FISHY LEGAL MOVE: Ordinary fish seller jailed for one FALSE Report to Fiji Police (Giving False Information to a Public Servant) that two men assaulted him and stole $2,900 in fish sales money while he was selling fish by the roadside at Ravirai in Ba.
*The NFP leader and former Finance Minister's legal team want charges Permanently Stayed for years of False Declarations to the FEO
"Discovery in 2025 does not invalidate an offence committed in 2015. The delay results from the concealment of the true facts, within the statutory declarations, not from FICAC. There is no legal basis for a permanent stay, and no prejudice is suffered by the accused. Biman Prasad was a Member of Parliament, NFP leader, and chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament since the beginning of 6 October 2014 until his forced resignation by SODELPA as PAC chair in May 2016. In April 2017, he was also removed by SODELPA leader Ro Kepa as the Opposition's Shadow Minister for Economy." - Fijileaks
 Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad has been granted a non-cash bail bond of $10,000 by the Suva Magistrates Court this morning. Prasad was represented by Suva lawyer Richard Naidu, while Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption Commissioner Lavi Rokoika and Senior Legal Officer Joseph Work appeared as prosecution in this matter. He faces a count of failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements. On or about 30th December 2015 in Suva, Prasad, as an office holder of the registered National Federation Party under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, allegedly failed to comply with Section 24(1)(b)(iv) by omitting to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Pte Limited in his annual declaration of assets, liabilities, and income submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties. He is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, having allegedly recklessly submitted a declaration omitting his directorship, which rendered it materially false. FICAC told the court that they have served full-phase disclosures. Before commencing with this matter, Magistrate Yogesh Prasad declared his conflict of interest, noting that he purchased a property from Prasad through an agent back in 2010; neither of the counsels objected to this and agreed to continue with the matter. |  One of his bail sureties: Businessman SAKIUSA RAIVOCE with Prasad  Biman Prasad with his lawyer Richard Naidu |
Prasad’s counsel informed the court that they will be filing for a permanent stay in the High Court regarding two grounds, namely the validity of Rokoika’s appointment and the prejudicial delay, as the charges in this matter relate to 2015.
Rokoika did not seek strict bail conditions, noting that Prasad is not a flight risk; however, if and when the former DPM leaves the jurisdiction, he needs to inform the court and FICAC of his intentions to travel.
Prasad was not required to surrender his passport, nor was any restriction on travel, such as a stop departure order, issued.
The matter will be called again on the 8th of next month. Source: FBC News, 17 November
Rokoika did not seek strict bail conditions, noting that Prasad is not a flight risk; however, if and when the former DPM leaves the jurisdiction, he needs to inform the court and FICAC of his intentions to travel.
Prasad was not required to surrender his passport, nor was any restriction on travel, such as a stop departure order, issued.
The matter will be called again on the 8th of next month. Source: FBC News, 17 November
We examine the Defence's Grounds for Seeking a Permanent Stay
The defence has indicated that it will seek a permanent stay on two grounds: (1) the alleged invalidity of the Acting FICAC Commissioner’s appointment, and (2) purported prejudicial delay relating to conduct in 2015.
Neither ground meets the high common-law threshold for a permanent stay, nor do they establish any impairment of trial fairness sufficient to terminate proceedings.
On Alleged Invalidity of Rokoika’s Appointment as acting FICAC Commissioner
A challenge to the administrative validity of a prosecutorial appointment is not a legal basis to extinguish criminal liability.
It is a settled principle that the prosecutorial authority of an institution exists independently of any temporary defect in the appointment of one of its officers. Even if it were assumed (without concession) that Rokoika’s appointment was irregular, such irregularity:
At most, the remedy would lie in administrative review of the appointment, not a permanent stay of criminal proceedings. Courts will not allow technical arguments of this nature to shield an accused from answering serious allegations of false declaration, especially when the evidence is documentary and independent of any prosecutorial officer.
