  |  |
Why I Am Writing This: Biman Chand Prasad's recent suggestion that political forces may have worked against him before his resignation as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance has prompted me to place a number of facts on the public record.
I do so in a dual capacity: first, as Editor-in-Chief of Fijileaks, which for years published a series of investigations into Prasad's statutory declarations and related matters; and second, as a complainant who repeatedly brought documentary evidence to the attention of the relevant authorities.
I do so in a dual capacity: first, as Editor-in-Chief of Fijileaks, which for years published a series of investigations into Prasad's statutory declarations and related matters; and second, as a complainant who repeatedly brought documentary evidence to the attention of the relevant authorities.
I also write as someone who has known Prasad for decades. Long before he entered frontline politics, we enjoyed a cordial relationship. Indeed, when Prasad first declared his intention to contest the 2014 general election, Fijileaks provided him with space to explain his decision, articulate his political vision, and communicate directly with the electorate. Over the years, Fijileaks carried numerous statements, interviews and commentaries involving Prasad, just as it did for many other political figures across Fiji's political spectrum.
That history is important because it demolishes any suggestion that my interest in Prasad's statutory declarations arose from personal animosity, political hostility or some long-running vendetta. It did not. The issues raised by Fijileaks emerged not because of who Prasad was but because of what the documentary record appeared to reveal.
Because Prasad has now raised the possibility of a "plot" and because some of his supporters have sought over the years to portray the investigations into his declarations as politically motivated, it is important that the public understands precisely how these matters came to light.
This is not an attempt to influence proceedings presently before the courts. Those proceedings must be determined solely on the evidence and according to law. Rather, it is an attempt to correct any impression that the allegations arose from a covert political campaign, a personal crusade, or some orchestrated effort to bring down a Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, who is also leader of the NFP.
They did not.
Every major allegation published by Fijileaks concerning Prasad's statutory declarations was based upon documentary evidence. Company records, Registrar of Companies filings, shareholding records, certificates of title, land transfer documents, statutory declarations, official correspondence and other public records formed the basis of the questions that were raised.
We did not begin with rumours.
We did not begin with political instructions.
We did not begin with anonymous whispers from shadowy figures.
We began with documents.
Moreover, after publishing those investigations, I frequently emailed links to the relevant Fijileaks articles and supporting material to public authorities and office holders for their consideration.
At various times these communications were sent to FICAC, DPP, the Fiji Police Force, the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, Members of Parliament including Pio Tikoduadua and Lenora Qereqeretabua, and, during her brief but controversial tenure as Acting FICAC Commissioner, Barbara Malimali.
I simply invited them to examine the evidence and determine for themselves whether the matters warranted further inquiry.
The distinction is critical.
A conspirator seeks to manipulate an outcome.
A journalist places evidence before the public.
A complainant places evidence before the authorities.
The decision whether to investigate, ignore, reject, or pursue a matter rests entirely with those institutions.
If there were political plots operating within government, within the coalition, or elsewhere, that is a matter for Prasad to explain and substantiate.
As far as my role is concerned, there was no conspiracy, no secret campaign and no hidden agenda.
There was a decades-long friendship.
There was investigative journalism.
There was documentary evidence.
And there was a consistent effort to place that evidence before both the public and the relevant authorities for independent scrutiny.
That is why I consider it necessary to place this response on the public record. The public deserves to understand that whatever political intrigues Prasad may believe surrounded his departure from office, the questions raised by Fijileaks arose from documents, not from plots.
That history is important because it demolishes any suggestion that my interest in Prasad's statutory declarations arose from personal animosity, political hostility or some long-running vendetta. It did not. The issues raised by Fijileaks emerged not because of who Prasad was but because of what the documentary record appeared to reveal.
Because Prasad has now raised the possibility of a "plot" and because some of his supporters have sought over the years to portray the investigations into his declarations as politically motivated, it is important that the public understands precisely how these matters came to light.
