*We call upon FICAC to refer our "Lotus Fiji File" to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration and prosecution. We further call upon the Fiji Police to commence a formal investigation into whether Barbara Malimali abused her office in closing the "Lotus File" relating to Prasad upon assuming the office of FICAC Commissioner |  |
 |  |
LIAR: Just look at his 2014 Statutory Declaration and DIRECTORSHIP
 |  |
| Debate Me on VAT, Says Professor But What About Statutory Declarations? Professor Biman Chand Prasad has challenged Jone Usamate to a public debate on tax reform. He wants the numbers examined, the percentages recalled, and the fiscal record interrogated. Very well. Let us examine the numbers. But let us not confine ourselves to VAT rates and budget deficits. Let us also examine the quieter arithmetic of statutory declarations — the annual sworn documents that demand accuracy not in billions, but in lines and signatures. Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd was incorporated in March 2014. The corporate filings record Prasad as a director. The company went on to construct 28 villas at Legalega, a multi-million-dollar development financed through ANZ bank facilities and supported by personal guarantees. | 
 Those are not rumours. They are matters of public corporate record. |
The statutory disclosure regime requires Members of Parliament to declare directorships and financial interests annually. The obligation is neither theatrical nor partisan. It is statutory. The question that has persisted for more than a year is straightforward: Were all directorships in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd expressly and consistently declared in the statutory returns filed between 2014 and 2024?
This is not a debate about dividends. It is not a quarrel about whether profits were distributed. A director’s role is itself a material interest. It carries fiduciary responsibility and governance authority. It is precisely the type of position the disclosure laws were enacted to capture.
The chronology is not incidental. Off-plan sale agreements for the villa development were signed in March 2014. Days later, the company was registered. Financing was secured. Construction proceeded. Villas were completed and sold. At each annual declaration cycle, the obligation was to disclose interests held at that time.
If the declarations specifically named Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd and recorded the directorship, the matter is simple. Produce the documents and the debate ends. If the declarations were vague, incomplete, or omitted the directorship entirely, that is not a political skirmish. It is an administrative question requiring clarification.
There is a certain irony in demanding a public debate on fiscal transparency while unresolved questions linger over personal disclosure transparency. Tax reform demands credibility. Credibility begins with one’s own paperwork.
By all means, let there be a debate in the public square about VAT rates and revenue projections. But before the podium is set and the microphones tested, perhaps the more serious debate should take place on paper: Registrar of Companies records on one side. Statutory declarations on the other.
If the two align perfectly, the Professor’s challenge will carry added force. If they do not, the public will reasonably ask why. In public life, transparency is indivisible. One cannot insist upon it in national budgets while treating it casually in personal declarations.
So yes, let there be a debate.
But let it begin where all accountability begins, with the documents.
This is not a debate about dividends. It is not a quarrel about whether profits were distributed. A director’s role is itself a material interest. It carries fiduciary responsibility and governance authority. It is precisely the type of position the disclosure laws were enacted to capture.
The chronology is not incidental. Off-plan sale agreements for the villa development were signed in March 2014. Days later, the company was registered. Financing was secured. Construction proceeded. Villas were completed and sold. At each annual declaration cycle, the obligation was to disclose interests held at that time.
If the declarations specifically named Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd and recorded the directorship, the matter is simple. Produce the documents and the debate ends. If the declarations were vague, incomplete, or omitted the directorship entirely, that is not a political skirmish. It is an administrative question requiring clarification.
There is a certain irony in demanding a public debate on fiscal transparency while unresolved questions linger over personal disclosure transparency. Tax reform demands credibility. Credibility begins with one’s own paperwork.
By all means, let there be a debate in the public square about VAT rates and revenue projections. But before the podium is set and the microphones tested, perhaps the more serious debate should take place on paper: Registrar of Companies records on one side. Statutory declarations on the other.
If the two align perfectly, the Professor’s challenge will carry added force. If they do not, the public will reasonably ask why. In public life, transparency is indivisible. One cannot insist upon it in national budgets while treating it casually in personal declarations.
So yes, let there be a debate.
But let it begin where all accountability begins, with the documents.
How Sunil Chand Accidentally Triggered the Exposure of Biman Prasad’s 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 False Declarations
There is a special irony in politics when those who rush to silence critics inadvertently confirm the very misconduct they seek to bury. That is precisely what has now happened in the case of the NFP leader and former Finance Minister Biman Prasad, his hidden interests in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Pte Ltd, and the legal letter sent by Sunil Chand’s lawyers in Australia.