On the Argument of Prejudicial Delay
The law requires delay to be both “inordinate” and “demonstrably prejudicial”. The mere passage of time, without specific impairment to the defence, does not justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay.
The charges concern non-disclosure of a directorship and a false statutory declaration. These are documentary matters. There is no reliance on fading memory, unavailable witnesses, or lost physical evidence. The defence has not identified any actual prejudice arising from the lapse of time.
In addition, the alleged offence is effectively a continuing omission. Delay cannot transform a continuing breach into an unfair prosecution.
Public-interest considerations weigh heavily against a stay. The Political Parties Act exists to promote transparency and integrity among holders of public office. To grant a permanent stay on documentary offences of this nature would undermine public confidence in accountability mechanisms.
On the Issue of Disclosure and Bail
FICAC has served full disclosures, demonstrating readiness for trial. The court declined to impose strict bail restrictions, indicating an absence of flight-risk concerns and normal progression of the case. These factors reinforce that there is no procedural unfairness warranting a stay.
Conclusion
The proposed stay application is legally unsustainable. Neither the alleged irregularity in Rokoika’s appointment nor the lapse of time since 2015 constitutes a basis to prevent the matter from proceeding to hearing. The case involves straightforward documentary allegations that can be fairly adjudicated.
The public interest in maintaining integrity in political-party declarations weighs decisively against a permanent stay.
In any case, the offence is a strict liability case with no statute of limitation. And even if there was one (which is not in this case) the words of the late Lord Denning is a stark warning to those who break the laws and then try and hide behind "passage of time".
The great British judge Lord Denning was also involved in abritrating the 1968 Fiji sugarcane contract dispute between the growers and the processor, which led to a new contract being established. In 2008, I had cited Lord Denning's words in Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34, after revealing that Mahendra Chaudhry, the FLP leader and Frank Bainimarama's then interim Finance Minister was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account.
Neither ground meets the high common-law threshold for a permanent stay, nor do they establish any impairment of trial fairness sufficient to terminate proceedings.
On Alleged Invalidity of Rokoika’s Appointment as acting FICAC Commissioner
A challenge to the administrative validity of a prosecutorial appointment is not a legal basis to extinguish criminal liability.
It is a settled principle that the prosecutorial authority of an institution exists independently of any temporary defect in the appointment of one of its officers. Even if it were assumed (without concession) that Rokoika’s appointment was irregular, such irregularity:
- does not nullify FICAC’s statutory authority;
- does not invalidate charges properly laid;
- does not constitute an abuse of process; and
- does not impair the fairness of the trial.
At most, the remedy would lie in administrative review of the appointment, not a permanent stay of criminal proceedings. Courts will not allow technical arguments of this nature to shield an accused from answering serious allegations of false declaration, especially when the evidence is documentary and independent of any prosecutorial officer.
On the Argument of Prejudicial Delay
The law requires delay to be both “inordinate” and “demonstrably prejudicial”. The mere passage of time, without specific impairment to the defence, does not justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay.
The charges concern non-disclosure of a directorship and a false statutory declaration. These are documentary matters. There is no reliance on fading memory, unavailable witnesses, or lost physical evidence. The defence has not identified any actual prejudice arising from the lapse of time.
In addition, the alleged offence is effectively a continuing omission. Delay cannot transform a continuing breach into an unfair prosecution.
Public-interest considerations weigh heavily against a stay. The Political Parties Act exists to promote transparency and integrity among holders of public office. To grant a permanent stay on documentary offences of this nature would undermine public confidence in accountability mechanisms.
On the Issue of Disclosure and Bail
FICAC has served full disclosures, demonstrating readiness for trial. The court declined to impose strict bail restrictions, indicating an absence of flight-risk concerns and normal progression of the case. These factors reinforce that there is no procedural unfairness warranting a stay.
