 Biman Prasad’s claim that I “conspired with others” against him is a baseless and self-serving attempt to discredit the serious, evidence-backed findings concerning his breaches of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013. These are not personal allegations—they are the product of documented investigations and independent verification, including an in-depth Fijileaks exposé that revealed multiple statutory breaches beginning as early as his first declaration in 2014. If there is any conspiracy at play, it is Prasad’s attempt to weaponise the Commission of Inquiry to silence whistleblowers, mislead the public, and shift attention from his own sustained pattern of non-disclosure and misrepresentation. Evidence of Breaches: Factual and Independently Verified Contrary to Prasad’s narrative of a vendetta, the key findings against him stem from objective documentary evidence, not political motivation. The Fijileaks investigation revealed the following material breaches:
|   |
He also failed to declare:
Each of these omissions is individually capable of constituting a breach of the Political Parties Act, which mandates full and accurate disclosure of assets and liabilities.
Independent Media Exposure is Not Conspiracy
The exposure of these facts—especially Fijileaks—does not amount to conspiracy. Prasad’s attempt to reframe media accountability and investigative journalism as a political attack reflects a fundamental misunderstanding (or deliberate distortion) of democratic accountability.
It is a matter of public interest when a senior Minister has:
To describe legitimate reporting and evidence-based accountability efforts as “conspiracy” is a calculated smear tactic aimed at chilling public discourse and undermining lawful oversight.
Shifting Blame to Whistleblowers is a Sign of Guilt, Not Innocence
Rather than confront the facts, Prasad has chosen to attack the messengers. This follows a well-worn pattern used by public figures attempting to avoid scrutiny. It also raises a serious question:
The Facts Stand Alone
Whether or not Prasad chooses to fabricate conspiracies, the documented facts remain:
There is no “conspiracy”—only evidence, law, and a clear pattern of non-compliance.
- His wife’s beneficial co-ownership of a property on Burerua Street, Suva.
- The purchase of two off-plan units from Lotus Construction—one of which was later resold for significant profit.
- The actual value of his shares in Lotus, which he declared at $85,000 when the issued capital was significantly higher.
Each of these omissions is individually capable of constituting a breach of the Political Parties Act, which mandates full and accurate disclosure of assets and liabilities.
Independent Media Exposure is Not Conspiracy
The exposure of these facts—especially Fijileaks—does not amount to conspiracy. Prasad’s attempt to reframe media accountability and investigative journalism as a political attack reflects a fundamental misunderstanding (or deliberate distortion) of democratic accountability.
It is a matter of public interest when a senior Minister has:
- Repeatedly filed inaccurate declarations to the Elections Office;
- Benefited personally or through related parties from undeclared assets;
- Evaded scrutiny despite clear statutory obligations.
To describe legitimate reporting and evidence-based accountability efforts as “conspiracy” is a calculated smear tactic aimed at chilling public discourse and undermining lawful oversight.
Shifting Blame to Whistleblowers is a Sign of Guilt, Not Innocence
Rather than confront the facts, Prasad has chosen to attack the messengers. This follows a well-worn pattern used by public figures attempting to avoid scrutiny. It also raises a serious question:
- Why has Prasad not publicly corrected his past declarations, even after the breaches were brought to light?
- Why did he fail to explain or remedy the 2014 and subsequent omissions if they were innocent or inadvertent?
- Why were basic due diligence and legal obligations as a party leader neglected for a decade?
The Facts Stand Alone
Whether or not Prasad chooses to fabricate conspiracies, the documented facts remain:
- He failed to disclose material financial interests in multiple declarations.
- Those omissions were first exposed not by political rivals, but by independent investigations and public records.
- He has never refuted the facts, only maligned those who brought them to light
There is no “conspiracy”—only evidence, law, and a clear pattern of non-compliance.
