere up above, smiling wryly as the coupist who stripped him of his pension now finds his own claims cut down by the
Fiji High Court.”

BAD legal news

*The ruling carries wider implications for all public office-holders in Fiji. By affirming that salaries and allowances fixed under the Parliamentary Remunerations Act endures until formally altered by Parliament, the Court closed the door on retroactive claims based on political understandings or expectations. It also reinforced the principle of legislative supremacy: remuneration for members of Parliament and high officers of State must be set by law, not by private bargains or shifting interpretations.

Bainimarama's Pension Claim Sinks in Court

The Fiji High Court in Suva has dismissed former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s much-publicised lawsuit over his pension and gratuity entitlements, delivering a sharp reminder that parliamentary determinations on salaries and benefits carried the full force of law and could not be reshaped by assumption or expectation.

Bainimarama had argued that his retirement benefits had been wrongly calculated following a 20 percent salary reduction applied during his time in office. He contended that the reduction had been “temporary” and that his pension and gratuity should have been restored to reflect his original salary of $328,750.

In his statement of claim, Bainimarama asserted that his annual pension ought to have been $246,562.50 rather than the $184,921.87 he was currently receiving. He further maintained that his gratuity entitlement should have amounted to $770,507.87, but he had been paid only $433,296.75. He demanded the balance plus interest at 13.5 percent, which would have raised the State’s liability by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Justice Daniel Goundar rejected the claim in its entirety. In a carefully reasoned judgment, the Court found that under Section 11 of the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014, a determination of salaries and allowances by Parliament remained in force until replaced by another determination. The Court held that there was no legal presumption that a reduction was temporary, nor could it be inferred that salaries would revert automatically to earlier levels without explicit parliamentary action.

The Court stated that Bainimarama had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the 20 percent reduction was meant to be temporary in law. The argument of “temporary adjustment” might have carried political or rhetorical weight, but it lacked statutory foundation. Accordingly, his pension and gratuity had been correctly calculated on the reduced salary.

In addition to losing the substantive claim, Bainimarama was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the State. For a man who had once commanded absolute authority as both Prime Minister and Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, the order symbolised a humbling reversal.

A Test of Statutory Interpretation

The decision turned on strict statutory interpretation. Justice Goundar emphasised that where Parliament had spoken, the Court’s task was to apply the plain words of the statute. Section 11 left no room for judicial creativity or executive assumption. If Bainimarama wanted his pension recalculated, the remedy lay in Parliament passing a fresh determination, not in the courts rewriting the statute.

Wider Implications

The ruling carried wider implications for all public office-holders in Fiji. By affirming that salaries and allowances fixed under the Parliamentary Remunerations Act endured until formally altered by Parliament, the Court closed the door on retroactive claims based on political understandings or expectations. It also reinforced the principle of legislative supremacy: remuneration for members of Parliament and high officers of State must be set by law, not by private bargains or shifting interpretations.

The cost order was also significant. Courts in Fiji had at times been reluctant to impose costs against politically exposed litigants, but in this case the High Court signalled that Bainimarama’s stature offered no shield. Unsuccessful claims that strained public resources could attract financial consequences.

A Defeat with Symbolism

For Bainimarama, who was already facing mounting legal troubles in separate criminal proceedings, the pension case marked another blow to his post-prime ministerial legacy. His claim, framed as a fight for entitlements, backfired and exposed him to both financial liability and reputational damage.

For the legal community, the decision underscored the need for clarity and precision when mounting statutory claims. Without explicit provisions or amendments, expectations of “temporary” measures would not stand.

Fijileaks Explainer: What This Ruling Meant

For taxpayers: The Court saved the State from paying out an additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pension and gratuity.
For MPs and Ministers: Any salary reduction imposed by Parliament remained in force until Parliament changed it. There was no “automatic bounce-back” to higher salaries.
For future claims: Office-holders cannot rely on political assurances or assumptions; they must point to a clear statutory or parliamentary basis.
For the courts: The judgment signalled judicial unwillingness to rewrite legislation to accommodate political figures.

“How the late Qarase must be feeling, somewhere up above, smiling wryly as the man who stripped him of his pension now finds his own claims cut down by the Court.”