Conclusion
The proposed stay application is legally unsustainable. Neither the alleged irregularity in Rokoika’s appointment nor the lapse of time since 2015 constitutes a basis to prevent the matter from proceeding to hearing. The case involves straightforward documentary allegations that can be fairly adjudicated.
The public interest in maintaining integrity in political-party declarations weighs decisively against a permanent stay.
In any case, the offence is a strict liability case with no statute of limitation. And even if there was one (which is not in this case) the words of the late Lord Denning is a stark warning to those who break the laws and then try and hide behind "passage of time".
The great British judge Lord Denning was also involved in abritrating the 1968 Fiji sugarcane contract dispute between the growers and the processor, which led to a new contract being established. In 2008, I had cited Lord Denning's words in Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34, after revealing that Mahendra Chaudhry, the FLP leader and Frank Bainimarama's then interim Finance Minister was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account.
Lord Denning: “The word 'fraud' here is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or his agent such that it would be 'against conscience' for him to avail himself of the lapse of time.
The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406.
In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it.
He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566.
Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it.
The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563.”
The limitation statute’s aim is to prevent citizens from being oppressed by stale claims, to protect settled interests from being disturbed, to bring certainty and finality to disputes and so on. These are, as legal commentators have pointed out, laudable aims but they can conflict with the need to do justice in individual cases where an otherwise unmeritorious defendant can play the limitation trump card and escape liability.
In Biman Prasad's case, he had a duty to disclose, and the case is a strict liability one.
In 2000, Mahendra Chaudhry received $2million from India, and deposited it into his Sydney bank account. In 2008, I revealed it in the Fiji Sun, leading to the abduction, torture, and deportation of the paper's publisher the late Russell Hunter (RIP) out of Fiji. The Fiji Times also ran a skeleton story, led by then journalist Kamal Iyer, now general secretary of the NFP. Richard Naidu, Biman Prasad's current lawyer, had commented to me, "What a cracker", regarding my front page headline in the Fiji Sun of 24 February 2008.
In 2014, Naidu was serving as a legal adviser to the Reserve Bank of Fiji, where he argued that Chaudhry should have repatriated that money to Fiji. Later that same year Chaudhry was prosecuted, fined, and disqualified from contesting the 2014 election.
In that same year Biman Prasad allegedly committed multiple offences in his statutory declarations and was scheduled to be charged by FICAC on 5 September 2024. The rest is history.
So, why is it that now, after Prasad has been charged, his legal team is claiming too much time has passed?
Only recently, Prasad himself was relying on the $2million involved in 2000 and 2014 conviction to criticise Chaudhry: "Chaudhry is the biggest crook, a compulsive liar."
The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406.
In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it.
He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566.
Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it.
The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563.”
The limitation statute’s aim is to prevent citizens from being oppressed by stale claims, to protect settled interests from being disturbed, to bring certainty and finality to disputes and so on. These are, as legal commentators have pointed out, laudable aims but they can conflict with the need to do justice in individual cases where an otherwise unmeritorious defendant can play the limitation trump card and escape liability.
In Biman Prasad's case, he had a duty to disclose, and the case is a strict liability one.
In 2000, Mahendra Chaudhry received $2million from India, and deposited it into his Sydney bank account. In 2008, I revealed it in the Fiji Sun, leading to the abduction, torture, and deportation of the paper's publisher the late Russell Hunter (RIP) out of Fiji. The Fiji Times also ran a skeleton story, led by then journalist Kamal Iyer, now general secretary of the NFP. Richard Naidu, Biman Prasad's current lawyer, had commented to me, "What a cracker", regarding my front page headline in the Fiji Sun of 24 February 2008.
In 2014, Naidu was serving as a legal adviser to the Reserve Bank of Fiji, where he argued that Chaudhry should have repatriated that money to Fiji. Later that same year Chaudhry was prosecuted, fined, and disqualified from contesting the 2014 election.
