 |  |
| The routine practice of ministers and assistant ministers taking their spouses on official overseas trips has increasingly come to resemble a quiet but systematic abuse of public funds. While presented as informal 'accompaniment', these trips often trigger generous travel and subsistence allowances, paid by the taxpayer, that far exceed actual personal expenses. In effect, the allowance system becomes a subsidy for private travel. Flights, accommodation, meals, and incidental costs for spouses are frequently covered directly or indirectly through inflated per diem claims, meaning the public ends up underwriting what are essentially personal holidays. |   |
This arrangement operates as a soft scam: technically compliant on paper, but ethically indefensible in substance. At a time when ordinary citizens struggle with rising costs and strained public services, it is indefensible for political office-holders to monetise official travel in this way. If spouses have no formal diplomatic, administrative, or representational role, they should not be travelling at public expense, directly or indirectly. Transparency, strict limits on allowances, and mandatory disclosure of accompanying persons are essential if public confidence in political integrity is to be restored.
The controversy involving Sports Minister Jese Saukuru has sharpened public concern about how travel allowances can be exploited when spouses accompany ministers overseas. Even if no rules were formally broken, the perception is that generous allowances can easily cover private expenses, blurring the line between official duty and personal benefit. In politics, as in sport, failing to read the situation properly can be costly, and this episode suggests a serious lapse in judgment.
If investigations or disclosures confirm misuse, accountability must follow. Public office is not a private entitlement, and ministers are expected to uphold higher ethical standards than ordinary citizens. Credit is due to whistleblowers who bring such matters to light, because transparency is essential for protecting public funds. Ultimately, if trust has been compromised, political leadership requires stepping aside, both to preserve institutional integrity and to send a clear message that public money is not a personal perk.
In the high-stakes arena of public office, Saukuru appears to have misread the play completely. With a generous travel allowance already in his kit bag, he could easily have covered his wife’s expenses himself. Instead, he drifted into dangerous territory -like a defender ball-watching while the striker slips past. The rules of governance, like the rules of sport, are clear: you don’t use public resources for private advantage. Miss that, and you invite a straight red card.
Now that the whistle has been blown, the referee - public opinion - has stepped in. Credit goes to the whistleblower who spotted the foul and called it out, refusing to let the game be quietly rigged.
In any serious competition, players who repeatedly break the rules (the case of Biman Prasad and his statutory declarations from 2014 to 2024, first highlighted to FICAC by Sydney based whistleblower Alex Forwood and later subjected to forensic examination by Fijileaks) don’t stay on the field.
If standards mean anything, Saukuru should be substituted out of both the political and sporting arenas. Leadership is about fair play, not gaming the system, and those who forget that deserve to be sent to the sidelines.
We apologise for arriving at the stadium a little late. At Fijileaks, we were momentarily stuck in the replay booth, immersed in Barbaragate and the unfolding drama surrounding Barbara Malimali and FICAC. While the crowd was watching the main match, we were busy reviewing fouls, offside calls, and questionable decisions from another troubled field of play.
But make no mistake. We are back in the game now. And as always, when the whistle blows on abuse of power, misuse of public funds, or ethical breaches, we’ll be there to call it as it is.
No favours. No blind spots. Just straight reporting, from kickoff to full time.
Jese Saukuru must be removed from Rabuka's Coalition cabinet without delay and held accountable for his conduct, including the CEO of the Fiji Sports Council Gilbert Vakalalabure.
The controversy involving Sports Minister Jese Saukuru has sharpened public concern about how travel allowances can be exploited when spouses accompany ministers overseas. Even if no rules were formally broken, the perception is that generous allowances can easily cover private expenses, blurring the line between official duty and personal benefit. In politics, as in sport, failing to read the situation properly can be costly, and this episode suggests a serious lapse in judgment.
If investigations or disclosures confirm misuse, accountability must follow. Public office is not a private entitlement, and ministers are expected to uphold higher ethical standards than ordinary citizens. Credit is due to whistleblowers who bring such matters to light, because transparency is essential for protecting public funds. Ultimately, if trust has been compromised, political leadership requires stepping aside, both to preserve institutional integrity and to send a clear message that public money is not a personal perk.
In the high-stakes arena of public office, Saukuru appears to have misread the play completely. With a generous travel allowance already in his kit bag, he could easily have covered his wife’s expenses himself. Instead, he drifted into dangerous territory -like a defender ball-watching while the striker slips past. The rules of governance, like the rules of sport, are clear: you don’t use public resources for private advantage. Miss that, and you invite a straight red card.
Now that the whistle has been blown, the referee - public opinion - has stepped in. Credit goes to the whistleblower who spotted the foul and called it out, refusing to let the game be quietly rigged.
In any serious competition, players who repeatedly break the rules (the case of Biman Prasad and his statutory declarations from 2014 to 2024, first highlighted to FICAC by Sydney based whistleblower Alex Forwood and later subjected to forensic examination by Fijileaks) don’t stay on the field.
If standards mean anything, Saukuru should be substituted out of both the political and sporting arenas. Leadership is about fair play, not gaming the system, and those who forget that deserve to be sent to the sidelines.
We apologise for arriving at the stadium a little late. At Fijileaks, we were momentarily stuck in the replay booth, immersed in Barbaragate and the unfolding drama surrounding Barbara Malimali and FICAC. While the crowd was watching the main match, we were busy reviewing fouls, offside calls, and questionable decisions from another troubled field of play.
But make no mistake. We are back in the game now. And as always, when the whistle blows on abuse of power, misuse of public funds, or ethical breaches, we’ll be there to call it as it is.
No favours. No blind spots. Just straight reporting, from kickoff to full time.
Jese Saukuru must be removed from Rabuka's Coalition cabinet without delay and held accountable for his conduct, including the CEO of the Fiji Sports Council Gilbert Vakalalabure.
And how richly ironic it is that those who spent months satanically vilifying Forwood for daring to blow the whistle, an act that ultimately triggered the Commission of Inquiry, are now posturing as moral crusaders, with Malimali’s lawyer, Tanya Waqanika, leading the charge against Saukuru and the acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika, and the so-called 'Natewa Vikings' from Cakaudrove. E sa rairai ni se bula tiko ga e Viti na politiki ni veivakavodoki vakayavusa kei na veisei vakamataqali.
When the Anti-Corruption Watchdog Turns on the Whistleblowers: How the FICAC Inquiry Exposed a Systemic Failure at the Top under Barbara Malimali
The most damning chapters of the Commission of Inquiry into the Appointment of the Commissioner of FICAC Barbara Malimali are not about technical errors, personality clashes, or bureaucratic missteps. They are about power and how it was exercised, against whom, and to what end. Read carefully, the Inquiry’s findings amount to a grave warning: Fiji’s anti-corruption watchdog was steered away under Malimali's brief stewardship from accountability at the very moment it was most needed.
At the centre of the Inquiry’s concern was the conduct of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of FICAC. What emerges is not a picture of an independent anti-corruption chief making difficult judgment calls, but of an officeholder who selectively stalled investigations, sidelined whistleblowers, and re-engineered prosecutorial discretion to protect the politically powerful.
This is not rhetoric. It is the Commission’s own conclusion.
The most damning chapters of the Commission of Inquiry into the Appointment of the Commissioner of FICAC Barbara Malimali are not about technical errors, personality clashes, or bureaucratic missteps. They are about power and how it was exercised, against whom, and to what end. Read carefully, the Inquiry’s findings amount to a grave warning: Fiji’s anti-corruption watchdog was steered away under Malimali's brief stewardship from accountability at the very moment it was most needed.
At the centre of the Inquiry’s concern was the conduct of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of FICAC. What emerges is not a picture of an independent anti-corruption chief making difficult judgment calls, but of an officeholder who selectively stalled investigations, sidelined whistleblowers, and re-engineered prosecutorial discretion to protect the politically powerful.
This is not rhetoric. It is the Commission’s own conclusion.
Prosecutions Ready Then Quietly Stopped
One of the clearest findings of the Inquiry is that investigations into alleged false political declarations by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Prasad were not speculative, incomplete, or premature. They were substantively finished.
Investigators had gathered evidence. Legal officers had reviewed the files. External assessments had been obtained. By the Commission’s account, the matters were 'prosecution-ready'. Charges were being prepared.
And then, nothing.
Instead of authorising prosecutions, Malimali initiated a pattern of delay: repeated reviews, shifting requests for 'further analysis', and ultimately a refusal to proceed. Her justification? That any breaches were merely 'technical'.
The Commission rejected this outright.
False or misleading declarations under the Political Parties Act are not technicalities. They are the core enforcement mechanism of electoral transparency law. The Act is deliberately strict because Parliament understood a basic truth: if politicians can lie or omit assets with impunity, public accountability collapses.
By rebranding completed investigations as trivial, the Commission found that Malimali misunderstood, or deliberately misapplied, the law.The Dangerous Fiction of 'Technical Breaches'
The Inquiry goes further. It warns that treating false declarations as 'technical' does not just excuse individual misconduct; it destroys the architecture of political accountability.
Anti-corruption law exists precisely because powerful people are skilled at reframing wrongdoing as oversight, error, or misunderstanding. The Political Parties Act anticipates this and imposes strict duties to declare assets fully and accurately.
FICAC’s job is not to weigh political inconvenience. It is to enforce the law.
By declining to prosecute on the basis of invented categories like 'technical breach', Malimali did more than close a case. She introduced a precedent that favours ministers over ordinary citizens, and that is the antithesis of anti-corruption enforcement.
A Chilling Message to Whistleblowers
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Inquiry is what it reveals about how forwarded complaints, particularly those associated with Alexandra Forwood, and Fijileaks, were handled.
The Commission found evidence of a blanket directive: complaints originating from Ms. Forwood were not to receive further resources, regardless of merit, evidence, or statutory obligation. Investigations were halted not because they were unfounded, but because of who had raised them.
This is fatal to any credible anti-corruption regime.
Whistleblowers are, by definition, inconvenient. They are persistent. They raise uncomfortable questions. If an anti-corruption body conditions investigation on whether the complainant is liked, resident, or politically palatable, then corruption does not need to be hidden. It merely needs the right friends.
The Commission explicitly warned that this approach creates a chilling effect, discouraging future complainants and signalling that some voices will simply be ignored. That is not discretion. It is discrimination.
Selective Independence Is No Independence at All
Throughout the Inquiry, a pattern emerges: cases involving powerful political figures slowed or stopped; cases involving others proceeded. This asymmetry is what led the Commission to question FICAC’s independence under Malimali’s leadership.
Anti-corruption agencies are not judged by how aggressively they pursue minor offenders. They are judged by whether they are willing to act upwards, against ministers, senior officials, and politically connected actors.
The Inquiry’s conclusion is stark: the public could reasonably perceive that FICAC’s independence, objectivity, and integrity had been compromised.
Once that perception takes hold, the damage is systemic. Investigators lose morale. Whistleblowers lose faith. Citizens stop believing that the law applies equally.
The Commission ultimately warns that Malimali’s conduct weakened Fiji’s anti-corruption framework at a critical moment, eroded public confidence, and undermined the very institution she was entrusted to lead.
Why This Matters Now
Fiji does not lack laws. It lacks credible enforcement. When an anti-corruption body shields the powerful, marginalises whistleblowers, and reframes illegality as inconvenience, corruption does not need to win elections - simply waits.
The Commission of Inquiry has done its job. It has documented the failure, named the risks, and drawn the conclusions. What happens next will determine whether FICAC is rebuilt as an independent institution or remembered as a cautionary tale of how watchdogs can be quietly defanged from within.
For a country that has paid dearly for the corrosion of accountability, the choice should not be difficult.
But it must be made openly, decisively, and now.
One of the clearest findings of the Inquiry is that investigations into alleged false political declarations by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Prasad were not speculative, incomplete, or premature. They were substantively finished.
Investigators had gathered evidence. Legal officers had reviewed the files. External assessments had been obtained. By the Commission’s account, the matters were 'prosecution-ready'. Charges were being prepared.
And then, nothing.
Instead of authorising prosecutions, Malimali initiated a pattern of delay: repeated reviews, shifting requests for 'further analysis', and ultimately a refusal to proceed. Her justification? That any breaches were merely 'technical'.
The Commission rejected this outright.
False or misleading declarations under the Political Parties Act are not technicalities. They are the core enforcement mechanism of electoral transparency law. The Act is deliberately strict because Parliament understood a basic truth: if politicians can lie or omit assets with impunity, public accountability collapses.
By rebranding completed investigations as trivial, the Commission found that Malimali misunderstood, or deliberately misapplied, the law.The Dangerous Fiction of 'Technical Breaches'
The Inquiry goes further. It warns that treating false declarations as 'technical' does not just excuse individual misconduct; it destroys the architecture of political accountability.
Anti-corruption law exists precisely because powerful people are skilled at reframing wrongdoing as oversight, error, or misunderstanding. The Political Parties Act anticipates this and imposes strict duties to declare assets fully and accurately.
FICAC’s job is not to weigh political inconvenience. It is to enforce the law.
By declining to prosecute on the basis of invented categories like 'technical breach', Malimali did more than close a case. She introduced a precedent that favours ministers over ordinary citizens, and that is the antithesis of anti-corruption enforcement.
A Chilling Message to Whistleblowers
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Inquiry is what it reveals about how forwarded complaints, particularly those associated with Alexandra Forwood, and Fijileaks, were handled.
The Commission found evidence of a blanket directive: complaints originating from Ms. Forwood were not to receive further resources, regardless of merit, evidence, or statutory obligation. Investigations were halted not because they were unfounded, but because of who had raised them.
This is fatal to any credible anti-corruption regime.
Whistleblowers are, by definition, inconvenient. They are persistent. They raise uncomfortable questions. If an anti-corruption body conditions investigation on whether the complainant is liked, resident, or politically palatable, then corruption does not need to be hidden. It merely needs the right friends.
The Commission explicitly warned that this approach creates a chilling effect, discouraging future complainants and signalling that some voices will simply be ignored. That is not discretion. It is discrimination.
Selective Independence Is No Independence at All
Throughout the Inquiry, a pattern emerges: cases involving powerful political figures slowed or stopped; cases involving others proceeded. This asymmetry is what led the Commission to question FICAC’s independence under Malimali’s leadership.
Anti-corruption agencies are not judged by how aggressively they pursue minor offenders. They are judged by whether they are willing to act upwards, against ministers, senior officials, and politically connected actors.
The Inquiry’s conclusion is stark: the public could reasonably perceive that FICAC’s independence, objectivity, and integrity had been compromised.
Once that perception takes hold, the damage is systemic. Investigators lose morale. Whistleblowers lose faith. Citizens stop believing that the law applies equally.
The Commission ultimately warns that Malimali’s conduct weakened Fiji’s anti-corruption framework at a critical moment, eroded public confidence, and undermined the very institution she was entrusted to lead.
Why This Matters Now
Fiji does not lack laws. It lacks credible enforcement. When an anti-corruption body shields the powerful, marginalises whistleblowers, and reframes illegality as inconvenience, corruption does not need to win elections - simply waits.
The Commission of Inquiry has done its job. It has documented the failure, named the risks, and drawn the conclusions. What happens next will determine whether FICAC is rebuilt as an independent institution or remembered as a cautionary tale of how watchdogs can be quietly defanged from within.
For a country that has paid dearly for the corrosion of accountability, the choice should not be difficult.
But it must be made openly, decisively, and now.
 | UPPING THE PRESSURE: Our Emails, Our Rights: Being Complainants Against Biman Prasad Doesn't Stop at Malimali's Blood Pressure: From Fijileaks Archive |  |
 |  |
LEGAL Pitch Invader: Waqanika Enters to Confront Saukuru and Rokoika
 Apparently, a complaint was lodged to FICAC on alleged abuses by senior officials executives of Fiji Sports Council. I believe the complainant was a former FSC employee who was (or still is??) a PAP Youth member. Not sure whether the complaint was lodged during Pulewai or Malimali’s term. Anyway, after our Zumba session last week, I was sitting inside Grace Road with Barbs [Malimali] and in walks a FSC Board member. Without any prompting from me, the board member says that the Acting Commissioner FICAC had cleared CEO Fiji Sports Council of allegations of abuse of office against him. I looked at the board member in disbelief and questioned whether all the board members raised and registered their concern on the “conflict of interest” given the relationship of the Acting Commissioner FICAC & CEO Fiji Sports Council. I reminded the board member of the Post Fiji case which saw the late Peni Mau and Mahendra Patel (he was the Chair of Post Fiji) go to prison because of the purchase of a wall clock. |    |
Fijileaks: The Fiji Times boss Patel jumped bail and fled to Australia, and only returned to Fiji last year after a dubious amnesty from the Coalition government.
 |  |
How could the illegally appointed Acting Commissioner FICAC clear her brother in law from this alledged abuse of office.
Government needs to take action and remove the Acting Commissioner now. Woe unto her and her deeds.
This kind of abuse, not even Nollywood would script it as they would say that such things never happens in movies and reality ….except it does happen in Fiji. How shameful of these people to steal from the nation.
Come on Coalition Government- take action against these corrupted people, they have been exposed and should and must be charged.
Fiji Sports Council board members cannot sit back and be complacent. They need to convene a board meeting and take remedial actions. If you all knew that this was happening- all of you should also be charged. You have failed in your Fiduciary Duties and these fraudulent deeds were done under all your noses. How in heavens did you all appoint him as CEO when this alleged abuse happened when he was the Executive Chairman. Gilbert was appointed CEO in October, 2025.
Executive Chairman is when a Chair acts as CEO in the absence of a CEO. I was told that there was a circular issued under the directive of the Prime Minister that all Executive Chairmanship should not exceed a period of 3 months for all Govt statutory bodies. A PAP MP/ Minister told me last year that Gilbert Vakalalabure was Executive Chair for more than 3 months - a total disregard of the PM’s directive. It does not help when the PM’s confidant (plus the FSC board member) tells me that PM sacked Vakalalabure 3 times and reinstated him. One wonders why Vakalalabure was sacked and reinstated- was it because of these alleged abuses.
The media should be asking the PM these questions.
I read Fiji Sun’s front page where Saukuru says that he will pay back & it’s “not much”. The quantum is irrelevant- it’s the breach of public trust from a Member of Parliament and a Minister that worsens the situation. The Government needs to take action and their failure to do so reduces the public’s trust with Government.
There are case authorities where restitution was done but the court sentenced imprisonment for the accused.
Saukuru’s admission calls for his removal as he has implicated himself.
If this alleged abuse is so blatant and done openly at FSC, I can imagine what else was or is happening under Gilbert’s watch.
Everything hidden will be exposed.
Government needs to take action and remove the Acting Commissioner now. Woe unto her and her deeds.
This kind of abuse, not even Nollywood would script it as they would say that such things never happens in movies and reality ….except it does happen in Fiji. How shameful of these people to steal from the nation.
Come on Coalition Government- take action against these corrupted people, they have been exposed and should and must be charged.
Fiji Sports Council board members cannot sit back and be complacent. They need to convene a board meeting and take remedial actions. If you all knew that this was happening- all of you should also be charged. You have failed in your Fiduciary Duties and these fraudulent deeds were done under all your noses. How in heavens did you all appoint him as CEO when this alleged abuse happened when he was the Executive Chairman. Gilbert was appointed CEO in October, 2025.
Executive Chairman is when a Chair acts as CEO in the absence of a CEO. I was told that there was a circular issued under the directive of the Prime Minister that all Executive Chairmanship should not exceed a period of 3 months for all Govt statutory bodies. A PAP MP/ Minister told me last year that Gilbert Vakalalabure was Executive Chair for more than 3 months - a total disregard of the PM’s directive. It does not help when the PM’s confidant (plus the FSC board member) tells me that PM sacked Vakalalabure 3 times and reinstated him. One wonders why Vakalalabure was sacked and reinstated- was it because of these alleged abuses.
The media should be asking the PM these questions.
I read Fiji Sun’s front page where Saukuru says that he will pay back & it’s “not much”. The quantum is irrelevant- it’s the breach of public trust from a Member of Parliament and a Minister that worsens the situation. The Government needs to take action and their failure to do so reduces the public’s trust with Government.
There are case authorities where restitution was done but the court sentenced imprisonment for the accused.
Saukuru’s admission calls for his removal as he has implicated himself.
If this alleged abuse is so blatant and done openly at FSC, I can imagine what else was or is happening under Gilbert’s watch.
Everything hidden will be exposed.
 |  |