*They used to say that Laisenia Qarase was not entitled to a pension under Bainimarama’s regime, a claim loudly repeated, used to justify withholding what many believed was legally owed.
*But the tables turned. After Bainimarama challenged the calculation of his own pension and gratuity, the Fiji High Court dismissed his suit and upheld the principle that parliamentary cuts stood until formally reversed.
*In the same legal theatre where Qarase was denied, Bainimarama has now been denied his claim, and ordered to pay costs.

From Blocking Qarase's Pension to Guarding Fiji's Security:
Pio Tikoduadua Goes From Pension Watchdog to Defence Bulldog
From Fijileaks Archive, 23 Janaury 2023

PALESTINIANS condemn Fiji's Jerusalem Embassy Opening. Rabuka’s STUNT in Disputed Jerusalem Risks Fiji's Role in UN Peacekeeping, with Tikoduadua, Kalouniwai reduced to endorsing Rabuka's grandstanding

22/9/2025

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine strongly condemns the Republic of Fiji’s move to officially open an embassy in occupied Jerusalem as an act of aggression against the Palestinian people, a flagrant violation of international law and relevant resolutions of international legitimacy, and a direct threat to prospects for implementing the two-state solution."

Rabuka Betrays Fiji’s Peacekeeping Legacy in Jerusalem Stunt

Sitiveni Rabuka’s decision to open an embassy in disputed Jerusalem, with Defence Minister Pio Tikoduadua at his side and RFMF Commander Jone Kalouniwai literally holding the stage prop, is one of the most reckless diplomatic blunders in Fiji’s modern history.

For half a century, Fijian soldiers have been trusted as peacekeepers in Lebanon, Sinai, Syria and Iraq because they carried no political baggage. That hard-won reputation was destroyed in a single photo-op. By parading his military commander in occupied Jerusalem, Rabuka has shown the world that Fiji is no longer a neutral state.

The timing could not be worse. The international community, led by Saudi Arabia and France, is preparing a UN-mandated international peace force to stabilise Gaza under a two-state solution framework. But how can Fiji’s soldiers be part of that force when their commander has been reduced to a stage prop in Rabuka’s performance for Israel? Palestinians and UN member states will see Fiji as compromised, biased, and unfit to serve, and rightly so.

Why would Palestinians, or indeed many UN member states, accept troops from a country whose leadership has so publicly embraced Israel’s contested claim to Jerusalem?

What was Kalouniwai thinking? Was he blindly following Rabuka out of misplaced loyalty, or did he genuinely believe that parading Fiji’s defence establishment in Jerusalem would not jeopardise the hard-earned trust of UN partners?

Either way, the consequences are severe. Fiji’s soldiers, who have built their reputation on sacrifice and neutrality, may now find themselves sidelined from the most significant UN peacekeeping operation of a generation.

His silence and compliance betray the Fijian soldiers who have shed blood under the UN flag.

Rabuka calls the opening of Jerusalem embassy diplomacy. It is nothing more than vanity and political opportunism. He has gambled away Fiji’s greatest international asset - the credibility of its peacekeepers - for a headline in Jerusalem.

The world will not forget that image: Rabuka grandstanding, Tikoduadua nodding, and Kalouniwai, the commander of Fiji’s army, reduced to holding the stage prop of a foreign cause.

Fiji’s peacekeepers will pay the price.

But Christian fundamentalism in Fiji has no place in the language of diplomacy when it comes to Sitiveni Rabuka and his army of misguided ethno-nationalists.

Australia has finally done it. Prime Minister Albanese and Foreign Minister Wong have declared that Canberra now formally recognises the State of Palestine. A courageous move that will earn applause from some, outrage from others, and head-scratching from those of us who’ve watched Australia fence-sit for decades like a possum clinging to a power line.
But here’s the question nobody in Canberra seems to be asking: why keep wasting millions a year propping up Fiji when Suva already has two backers waiting in the wings: China and Israel?

Australia recognises the State of Palestine

Joint media release:

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister Of Australia

21 September 2025: Effective today, Sunday the 21st of September 2025, the Commonwealth of Australia formally recognises the independent and sovereign State of Palestine.

In doing so, Australia recognises the legitimate and long held aspirations of the people of Palestine to a state of their own.