In that same year Biman Prasad allegedly committed multiple offences in his statutory declarations and was scheduled to be charged by FICAC on 5 September 2024. The rest is history.
So, why is it that now, after Prasad has been charged, his legal team is claiming too much time has passed?
Only recently, Prasad himself was relying on the $2million involved in 2000 and 2014 conviction to criticise Chaudhry: "Chaudhry is the biggest crook, a compulsive liar."
The Arch of Irony: First They Sue Me, Now NFP and Prasad Quote Me
The irony of MC Lawyers
FIRCA had chosen MC Lawyers as its legal sword. Years later, the irony became unavoidable. One of its partners, Suresh Chandra, also the chair of the Electoral Commission, was found guilty of professional misconduct for misusing over $2 million in client trust funds. The Independent Legal Services Commission declared him unfit to practice law.
The very firm that once tried to muzzle me and the Fiji Sun collapsed under the weight of its own dishonesty.
Tikoduadua’s role
And there was Pio Tikoduadua, then a member of FIRCA’s board. He could have said: “Let’s confront Chaudhry, let’s prove to the public we are serious about tax integrity.” Instead, he joined the chorus that decided: “Let’s sue Victor Lal and the Fiji Sun.”
That’s the record. That’s what I mean when I say being on the outside after 2006 coup gave me a ringside seat. I saw who lined up to protect the powerful, and who paid the price for exposing them.
The boomerang of history
But history has a wicked sense of humour. Fast-forward to August 2025. Who is standing at a podium calling Chaudhry a “crook” for hiding that very same $2 million in Sydney? None other than Biman Prasad, the leader of the National Federation Party, and today the political boss of none other than Pio Tikoduadua.
In 2008, my reporting was defamatory, scandalous, and actionable. In 2025, the very same reporting is a convenient weapon for Pio Tikoduadua's political allies.
They sued me for it. They quote me for it.
FIRCA had chosen MC Lawyers as its legal sword. Years later, the irony became unavoidable. One of its partners, Suresh Chandra, also the chair of the Electoral Commission, was found guilty of professional misconduct for misusing over $2 million in client trust funds. The Independent Legal Services Commission declared him unfit to practice law.
The very firm that once tried to muzzle me and the Fiji Sun collapsed under the weight of its own dishonesty.
Tikoduadua’s role
And there was Pio Tikoduadua, then a member of FIRCA’s board. He could have said: “Let’s confront Chaudhry, let’s prove to the public we are serious about tax integrity.” Instead, he joined the chorus that decided: “Let’s sue Victor Lal and the Fiji Sun.”
That’s the record. That’s what I mean when I say being on the outside after 2006 coup gave me a ringside seat. I saw who lined up to protect the powerful, and who paid the price for exposing them.
The boomerang of history
But history has a wicked sense of humour. Fast-forward to August 2025. Who is standing at a podium calling Chaudhry a “crook” for hiding that very same $2 million in Sydney? None other than Biman Prasad, the leader of the National Federation Party, and today the political boss of none other than Pio Tikoduadua.
In 2008, my reporting was defamatory, scandalous, and actionable. In 2025, the very same reporting is a convenient weapon for Pio Tikoduadua's political allies.
They sued me for it. They quote me for it.
 | On 12 March 2014, the now disbarred lawyer Suresh Chandra of MC Lawyers, who had pursued me in 2008, acted on behalf of Biman Prasad's cousin Sunil Chand, in selling Off-The-Plan Villa Units to ten investors, including two purchased by Biman Prasad |
*On 15 March 2014, Prasad and Chand incoporated Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, appointing Biman Prasad as one of two directors, with Prasad holding 5% shareholding in the company. He later became a 50% shareholder in the company.
*Despite this, Prasad failed to disclose his DIRECTORSHIP of Lotus (Fiji) and his two villa purchases in his statutory declarations.