In trying to shut down a complaint published on Fijileaks, Chand provided the evidence that proves the complaint was justified all along, and in doing so triggered the forensic scrutiny that now implicates the former Finance Minister in submitting a false declaration to the Fiji Elections Office in July 2014.
The Spark: The Forwood Letter and Chand’s Threat
After Fijileaks published Ms Alexandra Forwood’s complaint to the Fiji Elections Office questioning whether Prasad had fully and honestly disclosed his business interests, a law firm in Sydney — Brydens Lawyers — acting for Sunil Chand issued a demand letter.
Their complaint? That the allegations were defamatory and must be removed. And in that letter, Chand’s lawyers confirmed something crucial:
“We have been advised that you also caused the Letter to be publicly uploaded onto the website, Fijileaks.com…”
“…you will make a bona fide attempt(s)… to remove your Letter from the ‘Fijileaks.com’ website.”
Instead of silencing the matter, this acknowledgment placed Chand, and Biman Chand Prasad’s corporate filings squarely under an intense Fijileaks spotlight.
And the documents did something Chand did not expect: they confirmed that Biman Prasad lied in his first 2014, and subsequent political declarations. We had already filed a complaint with FICAC in 2024 with documents, and before Barbara Malimali's appointment as FICAC Commissioner. In April 2025, she closed Prasad's entire FILE, including our "Lotus Fiji File". On 5 September 2024, he was going to be charged by FICAC but escaped following Malimali's own arrest and subsequent release following an intervention by a group of some of Fiji's most senior lawyers.
The Accidental Admission
The Chand letter tried to mock and discredit Forwood’s claim that Biman Prasad held 50% of Lotus shares, insisting he held only 5% at inception.
Their argument was meant to clear Prasad.
Instead, it did the opposite.
Here is what Chand’s lawyers boasted: “Mr Biman Prasad only held 5 shares in Lotus between 2014-2018.”
And they backed it with Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd’s incorporation documents. This admission, intended to rebut Forwood, proves two devastating facts:
1. Biman Prasad held shares in Lotus (Fiji) in 2014;
2. He was one of two directors of Lotus (Fiji), which he failed to declare in his July 2014 declaration
Whether his shareholding was 5% or 50% is irrelevant to the law. What matters is that he held shares and a directorship and failed to declare them. Chand and his lawyers have, unknowingly, handed over the evidence.
The Directorship That Cannot Be Denied
The documents attached to Chand’s letter show that upon incorporation in March 2014, Lotus Fiji listed: Biman Chand Prasad – Director and Sunil Chand – Director
This is fatal for Prasad. When Prasad submitted his political declaration in July 2014, he failed to disclose:
● His directorship in Lotus
● His shareholding in Lotus
Under Section 24 of the Political Parties Act 2013, this is a criminal offence.
Irony of Ironies
What Chand’s lawyers were shouting was essentially this:
“Forwood is wrong. Prasad did not hold 50%, he only held 5%!”
But in doing so they confirmed that Prasad:
● Did hold shares
● Was a director
● And did not disclose the directorship
And that is enough to hang him politically and legally.
In the law of political declarations, the crime is not how much you own, but whether you hid what you owned.
The Cover-Up is Worse Than the Crime
Rather than simply say “Prasad did disclose this in 2014” because he couldn’t, Chand’s lawyers tried to intimidate Ms Forwood and indirectly Fijileaks.
They demanded:
“…remove your Letter from the ‘Fijileaks.com’ website”
But if the truth was on their side, they would want transparency, not erasure. When politicians and businessmen try to erase records rather than release them, they are telling the public two things:
1. Something is being hidden
2. The truth is damaging
And here, the truth is simple: Prasad signed a false declaration to the FEO in 2014, and in his 2015, 2016, and 2017 declarations.
Legal Consequences
Under the Political Parties Act, failure to declare assets/interests can lead to:
● Criminal prosecution
● Disqualification from office
● Referral to FICAC
This is not a technicality.
It goes to integrity, honesty, and transparency in public life.
Why It Matters
Biman Prasad has styled himself as a champion of transparency, ethics, and clean governance.
Yet the record now shows:
● He co-founded a private development company weeks before entering Parliament
● He held equity in it
● He held a directorship
● He hid it from voters and regulators, and probably from his own party candidates.
