Apologies! Grainy image of Reddy from the COI
|
|
Kaushal Reddy’s Role and Misconduct in the Corruption File Review
*Contrary to standard procedure, Kaushal Reddy was not assigned to review the prosecution file or to advise on whether charges should proceed. His role was limited to providing pedestrian observations to Malimali. However, Reddy overstepped this remit, intruding into the prosecutorial domain by contradicting the legal team’s determination to prosecute.
*In doing so, he advanced flawed and irrelevant reasoning that undermined the integrity of the decision-making process. Most notably, he recommended that investigators interview a lawyer who was already deceased at the time — a proposal so egregious it raises serious concerns about either his competence or intent. This intervention not only derailed a viable prosecution but also exposed the institution to public disrepute and potential legal liability.
*Contrary to standard procedure, Kaushal Reddy was not assigned to review the prosecution file or to advise on whether charges should proceed. His role was limited to providing pedestrian observations to Malimali. However, Reddy overstepped this remit, intruding into the prosecutorial domain by contradicting the legal team’s determination to prosecute.
*In doing so, he advanced flawed and irrelevant reasoning that undermined the integrity of the decision-making process. Most notably, he recommended that investigators interview a lawyer who was already deceased at the time — a proposal so egregious it raises serious concerns about either his competence or intent. This intervention not only derailed a viable prosecution but also exposed the institution to public disrepute and potential legal liability.
|
|
|
RIP. The late Raman Pratap Singh
*Singh resigned as NFP president on 29 March 2014, citing the need for "new blood" and "fresh faces" in the party leadership. *He attempted to regain his seat for the NFP at the 2014 election in September under Biman Prasad's leadership but was not successful. *Singh died on 18 May 2020 in Suva |
*Since Raman Pratap Singh is deceased, he cannot be held legally or professionally accountable in any formal sense (e.g. prosecution, disciplinary action or civil liability). This is a key factual and legal limitation that should be acknowledged clearly in any formal or public document discussing his potential role or relevance in a matter.
*If someone-like Kaushal Reddy-recommended interviewing him after his death, that raises serious procedural and credibility concerns about the advice given. It either shows:
*A gross failure of due diligence, or a deliberate attempt to mislead, by suggesting (and Malimali accepting to close the file) on a person who was legally and physically unavailable.
*FICAC probe began in April 2024. Prasad was interviewed twice in August. He was to be charged on 5 September. Singh has been dead since 2020.
|
|
Truth on Paper, Lies in Practice: The Legal and Moral Failure Behind Biman Prasad’s False Declarations
Statutory declarations are solemn instruments. They demand truthfulness under penalty of law, functioning as the cornerstone of public transparency in modern democracies. When public officials and parliamentarians distort these documents—whether through omission, evasion, or calculated dishonesty—they do not merely betray their legal obligations. They betray the public trust.
Biman Prasad, Fiji’s current NFP leader, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, in Sitiveni Rabuka's government repeatedly submitted false or materially misleading declarations between 2014 and 2024. These violations occurred under the watch of legal practitioners who witnessed his declarations, and under the passive gaze of the Fiji Elections Office (FEO), which failed to detect or respond to glaring irregularities. The legal consequences, both in statute and case law, are plain: none of these institutional failures excuse Prasad’s personal legal responsibility.
The Legal Framework: A Declarant’s Duty of Truth
The Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 imposes a clear legal duty on political party officials—including Biman Prasad as leader of the National Federation Party—to disclose their assets, liabilities, and any conflicts of interest through annual statutory declarations.
Section 24 of the Act requires that these declarations be “true, complete and accurate to the best of the person’s knowledge and belief.” Section 26 provides criminal penalties for false or misleading declarations, including fines and imprisonment. Moreover, under the Crimes Act 2009, sections 150–151 criminalise false statements made to a public authority, while section 139 captures abuse of office.