Australia's recognition of Palestine today, alongside Canada and the United Kingdom, is part of a co-ordinated international effort to build new momentum for a two-state solution, starting with a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of the hostages taken in the atrocities of October 7, 2023.

Today's act of recognition reflects Australia's longstanding commitment to a two-state solution, which has always been the only path to enduring peace and security for the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples.

The international community has set out clear requirements for the Palestinian Authority.

The President of the Palestinian Authority has restated its recognition of Israel's right to exist, and given direct undertakings to Australia, including commitments to hold democratic elections and enact significant reform to finance, governance and education.

The terrorist organisation Hamas must have no role in Palestine.

Further steps, including the establishment of diplomatic relations and opening of embassies, will be considered as the Palestinian Authority makes progress on its commitments to reform.

Already, crucial work is underway across the international community to develop a credible peace plan that enables the reconstruction of Gaza, builds the capacity of the state of Palestine and guarantees the security of Israel.

The leadership of the countries of the Arab League and the United States is vital to this task.

Australia will continue to work with our international partners to help build on today's act of recognition and to bring the Middle East closer to the lasting peace and security that is the hope, and the right, of all humanity.

“I had decided way back in the 1990s when I was Prime Minister, that we would set up an Embassy in Jerusalem." He said following the 1987 coup, when other countries distanced themselves from Fiji, Israel was the one that stepped forward to offer support. “When everybody else had taken away from us, had gone away, our normal defence partners moved away from Fiji after the coup in 1987 – Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, they all turned away, so, they (Israel) backed Fiji. Fiji had to survive. Fiji had to continue to man our peacekeeping battalions and equipment, and Israel was one of those that stepped forward. They even gave us some double class patrol boats and some machine guns and weapons to continue our obligation to international peacekeeping.” The Fiji Times.

Maybe It’s Time Australia Stopped Throwing $Millions at Fiji.
And Let Israel Fill the Sinkhole. Aussie money for starving Palestinian children and NOT FAT CAT Coalition Ministers!

Fiji: The Sinkhole Funded by Fear of China

Australia’s annual Fiji hand-out has long been dressed up as “regional cooperation,” “development aid,” and “friendship.” In truth, it’s nothing more than China insurance money.

Canberra doesn’t actually believe its millions is transforming Fiji. It just fears that if it cuts off the drip, Suva will pivot even harder to Beijing, and the People’s Liberation Army will be serving dim sims at Suva harbour.

So every year, Canberra dutifully cuts a cheque, not enough to matter, but just enough to soothe its paranoia.

Spoiler: the dragon is already in the house. Australia’s millions has bought neither loyalty nor love, only the illusion of influence.

Australia’s Deep Pocket: Vuvale Partnership Shows the Real Money

And let’s be clear. It isn’t just pocket change. Under the Vuvale Partnership, Australia is pumping in a staggering US$450 million in budget support to Fiji.

The money is everywhere:

US$15 million for rehabilitating CWM Hospital,
US$9 million for rural electrification,
US$56 million in grants for cyclone disaster recovery,
US$87 million for policy reforms, and more.

In other words, Fiji’s survival is not just about millions of dollars. Canberra is writing fat cheques for hospitals, climate resilience, disaster relief, and reforms. Which makes Rabuka’s constant chest-thumping about “sovereignty” and his open nostalgia for Israel’s help after 1987 even more bizarre.

Rabuka’s Admission: Israel Stepped Forward After the Coups

Because here’s the remarkable part: when Australia, New Zealand, and the US turned their backs on him after the 1987 coups, it was Israel that stepped forward.

According to Rabuka himself, Israel supplied patrol boats, arms, and equipment to help Fiji maintain its peacekeeping missions, even while at home Indo-Fijians were disenfranchised.

And here’s the clincher: Rabuka insists that opening an embassy in Jerusalem wasn’t some new whim, but a decision taken in the 1990s, grounded in gratitude for Israel’s post-coup support.

So if Rabuka says Israel was there when nobody else was, why is Australia still footing the bill, to the tune of hundreds of millions?

The Dark Parallel: Indo-Fijians and Palestinians

This is where it gets deeply uncomfortable.

