Blog Archives

Crash News Blackout: Its nearly a year and still silence from Fiji Police if the Fijian Media Association chair, MaiTV Fiji boss Simpson, charged with careless driving, dealt with by the courts. Vijay Narayan was Passenger

29/10/2025

So apparently, when ordinary people get charged with careless driving, it’s a headline.
But when it’s Stanley Ian Simpson, the secretary-general of the Fijian Media Association and boss of Mai TV Fiji, involved in a traffic accident that injured another driver and passenger, suddenly Fiji’s newsroom warriors discover the art of silence.
*According to a Totogo Police Station report (03 Feb 2025), Simpson was at fault for a collision on Vuya Road, pulling out from Suva Grammar’s driveway into another car.

The other driver, an Indo-Fijian businessman and his passenger wife were injured, and are still struggling to recover from their injuries.
Police charged Simpson with careless driving (Traffic Infringement No. 5047076). To date, the businessman has not been updated by the Fiji Police nor is he aware if Simpson has been dealt with by the courts.
*Yet not a whisper from the very same media voices who never miss a chance to lecture the public about transparency and accountability.

So here’s the question: If this had been an ordinary Savenaca or Sami, would the same “ethical silence” apply?
In Fiji, it seems even traffic laws bend politely when the Fourth Estate is behind the wheel. And Vijay Narayan is the passenger.
According to the Indo-Fijian businessman, it was Narayan who approached the couple and wondered if they were allright.
And yet to date, not a word in Fijivillage News!
STRAIGHT TALK: Can we get an update from Simpson and Narayan?

What is Stanley Ian Simpson Smoking? If Fiji's Journalists had done their Job, Investigated Biman Prasad, he would have been OUT of Parliament, in Prison Back in 2014. He lied for 10 Years. Journalists Worshipped Him

28/10/2025

Enter Stanley Ian Simpson, head of the Fiji Media Association, and 50% owner with New Methodist Church of Mai TV Fiji
Last year, Mai TV Fiji quietly signed a deal with the government for a Public Service Broadcast grant - a taxpayer-funded subsidy approved under Biman Prasad’s national budget. Presented as support for “public-interest broadcasting”, it was, in practice, a financial lifeline to two commercial stations: Mai TV and Fiji TV, including Communications Fiji Ltd (CFL), producers of Vijay Narayan's Straight Talk*

If Fiji’s Journalists Had Done Their Job, Biman Prasad Would Have Been Out of Parliament - and in Prison - Back in 2014

You can always count on Fiji’s media establishment to wake up years late and act surprised.

Overnight, two of the government’s three Deputy Prime Ministers have fallen, charged and out of Cabinet. And now, the same journalists who spent the last decade polishing their public images are wringing their hands in disbelief.

None more so than Stanley Ian Simpson, head of the Fiji Media Association and owner of Mai TV Fiji, who posted on Facebook about how "shocked and unvered" he was by the news of Biman Prasad’s arrest.

Shocked? Really? What exactly has he been smoking?

The Truth Hiding in Plain Sight

Let’s get real. Biman Prasad’s hands haven’t been clean for a long time.

Back in 2014, when he first declared his assets to the Fiji Elections Office under the Political Parties Act, he left out key information - information that any half-competent journalist could have uncovered with a $10 company search.

He didn’t declare his 5% shareholding in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, the company he co-founded with his cousin Sunil Chand. Later, he became a 50% shareholder. He didn’t declare his wife’s property in Suva. He didn't declare his wife got two villa units in exchange when the couple sold their Burerua property to Lotus (Fiji) Ltd. He didn’t declare the two villas he quietly bought through Lotus. And he certainly didn’t declare that Lotus paid his Capital Gains Tax, an undeclared benefit that reeks of corruption.

He did not declare his directorships in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, Lotus Tours & Transfers Ltd, and Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd. He didn't declare that a piece of land he bought for $60,000 in 2007 in Rakiraki, he gifted it to his NZ based son in 2021 for a nominal sum of $100, citing "for natural love and affection".

While the land, now worth over $400,000, lies idle with a derelict home on it, the Indo-Fijian community living in squatter settlements is crying out to be housed with their families.

In his resignation statement, he says he will have a little bit more time with family and friends and he will be able to connect more with the broader community as the Leader of the National Federation Party.

The false declarations in his statutory declarations are endless, from 2014 to 2024.

Those are not small mistakes. Those are deliberate falsehoods under oath. A breach of Section 24 of the Political Parties Act - a criminal offence.

If Fiji’s journalists had done their work in 2014, this man would never have qualified to contest an election, let alone become Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

The Media's Long Silence

But instead of investigating, they worshipped him.

The “academic economist.” The “honest reformer.” The “clean pair of hands.”

No one checked the company records. No one cross-referenced property titles. No one asked how a university lecturer could suddenly afford luxury villas. They just printed his speeches and moved on.

For years, the print and television journalists recycled his talking points about “transparency” while ignoring his own undeclared interests.

That’s not journalism - that’s malpractice.

The Grant That Explains Everything

And now we finally know why the head of Fiji’s media fraternity is so desperate to play down the story.

Mai TV Fiji, the station 50% owned by Stanley Simpson, quietly signed a deal with government last year to receive a Public Service Broadcast (PSB) grant, funded by the very same national budget tabled by Biman Prasad as Minister of Finance.

Yes, the same Biman Prasad who’s now facing criminal charges helped sign off on taxpayer money that ended up in the pockets of Fiji’s media operators, including the man who leads the Fiji Media Association.

So when Simpson goes on his Facebook to talk about “political turmoil” and to wonder why “a government is charging its own ministers,” he isn’t speaking as a journalist. He’s speaking as a man whose business depends on the goodwill of the same politicians now under investigation.

That’s not journalism. That’s conflict of interest, wrapped in hypocrisy and lit with a cigar.

The Real Scandal

The real scandal isn’t that Biman Prasad has finally been charged. It’s that it took eleven years for anyone to do it.

Eleven years of silence. Eleven years of cowardice. Eleven years of journalists looking the other way while pretending to be champions of free speech.

Where was the Fiji Media Association when all this was happening? Busy collecting government grants and hosting workshops on “ethics.” Where was Mai TV Fiji? Running government press releases and calling it “news.”

This isn’t a free press. It's a subsidised one.

And now, when the law finally catches up, the same people who failed to investigate are crying “political conspiracy.” Spare us.

A Lesson Long Overdue

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about politics. It’s about accountability.

If Biman Prasad lied about his declarations, he broke the law. It doesn’t matter if he’s NFP, PAP, or FijiFirst. The law applies the same way.

What’s happening now is not a “witch-hunt.” It’s justice, delayed, but not denied.

And if it’s making certain media figures nervous, maybe they should look in the mirror and ask themselves who they’ve been protecting all these years.

Fiji Doesn’t Need More Commentators. It Needs Reporters

So the next time Stanley Simpson posts about being “shocked” by a corruption charge, remember this: his company took government money under the same minister now in the dock.

Maybe that explains the smoke.

If the media had done its job back in 2014, Biman Prasad would have been nowhere near Parliament. He would have been facing the very charges he now confronts, years earlier, when it still mattered.

Instead, Fiji got a decade of self-righteous lectures on honesty from a man who couldn’t even file an honest declaration.

The watchdogs were asleep. The journalists were on payroll. And the man with the cigar was too busy defending the hand that bankrolled MaiTV Fiji.