LEGAL REBUTTAL TO CLAIMS RAISED BY PRASAD’S COUNSEL RCHARD NAIDU: A RECAP
The Claim of “Invalid Appointment of the Acting FICAC Commissioner” Is Legally Irrelevant to the Validity of the Charges or the Summons
Richard Naidu argues that the charges should be permanently stayed because Lavi Rokoika’s appointment as Acting FICAC Commissioner is invalid.
This argument is misconceived in law for several reasons:
(a) Validity of prosecution is determined at the time the charges were laid
The charges against Biman Prasad were:
Even if (for argument’s sake) there is a defect in the appointment of the Commissioner, FICAC as an institution continues to exist under statute, and its prosecutorial powers do not evaporate merely because of a dispute about the temporary office holder.
The law is clear: An irregularity in the appointment of a particular office holder does not automatically invalidate the acts of the institution unless the statute expressly makes validity dependent on the personal authority of the individual (which the FICAC Act does not).
(b) The “de facto officer doctrine” applies
Under common law, actions taken by a public officer acting under colour of authority remain valid even if their appointment is later challenged.
Courts have applied this principle repeatedly in past constitutional and administrative cases. Therefore:
(c) Courts do not grant permanent stays merely because the accused raises issues about internal appointments
A permanent stay is an exceptional remedy reserved for:
The Summons and Service Were Proper: “Defendant was overseas” is not a legal defect
Richard Naidu claims the summons is defective because Prasad was overseas, so FICAC did not interview him.
This is legally weak.
(a) An interview is NOT a legal prerequisite to charging
There is no rule in criminal procedure requiring investigators to interview a suspect before laying a charge.
A defendant has no right to be interviewed.
Charges can be laid:
The claim that “there was no interview” has zero bearing on whether the summons is lawful.
(b) The Criminal Procedure Act allows service when a defendant is abroad
The Magistrates’ Court can:
Being overseas does not invalidate a summons; if it did, every accused person could simply travel abroad to avoid charges.
(c) Biman Prasad attended court. Therefore he accepted jurisdiction
Once the accused appears, any argument about defective service becomes academic.
The court has seized jurisdiction, and the defendant is bound.
The 10-Year Delay Argument is Factually and Legally Unfounded
Naidu claims there is “prejudicial delay” because the matter dates back to 2015.
(a) The offence is one of continuing misrepresentation
False declarations under the Political Parties Act:
Biman Prasad allegedly made multiple subsequent declarations, each time omitting the same items.
Thus, delay is illusory, and the misconduct is ongoing.
(b) The accused must demonstrate actual prejudice
Courts do not stay prosecutions merely because time has passed.
He must prove:
Given that this case is entirely documentary:
(c) Delay caused by the accused or his political choices cannot be used as a shield
If an accused:
The Charges Themselves Are Legally Sound
Biman Chand Prasad faces:
Key legal points:
These are strict liability offences under Fiji’s political integrity laws.
The Application For A Permanent Stay Has No Merit
A permanent stay is a death blow to a prosecution and is only granted in the rarest cases. None of the arguments raised meet the legal threshold:
The defence’s application appears to be a political smokescreen, not a legally sustainable argument.
The Claim of “Invalid Appointment of the Acting FICAC Commissioner” Is Legally Irrelevant to the Validity of the Charges or the Summons
Richard Naidu argues that the charges should be permanently stayed because Lavi Rokoika’s appointment as Acting FICAC Commissioner is invalid.
This argument is misconceived in law for several reasons:
(a) Validity of prosecution is determined at the time the charges were laid
The charges against Biman Prasad were:
- initiated under FICAC,
- filed by duly authorised FICAC prosecutors,
- brought before a competent court.
Even if (for argument’s sake) there is a defect in the appointment of the Commissioner, FICAC as an institution continues to exist under statute, and its prosecutorial powers do not evaporate merely because of a dispute about the temporary office holder.
The law is clear: An irregularity in the appointment of a particular office holder does not automatically invalidate the acts of the institution unless the statute expressly makes validity dependent on the personal authority of the individual (which the FICAC Act does not).