In 1987, Rabuka’s coup disenfranchised the Indo-Fijians. Half the country’s population suddenly became political outsiders, branded as intruders on land that “belonged” to the iTaukei.
Today, Palestinians are treated by the Israeli state as demographic interlopers in the “Land of God’s chosen people.”

In both cases, the political project rested on exclusion: one community is rightful owners, the other illegitimate squatters.

And in both cases, Israel aligned itself with the majoritarian project:

In the Middle East, by entrenching Palestinian displacement.
In Fiji, by arming Rabuka’s government after it had written Indo-Fijians out of equal citizenship.

Did Israel see Indo-Fijians the way it sees Palestinians: as “unwanted outsiders”? Perhaps not in words. But in deeds, by backing Rabuka, Israel stood on the side of ethnic supremacy.

Palestine: Where Australia's Millions could Mean Something

If Canberra now recognises Palestine, recognition should mean more than symbolism. Redirecting even a modest portion of Fiji’s annual allowance could:

Buy medical supplies for Gaza’s bombed-out clinics,
Fund schools and scholarships for Palestinian children who actually want a future,
Signal that Australia’s new moral stance is not just words.

Fiji Won’t Miss It

Would Fiji even notice? Probably not. Our leaders are too busy:

Registering law firms overnight before disciplinary bans abroad expire,
Failing to declare villas, shareholdings, and offshore perks while swearing innocence,
Running “anti-corruption” agencies that recommend interviewing dead lawyers.

Yes, Suva will cry betrayal and wave the China card. But if Rabuka himself boasts about Israel’s role in propping him up after 1987, then maybe it’s time for Israel, not Australia, to refill the sinkhole.

Time to Re-Write the Cheque

Australia has finally recognised Palestine. That’s a stand. But boldness needs follow-through. Instead of timidly tossing millions at Fiji out of fear of China, or writing hundreds of millions under Vuvale while being treated like the side-dish in Suva’s foreign policy banquet, Canberra should:

Cut or condition Fiji’s cheques,
Send more of that money to Palestine,
Let Israel, which Rabuka openly credits with saving him post-coup, fill Fiji’s sinkhole.

Palestinians would thank Australia. Australians would applaud consistency. Fijians would still get by (with China and Israel eager to play patrons).

And Rabuka? Well, he’s already told us who his true friends were.

Overlooking Jerusalem

Putting UN Fijian Troops in Harms Way?

The Palestinians are also watching Rabuka's stunt in Jerusalem

From Fijileaks Archive, 9 September 2025

At the King David Hotel: A Photograph, a Memory, and a Bloody History. It awakens memories of one of the most violent episodes of 20th century struggle for STATEHOOD. The King David Hotel bombing of 22 July 1946

21/9/2025

On 22 July 1946, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, a Jewish underground militia led by Menachem Begin, staged what would become the most infamous single attack of the British Mandate period. Disguised as deliverymen, Irgun operatives smuggled seven milk churns packed with explosives into the basement of the hotel. At 12:37 p.m., the charges detonated.
The southern wing collapsed in an instant. Ninety-one people (91) were killed: 41 Arabs, 28 British, 17 Jews, and 5 others of varying nationalities.
A dozen of the slain were women.
Around 45 more were injured. The dead included clerks, soldiers, hotel staff, and visitors, ordinary people who had been caught in the machinery of Empire and Insurgency.

The bombed out King David Hotel

Begin: Bomber to PM

At the King David Hotel: A Photograph, a Memory, and a Bloody History

When I first saw the photograph of Fiji’s UN ambassador Filipo Tarakinikini and his wife posing for the cameras inside the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, I paused.

The image, at first, seemed like another diplomatic snapshot, a delegation abroad, neatly dressed, framed against one of the city’s most famous landmarks. But for anyone who knows the layered history of that building, the photograph does more than record a moment of hospitality.

It awakens memories of one of the most violent episodes of the twentieth century struggle for statehood: the King David Hotel bombing of 22 July 1946.

A Hotel and a Headquarters

The King David Hotel was the pride of Jerusalem when it opened in the 1930s, an opulent hub for dignitaries and travellers, perched strategically between the Old City and the new neighborhoods. By the mid-1940s, under the British Mandate of Palestine, the hotel’s southern wing had become far more than a place for leisure. It was the administrative and military nerve center of British rule, housing the Secretariat of the Mandate Government and the headquarters of the British Army in Palestine.