And only because Chand’s lawyers panicked, and tried to censor Fijileaks, the truth is now fully exposed.
The Final Irony
Alexandra Forwood may have mistaken the exact percentage of shares in 2014, but the essence of her allegation was correct.
And it was Sunil Chand himself who confirmed it.
In trying to crush the allegation, they authenticated it.
Sometimes the most revealing documents are not the leaks but the legal threats. This is not about percentages.
It is about trust.
It is about law.
It is about a former Finance Minister who hid a business interest at the moment honesty mattered most, his first statutory declaration. He should never have entered Parliament on false declarations and now has the gall to challenge the Opposition MP Jone Usamate to a parliamentary or public DEBATE on VAT issues
Editorial Note: In 2016, his cousin and business partner Sunil Chand transferred another 45% shares to Biman Chand Prasad, making him a 50% shareholder in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd. He did not disclose the transfer of these shares nor disclosed that he was a DIRECTOR of Lotus (Fiji), a company that was building those 28 VILLAS.
In 2016, Biman Prasad and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand also sold a Suva property to Lotus (Fiji), and in exchange the company paid the Capital Gains Tax, and Mrs Prasad got two villas - again these two villas were not declared in the statutory declarations.
We call on FICAC to transfer our "Lotus Fiji File" to the DPP's office so it can lay further charges against the NFP leader and former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister BIMAN CHAND PRASAD.
Since Malimali's departure, FICAC has charged him for failing to declare his directorship in Platinum Resorts and Hotels Limited in his 2015 declarations. Through his lawyer and NFP stalwart Richard Naidu, he is challenging the Platinum charges in the Fiji High Court on the grounds that the current Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika was illegally appointed to the position, so the charges are defective.
Hence, we call on FICAC to transfer our Lotus Fiji File to DPP for prosecution. We also call on the Fiji Police to open an investigation whether Malimali abused her office to close Biman Prasad's file when she became the FICAC Commissioner.
There is a special irony in politics when those who rush to silence critics inadvertently confirm the very misconduct they seek to bury. That is precisely what has now happened in the case of the NFP leader and former Finance Minister Biman Prasad, his hidden interests in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Pte Ltd, and the legal letter sent by Sunil Chand’s lawyers in Australia.
In trying to shut down a complaint published on Fijileaks, Chand provided the evidence that proves the complaint was justified all along, and in doing so triggered the forensic scrutiny that now implicates the former Finance Minister in submitting a false declaration to the Fiji Elections Office in July 2014.
The Spark: The Forwood Letter and Chand’s Threat
After Fijileaks published Ms Alexandra Forwood’s complaint to the Fiji Elections Office questioning whether Prasad had fully and honestly disclosed his business interests, a law firm in Sydney — Brydens Lawyers — acting for Sunil Chand issued a demand letter.
Their complaint? That the allegations were defamatory and must be removed. And in that letter, Chand’s lawyers confirmed something crucial:
“We have been advised that you also caused the Letter to be publicly uploaded onto the website, Fijileaks.com…”
“…you will make a bona fide attempt(s)… to remove your Letter from the ‘Fijileaks.com’ website.”
Instead of silencing the matter, this acknowledgment placed Chand, and Biman Chand Prasad’s corporate filings squarely under an intense Fijileaks spotlight.
And the documents did something Chand did not expect: they confirmed that Biman Prasad lied in his first 2014, and subsequent political declarations. We had already filed a complaint with FICAC in 2024 with documents, and before Barbara Malimali's appointment as FICAC Commissioner. In April 2025, she closed Prasad's entire FILE, including our "Lotus Fiji File". On 5 September 2024, he was going to be charged by FICAC but escaped following Malimali's own arrest and subsequent release following an intervention by a group of some of Fiji's most senior lawyers.
The Accidental Admission
The Chand letter tried to mock and discredit Forwood’s claim that Biman Prasad held 50% of Lotus shares, insisting he held only 5% at inception.
Their argument was meant to clear Prasad.
Instead, it did the opposite.
Here is what Chand’s lawyers boasted: “Mr Biman Prasad only held 5 shares in Lotus between 2014-2018.”
And they backed it with Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd’s incorporation documents. This admission, intended to rebut Forwood, proves two devastating facts:
1. Biman Prasad held shares in Lotus (Fiji) in 2014;
2. He was one of two directors of Lotus (Fiji), which he failed to declare in his July 2014 declaration
Whether his shareholding was 5% or 50% is irrelevant to the law. What matters is that he held shares and a directorship and failed to declare them. Chand and his lawyers have, unknowingly, handed over the evidence.