(b) The “de facto officer doctrine” applies
Under common law, actions taken by a public officer acting under colour of authority remain valid even if their appointment is later challenged.
Courts have applied this principle repeatedly in past constitutional and administrative cases. Therefore:
- Charges remain lawful.
- Summons remain valid.
- Proceedings are not void.
(c) Courts do not grant permanent stays merely because the accused raises issues about internal appointments
A permanent stay is an exceptional remedy reserved for:
- abuse of process,
- impossibility of fair trial, or
- conduct so oppressive that continuing the prosecution would offend judicial conscience.
The Summons and Service Were Proper: “Defendant was overseas” is not a legal defect
Richard Naidu claims the summons is defective because Prasad was overseas, so FICAC did not interview him.
This is legally weak.
(a) An interview is NOT a legal prerequisite to charging
There is no rule in criminal procedure requiring investigators to interview a suspect before laying a charge.
A defendant has no right to be interviewed.
Charges can be laid:
- based on documents,
- based on evidence already obtained,
- or when the suspect is abroad.
The claim that “there was no interview” has zero bearing on whether the summons is lawful.
(b) The Criminal Procedure Act allows service when a defendant is abroad
The Magistrates’ Court can:
- issue a summons,
- adjourn until the accused returns,
- or even issue a warrant if necessary.
Being overseas does not invalidate a summons; if it did, every accused person could simply travel abroad to avoid charges.
(c) Biman Prasad attended court. Therefore he accepted jurisdiction
Once the accused appears, any argument about defective service becomes academic.
The court has seized jurisdiction, and the defendant is bound.
The 10-Year Delay Argument is Factually and Legally Unfounded
Naidu claims there is “prejudicial delay” because the matter dates back to 2015.
(a) The offence is one of continuing misrepresentation
False declarations under the Political Parties Act:
- remain offences until the truth is corrected,
- continue for each election cycle where the false declaration is relied upon,
- restart limitation periods when the falsehood is repeated.
Biman Prasad allegedly made multiple subsequent declarations, each time omitting the same items.
Thus, delay is illusory, and the misconduct is ongoing.
(b) The accused must demonstrate actual prejudice
Courts do not stay prosecutions merely because time has passed.
He must prove:
- evidence is lost,
- witnesses are unavailable,
- memories are faded in a way that deprives him of a fair defence.
Given that this case is entirely documentary:
- declarations,
- land title records,
- company records,
- tax filings - there is no factual prejudice.
(c) Delay caused by the accused or his political choices cannot be used as a shield
If an accused:
- remains overseas,
- maintains political office,
- knowingly allows false declarations to stand,
- he cannot then argue that his own failure to disclose creates “prejudicial delay.”
The Charges Themselves Are Legally Sound
Biman Chand Prasad faces:
- Failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements, and
- Providing false information in a statutory declaration.
Key legal points:
These are strict liability offences under Fiji’s political integrity laws.
- Intent is not required.
- Material omissions (such as shareholdings, property interests, or beneficial ownerships) constitute false declarations.
- The prosecution only needs to prove the declaration was false or misleading in a material way.
The Application For A Permanent Stay Has No Merit
A permanent stay is a death blow to a prosecution and is only granted in the rarest cases. None of the arguments raised meet the legal threshold:
- Appointment of Acting FICAC Commissioner is irrelevant; de facto officer doctrine applies.
- Summons issued while accused overseas is perfectly lawful.
- Lack of interview is not a requirement.
- Delay is not prejudicial; offences are continuing; evidence is documentary.
- Charges are based on statutory declarations; the evidence is strong.
The defence’s application appears to be a political smokescreen, not a legally sustainable argument.
From Fijileaks Archive, 18 September 2024
BIMAN PRASAD didn't disclose his wife's two villas in 2018 Declaration
 |  |