*In 2014, if we had caught him out, he would have been in PRISON and NOT in Fiji's Parliament. It is still NOT late to Kick Him out of Parliament
When former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali closed the investigation into Biman Prasad’s superannuation declaration, she was within her power to assess whether a specific legal breach occurred. But when that narrow finding — that the Minister had “breached no law” in relation to a superannuation declaration — was used to shut down all other live complaints against him, she crossed a line from adjudicator to shield.
That one action has caused irreparable harm to the rule of law in Fiji — not because of what it concluded, but because of what it allowed to vanish.
From Superannuation to Silence
The public deserves to understand what happened:
That one action has caused irreparable harm to the rule of law in Fiji — not because of what it concluded, but because of what it allowed to vanish.
From Superannuation to Silence
The public deserves to understand what happened:
- A file was submitted to FICAC alleging that Minister for Finance Biman Prasad failed to disclose superannuation interests in his statutory declarations.
- After reviewing that complaint, Commissioner Barbara Malimali closed the file, stating that no law had been breached.
- But in doing so, FICAC also buried multiple, unrelated and far more serious allegations, including:
- The $200,000 grant to the Global Girmit Institute (GGI), where his wife was a trustee;
- His failure to declare that trusteeship in his Political Parties Act declaration;
- The lack of public tender for GGI’s funding;
- The Cabinet’s role in approving the allocation, despite the conflict.
A Dangerous Precedent for Selective Closure
By allowing a finding on one administrative issue to serve as a blanket closure of all complaints, Malimali set a devastating precedent:
"That a minister can face multiple legal and ethical complaints — and have them all erased by clearing the easiest one first."
No court ruled on the GGI allocation.
No independent legal review addressed the conflict of interest.
No procurement investigation was ever completed.
Malimali simply folded the file, and with it, folded its credibility.
The Public Interest That Was Abandoned
The core issue was never superannuation.
It was this:
None of these were investigated by Malimali.
Who Benefits From Silence?
It is no coincidence that Biman Prasad has faced no investigation, no charges, no public inquiry, while DPP is actively pursued long-past procurement breaches by former ministers — including Frank Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and Dr. Neil Sharma — for conduct dating back to 2011.
In those cases, FICAC insisted that procurement law matters, and that even procedural breaches were serious enough to warrant prosecution.
But in the case of a sitting Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister — with a conflict of interest, direct control of the funds, and active Cabinet involvement — the file was closed quietly and completely.
If that is not a double standard, what is?
By allowing a finding on one administrative issue to serve as a blanket closure of all complaints, Malimali set a devastating precedent:
"That a minister can face multiple legal and ethical complaints — and have them all erased by clearing the easiest one first."
No court ruled on the GGI allocation.
No independent legal review addressed the conflict of interest.
No procurement investigation was ever completed.
Malimali simply folded the file, and with it, folded its credibility.
The Public Interest That Was Abandoned
The core issue was never superannuation.
It was this:
- A sitting minister allocated public funds to an entity governed by his spouse.
- He did not declare that interest in his statutory political disclosures.
- The grant was issued without a public tender.
- The Cabinet, informed or not, rubber-stamped a conflicted process.
None of these were investigated by Malimali.
Who Benefits From Silence?
It is no coincidence that Biman Prasad has faced no investigation, no charges, no public inquiry, while DPP is actively pursued long-past procurement breaches by former ministers — including Frank Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and Dr. Neil Sharma — for conduct dating back to 2011.
In those cases, FICAC insisted that procurement law matters, and that even procedural breaches were serious enough to warrant prosecution.
But in the case of a sitting Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister — with a conflict of interest, direct control of the funds, and active Cabinet involvement — the file was closed quietly and completely.
If that is not a double standard, what is?
It is alleged Bainimarama, who is charged with one count of abuse of office, on 13th September 2011, being the Minister of Finance, recklessly abused his position as the Minister of Finance by granting a waiver of tender process without lawful justification for a Ministry of Health Tender CTN 66/2011 in violation of the Procurement Regulation.
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with one count of abuse of office and one count of obstructing the course of justice.
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with one count of abuse of office and one count of obstructing the course of justice.
