*Barbara Malimali’s closure of only one narrow complaint — regarding superannuation — was used to shut down all broader allegations against Biman Prasad, including conflict of interest, procurement violations, and non-disclosure under the Political Parties Act. She had been in the job for just eight months and a Commission of Inquiry was in progress under Justice David Ashton-Lewis to establish if her appointment was done properly. |   |
By Closing One File On Prasad-She Buried Them All
When the sacked 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:
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. None were referred to the DPP. And now, none are likely to see the inside of a courtroom — because one file was closed on technical grounds.
Who Benefits From Silence?
It is no coincidence that Biman Prasad has faced no investigation, no charges, no public inquiry, while DPP is actively pursuing 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 — 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?
FICAC Must Reopen the Files, or the DPP Must Act
Barbara Malimali is now gone. But the consequences of her decision remain.
If Fiji is to preserve its reputation as a country governed by law, not by political expedience, then:
And in this case, it was lowered — deliberately.
When the sacked 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:
- 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 Dr Rajni Khausal Chand 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:
- 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. None were referred to the DPP. And now, none are likely to see the inside of a courtroom — because one file was closed on technical grounds.
Who Benefits From Silence?
It is no coincidence that Biman Prasad has faced no investigation, no charges, no public inquiry, while DPP is actively pursuing 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 — 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?
FICAC Must Reopen the Files, or the DPP Must Act
Barbara Malimali is now gone. But the consequences of her decision remain.
If Fiji is to preserve its reputation as a country governed by law, not by political expedience, then:
- The DPP must independently reopen the unresolved complaints;
- The Public Accounts Committee and Parliament’s Standing Committee on Justice must demand answers;
- FICAC’s new leadership must explain how one narrow finding erased a minister’s full accountability.
- The law is not a tool to protect ministers. It is a shield for the public.
And in this case, it was lowered — deliberately.