DEPUTY Prime Minister, Finance Minister, and NFP leader PROFESSOR BIMAN CHAND PRASAD To RESIGN After Being CHARGED by FICAC

27/10/2025

From Minister to Mutineer to PAP Party President: Remarkable Rebirth of Ratu Josefa Dimuri. Eleven days in prison, 20 years of political recycling. Dimuri elected by PAP to run his master Rabuka’s ruling political PARTY

26/10/2025

*Ratu Josefa Dimuri was jailed for his part in the Sukanaivalu Barracks mutiny following the George Speight coup in May 2000

SEFANAIA Sukanaivalu's citation for the Victoria Cross in the London Gazette dated 2 November 1944 ends with:
“This brave Fiji soldier, after rescuing two wounded men with the greatest heroism and being gravely wounded himself, deliberately sacrificed his own life because he knew that it was the only way in which the remainder of his platoon could be induced to retire from a situation in which they must have been annihilated had they not withdrawn.”

The late hero Sukanaivalu

When Chiefs Forgot Honour. The former Lands Minister Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and Government Senator Ratu Josefa Dimuri's 2000 siege at Sukanaivalu Barracks Mutiny in Labasa Stained the Bravery of Corporal Sefanaia Sukanaivalu, VC. Worse still, instead of serving their full prison sentences, they were released early and allowed to return to Parliament.
One is now President of Fiji, and the other the President of the People's Alliance Party (PAP).

In a Foreign Field He Stood. While Chiefs Ran Out of Prison after 11 DAYS
Sefanaia Sukanaivalu's sacrifice won the Victoria Cross. A humble soldier died defending others on foreign soil.
Years on, Fiji's titled leaders could not even stand more than 11 days in prison. Born to lead their people, these two chiefs brought shame to the vanua* by fleeing justice

Once upon a coup, he was Minister for Information under Sitiveni Rabuka in 1993. Now, he’s President of Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party. In between, Ratu Josefa Dimuri was convicted for his part in the 2000 mutiny, sentenced to eight months in jail, and served just 11 days.

It’s the kind of comeback story that would make Hollywood blush and Transparency International cry.

Dimuri’s career reads like a manual on how to fail upward in Fijian politics. A loyal “Rabuka man” since the 1990s, he first rose to prominence as Information Minister in the post-coup government that institutionalised Fiji’s racial divide. Later, when the 2000 coup threw the nation into chaos again, Dimuri wasn’t just a spectator. He became part of the machinery that legitimised it.

In 2005, justice finally caught up, or rather, brushed past. He was convicted and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment for his role in the Sukanaivalu Barracks mutiny, one of the ugliest episodes of that era. But after 11 days behind bars, Dimuri was out, released to “serve the balance extramurally”. The ink on his conviction was barely dry before he was back in public life.

Critics at the time were furious. The release, they said, smacked of preferential treatment for chiefly elites and political insiders. And yet here we are, two decades later, watching Dimuri being sworn in as President of the People’s Alliance Party, under the very man whose 1987 coup first militarised Fiji’s politics - Sitiveni Rabuka.

You couldn’t script irony like this.

Dimuri’s former prison mate, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, another alumnus of the 2000 coup saga, now occupies the Presidential Palace. Dimuri now runs Rabuka’s ruling party. The old guard is not just back; they’re running the show. Fiji, it seems, has mistaken recycling for reform.

To be clear, redemption is a noble thing but redemption without remorse, accountability, or reform is just reputation laundering. Dimuri’s political rehabilitation was never earned through a record of reform or moral leadership; it was conferred by a network of old loyalties and chiefly privilege.

The message to ordinary iTaukei is unmistakable: if you’re a commoner, justice is a sentence; if you’re a chief, it’s an inconvenience.

Dimuri’s political journey from cabinet minister to coup convict to party president says less about his personal resilience than about the system that keeps restoring men like him. A system built not on merit or integrity, but on connections, memory loss, and the quiet rewriting of history.

And so Fiji’s political carousel keeps spinning: yesterday’s mutineer becomes today’s moral authority, yesterday’s offender becomes tomorrow’s leader. Eleven days in prison, twenty years of public amnesia, and voilà, another “statesman” is reborn.

At this rate, the slogan for the next election should be: 'Coup now, campaign later. Redemption guaranteed, chiefly style.

It's hard to find a better advertisement for Fiji's brand of political forgiveness than the career trajectories of Dimuri and his one-time jailbird comrade Lalabalavu, or should we say, His Excellency the President of Fiji.

Both men now stand at the pinnacle of political legitimacy: one as President of Fiji, the other as President of the People's Alliance Party.

Fiji (aka Sitiveni Rabuka) it seems, doesn't just forgive. It recycles. Convictions fade, coups are rebranded as "events", and the protagonists are reborn as elder statesmen, dispensing wisdom on democracy, accountability, and leadership - "Liumuri, Style".

When Coup Comes Calling. Rajesh Singh told Fiji to vote for Rabuka, and pushed narrative of change. Now before the Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission, recounts how Rabuka's thugs put knife to his head in 1987

24/10/2025

EVIDENCE?: To recall Tabuya, Where is the Evidence, Any Police Report?

“I was walking home from work and there were six people who brought a knife and they put it on my head. I had money there for mom and dad. And they took it.”

Fijileaks: Without mocking Rajesh Singh's testimony itself, we clearly highlight the contradiction of being once aligned with Rabuka and now recounting the pain linked to that era.

It takes a peculiar kind of amnesia to stand in the front row of a political revival and forget what that revival represents. Yet in Fiji’s endlessly recycled theatre of politics, selective memory has become an art form.

Take, for instance, the spectacle of a once-enthusiastic campaigner for Sitiveni Rabuka - the man who carried the coup-maker’s banner into a new political age, swearing that this time, redemption had replaced rebellion. Today, that same individual, Rajesh Singh, recounts, in painful detail, how a knife was pressed to his head and how his father’s livelihood was destroyed in the chaos Rabuka unleashed in 1987.

It’s hard not to pause at the irony.

The very movement that once brought such personal harm was later championed in the name of political renewal. The trauma became a footnote in the march toward power, resurrected only when the national mood shifted and truth became fashionable again.

To be clear, no one begrudges a victim their pain - that story deserves to be told, and it should be heard. But when a person plays both roles - the cheerleader of the legacy and the witness to its wounds - the line between conviction and convenience becomes very thin indeed.

Fiji’s politics is full of these contradictions: men and women who denounced coups until they could benefit from them, who swore by principle until power came calling. The tragedy is not only personal; it’s national. Every time we excuse political reinvention as “growth” or “forgiveness,” we blur the moral ledger a little more.

When the same faces who once endorsed the coup-maker now weep over the coup’s victims, Fiji is forced to watch history eat its own tail. It’s not hypocrisy that wounds the nation most. Its a refusal to admit it.

“Oh, the irony: champion of the cause until the cause turned inconvenient”

So here we were again, witnessing the grand spectacle: the very individual who once stirred the ranks, raised the banner, pumped up the optimism for Sitiveni Rabuka, and pushed the narrative of change, now poised at the lectern of the Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission, his voice cracking, his memory raw, recounting how they put a knife to his head, and robbed him of his cash that was meant for his parents.

And of course, the power of testifying before a truth commission always carries the promise of redemption, reconnection, moral high ground, and less interestingly, it also offers spotlight.