That very transformation, from luxury hotel to colonial stronghold, made it a target.

The Irgun’s Attack

On 22 July 1946, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, a Jewish underground militia led by Menachem Begin, staged what would become the most infamous single attack of the Mandate period. Disguised as deliverymen, Irgun operatives smuggled seven milk churns packed with explosives into the basement of the hotel. At 12:37 p.m., the charges detonated.

The southern wing collapsed in an instant. Ninety-one people were killed: 41 Arabs, 28 British, 17 Jews, and 5 others of varying nationalities. Around 45 more were injured. The dead included clerks, soldiers, hotel staff, and visitors, ordinary people who had been caught in the machinery of empire and insurgency.

The Irgun maintained that they had telephoned warnings to evacuate, but British authorities either dismissed or delayed action. For the victims, the distinction was meaningless. The King David bombing stood as the bloodiest attack on British targets in Palestine, shocking the world and staining the Zionist cause with the charge of terrorism.

Violence as a Path to Statehood

The Irgun justified their violence as part of a broader war for independence. They and other groups, the Lehi (Stern Gang) and, at times, the Haganah, believed that Britain had betrayed the Jewish people, restricting immigration even as Holocaust survivors languished in refugee camps across Europe. To them, bombs and bullets were the only language colonial rulers understood.

Their campaign was systematic:

Sabotage of railways and police stations.
Assassinations of British officials.
Guerrilla raids to make Palestine ungovernable.

These acts, condemned internationally at the time, were also politically effective. By 1947, weary of the bloodshed, Britain announced it would end its Mandate and referred the matter to the newly formed United Nations. The result was the UN Partition Plan and, in 1948, the birth of the State of Israel.

Menachem Begin himself, once pursued by the British as a terrorist, later became Israel’s Prime Minister. The transformation from underground fighter to statesman highlights the moral ambiguities of liberation struggles: yesterday’s terrorist can become tomorrow’s founding father.

A Building as a Palimpsest

Today, the King David Hotel once again projects its original identity: a five-star residence for visiting heads of state, diplomats, and celebrities. Its polished stone walls and manicured lawns offer no outward sign of the destruction that once ripped through its southern wing. For many tourists, it is simply another stop on the Jerusalem circuit.

But history is never absent. Beneath the surface luxury lies the memory of rubble and ash, of cries under collapsed masonry, of a pivotal act of political violence that reshaped a region.

Seeing the Mr and Mrs Tarakinikini's Photograph

This is why the photograph of the couple inside the King David Hotel resonates so sharply. For them, the hotel is a venue of diplomacy, a place to lodge, to dine, to pose for photographs marking their presence in Israel. Yet behind that façade lies an uncomfortable truth: this building is also a monument to the reality that statehood in the modern era has often been born through violence.

The couple stand at a place where the line between freedom fighter and terrorist was contested in fire and stone. The Irgun’s bomb, like so many acts of anti-colonial violence across the twentieth century, from Algeria to Kenya to Ireland, reminds us that the road to independence is rarely paved only with negotiation.

Reflection

The King David Hotel thus embodies a paradox. It is a site of prestige and diplomacy, and yet it carries the scars of militancy. To stand there is to confront a lesson written in blood: that the modern world has often been built not only in conference rooms and treaties, but also in underground bunkers, in the hands of men carrying milk churns filled with explosives.

Perhaps the smiling photograph of the couple is innocent, untroubled by this history. But for those who remember, or who choose to learn, the image prompts a deeper reflection: that even the most elegant hotels can be haunted by the violence that gave birth to nations; in the bombing, the birth of Israel as a Jewish state in the Middle East.

To be continued: From Rabuka's Hooded Coup-Plotter to Hotel Diplomat: Tarakinikini’s Jerusalem Irony

A Palestinian girl searches in the rubble of a building after an Israeli strike in Beit Lahiya, in the northern Gaza Strip

A Palestinian woman carries the shrouded body of her infant killed in an Israeli strike in Rafah, southern Gaza,

Fiji's Embassy in Jerusalem Now Doubles Up As SODELPA's PRAYER Room, ICEJ Branch Office. According to the Israeli media, Fiji's national interest = Sodelpa's Wish List to join Coalition and ICEJ's Sermon Notes.