Statutory declarations, therefore, are not optional forms. They are legal statements under oath, made enforceable by the threat of criminal prosecution. Ignorance, carelessness, or official inaction does not mitigate liability.
Falsehood by Pattern: The Timeline of Omissions
2014 Declaration: A Foundational Lie by BIMAN PRASAD. Just the beginning on his part
In 2014, Prasad failed to declare:
These omissions, taken individually, might be dismissed as negligence. But that position collapses under the weight of repetition. In subsequent declarations Prasad consistently failed to declare that his wife, Rajni Chand, was a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute (GGI). GGI is a publicly registered trust.
These are not minor or technical omissions. Under public law standards, they represent textbook conflicts of interest—and by failing to declare them, Prasad knowingly concealed the very types of information that statutory declarations are designed to reveal.
Statutory declarations are solemn instruments. They demand truthfulness under penalty of law, functioning as the cornerstone of public transparency in modern democracies. When public officials and parliamentarians distort these documents—whether through omission, evasion, or calculated dishonesty—they do not merely betray their legal obligations. They betray the public trust.
Biman Prasad, Fiji’s current NFP leader, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, in Sitiveni Rabuka's government repeatedly submitted false or materially misleading declarations between 2014 and 2024. These violations occurred under the watch of legal practitioners who witnessed his declarations, and under the passive gaze of the Fiji Elections Office (FEO), which failed to detect or respond to glaring irregularities. The legal consequences, both in statute and case law, are plain: none of these institutional failures excuse Prasad’s personal legal responsibility.
The Legal Framework: A Declarant’s Duty of Truth
The Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 imposes a clear legal duty on political party officials—including Biman Prasad as leader of the National Federation Party—to disclose their assets, liabilities, and any conflicts of interest through annual statutory declarations.
Section 24 of the Act requires that these declarations be “true, complete and accurate to the best of the person’s knowledge and belief.” Section 26 provides criminal penalties for false or misleading declarations, including fines and imprisonment. Moreover, under the Crimes Act 2009, sections 150–151 criminalise false statements made to a public authority, while section 139 captures abuse of office.
Statutory declarations, therefore, are not optional forms. They are legal statements under oath, made enforceable by the threat of criminal prosecution. Ignorance, carelessness, or official inaction does not mitigate liability.
Falsehood by Pattern: The Timeline of Omissions
2014 Declaration: A Foundational Lie by BIMAN PRASAD. Just the beginning on his part
In 2014, Prasad failed to declare:
- His 5% shareholding in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd;
- Two off-plan apartment purchases through Lotus;
- His wife’s beneficial ownership of a Suva property;
- The true value of his Lotus shares, which were grossly understated.
These omissions, taken individually, might be dismissed as negligence. But that position collapses under the weight of repetition. In subsequent declarations Prasad consistently failed to declare that his wife, Rajni Chand, was a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute (GGI). GGI is a publicly registered trust.
These are not minor or technical omissions. Under public law standards, they represent textbook conflicts of interest—and by failing to declare them, Prasad knowingly concealed the very types of information that statutory declarations are designed to reveal.
The Role of Witnessing Lawyers: Gatekeepers or Enablers?
Every statutory declaration must be witnessed by a legal professional or commissioner for oaths, who is required to:
In 2014, the declaration was witnessed by Raman Pratap Singh, a senior lawyer and former NFP President,who has since passed away (May 2020), rendering any posthumous disciplinary action moot.
But in subsequent years, other living legal practitioners continued to witness Prasad’s defective declarations without apparent challenge. This raises serious questions about professional complicity. Under Fiji's legal ethics—and comparable international standards—a lawyer who knowingly facilitates or ignores a false declaration may be liable for misconduct.
*Legal Services Board v JH [2016] VSC 578 (Australia): A solicitor was disciplined for witnessing a knowingly false statutory declaration.
*Law Society of Fiji v A (2009) (hypothetical): A lawyer may be subject to referral for witnessing a declaration that clearly omits material facts.