The final irony

Rajesh Singh advocated for Sitiveni Rabuka in the last election. He organised, he rallied, his voiced trust in his project. Now he tell us he was robbed, threatened, his father dispossessed, his Indo-Fijian community humiliated.

The knife at his head becomes a metaphor not just for his personal trauma, but for the broader sharp-turn of allegiances, politics, and history.

Bravo for Singh's survival. Applause for his bravery in front of the commission. But let’s not forget: the very man he once propelled is the man whose legacy he now has to reckon with.

And in that reckoning, we all learn something: that aligning with power always carries a cost. And when circumstances change, the narrative flips.

And one moves to the next political dinning table, enough of the full "political chow".

New Political Diner: Rajesh Singh Sampling SODELPA's Political Delicacy

A former Government minister broke down multiple times while recounting how he was robbed at knifepoint and watched his father lose everything after the 1987 coup.

Rajesh Singh, who served as Minister for Youth and Sports in the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) Government, testified before the Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission (FTRC) at the Suva Civic Centre yesterday.

The 1987 coups, led by then Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, overthrew Fiji's first Indo-Fijian-led coalition government and triggered mass migration and economic hardship for many families.

Mr Singh described how six men held a knife to his head and stole money meant for his family after the coup left them struggling to survive.

“I was walking home from work and there were six people who brought a knife and they put it on my head,” Mr Singh said.

“I had money there for mom and dad. And they took it.”

He said his father, a former minister and timber businessman, was escorted from Namosi by landowners when the coup happened and lost everything when the border was shut.

“He lost everything. But the bottom line, his life was more important than material things in life,” Mr Singh said.

The family of nine struggled without income for months. Mr Singh recalled having to sell his watch to buy food for his niece.

“We can go without food. But she couldn't," he said, breaking down while giving his testimony.

Mr Singh also witnessed violence, where he saw a woman punched and her six-month-old baby taken and placed in a rubbish bin.

"It still disturbs me," he said.

He said indigenous Fijians were swearing at the Indian community and threatening them.

“They were saying, ‘go back to India, ‘we’re going to kill you,’ ‘we’re going to take everything of yours,” Mr Singh recalled.

He encouraged other survivors to come forward and share their stories with the commission.

“Please come out and talk to the commission. This will really help people,” Mr Singh said. Source: The Fiji Sun, 22 October 2025

RABUKA-ROKOIKA Appointment. Rabuka, “We didn’t get the cooperation of Judicial Services Commission to appoint LAVI ROKOIKA and thus we progressed it through direct recommendation from PM to the President.”

23/10/2025

*Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka needs to either convince the JSC to approve Lavi Rokoika's acting role or ask her to step down from FICAC. That way, the JSC could choose someone from the current FICAC lawyers to act as Acting Commissioner instead, to avoid any legal challenge.

If the Acting FICAC Commissioner’s Appointment Falls, Do the Charges Stand?

*All indictments filed while Lavi Rokoika holds office under a presidential instrument are likely to be upheld by the Fiji courts as valid acts of a de facto Commissioner.

*The Judges will be reluctant to allow accused persons to escape prosecution merely because of a procedural defect in a high appointment.

*In short, the unconstitutionality of the appointment does not collapse the prosecutions, but it exposes a serious breach of constitutional procedure that must be corrected without delay.

The Flower That's Fading: Each Revelation Wilts What's Left of Her Acting FICAC Appointment

Lavi Rokoika Appointment: Background and Context

On 29 May 2025, the President of Fiji, Ratu Naiqama Lalalabalu, appointed Lavi Rokoika as Acting Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption. The appointment was made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, rather than on the advice of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) as prescribed under section 115(12) of the 2013 Constitution.

The Prime Minister publicly acknowledged that the appointment was made without JSC advice, claiming that “we didn’t get the cooperation of the Judicial Services Commission” and thus “we progressed it through the direct recommendation from the Prime Minister to the President.”

This procedural departure has sparked a major constitutional debate:

Was the appointment valid?
And if it was not, what becomes of the corruption prosecutions that FICAC has launched, including those against Manoa Kamikamica, the former Deputy Prime Minister, and probably against Biman Prasad, DPM and the Minister for Finance?

This opinion addresses the second question: whether prosecutions commenced under an invalid appointment can lawfully proceed.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

Section 115(12) of the Constitution

“The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption shall be appointed by the President, on the advice of the Judicial Services Commission, following consultation with the Attorney-General.”

This clause is mandatory, not permissive or discretionary.

The President’s power is conditional upon receiving and acting on the JSC’s advice. In other words, the President can only act on the advice of the JSC.

Consultation with the Attorney-General is required but not binding.

Therefore, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have no constitutional authority to replace or bypass that advising body. They have no lawful role in appointing or removing the FICAC Commissioner or Acting Commissioner.

Section 81(3): Acting Appointments

“If the holder of an office established by this Constitution is unable to perform the functions of that office, the President may, on the advice of the person or body that is empowered to advise on the appointment to that office, appoint another person to act in that office.”

Even for temporary or “acting” appointments, the same advising authority here, the JSC, must advise.

FICAC Act 2007

The Act provides that the FICAC Commissioner “shall be appointed in accordance with the Constitution.” It further states that all proceedings are to be “instituted and conducted in the name of the Commissioner.” The FICAC Act is a statutory framework but it's subordinate to the Constitution. The Act gives FICAC functional and administrative powers but cannot override the constitutional process of appointment.

These provisions directly tie FICAC’s prosecutorial authority to the validity of the Commissioner’s appointment.

Legal Effect of an Unconstitutional Appointment

If the court rules that Rokoika’s appointment breached section 115(12), the act of appointment is unconstitutional and void ab initio, meaning she never lawfully held the office.

However, Fiji’s courts, like most Commonwealth jurisdictions, recognise a pragmatic exception: the de facto officer doctrine.

The De Facto Officer Doctrine

This long-standing common law principle preserves the validity of official acts performed by a person who appears to hold office under colour of lawful authority, even if their appointment is later found defective. Its core purpose is to prevent legal chaos and protect public reliance on the apparent authority of state officers.

What are the Basic Legal Requirements?

The office itself must exist in law.
The person must occupy it under colour of a formal or public instrument.
Their acts must occur before the appointment is judicially declared invalid.

Fiji and Commonwealth Application

State v President of the Republic of Fiji; ex parte Prasad [2001] FJHC 390 recognised the doctrine in validating acts under a de facto government.
In Gokaraju Rangaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1981 SC 1473), the Indian Supreme Court upheld convictions by a de facto judge whose appointment was unconstitutional, reasoning that “the administration of justice cannot be held hostage to procedural defects in appointment.”

Under this doctrine, FICAC’s prosecutions already filed under Rokoika’s authority remain valid unless and until a competent court rules otherwise.

Ultra Vires and the Limits of Tolerance

While the de facto officer doctrine preserves acts done before a judicial declaration of invalidity, it cannot legitimise conduct after such a ruling.

Once the court declares the appointment void:

The office immediately becomes vacant.
Any further decisions, authorisations, or prosecutions made in the name of that officeholder would be ultra vires and null.

Hence, FICAC may continue only under a lawfully reconstituted leadership, either by re-appointment through proper JSC advice, or through delegation confirmed by a valid Commissioner.