This is not an attempt to influence proceedings presently before the courts. Those proceedings must be determined solely on the evidence and according to law. Rather, it is an attempt to correct any impression that the allegations arose from a covert political campaign, a personal crusade, or some orchestrated effort to bring down a Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, who is also leader of the NFP.
They did not.
Every major allegation published by Fijileaks concerning Prasad's statutory declarations was based upon documentary evidence. Company records, Registrar of Companies filings, shareholding records, certificates of title, land transfer documents, statutory declarations, official correspondence and other public records formed the basis of the questions that were raised.
We did not begin with rumours.
We did not begin with political instructions.
We did not begin with anonymous whispers from shadowy figures.
We began with documents.
Moreover, after publishing those investigations, I frequently emailed links to the relevant Fijileaks articles and supporting material to public authorities and office holders for their consideration.
At various times these communications were sent to FICAC, DPP, the Fiji Police Force, the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, Members of Parliament including Pio Tikoduadua and Lenora Qereqeretabua, and, during her brief but controversial tenure as Acting FICAC Commissioner, Barbara Malimali.
I simply invited them to examine the evidence and determine for themselves whether the matters warranted further inquiry.
The distinction is critical.
A conspirator seeks to manipulate an outcome.
A journalist places evidence before the public.
A complainant places evidence before the authorities.
The decision whether to investigate, ignore, reject, or pursue a matter rests entirely with those institutions.
If there were political plots operating within government, within the coalition, or elsewhere, that is a matter for Prasad to explain and substantiate.
As far as my role is concerned, there was no conspiracy, no secret campaign and no hidden agenda.
There was a decades-long friendship.
There was investigative journalism.
There was documentary evidence.
And there was a consistent effort to place that evidence before both the public and the relevant authorities for independent scrutiny.
That is why I consider it necessary to place this response on the public record. The public deserves to understand that whatever political intrigues Prasad may believe surrounded his departure from office, the questions raised by Fijileaks arose from documents, not from plots.
FROM LOTUS TO PLATINUM: The Charges Biman Prasad Faces Today Are Entirely Different From Those FICAC Was Preparing On 5 September 2024. Will The Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd File Be Revived?
 ESCAPE FROM FICAC? Biman Prasad Was Set To Face Multiple Lotus Construction Charges On 5 September 2024 But The Arrest of Barbara Malimali And Lawyers' Intervention Threw The Investigation Into Chaos   |      |
The Lotus (Fiji) File That Refused to Wilt. The Crucial Distinction: The September 2024 Lotus Charges Are Not The Charges Before The Court Today
One point cannot be stressed strongly enough.
The charges that Biman Chand Prasad and his legal team are currently contesting are not the charges that FICAC lawyers were preparing and recommending in September 2024.
The present prosecution concerns Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd, a company in which Prasad allegedly held shares and a directorship during 2015–2016 and which FICAC alleges was not properly disclosed in his statutory declarations.
The documentary record emerging from FICAC, however, points to something entirely different in September 2024.
At that time, senior FICAC investigators and legal officers had completed a separate investigation centred on Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd and related declaration issues stretching back to 2014. Draft charges had been prepared. Legal opinions had been obtained. Senior counsel had concluded that a prima facie case existed. Internal memoranda expressly recommended prosecution and sought the Commissioner's approval to proceed.
Those recommendations survived internal scrutiny.
Indeed, when Barbara Malimali later returned to FICAC, the file was revisited. Far from abandoning their original position, senior legal counsel reportedly reaffirmed their view that prosecution should proceed. As late as January 2025, the legal advice remained substantially unchanged: the evidence justified criminal charges and the matter should advance.
That is why the events of April 2025 remain so controversial.
Rather than authorising the charges repeatedly recommended by her legal team, Malimali closed Prasad's entire file. The closure was reportedly justified on the basis that Prasad had declared his shares.
Yet the legal officers who had worked on the matter had never treated the investigation as a simple question of whether shares appeared somewhere in a declaration.