21/9/2025

Israeli outlets hail Fiji's move as a decades-long Christian campaign fulfilled. Rabuka's coalition delivers where budget cuts of the 1990s once failed. Sodelpa and ICEJ (Fiji) re-write Fiji's Foreign Policy Bible.

Shortly before Rabuka executed the 1987 coups against the Dr Timoci Bavadra's coalition government, he (Rabuka) joined hands with a bunch of so-called nationalists at his cousin, the Reverend Raikivi's house:
'Save us, and save our land. You saved the Israelites when their land was taken from them by foreigners. Dear God, please answer our prayer and do the same for us.'

Fiji opened its embassy in Jerusalem on Wednesday, becoming the seventh country to do so, with leaders of Israel and the island nation sporting traditional Fijian garlands at the inauguration ceremony.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar celebrated alongside Fiji’s Prime Minister and and Foreign Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, Sa’ar’s office said in a statement.

“A new embassy in Jerusalem, our eternal capital!” Sa’ar cheered in the statement.

The event was a rare diplomatic bright spot for Israel at a time when allies are issuing increasingly harsh criticism of Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war and threatening sanctions.

Fiji was one of a dozen countries to abstain from a recent United Nations vote that overwhelmingly endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, and on Wednesday, Rabuka paid tribute to his country’s relationship with Israel.

“I’d like to acknowledge the special bond and the enduring friendship and relationship that has existed between Fiji and the State of Israel,” Rabuka said following the inauguration at a ceremony held at the Foreign Ministry offices in the presence of Sa’ar.

Fiji is the seventh country to open an embassy in Jerusalem, joining the US, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea and Paraguay. Argentina has also announced plans to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem next year.
Rabuka, Sa’ar and Netanyahu posed for a photo, with Netanyahu and Rabuka sporting salusalu — traditional Fijian garlands.

Ahead of the ceremony, Netanyahu hosted Rabuka at his office, the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement. Rabuka, who is also the foreign minister, in turn invited Netanyahu to visit the South Pacific archipelago, the statement added.

Netanyahu thanked his Fijian counterpart “for his support and steadfast standing alongside Israel, and spoke with him about regional political and security issues,” the PMO said.

Most countries have their diplomatic seats in Tel Aviv due to the disputed status of Jerusalem. Israel claims the city as its eternal and undivided capital, while the Palestinian Authority seeks East Jerusalem as the capital of its future state. Most countries do not recognize Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem.

Rabuka came to power in late 2022 as the head of a three-party government that included the right-wing Christian Sodelpa party, one of whose leaders’ demands was that Fiji open an embassy in Jerusalem.

Fiji’s embassy move follows a decades-long campaign by the Jerusalem-based International Christian Embassy of Jerusalem, which preaches support for Israel at churches across the Southern Pacific.

Israel had an embassy in Fiji, but it was closed in the 1990s due to budget cuts at the time.

From Fijileaks Archive, 1 November 2023

From Fijileaks Archive, 15 February 2024

From Fijileaks Archive, 7 November 2023

A NOTE FOR 'CATHOLIC PIO TIKODUADUA: "JERUSALEM FOR ALL"

The Holy See has always called for respect for the United Nations Resolutions on Jerusalem, a Holy City for the three monotheistic religions. Jerusalem is a sacred city for Jews, Christians and Muslims. King David chose it as the capital of the Kingdom of Israel some 3000 years ago. In Jerusalem, Jesus lived, died and rose again 2000 years ago. In Jerusalem, according to the Koranic tradition, about 1400 years ago Mohammed made a mystical journey to heaven.
The Coalition government of Sitiveni Rabuka should seriously consider moving Fiji's capital back from Suva to Levuka.

SHAMIMA ALI, 'The Image of a Wanted War Criminal Standing Next To A Coup Perpetrator must haunt all of us'. Like Esther Before King in Bible, Is Ali Speaking Truth to Power Over Gaza? Complicity versus Conscience

20/9/2025

Rabuka outraged Fiji Times* runs Ali's depiction of him and Netanyahu

Human rights campaigner Shamima Ali has unleashed her most scathing criticism yet of the Fiji government’s decision to open an embassy in Israel, calling the moment “shameful” and “a betrayal of humanity.”