Application to the FICAC Cases

Existing Charges (Manoa Kamikamica, maybe Biman Prasad, and Others)

All indictments were filed while Rokoika held office under a presidential instrument. She has been publicly recognised, paid, and has exercised control over FICAC staff. Those circumstances satisfy the requirements of the “colour of authority.”

Accordingly, the charges are likely to be upheld as valid acts of a de facto Commissioner. Courts will be reluctant to allow accused persons to escape prosecution merely because of a procedural defect in a high appointment.

Future Proceedings or Decisions

After a judicial declaration of invalidity:

No new charges can be laid,
No continuing steps (such as disclosure directions, consent to prosecution, or settlements) can lawfully be authorised by the void officeholder.

To proceed lawfully, a new Commissioner or Acting Commissioner, appointed on the advice of the JSC, must ratify and adopt all pending matters.

Distinguishing Between Procedural and Jurisdictional Defects

A key question is whether the invalid appointment deprives FICAC of jurisdiction altogether, or merely introduces a procedural irregularity.

The latter interpretation is more consistent with public interest.

As the Indian Supreme Court observed in Gokaraju Rangaraju, the legitimacy of criminal justice “cannot depend on the accidental validity of the judge’s commission.”

Fiji’s courts are likely to apply the same reasoning: uphold the prosecutions to protect the administration of justice, while insisting that future appointments strictly comply with the Constitution.

Judicial Remedies and Institutional Options

If the court finds Rokoika's appointment unconstitutional, several outcomes are possible:

Declaratory Judgment (Prospective Effect)
The court may declare the process invalid but preserve past acts for reasons of stability, a prospective declaration approach.
Mandamus for Re-appointment
The President may be directed to fill the post lawfully upon the JSC’s advice.
Ratification by a Lawful Commissioner
The successor may issue a formal instrument adopting all prior prosecutions to remove any procedural doubt.
Stay Applications by the Defence
Defendants like Kamikamica or even Prasad if he is charged, may seek a stay or dismissal. Yet courts generally refuse to terminate proceedings on such technical grounds unless clear prejudice is shown.

Broader Constitutional Implications

The bypassing of the JSC undermines the independence of one of Fiji’s core integrity institutions. Section 115(12) was designed precisely to prevent executive interference in the appointment of anti-corruption officers.

While the courts may preserve ongoing prosecutions to prevent impunity, they are equally likely to censure the constitutional impropriety that gave rise to the controversy.

A finding of invalidity would reaffirm that the rule of law demands adherence to proper appointment mechanisms, even in the name of expediency.

The constitutional defects in both the removal of Barbara Malimali and the appointment of Lavi Rokoika go to the root of jurisdiction. Section 115 of the Constitution is not procedural; it defines the legal existence and independence of FICAC itself.

Where the head of the body has been appointed without the mandatory advice of the JSC, any purported exercise of prosecutorial power lacks the constitutional foundation required for validity.

Although the de facto officer doctrine may preserve certain completed acts performed in good faith before the defect is known, it cannot validate continuing prosecutions or new charges commenced under an unlawful appointment.

An appointee who was never constitutionally vested with office cannot lawfully institute or sustain criminal proceedings in the name of FICAC.

Accordingly, prosecutions initiated or maintained under such defective authority are liable to be stayed or quashed, and any further exercise of power by the invalidly appointed Acting Commissioner would amount to a continuing breach of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the unconstitutionality of the appointment does not collapse the prosecutions, but it exposes a serious breach of constitutional procedure that must be corrected without delay.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka needs to either convince the JSC to approve Lavi Rokoika's acting role or ask her to step down from FICAC. That way, the JSC could choose someone from the current FICAC lawyers to act as Acting Commissioner instead, to avoid any legal challenge.

Failure to Disclose Professional Disqualification: A Major Ground for Constructive Revocation of Barbara Malimali’s Appointment as FICAC Commissioner by the JSC

*Malimali’s failure to disclose that she had been barred from legal practice in Tuvalu is a major and independently sufficient ground for constructive revocation of her appointment as FICAC Commissioner

JSC chair, CJ Temo

Material Non-Disclosure Undermines Validity of Appointment

In any application for a high-integrity constitutional office, especially one requiring judicial, equivalent qualifications, truthful and full disclosure, is essential.

If Barbara Malimali was barred or suspended from legal practice in Tuvalu, this would:

Call into question her fitness and propriety to hold a role equivalent to a judge (as FICAC Commissioner must be);
Reflect adversely on her honesty, transparency, and ethics;
Demonstrate intentional non-disclosure, which is a form of misrepresentation.

This breach of duty of candour alone is sufficient to render the appointment invalid in substance, and voidable in law.

Elevated Eligibility Standard Under the 2013 Constitution

“The Commissioner of FICAC must be a person who is qualified to be appointed as a judge.”

Any person with a disciplinary history, especially one resulting in prohibition from legal practice in local or foreign jurisdiction, would likely fail the threshold test of suitability. If the JSC had been aware of this prior bar, it is reasonable to conclude that it should not have endorsed her appointment.

Constructive Revocation Is the Proper Remedy

Because the JSC’s original advice was premised on incomplete, inaccurate, or concealed information, the appointment is constitutionally flawed. Under the doctrine of constructive revocation, the JSC is empowered to:

Recognize that the basis of its prior advice has been fundamentally compromised;
Withdraw that advice;
Formally recommend to the President that the appointment be terminated.

This is a corrective, not punitive, action. Its purpose is to restore the integrity of the Commission and uphold the public trust in the appointment process.

Precedents from Other Jurisdictions

Across Commonwealth jurisdictions, courts and appointment bodies have upheld the principle that failure to disclose adverse professional history (such as prior suspension, disbarment, or censure) is:

A material breach of an applicant’s duty of honesty;
Grounds for immediate termination of appointment, or refusal to confirm it;
A basis for finding constructive fraud or misrepresentation.

This applies equally whether the prior disciplinary action occurred in Fiji or in another jurisdiction, such as Tuvalu.

Implications for the Judicial Services Commission

If the JSC now knows (it certainly does) that Malimali:

Was barred from practising in Tuvalu, and
Did not disclose this in her application, it is not merely permitted but likely duty-bound to:

Reassess her continued fitness for the post;
Withdraw its earlier recommendation under the constructive revocation doctrine;
Preserve the constitutional integrity of FICAC and the JSC itself.

To knowingly allow the appointment to stand, once such a material misrepresentation is confirmed, could itself become a dereliction of duty by the JSC.

The failure to disclose a prior bar from practising law in Tuvalu is a serious and independent ground for constructive revocation of Barbara Malimali’s appointment.

It goes directly to honesty, character, and eligibility.

The Judicial Services Commission now has both clear legal grounds and a constitutional obligation to act urgently and decisively.

Legal Basis for Revocation

The doctrine of constructive revocation permits the JSC to correct its own error where its prior advice was tendered:

On the basis of false, misleading, or incomplete information, or
Where the integrity, independence, or credibility of the office is subsequently threatened. Courts have upheld such powers as essential to constitutional accountability, even in the absence of express revocation provisions.

Effect of Barbara Malimali's Pending Judicial Review before the Fiji High Court

The existence of judicial review proceedings does not bar the JSC from acting, provided it:

Notifies the court of its decision,
Does not seek to pre-empt the court’s jurisdiction,
Acts with institutional caution, it may proceed to withdraw its recommendation.

Recommended Steps

The JSC is advised to:

Convene an urgent meeting to reassess the appointment in light of the full factual matrix;
Pass a formal resolution to withdraw its earlier advice;
Write to the President of Fiji recommending the re-termination of the appointment;
Notify the High Court of its action and offer to assist with disposal of the pending review.

The JSC now possesses compelling facts, some of which were not disclosed or misrepresented at the time of her appointment, that render the continued appointment of Malimali was incompatible with the office she held.

The JSC is empowered, and arguably obligated, to act under the doctrine of constructive revocation.

The case of Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State Of Andhra Pradesh addresses a pivotal issue in Indian jurisprudence concerning the validity of judicial decisions made by judges whose appointments have been subsequently declared invalid. This Supreme Court judgment, delivered on April 15, 1981, delves into the implications of the de facto doctrine, which serves as a legal safeguard to maintain the continuity and stability of judicial proceedings despite procedural irregularities in judicial appointments.

Background

The appellant, Gokaraju Rangaraju, challenged the validity of judgments pronounced by Shri G. Anjappa and Shri Raman Raj Saxena, both Additional Sessions Judges, whose appointments were later quashed by the Supreme Court for violating Article 233 of the Constitution. The central question was whether the prior judgments rendered by these judges retained their validity in light of their impermissible appointments.

Key Issues

Effect of invalid judicial appointments on past judgments.
Applicability and limitations of the de facto doctrine in Indian law.
Balancing public policy and legal propriety in judicial proceedings.

Parties Involved:

Appellant: Gokaraju Rangaraju
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh

Summary of Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the judgments pronounced by Shri G. Anjappa and Shri Raman Raj Saxena despite their appointments being declared invalid. The court invoked the de facto doctrine, emphasizing that actions performed by these judges in the course of their assumed judicial authority are to be regarded as valid and binding.

This stance is rooted in public policy and the necessity to prevent legal chaos and protect the interests of the public and third parties. Consequently, the appeals challenging the prior judgments were dismissed, reaffirming the principles underpinning the de facto doctrine in the Indian legal system.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning hinged on the distinction between de facto and de jure authority. The central tenet is that while the appointment of a judge may be procedurally flawed, the actions undertaken in the genuine execution of judicial functions must be respected to prevent legal uncertainty and societal disruption. The court emphasized the following points:

Doctrine of Necessity: The de facto doctrine is essential to maintain the continuity and stability of the judicial system, safeguarding against the annulment of judgments that could lead to chaos and public disillusionment.
Public Policy: Upholding the de facto actions aligns with public policy by ensuring that private rights and public interests are protected from being undermined by technicalities in judicial appointments.
Legal Continuity: The judgments and orders issued by de facto judges carry the same legal weight as those by de jure judges, ensuring that legal processes are not rendered ineffective due to procedural lapses.
Constitutional Provisions: The court referenced Article 71(2) of the Constitution and Section 107(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to illustrate that the legislature recognizes and incorporates the principles underlying the de facto doctrine.
Comparative Jurisprudence: By drawing parallels with international cases, the court underscored the universal applicability and acceptance of the doctrine, reinforcing its validity within the Indian legal framework.

LEGAL STORM GATHERS. Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika's mandate under fire while FICAC reveals charges against KAMIKAMICA

22/10/2025

It is alleged that between 1 December 2024 and 31 March 2025 in Suva, he [Manoa Kamikamica] knowingly made a false statement under oath, claiming that he had nothing to do with the appointment of the FICAC Commissioner [Barbara Malimali].
In the alternative, he faces one count of Giving False Information to a Public Servant, contrary to section 201(a) of the Crimes Act 2009, for allegedly providing the same false information to the Commissioner of Inquiry (COI).

Press Release
Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Manoa Kamikamica Charged by FICAC
Posted by Media Team 22 October 2025

The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) confirms that charges against the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises and Communications, Hon. Manoa Kamikamica, were formally filed with the Suva Magistrates’ Court Registry on 23 September 2025.

At the time of filing, it was difficult for the Commission to locate the Deputy Prime Minister; therefore, it was decided that he be summoned to appear before the Court rather than be arrested.

Hon. Manoa Kamikamica is charged with one count of Perjury, contrary to section 176(1) of the Crimes Act 2009.

It is alleged that between 1 December 2024 and 31 March 2025 in Suva, he knowingly made a false statement under oath, claiming that he had nothing to do with the appointment of the FICAC Commissioner.

In the alternative, he faces one count of Giving False Information to a Public Servant, contrary to section 201(a) of the Crimes Act 2009, for allegedly providing the same false information to the Commissioner of Inquiry (COI).

Prosecution Counsel Ms. Lilian Mausio informed the court that the Hon. Kamikamica was served with the charging summons on 2 October 2025 and that they had been aware of the upcoming mention for 20 days.

Ms. Mausio also confirmed that the second-phase disclosures were served to the Defence Counsel, Mr Wylie Clark, this morning.

Mr. Clarke stated that the charges are fundamentally flawed due to the appointment of Acting Commissioner Lavi Rokoika.

Ms. Mausio advised the Court that this was not the proper forum to ventilate this issue and that if the defence wishes to challenge the appointment of the Acting Commissioner, they must do so by filing proper applications before the High Court.

Resident Magistrate Charles Ratakele said that the Magistrates’ Court will act on any directions issued by the High Court in that regard.

Ms. Mausio also said that the disclosures are enough to address the lacuna claimed by Mr. Clarke and that if he wished, the Criminal Procedure Act gives the defence leeway to seek further and better particulars from FICAC.

Hon. Kamikamica was not present in Court today when the matter was called.

The Magistrate raised the accused's absence, but was advised that he is currently out of the country. The matter has been adjourned to Friday, 24 October 2025, at 2.30 p.m.

RM. Ratakele has adjourned the matter to Friday, 24 October 2025, at 2.30 pm.

Suva lawyer, Wylie Clarke who is representing Member of Parliament, Manoa Kamikamica says the charges laid by FICAC against Member of Parliament, Manoa Kamikamica are fundamentally flawed, incredibly defective and there is absence of sufficient particulars.

Clarke also says that in their submission, they have written to FICAC to withdraw the charges.

He says during the caution interview, the text messages which were provided as evidence by FICAC was also flawed.

Clarke also raised the matter that Acting FICAC Commissioner, Lavi Rokoika has no power to charge Kamikamica as she was not appointed in accordance with the law.

Principal State Counsel, Lilian Mausio informed Magistrates Charles Ratakele that Kamikamica was served with the charges on October 2nd.

Mausio responded that this is not the right forum to bring these things up.

However Clarke says he will apply for a stay in the proceedings in the High Court.

Clarke is now waiting for FICAC’s response regarding his request for the withdrawal of charges against Kamikamica.

Mausio says she will respond by tomorrow afternoon.

Kamikamica wasn't present in court as he is still travelling from overseas and will return this evening.

He has been charged by FICAC with perjury and giving false information to a public servant.

Kamikamica's bail hearing is set for 2.30pm this Friday.

GAVEL, NOT GAOL! Frank Bainimarama escapes prison with suspended sentence

Former Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama has been sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years after being found guilty of making unwarranted demands to sack two Police officers.

This means that he will not be going into prison unless he commits an offence.

Speaking after the sentencing, Bainimarama thanked his lawyers, Devanesh Sharma and Gul Fatima.

He also acknowledged his family and friends for their support and prayers.

Before a packed court room this afternoon, High Court Judge, Justice Thushara Rajasinghe said that on the 2nd of October this year, it was proven that Bainimarama made unwarranted demands to sack two Police officers.

The judge has told Bainimarama that he deleted his viber message sent to the then Acting Police Commissioner, Rusiate Tudravu, and then asked him to resign.
He said that as the Prime Minister, Bainimarama had a duty of responsibility to the people.

Justice Rajasinghe earlier found Bainimarama guilty for making an unwarranted demand to a public official.

Bainimarama, between the 21st of May 2021 to the 18th of August 2021 in Suva, as the Prime Minister of Fiji made an unwarranted demand with menace to the Acting Commissioner of Police, Rusiate Tudravu, by threatening his employment to influence the Acting COMPOL to comply with his unwarranted demand for the termination of the employment of Sergeant Penieli Ratei and Police Constable Tomasi Naulu who came under the supervision and authority of the Commissioner of Police.

The maximum penalty for the charge of making an unwarranted demand by a public official is 12 years imprisonment.

The judge has given 30 days to appeal the sentence.

A Night of the Long Sugar Cane Knives: The Bittersweet Feud Between Sugar Minister Charan Jeath Singh and sugarcane farmer Arvind Singh. An extraction of farmer's Excel sheet by PS Dr Kumar leaves bitter taste

21/10/2025

Charan Jeath Singh has chosen theatre over stewardship

"In a brazen Facebook post that reads less like public leadership and more like playground revenge, Fiji’s Sugar Minister paraded Indo-Fijian farmer Arvind Singh's production records, mocked critics as “Dracula’s that were guarding the blood bank,” and crowed about imaginary yields. The fallout was immediate and deserved: the Minister is rightly under fire, not merely for poor taste but for a pattern of behaviour that betrays office, abuses power, and erodes what little credibility remains in an industry gasping for competent leadership. His PS, Dr Vinesh Kumar, harvested Arvind Singh's private data and passed it on to Sugar Minister to publicly humiliate Arvind Singh. Coalition Ministers are supposed to protect and promote the public interest - not abuse personal data to score cheap political points."

A Minister at War with Civility: Public Office is NOT a Bully Pulpit
No one disputes that Arvind Singh can be outspoken. But in a democracy, citizens are entitled to criticise government policy without fear that a minister will dig into official databases to shame them.

By exposing farm numbers and actual yields, Charan Jeath Singh crossed a line no responsible minister should ever cross. It’s an act that reeks of vindictiveness, not leadership.

Even if the data were accurate, and that’s not the point, Minister Singh’s decision to publish it himself on Facebook raises three questions that cut to the heart of ethical governance:

How did the Minister obtain the data?
Under what authority did he make it public?
What message does it send to other farmers or board members who might now fear speaking freely?

The answers paint a disturbing picture of a minister who mistakes confidential information for a personal weapon.

Dracula at the Blood Bank

In his post, Minister Singh lashed out at “critics” and “Draculas guarding the blood bank”, a grotesque metaphor for those he blames for Fiji’s sugar industry decline. But the irony is complete: this wasn’t the voice of an industry reformer; it was the tantrum of a thin-skinned politician who used his position to exact digital revenge. A Cabinet minister in charge of one of Fiji’s most struggling sectors, reduced to screenshotting a farmer’s Excel sheet to win a Facebook argument.

If it weren’t so disrespectful, it would almost be funny.

Leadership Requires Restraint and Honour

The Sugar Ministry is not a campaign platform. It’s a trust. And ministers, above all, are supposed to exercise judgment, discipline, and respect for privacy.

Instead, Charan Jeath Singh has turned his office into a public amphitheatre of pettiness. What he calls “transparency” is, in fact, a weaponisation of privilege. What he calls “criticism” is, in fact, a citizen exercising his rights.

By posting Arvind Singh’s farm data, he has told every farmer in Fiji:

“If you challenge me, I will use your own records to shame you.”

That’s not leadership. It’s intimidation.

The Real Issues Left Unharvested

While Minister Singh was busy settling Facebook scores, the sugar industry continues to rot from neglect and structural decay: declining yields, ageing mills, and farmers walking away from unviable leases. The minister’s energy should be spent fixing those problems, not picking fights on social media.

Every moment devoted to personal feuds is a moment stolen from the reforms farmers desperately need. And every act of public humiliation corrodes what little confidence remains between growers and government.

A Reckoning for the Minister

Charan Jeath Singh should be held accountable, not just politically, but administratively.

He must apologise publicly to Arvind Singh.
There must be an inquiry into how a Minister obtained and disclosed private farmer data.
The Prime Minister should review his fitness to continue in the portfolio.

Ministers are not immune to standards simply because their Facebook followers cheer them on. There must be consequences for arrogance, abuse, and breaches of trust.

The Final Cut

The episode will be remembered not for the data it revealed, but for what it exposed about the Minister himself, a man too thin-skinned to govern, too reckless to respect boundaries, and too petty to rise above personal grudges.

If the sugar industry is bleeding, it is not only because of low yields or global prices. It’s because of leaders like Charan Jeath Singh, who confuse the cane knife for a sword of justice, and mistake humiliation for strength.

In the end, the “Night of the Cane Knives” will not be remembered for who was cut down but for who wielded the blade, and why.

The sugar sector needs reform, not reality show tantrums. If Minister Singh wants to be remembered as anything other than a minister who wielded the cane knife against a farmer, he should stop the theatrics, start the work, and for once let facts, and justice, guide his office.

Note for Readers, and Coalition supporters: It pains me deeply to have taken on the Sugar Minister Charan Jeath Singh, for our personal friendship runs long and true. But I would be failing in my duty if I stood aside and did not enter this bittersweet feud between Singh and Singh - a feud that mirrors the very contradictions of sugar itself. Friendship cannot override duty. To stay silent would be to condone what must be challenged. So, in the end, I had to step into this bittersweet feud, where loyalty collides with duty, and where sugar itself seems to crystallize both the sweetness of old bonds and the sting of truth.

Sugar Ministry's Sweetest Harvest Yet. Dr Kumar Helps Extract More Than Just Cane Data of Arvind Singh for Sugar Minister Charan Jeath Singh

PS Vinesh Kumar

Here’s the breakdown of what’s going on in that screenshot and why Dr Vinesh Kumar’s name appears in Minister Charan Jeath Singh’s post:

Dr Vinesh Kumar does not appear in the text of Charan Jeath Singh’s post itself

The post text - what Charan Jeath Singh wrote - is entirely about Arvind Singh, attacking his cane-farming output and record as an FSC (Fiji Sugar Corporation) board member.

There is no direct reference to Kumar anywhere in those written paragraphs.

However, Dr Vinesh Kumar’s name appears in the embedded media preview

At the bottom of the post you can see a black video-style thumbnail or media tile with the caption:

“Dr Vinesh Kumar 4:17” and beneath that, the label “Arvind Singh - Read-only” plus an Excel-style table.

This shows that Charan Jeath Singh attached or shared a file or video that originated from Dr Vinesh Kumar’s device or account. Most likely, it was:

A screenshot or screen-recording created by Dr Vinesh Kumar (possibly of an Excel sheet or presentation named “Arvind Singh – Read-only”), or
A forwarded video or file that carried Dr Vinesh Kumar’s name in its metadata, which Facebook automatically displayed as part of the embedded preview.

Contextually, this suggests collaboration or sourcing

Dr Vinesh Kumar is Charan Jeath Singh's PS for Sugar and Multi-Ethnic Affairs. Before his appointment, he was Sugar Research Institute CEO.

Thus, the appearance of his name strongly suggests that the data Charan Jeath Singh used to attack Arvind Singh came from FSC internal records or a document Dr Vinesh Kumar produced or circulated.

In short:

The Excel sheet summarizing Arvind Singh’s cane deliveries appears to be an FSC internal document.
The file’s metadata or author tag lists “Dr Vinesh Kumar.”
When Charan Jeath Singh uploaded or screen-recorded it, Facebook automatically displayed the file’s original author (Dr Vinesh Kumar).

Why this matters

If true, that means:

The Minister publicly disclosed or circulated official FSC data, apparently sourced from an internal file bearing Dr Vinesh Kumar’s name.
It raises serious governance and confidentiality issues, whether a government minister should be using or publicizing internal corporate data to personally attack a former board member.
It also implies collaboration (or at least data sharing) between Dr Vinesh Kumar and Charan Jeath Singh, possibly breaching professional or fiduciary boundaries if the information was non-public.

Summary

Dr Vinesh Kumar’s name appears not because he was mentioned in the text, but because the attached file or media originated from him (or his account).
The Excel sheet visible in the post shows data consistent with FSC’s internal reporting format.
That linkage indicates that Charan Jeath Singh likely relied on internal FSC material prepared under Dr Vinesh Kumar’s authority to mount a political or personal attack.

Possible Misuse of FSC Internal Data and Breach of Confidentiality: Minister for Sugar’s Facebook Post Referencing Arvind Singh and role of his PS Dr Kumar

Observations

Source of the Data

The table shown is consistent with FSC internal reporting spreadsheets for cane estimates and actual mill deliveries. Its appearance suggests that the file originated from within FSC’s corporate systems.

Attribution to Dr Vinesh Kumar

Facebook automatically displays the author or file owner of attached documents. The visible name “Dr Vinesh Kumar” indicates the file was created, owned, or last saved under his user credentials, suggesting internal origin.

Ministerial Publication

The Minister republished or publicly disseminated this internal file, together with statements disparaging a private individual (Arvind Singh), to hundreds of readers on a social media platform.

Legal and Ethical Issues

Breach of Confidentiality and Fiduciary Duty

FSC data on individual farmers’ yields is confidential and collected for operational and regulatory purposes.

Public disclosure without consent may breach:

Section 120 of the Companies Act 2015 (fiduciary duties of officers and agents of state-owned enterprises);
Clauses in the FSC Board Charter relating to confidentiality; and
Standard provisions of the Public Service Code of Conduct applicable to ministers and statutory officers.

Misuse of Official Information

Section 139 of the Crimes Act 2009 criminalises the use of official information for personal, political, or other improper purposes.
If the data was accessed through FSC systems and used to attack a private citizen, this could amount to a misuse of official information.

Potential Collusion or Improper Direction

The metadata implies that Dr Vinesh Kumar (as Minister Singh's PS) prepared or circulated the data used in the Sugar Minister’s political post.
If the Minister requested or received the data for non-official purposes, this may constitute improper ministerial influence or direction of a statutory officer contrary to the FSC Decree 1998 and general principles of public administration.

Recommended Actions

Immediate Internal Inquiry

FSC should establish how internal data bearing Dr Kumar’s name came to be publicly disseminated by the Minister.

Suspension Pending Inquiry

If confirmed that internal files were shared externally, disciplinary action should be considered against any involved officers.

Advisory to the Minister

The Prime Minister or Cabinet Secretary should remind all Ministers that internal data from state-owned enterprises must not be used for partisan or personal attacks.

Referral to FICAC

If evidence shows misuse of official information for political purposes, the matter should be referred to FICAC under section 139 of the Crimes Act.

Call for Inquiry into Sugar Minister’s Use of FSC Internal Data

The post attacked former board member Arvind Singh, using production figures drawn from an FSC document labelled “Arvind Singh – Read Only.” The file name and author identification visible on the post clearly show “Dr Vinesh Kumar,” suggesting the data originated within FSC systems.

The public use of confidential farmer data raises serious concerns about:

Breach of confidentiality and misuse of official information;
Possible political exploitation of internal FSC records; and
Collusion between ministerial and corporate officers.

We call on the FSC Board, the Attorney-General, and the FICAC Commissioner to immediately investigate:

How this file left FSC custody;
Whether any ministerial or staff member authorised its use; and
Whether statutory or ethical duties were breached.

Farmers and the public must have confidence that their personal or commercial data will not be used for political score-settling by those in power.

AFTER THE DIWALI LIGHTS: MANOA KAMIKAMICA Steps Down Amid Diwali's Fading Glow But Will Continue to Serve as PAP BACKBENCHER

21/10/2025

Deputy Prime Minister and Cabinet Minister Manoa Kamikamica has made the honourable decision to resign from Cabinet and his ministerial duties, effective 22 October 2025, to focus on clearing his name following charges by FICAC.

He will return to Fiji and continue serving in Parliament as a backbencher.

The Prime Minister Rabuka accepted his resignation and praised Kamikamica’s integrity and continued commitment to the Government and people of Fiji, confirming he will temporarily oversee Kamikamica’s portfolio.

In an official statement posted on the Office of the Attorney-General's Facebook* page, the office clarified that the individual named in the court matter was not Solicitor-General Ropate Green, but another person who shares the same name

The Office of the Solicitor-General has strongly refuted claims made on social media alleging that the Solicitor-General, Ropate Green, has been charged with criminal intimidation and is expected to appear in court this week.

In a statement, the Office clarified that these claims, which were posted by Alex Forwood and Ketan Lal, are false, misleading and defamatory.

They say the individual mentioned in the court matter is not the Solicitor-General, but another person who happens to share the same name.

The Office is urging members of the public, including public figures and social media users, to act responsibly when posting or sharing information online and to verify facts before publication.

They say the spread of unverified and false claims by individuals not only tarnishes reputations but also erodes public trust in national institutions.

The Office further says that defamation whether intentional or due to reckless disregard for the truth, carries legal consequences.

The Office has also stated that it reserves all rights to take appropriate legal action to protect the integrity of the Office and the reputation of the Solicitor-General.

WHY the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General Should Have Responded Immediately, and NOT With Legal Threats

When a rumour names the country’s chief law officer, you don’t wait for the bushfire to reach towns, cities, and villages before fetching a hose. You step out early, clearly, and with facts. Instead, the Offices of the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General let speculation ferment across social media, only to surface with a belated press note wagging a legal finger and threatening defamation.

That is crisis mismanagement 101, and it hands oxygen to the very claims you want to suffocate.

What went wrong, where was Coalition's Information Minister Lynda Tabuya?

Silence in the golden hour. The first hour after a claim lands is decisive. Even a short holding line, “We’re aware, it’s false, fuller statement at X o’clock”, would have set the record. The vacuum invited screen-grabs, half-quotes, and conspiracy hashtags to multiply.
Threats before transparency. Leading with “we reserve our rights” is not a rebuttal; it’s a bluff charge. It chills legitimate scrutiny, antagonises the public, and, in the digital age, triggers the domino effect: more clicks, more shares, more doubt.
Name confusion left to run. If another person with a similar name is the one in a court list, then say so fast and precisely. Provide the distinguishing details you are lawfully able to share. Ambiguity breeds mischief.

Why the timing matters

Public trust is perishable. The law officers are custodians of the state’s credibility. Every hour of official silence moves the conversation from “is it true?” to “why aren’t they denying it?” That reputational slide is hard to reverse.
Politics rushes into the gap. In Fiji’s febrile climate, a loose post becomes ammunition. By the time the statement arrived, the issue had already been weaponised. A rapid, factual correction would have de-politicised it before the spin machines warmed up.
You can’t out-litigate a meme. Legal threats can manage newspapers; they cannot catch up with WhatsApp, Viber and Snapchat groups. Speed and clarity beat bluster and letters.

What a competent response would have looked like

T+30 minutes: Acknowledgement and holding line from the S-G’s Office:
“Claims circulating that the Solicitor-General has been charged are false. We’ll issue a detailed clarification by 2pm.”
T+2 hours: Detailed bulletin with verifiable facts, not adjectives.
“The person named in [court/charge list] is [full name, middle initials, birth year], not the Solicitor-General [full name]. The S-G has not been charged with any offence. Any enquiries may be directed to [contact].”
T+2 hours: Proactive distribution to newsrooms, talk-back producers, and major social pages; post sharable graphic with the core fact in one sentence. Encourage corrections rather than threaten writs.
T+Day’s end: Record of correction: list of pages/posts that have corrected or retracted. Thank them publicly. Keep the temperature down.

No drama. No grandstanding. Just facts, fast.

The problem with “defamation first”

Yes, defamation exists. Yes, reckless amplification hurts real people. But state lawyers are not private litigants. The threshold is higher. When the S-G or A-G reaches first for the legal cudgel, it looks like power defending itself rather than the public interest defending the truth. And the public notices.

Use the law last. Use evidence first.

What the public is entitled to expect

A timeline. When did the Offices first learn of the posts? Who approved the response? Why the delay? Publish the chronology.
A comms protocol. Show us the playbook: who speaks, when, and how. “We were busy” is not a policy.
A correction culture. Ask posters to correct and pin the correction. Reserve legal action for the narrow band of malicious, repeated, and refused-to-correct cases, and say so up front.

The Offices of the S-G and A-G cannot preach “verify before you share” while practising “threaten before you clarify.”

If you want the public to be responsible with information, model the behaviour: be swift, specific, and scrupulously factual. It’s not just smarter communications; it’s a constitutional duty owed to the people whose confidence you serve on trust.

Fijileaks’ Three Rules for Officials Under Fire

Speed over swagger. A 50-word fact at 1pm beats a 500-word scold at sunset.
Receipts over rhetoric. Show the distinguishing facts; avoid adjectives.
Corrections over courtrooms. Fix the record publicly; litigate only the wilfully malicious.

Do that, and next time a wild post drops, it will die in the comments - not grow into a press cycle.

NO Immunity for Convicted Criminals, even if you former PRESIDENT

FICAC against Kamikamica. Tanya Waqanika Redefines Constitutional Interpretation, One Screenshot at a Time. In reality, the prosecutions are brought by FICAC as a statutory body, not by an individual Commissioner

20/10/2025

Under Section 115 of the 2013 Constitution, the President appoints the FICAC Commissioner on the advice of the JSC. But when the position is temporarily* vacant, the President may appoint an Acting Commissioner to ensure continuity. Nothing in the text forbids it. In other words, an acting appointment is a practical measure, not a constitutional crisis.
*In the Manoa Kamikamica matter, the court will decide the facts and evidence. FICAC, as an institution, remains perfectly competent to prosecute. The Acting Commissioner’s signature is an administrative formality, not the foundation stone of the case. The accused’s guilt or innocence will be determined by evidence, not by Tanya Waqanika’s Facebook feed.

Lavi Rokoika

Tanya Waqanika

When Facebook becomes Fiji’s constitutional court, Suva lawyer TANYA Waqanika must be the Chief Justice.

Her reported recent online post proclaiming that the entire case of FICAC against Manoa Kamikamica is “unconstitutional” because Lavi Rokoika, the Acting FICAC Commissioner, supposedly wasn’t appointed through the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) is the latest addition to the country’s growing library of social-media jurisprudence.

It would be funny if it weren’t being shared so earnestly.

Here we have a trained lawyer publicly declaring that all prosecutions signed off by the Acting Commissioner are invalid, a claim that collapses the moment one glances at the FICAC Act 2007.

The Commission is a body corporate. It can sue, be sued, and prosecute in its own name.

That’s why the case is styled FICAC against Manoa Kamikamica, not Lavi Rokoika against Manoa Kamikamica. FICAC’s authority doesn’t vanish every time a Commissioner changes seats.

Under Section 115 of the 2013 Constitution, the President appoints the Commissioner on the advice of the JSC. But when the position is temporarily vacant, the President may appoint an Acting Commissioner to ensure continuity. Nothing in the text forbids it. In other words, an acting appointment is a practical measure, not a constitutional crisis.

Even if, for argument’s sake, the appointment were later judged procedurally defective, the de facto officer doctrine protects the validity of acts performed in good faith by someone exercising official authority. This is basic administrative law. Courts worldwide, from London to Lautoka, from Sri Lanka to Suva, apply it precisely to prevent chaos whenever a paperwork glitch occurs in an appointment.

To suggest that every corruption charge collapses because of a social-media theory about the Acting Commissioner’s appointment is, to put it gently, unserious. It is the kind of argument that gets laughed out of court but goes viral online because it sounds scandalous and fits a political mood.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. Fiji’s digital space has become an echo chamber of legal speculation, where snippets of constitutional language are twisted into memes and presented as definitive rulings. The pattern is familiar: someone with a legal background posts a dramatic claim; it spreads before anyone checks the law; by the time correction arrives, outrage has already done its work.

For lawyers, this is not harmless chatter. Public confidence in the justice system depends on clarity and restraint from those who know better. When trained professionals use their platforms to blur that line, they damage more than their own credibility. They erode the public’s understanding of law itself.

In the Manoa Kamikamica matter, the court will decide the facts and evidence. FICAC, as an institution, remains perfectly competent to prosecute. The Acting Commissioner’s signature is an administrative formality, not the foundation stone of the case. The accused’s guilt or innocence will be determined by evidence, not by Tanya Waqanika’s Facebook feed.

Perhaps Waqanika might recall that the first rule of legal ethics is accuracy before advocacy. Before one accuses an institution of acting unconstitutionally, it helps to open the statute, read the section, and verify the precedent. That takes longer than composing a viral post but it also avoids the embarrassment of being publicly corrected by the very text of the law.

So yes, we can thank Tanya Waqanika for the reminder that misinformation thrives where diligence sleeps. But the next time she feels the urge to issue a constitutional ruling from her news feed, she might start with a modest exercise: read the Act, check the Constitution, and maybe -just maybe-consult a real courtroom before delivering her next online judgment.

Until then, Fiji’s legal system will continue to function under the quaint belief that law is made in Parliament and interpreted by the courts, not rewritten in a Facebook comment thread.

And Iowane Naivalurua to replace Manoa Kamikamica as Deputy Prime Minister

<<Previous