As founder and editor of Fijileaks, I reported Biman Prasad to FICAC as far back as April 2024. I did not do so casually. I supplied documents, evidence, timelines, and declarations. I copied in the Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, and other relevant authorities. The material was detailed, sourced, and capable of sustaining charges.
When Barbara Malimali briefly became FICAC Commissioner, the same material was before her. Instead of advancing the investigation, she closed Prasad’s entire file. On the evidence, that decision alone raises serious questions of abuse of office and perverting the course of justice.
More troubling still is what happened on 5 September 2024, when lawyers whisked Malimali out of FICAC as investigators were preparing to charge Prasad that very afternoon. If that removal - directly or indirectly - interfered with an active anti-corruption process, then that conduct itself demands scrutiny.
This is why the current attempts to discredit the Commission of Inquiry ring hollow. The Commission did not invent these facts. Many of them were already on the record, reported, documented, and ignored. The inquiry merely forced them into the open, where they could no longer be quietly buried.
You can dispute the Commission’s conclusions. That is legitimate.
But stop pretending nothing was revealed.
And stop interfering if you were never a party to the wrongdoing in the first place.
The facts are now public. That - not bias, not politics - is what unsettles so many.
When Barbara Malimali briefly became FICAC Commissioner, the same material was before her. Instead of advancing the investigation, she closed Prasad’s entire file. On the evidence, that decision alone raises serious questions of abuse of office and perverting the course of justice.
More troubling still is what happened on 5 September 2024, when lawyers whisked Malimali out of FICAC as investigators were preparing to charge Prasad that very afternoon. If that removal - directly or indirectly - interfered with an active anti-corruption process, then that conduct itself demands scrutiny.
This is why the current attempts to discredit the Commission of Inquiry ring hollow. The Commission did not invent these facts. Many of them were already on the record, reported, documented, and ignored. The inquiry merely forced them into the open, where they could no longer be quietly buried.
You can dispute the Commission’s conclusions. That is legitimate.
But stop pretending nothing was revealed.
And stop interfering if you were never a party to the wrongdoing in the first place.
The facts are now public. That - not bias, not politics - is what unsettles so many.
 |  |
 |  |  |
COI Frightened Them Because the Evidence Was Never Meant to Surface
Background to the Arrest and Investigation
Francis Puleiwai, Acting Deputy Commissioner of FICAC, explained at the start of the meeting that Malimali had been under investigation since April 2024, and that investigators had gathered sufficient evidence to warrant an interview and possible charges:
“The investigation for Ms. Malimali was ongoing since April… The team was ready to proceed. The interview was supposed to commence this morning and thereafter the team are ready to charge her as well.”
She further clarified that, under the Constitution, she possessed the same powers as the Commissioner and was lawfully exercising them:
“Under the Constitution the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner we both have the same powers. I’m exercising my right… to carry out due diligence and complete the investigation.”
Despite this, the meeting quickly descended into a series of interventions aimed at derailing the investigation and preventing charges.
Alleged Interference by Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
Tomasi Bainivalu, the Chief Registrar, immediately questioned FICAC’s authority to arrest Malimali and urged caution, while simultaneously suggesting that the investigation be halted:
“I do not know what power you have to arrest your own Commissioner… Why so fast overnight? Is it birthed from bitterness?… I’m not here to interfere with your work, but what is the right and best way?”
Most significantly, Bainivalu relayed what he described as instructions from the Chief Justice Salesi Temo:
“Just when she left… the Chair called again to CJ… and I remember he did say that on the phone… don’t accept any charge… this is the beginning of that dialogue.”
This statement is deeply concerning. If accurate, it indicates that a senior judicial officer sought to prevent the filing of a criminal charge, potentially amounting to judicial interference in an active investigation. It is one of the clearest indicators in the transcript of a potential attempt to pervert the course of justice, because it suggests coordination between the judiciary and external actors to prevent a criminal charge from ever reaching the courts.