Ali, who chairs the Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights, said the images of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were a moral and political disgrace. “There was a wanted war criminal standing next to a coup perpetrator,” she declared, in a blunt reference to Netanyahu’s international war crimes indictment and Rabuka’s role in Fiji’s 1987 coups.

For Ali, this was not mere symbolism. It reflected Fiji abandoning its moral compass at a time when Gaza faces catastrophic human suffering and international law is under siege. “We are aligning ourselves with impunity, not justice,” she said.

Ali has repeatedly warned that Fiji’s foreign policy is setting a dangerous precedent. By legitimising Israel at this moment, she argued, Fiji risks being complicit in alleged crimes against humanity while also eroding its own credibility as a nation once respected for peacekeeping and human rights advocacy.

She has urged Fijians to speak out and reject silence, saying the government’s action must not define the people’s conscience. Whether her words fuel a broader pushback at home or stir international criticism of Fiji’s stance remains to be seen, but her message is clear: history will not forget the company Fiji’s leaders chose to keep.

“Like Esther Before the King: Shamima Ali Speaks Truth to Power Over Gaza”

When Shamima Ali denounced Fiji’s leaders for standing “a wanted war criminal next to a coup perpetrator” at the opening of the new embassy in Israel, her words cut deeper than political protest. They echoed a much older story - one of defiance, conscience, and the courage to confront power when silence would mean complicity.

In the Bible, Esther was a young woman who became queen of Persia. She concealed her Jewish identity until a royal decree ordered the extermination of her people. Her cousin Mordecai urged her to act, reminding her: “Who knows if you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

To save her people, Esther had to break the law. She entered the king’s court uninvited, a move punishable by death. Yet instead of perishing, her boldness turned the tide. By speaking the truth at great personal risk, she exposed the plot against her people, reversed the king’s decree, and saved thousands of lives. Her defiance is still honoured in the Jewish festival of Purim, a celebration of resistance and survival.

Shamima Ali now stands in a similar position. She cannot stop the bombs falling on Gaza, but she can refuse Fiji’s silence. By calling out the alliance between Rabuka and Netanyahu, she has chosen the path of moral defiance. Like Esther, she speaks into a dangerous moment: when aligning with the powerful is easier, but standing with the oppressed is right.

The images of Fiji’s leaders smiling beside a man accused of war crimes will remain part of our history. But so too will Ali’s refusal to let that moment pass unchallenged. Her message is clear: neutrality in the face of mass suffering is complicity. Conscience demands courage.

Esther’s story ended with deliverance. Whether Fiji’s story ends with shame or redemption may now depend on whether its people heed Shamima Ali’s call to break their silence before history closes its judgment. Meanwhile, the Palestinians live dispossessed, starved and bombarded, while the world looks away. As for i-Taukei:

Rabuka's God: From 1987 Coups to the Israel Embassy, Faith as a Weapon of Exclusion

When Fiji opened its embassy in Israel, the government presented it as routine diplomacy, a gesture of friendship, perhaps even a matter of faith. But the decision cannot be separated from the human tragedy of Palestine, nor from the man who now leads Fiji: Sitiveni Rabuka.

To understand Rabuka’s politics, one must confront a disturbing truth. In 1987, he did not simply seize power for the army or for the i-Taukei. He justified his coups by claiming that his God woke him up one morning and told him to disregard, sideline, and suppress the Indo-Fijian people.

This was not politics in the ordinary sense. It was Christian fundamentalism as state ideology.

Divine Instruction as Political Violence

Rabuka’s coup was not just military. It was theological. He invoked God as the author of his actions. Indo-Fijians were reduced to obstacles in the divine plan, their votes and rights erased at the command of heaven.

This is precisely the logic of fundamentalism: when a leader claims God has spoken directly to him, democratic principles and human rights vanish. The “other” - whether Indo-Fijians in Fiji, or Palestinians in Palestine - is dehumanised, treated as disposable, a hindrance to God’s chosen order.

The Embassy in Israel: Theology Masquerading as Diplomacy

Fast forward to 2025. The embassy in Israel is not just foreign policy. It is the continuation of Rabuka’s religious nationalism on a global stage.

