  In Fiji, fake news has become a dangerous phrase. It is no longer just a descriptor of false information; it is increasingly a trigger for police action, detention, prosecution, and the curtailment of liberty. But recent events expose an uncomfortable truth: who gets accused of fake news, and who gets away with calling the truth fake, depends on where power sits. At the centre of this contradiction are three names: Lynda Tabuya, Biman Prasad, and an FLP member and political activist Ben Padarath. Taken together, their cases reveal not just inconsistency, but a deep credibility crisis in how “fake news” is being policed in Fiji. When ‘Fake News’ Was NOT a Lie, And Nothing Happened In January 2024, Fijians woke up to explosive allegations involving Cabinet ministers, a Melbourne hotel room, sex, drugs, and explicit text messages. One of the ministers named was Lynda Tabuya. Her response was swift and unequivocal. “It is fake news.” That denial was carried prominently by regional media, including Radio New Zealand. There was no ambiguity. No hedging. The claim was absolute: the messages were fabricated. They were not.  |   Padarath   |
   |     |
It later emerged that the messages were authentic. The political fallout followed. Tabuya was stripped of her position as deputy leader of the People’s Alliance Party, an internal political sanction, not a legal one. There was no police investigation into whether the public had been misled. No inquiry into whether branding true material as “fake news” had caused harm. There is no suggestion of criminal liability.
The episode was treated as a political embarrassment, not a legal problem.
Fast Forward: Fake News as a Criminal Weapon
Now consider what happened next.
Seven months ago, political activist Ben Padarath was arrested, detained, and interrogated for five days over alleged online content. He was released without charge. No explanation was given.
Months later, the State has returned. Padarath was re-arrested, detained overnight, rushed to Suva, and charged under the Online Safety Act for allegedly reproducing fake news on Facebook. He was produced in court without disclosures. The charge particulars were not read or served. When questioned, the prosecution offered no explanation.
Padarath was granted bail but only after surrendering his travel documents. The complainants? Lynda Tabuya and Biman Chand Prasad.
This is where the system breaks down.
The Unanswered Question
How does a Cabinet minister who publicly branded true information as fake news become a complainant against a political activist accused of spreading fake news?
Legally, she can file a complaint. Procedurally, police can receive it. But substantively, the contradiction is glaring, and corrosive. If “fake news” is a harm the criminal law must address, then false claims of fake news by those in power cannot be treated as irrelevant. If they are, the law is not protecting the truth. It is protecting status.
Selective Truth, Selective Enforcement
The problem is not that Tabuya was not charged. The criminal law should not be used to prosecute every public lie. The problem is selectivity. That is not neutral enforcement. It is directional enforcement.
Courts around the Commonwealth have long warned that laws regulating speech must be applied with extreme caution, especially where political expression is involved. When enforcement consistently flows downwards, against critics, activists, and private citizens, while stopping short at the doors of Cabinet, the chilling effect is real.
People stop speaking not because they are wrong, but because they are afraid.
Enter Biman Prasad: Delay for Power, Pressure for Critics
The contrast sharpens further when placed alongside the case of Biman Prasad, charged with lying in a statutory declaration.
A false statutory declaration is a serious integrity offence. It is sworn. It is deliberate. It goes to the heart of democratic accountability. Crucially, it is a pure statutory offence with no limitation period. Parliament designed it that way.
Yet Prasad’s lawyer Richard Naidu has argued that the charge is unfair because it is “ten years old”. Compare that with Padarath:
If delay is said to undermine fairness for a Cabinet minister accused of a timeless statutory offence, how can it be dismissed in a speech-based case revived after prior detention?
The answer, increasingly, appears to be, because one man holds power, and the other does not.
Bail That Tells a Story
Then there is bail.
Padarath is treated as a flight risk. His passport is taken. Prasad, with international connections and routine overseas travel, moves freely.
Bail is meant to manage risk, not hierarchy. When restrictions correlate more closely with political vulnerability than with objective risk, the system signals its priorities, loudly.
What This Is Really About
This is not about defending falsehoods. It is not about excusing misconduct. It is about who gets to define truth, and who pays the price when that definition is challenged.
When a minister can falsely call something “fake news” with no legal scrutiny, and later rely on the same label to trigger criminal proceedings against a critic, the law loses moral authority.
The Online Safety Act was not enacted to shield politicians from embarrassment. It was not designed to become a selective truth-enforcement mechanism. Used this way, it ceases to be a safeguard and becomes a warning.
The Question Fiji Must Answer
Fiji now faces a simple but uncomfortable question: is “fake news” a genuine legal concern or a convenient label, applied only when power is challenged?
If the answer depends on who is speaking, then the issue is no longer misinformation. It is misuse of law.
And when that happens, it is not activists who endanger democracy. It is the system meant to protect it.
Editor's Note: I place this note on record in the interests of transparency. I have long-standing personal knowledge of all three public figures discussed in this article. In particular, I have known Ben Padarath since childhood. His father was a former editor and publisher of the old Fiji Sun in the 1980s, and during that period I often looked after Ben Padarath after school hours.
That prior familiarity does not shape the facts or legal analysis set out above, which are drawn from court proceedings, public records, and contemporaneous reporting. I disclose it simply to make clear that this commentary is grounded in the record and in principle, not in personal favour or animus. For completeness, I add that Ben Padarath has, over the years, continued to refer to me as “Uncle Vic”, a reflection of long-standing familiarity arising from his childhood, not of any political alignment or involvement in the matters discussed. This personal detail is disclosed solely in the interests of transparency.