Their concern extended to a wider pattern of alleged omissions and non-disclosures involving Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, including questions relating to directorships, corporate interests, property transactions and other matters required to be disclosed under the Political Parties Act.
The result is that the public is now witnessing litigation over a completely different prosecution.
The current Platinum Hotels charges arose from a separate set of facts, a separate company, a separate period, and a separate alleged failure to disclose.
Consequently, even if Prasad were ultimately to succeed or fail in the Platinum Hotels case, that outcome would not automatically determine the fate of the dormant Lotus Construction file.
The central unanswered question remains: What became of the multiple Lotus Construction-related charges that FICAC lawyers believed were justified in September 2024, reaffirmed again after Malimali's return, and continued to support in January 2025 before the entire file was abruptly shut down in April 2025?
Until that question is answered, it would be inaccurate to portray the current Platinum Hotels prosecution as the entirety of Prasad's legal exposure arising from his statutory declarations.
The available evidence suggests that the Platinum case is merely one branch of a much larger investigation that, for reasons still not fully explained, was never allowed to reach court.
The charges that Biman Chand Prasad and his legal team are currently contesting are not the charges that FICAC lawyers were preparing and recommending in September 2024.
The present prosecution concerns Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd, a company in which Prasad allegedly held shares and a directorship during 2015–2016 and which FICAC alleges was not properly disclosed in his statutory declarations.
The documentary record emerging from FICAC, however, points to something entirely different in September 2024.
At that time, senior FICAC investigators and legal officers had completed a separate investigation centred on Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd and related declaration issues stretching back to 2014. Draft charges had been prepared. Legal opinions had been obtained. Senior counsel had concluded that a prima facie case existed. Internal memoranda expressly recommended prosecution and sought the Commissioner's approval to proceed.
Those recommendations survived internal scrutiny.
Indeed, when Barbara Malimali later returned to FICAC, the file was revisited. Far from abandoning their original position, senior legal counsel reportedly reaffirmed their view that prosecution should proceed. As late as January 2025, the legal advice remained substantially unchanged: the evidence justified criminal charges and the matter should advance.
That is why the events of April 2025 remain so controversial.
Rather than authorising the charges repeatedly recommended by her legal team, Malimali closed Prasad's entire file. The closure was reportedly justified on the basis that Prasad had declared his shares.
Yet the legal officers who had worked on the matter had never treated the investigation as a simple question of whether shares appeared somewhere in a declaration.
Their concern extended to a wider pattern of alleged omissions and non-disclosures involving Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, including questions relating to directorships, corporate interests, property transactions and other matters required to be disclosed under the Political Parties Act.
The result is that the public is now witnessing litigation over a completely different prosecution.
The current Platinum Hotels charges arose from a separate set of facts, a separate company, a separate period, and a separate alleged failure to disclose.
Consequently, even if Prasad were ultimately to succeed or fail in the Platinum Hotels case, that outcome would not automatically determine the fate of the dormant Lotus Construction file.
The central unanswered question remains: What became of the multiple Lotus Construction-related charges that FICAC lawyers believed were justified in September 2024, reaffirmed again after Malimali's return, and continued to support in January 2025 before the entire file was abruptly shut down in April 2025?
Until that question is answered, it would be inaccurate to portray the current Platinum Hotels prosecution as the entirety of Prasad's legal exposure arising from his statutory declarations.
The available evidence suggests that the Platinum case is merely one branch of a much larger investigation that, for reasons still not fully explained, was never allowed to reach court.
FICAC Senior Counsel to Barbara Malimali:
"Biman Prasad's Charges Stand", September 2024, January 2025
  |   |
First She Closed His FICAC File. Then Comes Selfie: Malimali's 'Yeeha!' Celebration with Biman Prasad
From Fijileaks Archive, September 2024
Lenora's Leadership Question: If NFP Must Prepare the Next Generation, Why Hasn't It Asked Biman Prasad to Step Aside?