Alleged Pressure and Threats from Senior Lawyer Amani Bale
Amani Bale, a senior lawyer, made some of the most direct and threatening interventions. He demanded that the suspect be released:
“I ask that you release her and she be released immediately and let the JSC go and convince…”
He also attempted to intimidate investigators by threatening their professional futures:
“What you have done now will spoil your careers but that’s your choice.”
Bale repeatedly asserted that pursuing charges would be futile because the courts would refuse to entertain them:
“You heard very clearly that Court would not accept it… if you go to Court it won’t accept your charges.”
These statements constitute clear attempts to pressure investigators into abandoning their lawful duties.
Alleged Misuse of Authority by Wylie Clarke, President of the Fiji Law Society
Wylie Clarke, President of the Fiji Law Society, argued that because Malimali had been appointed Commissioner, investigators were now obliged to obey her instructions, even though she was the subject of their investigation:
“She is now the substantive Commissioner under the law… you have to follow her direction right or wrong… If she directs you to stop this right now, what would you guys do?”
He further warned that continuing with the investigation would provoke institutional conflict:
“Continuing down this path is going to end up in a stand-off between this organisation and the Court… That will undermine confidence in the whole justice system.”
Such statements are significant because they explicitly suggest that institutional power, rather than law, should dictate the outcome of a criminal investigation.
Alleged Attempts by Senior Lawyer Laurel Vaurasi to Dissuade Investigators
Laurel Vaurasi, a senior practitioner, echoed similar arguments, warning that continuing the investigation could place FICAC “outside the law”:
“If you continue to keep her… the Court will listen to her application but not yours… Standing by your conviction has to be based on law… Otherwise, you are now operating outside the law.”
Her remarks were calculated to sow doubt about the legality of the investigation and discourage investigators from proceeding. While more subtle, Vaurasi's language is part of intimidation and pressure aimed at halting a criminal process. Even indirect attempts, by invoking consequences and urging withdrawal, can amount to perversion if they are intended to derail an investigation.
Alleged Conduct of Barbara Malimali – Initiating External Interference
It is understood that Barbara Malimali herself telephoned Wylie Clarke, while she was under active investigation and/or under arrest, to seek his assistance. If proven, this demonstrates that Malimali herself initiated efforts to interfere with the investigation.
The transcript also shows that her supporters repeatedly invoked her appointment as Commissioner as a shield against prosecution, implying that investigators were now subordinate to her, even though the investigation predated her appointment and concerned her own conduct.
Pattern of Coordinated Obstruction
When viewed collectively, the statements above reveal a pattern of coordinated conduct by senior figures, including judicial officers and members of the legal profession, aimed at obstructing a criminal investigation. This includes:
Contrast: FICAC Investigation Team (Puleiwai, Saumi, Bokini Ratu)
These officers largely resisted pressure and emphasised:
Francis Puleiwai, Acting Deputy Commissioner of FICAC, explained at the start of the meeting that Malimali had been under investigation since April 2024, and that investigators had gathered sufficient evidence to warrant an interview and possible charges:
“The investigation for Ms. Malimali was ongoing since April… The team was ready to proceed. The interview was supposed to commence this morning and thereafter the team are ready to charge her as well.”
She further clarified that, under the Constitution, she possessed the same powers as the Commissioner and was lawfully exercising them:
“Under the Constitution the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner we both have the same powers. I’m exercising my right… to carry out due diligence and complete the investigation.”
Despite this, the meeting quickly descended into a series of interventions aimed at derailing the investigation and preventing charges.
Alleged Interference by Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu
Tomasi Bainivalu, the Chief Registrar, immediately questioned FICAC’s authority to arrest Malimali and urged caution, while simultaneously suggesting that the investigation be halted:
“I do not know what power you have to arrest your own Commissioner… Why so fast overnight? Is it birthed from bitterness?… I’m not here to interfere with your work, but what is the right and best way?”
Most significantly, Bainivalu relayed what he described as instructions from the Chief Justice Salesi Temo:
“Just when she left… the Chair called again to CJ… and I remember he did say that on the phone… don’t accept any charge… this is the beginning of that dialogue.”
This statement is deeply concerning. If accurate, it indicates that a senior judicial officer sought to prevent the filing of a criminal charge, potentially amounting to judicial interference in an active investigation. It is one of the clearest indicators in the transcript of a potential attempt to pervert the course of justice, because it suggests coordination between the judiciary and external actors to prevent a criminal charge from ever reaching the courts.
Alleged Pressure and Threats from Senior Lawyer Amani Bale
Amani Bale, a senior lawyer, made some of the most direct and threatening interventions. He demanded that the suspect be released:
“I ask that you release her and she be released immediately and let the JSC go and convince…”
He also attempted to intimidate investigators by threatening their professional futures:
“What you have done now will spoil your careers but that’s your choice.”
Bale repeatedly asserted that pursuing charges would be futile because the courts would refuse to entertain them:
“You heard very clearly that Court would not accept it… if you go to Court it won’t accept your charges.”
These statements constitute clear attempts to pressure investigators into abandoning their lawful duties.
Alleged Misuse of Authority by Wylie Clarke, President of the Fiji Law Society
Wylie Clarke, President of the Fiji Law Society, argued that because Malimali had been appointed Commissioner, investigators were now obliged to obey her instructions, even though she was the subject of their investigation:
“She is now the substantive Commissioner under the law… you have to follow her direction right or wrong… If she directs you to stop this right now, what would you guys do?”
He further warned that continuing with the investigation would provoke institutional conflict:
“Continuing down this path is going to end up in a stand-off between this organisation and the Court… That will undermine confidence in the whole justice system.”
Such statements are significant because they explicitly suggest that institutional power, rather than law, should dictate the outcome of a criminal investigation.
Alleged Attempts by Senior Lawyer Laurel Vaurasi to Dissuade Investigators
Laurel Vaurasi, a senior practitioner, echoed similar arguments, warning that continuing the investigation could place FICAC “outside the law”:
“If you continue to keep her… the Court will listen to her application but not yours… Standing by your conviction has to be based on law… Otherwise, you are now operating outside the law.”
Her remarks were calculated to sow doubt about the legality of the investigation and discourage investigators from proceeding. While more subtle, Vaurasi's language is part of intimidation and pressure aimed at halting a criminal process. Even indirect attempts, by invoking consequences and urging withdrawal, can amount to perversion if they are intended to derail an investigation.
Alleged Conduct of Barbara Malimali – Initiating External Interference
It is understood that Barbara Malimali herself telephoned Wylie Clarke, while she was under active investigation and/or under arrest, to seek his assistance. If proven, this demonstrates that Malimali herself initiated efforts to interfere with the investigation.
The transcript also shows that her supporters repeatedly invoked her appointment as Commissioner as a shield against prosecution, implying that investigators were now subordinate to her, even though the investigation predated her appointment and concerned her own conduct.
Pattern of Coordinated Obstruction
When viewed collectively, the statements above reveal a pattern of coordinated conduct by senior figures, including judicial officers and members of the legal profession, aimed at obstructing a criminal investigation. This includes:
- Relaying instructions allegedly from the Chief Justice not to accept charges.
- Issuing threats to investigators’ careers.
- Misrepresenting the legal effect of the suspect’s appointment.
- Demanding her immediate release.
- Warning of institutional retaliation if the investigation continued.
- Soliciting external assistance from professional associations to intervene.
Contrast: FICAC Investigation Team (Puleiwai, Saumi, Bokini Ratu)
These officers largely resisted pressure and emphasised:
- The investigation had been ongoing since April.
- Evidence existed to support charges.
- They were acting under constitutional powers and the rule of law.