Israel, for Rabuka, is not merely a modern state but a biblical symbol.
Palestinians, like Indo-Fijians in 1987, are invisible in this theology, erased from the divine map.
By recognising Israel without recognising Palestine, Rabuka projects the same message: only some people are chosen, only some people matter.

Indo-Fijians and Palestinians: Parallel Dispossession

There is a cruel symmetry between the experiences of Indo-Fijians under Rabuka’s coups and Palestinians under Israeli occupation:

Both were told they did not belong in the land they had lived in for generations.
Both were excluded from power by force, their voices nullified.
Both were demonised through religion, cast as outsiders against a supposedly divine destiny.

The embassy in Israel therefore reveals more about Rabuka than about Fiji. It shows that the same worldview that stripped Indo-Fijians of equality in 1987 still guides him today: a fusion of ethno-nationalism and Christian fundamentalism.

The Dangerous Legacy of Rabuka’s God

It is important to name this clearly: Rabuka’s God was never the God of justice, compassion, or reconciliation. It was the God of domination, used to justify violence and exclusion.

In 1987, that God told him to disregard Indo-Fijians.
In 2025, that same God tells him to disregard Palestinians.
And at both times, the victims are those whose rights challenge the supremacy of the chosen group.

This is not faith. It is ideology disguised as revelation.

Conclusion

When Rabuka stood behind the opening of Fiji’s embassy in Israel, he was not merely conducting diplomacy. He was repeating a pattern that began in 1987: using religion to sanctify exclusion.

The tragedy of Palestine casts a harsh light back on Fiji. Indo-Fijians were once made strangers in their own land by a leader who claimed divine authority. Palestinians today are treated the same way.

To understand Rabuka is to understand this: whenever he invokes God, someone else’s suffering is about to be justified. Now, he has gone back to "sleep", waiting for God to whisper and guide him next on the question of recognising a Palestinian state.

Lynda Tabuya in Israel: From Women and Children in Fiji to Silence on Palestine’s Mothers and Children

The embassy opening in Israel was supposed to be a matter of foreign affairs, yet there was Fiji’s Minister for Information, Lynda Tabuya, smiling for the cameras.

Why?

She is not the Foreign Minister.

She is not the Prime Minister.

She has no portfolio that connects directly to Israel.

For years, Shamima Ali has spoken boldly on women’s rights, children’s rights, and the plight of the vulnerable in Fiji. She has been one of Lynda Tabuya’s most vocal supporters in politics and public life.

But now, as Tabuya smiles in Jerusalem alongside Benjamin Netanyahu, the man whose government stands accused of starving and bombing Palestinian women and children, we ask Shamima Ali: Does she condone Tabuya’s silence on Gaza’s starving children? Does she believe Fiji’s former Women and Children Minister should legitimise Netanyahu at a time when the ICJ is investigating Israel for genocide?

When Fiji opened its embassy in Israel, one face stood out in the delegation: Lynda Tabuya. Until recently, she held the portfolio of Minister for Women, Children, and Poverty Alleviation. She has spoken often of compassion, of caring for the most vulnerable, of protecting mothers and children.

But in Jerusalem, standing at the side of Sitiveni Rabuka, she seemed to have forgotten that message.

The Unseen Women and Children

In Gaza and the West Bank, women and children are not statistics — they are the primary victims of Israel’s war and blockade.

Thousands of children killed or maimed by bombing campaigns.
Mothers delivering babies without electricity or medicine, in hospitals starved of supplies.
Families going hungry, forced to choose between food and survival under Israel’s blockade.
Girls and boys growing up amid rubble, trauma, and permanent displacement.

For a Minister who once carried Fiji’s responsibility for women and children, Tabuya’s silence is staggering. She can speak about poverty alleviation in Suva, yet remain mute in the face of the most visible humanitarian crisis of our time.

The Politics of Selective Compassion

Tabuya’s presence at the embassy opening shows the politics of selective compassion:

When political optics demand it, she champions the poor and vulnerable in Fiji.
But when Rabuka’s government embraces Israel, she plays along, even if that means ignoring the starvation of Palestinian children.

A Woman Minister, a Missed Opportunity

Imagine if Tabuya had used her platform to speak for Palestinian mothers, women who, like Fijian women, want safety, dignity, and a future for their children in Gaza.

<<Previous