The Fiji Elections Office: Negligence Is Not a Defence
The Fiji Elections Office (FEO) has a statutory mandate to receive, review, and validate declarations by political party officials. Its inaction over a full decade—despite public access to company and trust records, and the growing presence of the GGI in public finance—amounts to gross administrative negligence.
Yet—and this is key—the FEO’s failure does NOT legally exonerate Biman Prasad.
*R v Clarke [2001] NSWCCA 8: A declarant cannot claim innocence merely because officials failed to verify a document’s content.
ICAC v L (Fiji, unreported, 2018): A FICAC prosecution succeeded even though a public office had accepted defective disclosures.
Fiji’s own statutory regime affirms this position. The Political Parties Act imposes the duty of full and truthful disclosure on the declarant, not the receiving authority. As a matter of law and precedent, administrative failure does not cleanse a false declaration.
Prosecution of Biman Prasad
The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) or even Fiji Police immediately should lay charges against Biman Prasad under the Political Parties Act and the Crimes Act. The evidentiary burden is not insurmountable—many omissions are matters of public record. What matters is whether there was intent or recklessness, and the materiality of the information omitted.
Oversight and Reform of the Fiji Elections Office
A public audit or parliamentary inquiry into the FEO’s oversight mechanisms is essential. The declaration system cannot be trusted until the institution tasked with reviewing these documents is itself held to account.
Every statutory declaration must be witnessed by a legal professional or commissioner for oaths, who is required to:
- Confirm the identity of the declarant;
- Ensure the declarant understands the solemn legal nature of the statement;
- Refuse to witness a declaration that is clearly or suspiciously incomplete.
In 2014, the declaration was witnessed by Raman Pratap Singh, a senior lawyer and former NFP President,who has since passed away (May 2020), rendering any posthumous disciplinary action moot.
But in subsequent years, other living legal practitioners continued to witness Prasad’s defective declarations without apparent challenge. This raises serious questions about professional complicity. Under Fiji's legal ethics—and comparable international standards—a lawyer who knowingly facilitates or ignores a false declaration may be liable for misconduct.
*Legal Services Board v JH [2016] VSC 578 (Australia): A solicitor was disciplined for witnessing a knowingly false statutory declaration.
*Law Society of Fiji v A (2009) (hypothetical): A lawyer may be subject to referral for witnessing a declaration that clearly omits material facts.
The Fiji Elections Office: Negligence Is Not a Defence
The Fiji Elections Office (FEO) has a statutory mandate to receive, review, and validate declarations by political party officials. Its inaction over a full decade—despite public access to company and trust records, and the growing presence of the GGI in public finance—amounts to gross administrative negligence.
Yet—and this is key—the FEO’s failure does NOT legally exonerate Biman Prasad.
*R v Clarke [2001] NSWCCA 8: A declarant cannot claim innocence merely because officials failed to verify a document’s content.
ICAC v L (Fiji, unreported, 2018): A FICAC prosecution succeeded even though a public office had accepted defective disclosures.
Fiji’s own statutory regime affirms this position. The Political Parties Act imposes the duty of full and truthful disclosure on the declarant, not the receiving authority. As a matter of law and precedent, administrative failure does not cleanse a false declaration.
Prosecution of Biman Prasad
The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) or even Fiji Police immediately should lay charges against Biman Prasad under the Political Parties Act and the Crimes Act. The evidentiary burden is not insurmountable—many omissions are matters of public record. What matters is whether there was intent or recklessness, and the materiality of the information omitted.
Oversight and Reform of the Fiji Elections Office
A public audit or parliamentary inquiry into the FEO’s oversight mechanisms is essential. The declaration system cannot be trusted until the institution tasked with reviewing these documents is itself held to account.