The episode was treated as a political embarrassment, not a legal problem.
Fast Forward: Fake News as a Criminal Weapon
Now consider what happened next.
Seven months ago, political activist Ben Padarath was arrested, detained, and interrogated for five days over alleged online content. He was released without charge. No explanation was given.
Months later, the State has returned. Padarath was re-arrested, detained overnight, rushed to Suva, and charged under the Online Safety Act for allegedly reproducing fake news on Facebook. He was produced in court without disclosures. The charge particulars were not read or served. When questioned, the prosecution offered no explanation.
Padarath was granted bail but only after surrendering his travel documents. The complainants? Lynda Tabuya and Biman Chand Prasad.
This is where the system breaks down.
The Unanswered Question
How does a Cabinet minister who publicly branded true information as fake news become a complainant against a political activist accused of spreading fake news?
Legally, she can file a complaint. Procedurally, police can receive it. But substantively, the contradiction is glaring, and corrosive. If “fake news” is a harm the criminal law must address, then false claims of fake news by those in power cannot be treated as irrelevant. If they are, the law is not protecting the truth. It is protecting status.
Selective Truth, Selective Enforcement
The problem is not that Tabuya was not charged. The criminal law should not be used to prosecute every public lie. The problem is selectivity. That is not neutral enforcement. It is directional enforcement.
Courts around the Commonwealth have long warned that laws regulating speech must be applied with extreme caution, especially where political expression is involved. When enforcement consistently flows downwards, against critics, activists, and private citizens, while stopping short at the doors of Cabinet, the chilling effect is real.
People stop speaking not because they are wrong, but because they are afraid.
Enter Biman Prasad: Delay for Power, Pressure for Critics
The contrast sharpens further when placed alongside the case of Biman Prasad, charged with lying in a statutory declaration.
A false statutory declaration is a serious integrity offence. It is sworn. It is deliberate. It goes to the heart of democratic accountability. Crucially, it is a pure statutory offence with no limitation period. Parliament designed it that way.
Yet Prasad’s lawyer Richard Naidu has argued that the charge is unfair because it is “ten years old”. Compare that with Padarath:
- detained and grilled,
- released without charge,
- then charged seven months later,
- for expressive conduct.
If delay is said to undermine fairness for a Cabinet minister accused of a timeless statutory offence, how can it be dismissed in a speech-based case revived after prior detention?
The answer, increasingly, appears to be, because one man holds power, and the other does not.
Bail That Tells a Story
Then there is bail.
Padarath is treated as a flight risk. His passport is taken. Prasad, with international connections and routine overseas travel, moves freely.
Bail is meant to manage risk, not hierarchy. When restrictions correlate more closely with political vulnerability than with objective risk, the system signals its priorities, loudly.
What This Is Really About
This is not about defending falsehoods. It is not about excusing misconduct. It is about who gets to define truth, and who pays the price when that definition is challenged.
When a minister can falsely call something “fake news” with no legal scrutiny, and later rely on the same label to trigger criminal proceedings against a critic, the law loses moral authority.
The Online Safety Act was not enacted to shield politicians from embarrassment. It was not designed to become a selective truth-enforcement mechanism. Used this way, it ceases to be a safeguard and becomes a warning.
The Question Fiji Must Answer
Fiji now faces a simple but uncomfortable question: is “fake news” a genuine legal concern or a convenient label, applied only when power is challenged?
If the answer depends on who is speaking, then the issue is no longer misinformation. It is misuse of law.
And when that happens, it is not activists who endanger democracy. It is the system meant to protect it.
Editor's Note: I place this note on record in the interests of transparency. I have long-standing personal knowledge of all three public figures discussed in this article. In particular, I have known Ben Padarath since childhood. His father was a former editor and publisher of the old Fiji Sun in the 1980s, and during that period I often looked after Ben Padarath after school hours.
That prior familiarity does not shape the facts or legal analysis set out above, which are drawn from court proceedings, public records, and contemporaneous reporting. I disclose it simply to make clear that this commentary is grounded in the record and in principle, not in personal favour or animus. For completeness, I add that Ben Padarath has, over the years, continued to refer to me as “Uncle Vic”, a reflection of long-standing familiarity arising from his childhood, not of any political alignment or involvement in the matters discussed. This personal detail is disclosed solely in the interests of transparency.
 The leader of the National Federation Party and Member of Parliament, Professor Biman Prasad, has pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against him by FICAC. Professor Prasad has been charged with two counts of failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements. |  |
He is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, after he allegedly recklessly submitted a declaration that omitted his directorship, rendering the document materially false.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu told the court that there had been some delays on the part of the judge regarding the permanent stay application to be heard in the High Court.
Naidu also requested that the mention be set for the end of January, and the court has approved this.
Professor Prasad will be travelling overseas on the 20th of this month and is expected to return on the 27th, FICAC did not object to his travel.
The matter has been set for mention on 26 January 2026.
It was revealed that on or about 30th December 2015, in Suva, Prasad, as an officeholder 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.
Prasad 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.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu told the court that there had been some delays on the part of the judge regarding the permanent stay application to be heard in the High Court.
Naidu also requested that the mention be set for the end of January, and the court has approved this.
Professor Prasad will be travelling overseas on the 20th of this month and is expected to return on the 27th, FICAC did not object to his travel.
The matter has been set for mention on 26 January 2026.
It was revealed that on or about 30th December 2015, in Suva, Prasad, as an officeholder 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.
Prasad 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.