The Directorship That Cannot Be Denied
The documents attached to Chand’s letter show that upon incorporation in March 2014, Lotus Fiji listed: Biman Chand Prasad – Director and Sunil Chand – Director
This is fatal for Prasad. When Prasad submitted his political declaration in July 2014, he failed to disclose:
● His directorship in Lotus
● His shareholding in Lotus
Under Section 24 of the Political Parties Act 2013, this is a criminal offence.
Irony of Ironies
What Chand’s lawyers were shouting was essentially this:
“Forwood is wrong. Prasad did not hold 50%, he only held 5%!”
But in doing so they confirmed that Prasad:
● Did hold shares
● Was a director
● And did not disclose the directorship
And that is enough to hang him politically and legally.
In the law of political declarations, the crime is not how much you own, but whether you hid what you owned.
The Cover-Up is Worse Than the Crime
Rather than simply say “Prasad did disclose this in 2014” because he couldn’t, Chand’s lawyers tried to intimidate Ms Forwood and indirectly Fijileaks.
They demanded:
“…remove your Letter from the ‘Fijileaks.com’ website”
But if the truth was on their side, they would want transparency, not erasure. When politicians and businessmen try to erase records rather than release them, they are telling the public two things:
1. Something is being hidden
2. The truth is damaging
And here, the truth is simple: Prasad signed a false declaration to the FEO in 2014, and in his 2015, 2016, and 2017 declarations.
Legal Consequences
Under the Political Parties Act, failure to declare assets/interests can lead to:
● Criminal prosecution
● Disqualification from office
● Referral to FICAC
This is not a technicality.
It goes to integrity, honesty, and transparency in public life.
Why It Matters
Biman Prasad has styled himself as a champion of transparency, ethics, and clean governance.
Yet the record now shows:
● He co-founded a private development company weeks before entering Parliament
● He held equity in it
● He held a directorship
● He hid it from voters and regulators, and probably from his own party candidates.
And only because Chand’s lawyers panicked, and tried to censor Fijileaks, the truth is now fully exposed.
The Final Irony
Alexandra Forwood may have mistaken the exact percentage of shares in 2014, but the essence of her allegation was correct.
And it was Sunil Chand himself who confirmed it.
In trying to crush the allegation, they authenticated it.
Sometimes the most revealing documents are not the leaks but the legal threats. This is not about percentages.
It is about trust.
It is about law.
It is about a former Finance Minister who hid a business interest at the moment honesty mattered most, his first statutory declaration. He should never have entered Parliament on false declarations and now has the gall to challenge the Opposition MP Jone Usamate to a parliamentary or public DEBATE on VAT issues
Editorial Note: In 2016, his cousin and business partner Sunil Chand transferred another 45% shares to Biman Chand Prasad, making him a 50% shareholder in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd. He did not disclose the transfer of these shares nor disclosed that he was a DIRECTOR of Lotus (Fiji), a company that was building those 28 VILLAS.
In 2016, Biman Prasad and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand also sold a Suva property to Lotus (Fiji), and in exchange the company paid the Capital Gains Tax, and Mrs Prasad got two villas - again these two villas were not declared in the statutory declarations.
We call on FICAC to transfer our "Lotus Fiji File" to the DPP's office so it can lay further charges against the NFP leader and former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister BIMAN CHAND PRASAD.
Since Malimali's departure, FICAC has charged him for failing to declare his directorship in Platinum Resorts and Hotels Limited in his 2015 declarations. Through his lawyer and NFP stalwart Richard Naidu, he is challenging the Platinum charges in the Fiji High Court on the grounds that the current Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika was illegally appointed to the position, so the charges are defective.
Hence, we call on FICAC to transfer our Lotus Fiji File to DPP for prosecution. We also call on the Fiji Police to open an investigation whether Malimali abused her office to close Biman Prasad's file when she became the FICAC Commissioner.
  |  |
Here is the supplementary evidence, straight from his business partner and cousin Sunil Chand's lawyers in Sydney, Australia |  |
From Fijileaks Archives. BIMAN CHAND PRASAD systemically omitted to disclose that he was a DIRECTOR of Lotus (Fiji) Ltd in his 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 statutory declarations, including other assets & shares