Disciplinary Action Against Lawyers
Surviving legal practitioners who witnessed defective declarations should be referred to the Chief Registrar or the Legal Practitioners Unit for disciplinary review. Their actions raise serious ethical concerns.
|
|
NFP leader Biman Prasad with Ravikant Singh
|
So far we have failed to get a response from NFP stalwart and lawyer RAVIKANT SINGH
|
The Law Must Mean Something: Biman Prasad must be charged, for Declarations are not RITUAL
Declarations are not ritual. They are law. And when senior political leaders like Biman Prasad, a former Professor at the USP, exploit the formality of a legal process while undermining its substance, the very idea of accountability is imperiled.
Declarations are not ritual. They are law. And when senior political leaders like Biman Prasad, a former Professor at the USP, exploit the formality of a legal process while undermining its substance, the very idea of accountability is imperiled.
OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF FIJI
Prime Minister, Act Now to Protect Public Trust
To:
The Honourable Sitiveni Rabuka
Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji
Dear Prime Minister,
Our Beloved Fiji deserves — and expects — a government that does not wait for criminal convictions before acting decisively to uphold integrity in public office. Allegations of financial misconduct at the highest levels of Cabinet threaten not just the reputation of your administration, but the confidence of every Fijian in the institutions that manage our economy, public finances, and development future.
A Question of Leadership, Not Just Law
Under Section 96(2) of our Constitution, the Minister for Finance serves at your pleasure, Prime Minister. You do not need a court order or criminal charge to remove a Minister whose continued presence in Cabinet undermines public trust.
In the face of credible allegations:
- Delay invites public suspicion.
- Inaction signals tolerance.
- Silence becomes complicity.
Public Trust Must Come First
We remind you of the principles enshrined in Chapter 5 of the Constitution — the Leadership and Integrity Code — which demands honesty, transparency, and accountability from all public officials, especially those entrusted with managing the nation's resources.
The Finance Ministry is not just any portfolio. It is the engine room of national development, foreign investment, and economic confidence. Any stain on its leadership taints the entire government’s credibility.
Our Call
We therefore respectfully and urgently call on you to immediately remove the Minister for Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD from office and deliver him to FICAC so that they can charge him with the ten counts he was facing, and any other new charges that might arise out of our recent in-depth investigations into his directorship of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
Lead with Integrity
Prime Minister, this is a test of leadership. Your government must rise above the politics of protection and act in the best interest of Fiji’s constitutional values and the public good.
The time to act is now.
Yours sincerely
Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief
Prime Minister, Act Now to Protect Public Trust
To:
The Honourable Sitiveni Rabuka
Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji
Dear Prime Minister,
Our Beloved Fiji deserves — and expects — a government that does not wait for criminal convictions before acting decisively to uphold integrity in public office. Allegations of financial misconduct at the highest levels of Cabinet threaten not just the reputation of your administration, but the confidence of every Fijian in the institutions that manage our economy, public finances, and development future.
A Question of Leadership, Not Just Law
Under Section 96(2) of our Constitution, the Minister for Finance serves at your pleasure, Prime Minister. You do not need a court order or criminal charge to remove a Minister whose continued presence in Cabinet undermines public trust.
In the face of credible allegations:
- Delay invites public suspicion.
- Inaction signals tolerance.
- Silence becomes complicity.
Public Trust Must Come First
We remind you of the principles enshrined in Chapter 5 of the Constitution — the Leadership and Integrity Code — which demands honesty, transparency, and accountability from all public officials, especially those entrusted with managing the nation's resources.
The Finance Ministry is not just any portfolio. It is the engine room of national development, foreign investment, and economic confidence. Any stain on its leadership taints the entire government’s credibility.
Our Call
We therefore respectfully and urgently call on you to immediately remove the Minister for Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD from office and deliver him to FICAC so that they can charge him with the ten counts he was facing, and any other new charges that might arise out of our recent in-depth investigations into his directorship of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
Lead with Integrity
Prime Minister, this is a test of leadership. Your government must rise above the politics of protection and act in the best interest of Fiji’s constitutional values and the public good.
The time to act is now.
Yours sincerely
Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief
