*An email dated 2 September 2026, accompanied by supporting documents, raised the matter with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and other senior authorities, including NFP leader Biman Prasad. While Fijileaks was independently examining the material, news arrived that Khan had been removed as Ba Town Council Special Administrator. |  |
 LOCAL Government Minister Maciu Nalumisa |  |
 |   |
On 2 September 2026, Fijileaks received a copy of an email addressed to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and copied to other relevant authorities. The email was accompanied by documents raising serious questions about Moshim Muktar Khan, his reported criminal conviction and his suitability to serve as chair of the Ba Town Council’s special administrators.
We began examining the documents and attempting to establish the circumstances in which Khan had been appointed.
Before that investigation was completed, news reached us that Local Government Minister Maciu Nalumisa had relieved Khan of his responsibilities with effect from 9 September 2026.
We do not claim, without further evidence, that the 2 September email caused Khan’s removal. The timing nevertheless demands an explanation.
Did the email trigger the Minister’s “due enquiry”? Were the Prime Minister, the Minister for Local Government or ministry officials previously unaware of the information contained in it? If so, why had the Government’s appointment and vetting procedures failed to uncover it before Khan was placed in charge of municipal administration in Ba?
Khan was removed following allegations concerning a previous criminal conviction and questions about whether that conviction had been disclosed. He was convicted on 10 March 2023 and received a four-year suspended sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm involving his legally married wife. A Domestic Violence Restraining Order was issued against him.
Khan was appointed chair of the Ba Town Council’s special administrators in January 2024, less than a year after the reported conviction.
If those facts are correct, his removal is not evidence of an appointment system working properly. It is evidence that the system may have failed at the point when it mattered most.
The Government cannot dispose of the controversy simply by removing Khan. It must explain who recommended him, who approved his appointment, what declarations he was required to complete, and what background checks, if any, were undertaken.
The Minister says Khan’s removal followed “due enquiry and careful consideration of all relevant information”. The public is entitled to know when that enquiry began and what prompted it.
Did it begin only after the email of 2 September reached the Prime Minister and other authorities? If not, when did it begin? What information had already come to the Ministry’s attention? Who examined it, and why has the resulting report not been released?
A government cannot convert a belated removal into a display of administrative virtue while concealing the circumstances of the original appointment.
The Documents Sent To Prime Minister Rabuka
Fijileaks is publishing the relevant documents which accompanied the email dated 2 September 2026. We have redacted dates of birth, tax-identification details, telephone numbers, email addresses and the identity of Khan’s wife. Those particulars are unnecessary to the public-interest questions raised by the documents.
We are publishing the material to test the integrity of a public appointment, not to intrude upon the privacy of Khan’s wife or expose unrelated personal information.
The documents raise questions which Prime Minister Rabuka, Minister Nalumisa and the Ministry of Local Government must answer:
Khan must also be afforded an opportunity to respond to the documents and to explain what information he supplied when he was considered for appointment.
His removal may have ended his tenure. It has not ended the public-interest investigation.
The question is no longer merely why Khan was removed. It is why he was appointed, and whether he would have remained in office had the email and supporting documents not reached the Prime Minister and other authorities on 2 September 2026.
We began examining the documents and attempting to establish the circumstances in which Khan had been appointed.
Before that investigation was completed, news reached us that Local Government Minister Maciu Nalumisa had relieved Khan of his responsibilities with effect from 9 September 2026.
We do not claim, without further evidence, that the 2 September email caused Khan’s removal. The timing nevertheless demands an explanation.
Did the email trigger the Minister’s “due enquiry”? Were the Prime Minister, the Minister for Local Government or ministry officials previously unaware of the information contained in it? If so, why had the Government’s appointment and vetting procedures failed to uncover it before Khan was placed in charge of municipal administration in Ba?
Khan was removed following allegations concerning a previous criminal conviction and questions about whether that conviction had been disclosed. He was convicted on 10 March 2023 and received a four-year suspended sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm involving his legally married wife. A Domestic Violence Restraining Order was issued against him.
Khan was appointed chair of the Ba Town Council’s special administrators in January 2024, less than a year after the reported conviction.
If those facts are correct, his removal is not evidence of an appointment system working properly. It is evidence that the system may have failed at the point when it mattered most.
The Government cannot dispose of the controversy simply by removing Khan. It must explain who recommended him, who approved his appointment, what declarations he was required to complete, and what background checks, if any, were undertaken.
The Minister says Khan’s removal followed “due enquiry and careful consideration of all relevant information”. The public is entitled to know when that enquiry began and what prompted it.
Did it begin only after the email of 2 September reached the Prime Minister and other authorities? If not, when did it begin? What information had already come to the Ministry’s attention? Who examined it, and why has the resulting report not been released?
A government cannot convert a belated removal into a display of administrative virtue while concealing the circumstances of the original appointment.
The Documents Sent To Prime Minister Rabuka
Fijileaks is publishing the relevant documents which accompanied the email dated 2 September 2026. We have redacted dates of birth, tax-identification details, telephone numbers, email addresses and the identity of Khan’s wife. Those particulars are unnecessary to the public-interest questions raised by the documents.
We are publishing the material to test the integrity of a public appointment, not to intrude upon the privacy of Khan’s wife or expose unrelated personal information.
The documents raise questions which Prime Minister Rabuka, Minister Nalumisa and the Ministry of Local Government must answer:
- When did each of them first become aware of the reported conviction?
- Did the 2 September email initiate or influence the enquiry which preceded Khan’s removal?
- Was Khan required to disclose previous convictions or restraining orders?
- Did he make such a disclosure?
- Was a police clearance obtained before his appointment?
- Who recommended Khan for the position?
- Who made or approved the final appointment?
- What qualifications and integrity criteria were applied?
- Was the position advertised, and were other candidates considered?
- Will the Government publish the appointment file and the findings of its enquiry?
Khan must also be afforded an opportunity to respond to the documents and to explain what information he supplied when he was considered for appointment.
His removal may have ended his tenure. It has not ended the public-interest investigation.
The question is no longer merely why Khan was removed. It is why he was appointed, and whether he would have remained in office had the email and supporting documents not reached the Prime Minister and other authorities on 2 September 2026.
BEATEN UP For NOT Making Breakfast for future Special Administrator
NEXT INSTALMENTS:
*From Bainimarama to Rabuka, the special-administrator scandal survives
Khan’s removal exposes a system built upon secrecy and political control. For more than a decade, Fijileaks has questioned the qualifications, political connections and conduct of government-appointed municipal administrators. Moshim Muktar Khan’s removal from the Ba Town Council shows that the Coalition Government retained the system it once condemned, without installing even the most elementary safeguards
*Removed from the FNPF Board but still running Sigatoka administrator?
Finance Minister Esrom Immanuel revoked Adish Naidu’s FNPF appointment following Reserve Bank advice. Yet the Local Government Ministry continues to list him as chair of the Sigatoka Town Council’s special administrators. Minister Maciu Nalumisa must explain the Government’s apparently contradictory standards: why does Adish Naidu remain a special administrator?
*The cure was the ballot box: Rabuka promised local elections, and Biman Prasad backed their postponement
The Coalition Government said elected councils would restore democracy, transparency and accountability after years of ministerial control. It appointed interim administrators to prepare the transition but then postponed the elections and left those same appointees governing Fiji’s ratepayers
*From Bainimarama to Rabuka, the special-administrator scandal survives
Khan’s removal exposes a system built upon secrecy and political control. For more than a decade, Fijileaks has questioned the qualifications, political connections and conduct of government-appointed municipal administrators. Moshim Muktar Khan’s removal from the Ba Town Council shows that the Coalition Government retained the system it once condemned, without installing even the most elementary safeguards
*Removed from the FNPF Board but still running Sigatoka administrator?
Finance Minister Esrom Immanuel revoked Adish Naidu’s FNPF appointment following Reserve Bank advice. Yet the Local Government Ministry continues to list him as chair of the Sigatoka Town Council’s special administrators. Minister Maciu Nalumisa must explain the Government’s apparently contradictory standards: why does Adish Naidu remain a special administrator?
*The cure was the ballot box: Rabuka promised local elections, and Biman Prasad backed their postponement
The Coalition Government said elected councils would restore democracy, transparency and accountability after years of ministerial control. It appointed interim administrators to prepare the transition but then postponed the elections and left those same appointees governing Fiji’s ratepayers
