"The FNPF is not an ordinary commercial body. It is Fiji’s national retirement fund, holding the lifetime savings of thousands of contributors. Procurement processes involving the Fund therefore demand the highest standards of transparency, disclosure, and fiduciary integrity. The removal of Adish Naidu is therefore not merely an administrative reshuffle. It is the first major institutional casualty of the “Adish Naidugate” affair. And it may not be the last."
 |   |
The political and governance fallout from the “Adish Naidugate” scandal has now culminated in the removal of Adish Naidu from the Fiji National Provident Fund Board.
In a letter dated 19 May 2026, Finance Minister Esrom Immanuel formally revoked Naidu’s appointment as a member of the FNPF Board with immediate effect, following advice from the Reserve Bank of Fiji and pursuant to section 11(5) of the FNPF Act 2011.
The dismissal comes weeks after Fijileaks revealed documentary evidence linking Naidu, while serving as an FNPF Board Director, to a consortium embedded in the controversial Grantham Plaza warehouse consultancy tender process.
The Minister’s letter stated plainly: “Following the advice from the Reserve Bank of Fiji and pursuant to section 11(5) of the FNPF Act 2011, your appointment is hereby revoked with immediate effect.”
The decision marks a dramatic departure for a figure who, until recently, sat at the centre of FNPF investment and procurement oversight while simultaneously allegedly appearing within a tender structure seeking to secure Fund-related work.
The Story That Triggered the Departure
Fijileaks had previously published a detailed chronology of the Grantham Plaza warehouse tender saga, revealing how a consortium involving Pola Designs, Yellow Architects, Green House Engineering, and NAL Civil & Structural Engineers had aligned itself during a live procurement process.
Among the signatories to the Letter of Intent dated 30 June 2025 was Adish Naidu, identified as Director of Yellow Architects.
At the time, Naidu was also serving as an FNPF Board Director.
Internal FNPF governance reviews later concluded that Naidu’s involvement should have been declared as a conflict of interest under the FNPF Act. The review reportedly found:
By March 2026, internal governance concerns escalated sharply. FNPF eventually halted the engagement process after concluding that proceeding with the tender would create unacceptable governance and conflict risks.
From Public Pressure to Removal
Fijileaks had argued repeatedly that Naidu’s position on the FNPF Board had become “untenable in governance terms” and called upon the Finance Minister to intervene if Naidu refused to resign voluntarily.
That intervention has now arrived.
The dismissal letter suggests that the matter had progressed beyond mere political embarrassment into a formal regulatory concern serious enough to attract Reserve Bank of Fiji advice and ministerial action.
The development also raises a wider question: whether further scrutiny will now extend to other individuals and entities involved in the tender structure and procurement process.
FICAC Investigation Looms
FICAC has now commenced inquiries into aspects of the halted warehouse tender process, including potential failures of disclosure, procurement irregularities, and the handling of conflict declarations.
The central issue remains whether a sitting fiduciary officeholder participated, directly or indirectly, in a procurement structure linked to the institution he was legally bound to govern independently.
The broader implications are profound.
FNPF is not an ordinary commercial body. It is Fiji’s national retirement fund, holding the lifetime savings of thousands of contributors. Procurement processes involving the Fund therefore demand the highest standards of transparency, disclosure, and fiduciary integrity.
The removal of Adish Naidu is therefore not merely an administrative reshuffle.
It is the first major institutional casualty of the “Adish Naidugate” affair.
And it may not be the last.
Editor’s Note: Adish Naidu claimed to Fijileaks that NAL in New Zealand and Pola Designs in Fiji had allegedly “stolen” the Yellow Architects rubber stamp and included his name in their tender bid without his knowledge. Both parties have been “hiding” from Fijileaks despite repeated questions sent to them.
In a letter dated 19 May 2026, Finance Minister Esrom Immanuel formally revoked Naidu’s appointment as a member of the FNPF Board with immediate effect, following advice from the Reserve Bank of Fiji and pursuant to section 11(5) of the FNPF Act 2011.
The dismissal comes weeks after Fijileaks revealed documentary evidence linking Naidu, while serving as an FNPF Board Director, to a consortium embedded in the controversial Grantham Plaza warehouse consultancy tender process.
The Minister’s letter stated plainly: “Following the advice from the Reserve Bank of Fiji and pursuant to section 11(5) of the FNPF Act 2011, your appointment is hereby revoked with immediate effect.”
The decision marks a dramatic departure for a figure who, until recently, sat at the centre of FNPF investment and procurement oversight while simultaneously allegedly appearing within a tender structure seeking to secure Fund-related work.
The Story That Triggered the Departure
Fijileaks had previously published a detailed chronology of the Grantham Plaza warehouse tender saga, revealing how a consortium involving Pola Designs, Yellow Architects, Green House Engineering, and NAL Civil & Structural Engineers had aligned itself during a live procurement process.
Among the signatories to the Letter of Intent dated 30 June 2025 was Adish Naidu, identified as Director of Yellow Architects.
At the time, Naidu was also serving as an FNPF Board Director.
Internal FNPF governance reviews later concluded that Naidu’s involvement should have been declared as a conflict of interest under the FNPF Act. The review reportedly found:
- Naidu had been listed as key personnel in the NAL tender bid;
- The bid documents declared no conflict of interest;
- The Tender Evaluation Committee had failed to detect the issue during much of the procurement cycle.
By March 2026, internal governance concerns escalated sharply. FNPF eventually halted the engagement process after concluding that proceeding with the tender would create unacceptable governance and conflict risks.
From Public Pressure to Removal
Fijileaks had argued repeatedly that Naidu’s position on the FNPF Board had become “untenable in governance terms” and called upon the Finance Minister to intervene if Naidu refused to resign voluntarily.
That intervention has now arrived.
The dismissal letter suggests that the matter had progressed beyond mere political embarrassment into a formal regulatory concern serious enough to attract Reserve Bank of Fiji advice and ministerial action.
The development also raises a wider question: whether further scrutiny will now extend to other individuals and entities involved in the tender structure and procurement process.
FICAC Investigation Looms
FICAC has now commenced inquiries into aspects of the halted warehouse tender process, including potential failures of disclosure, procurement irregularities, and the handling of conflict declarations.
The central issue remains whether a sitting fiduciary officeholder participated, directly or indirectly, in a procurement structure linked to the institution he was legally bound to govern independently.
The broader implications are profound.
FNPF is not an ordinary commercial body. It is Fiji’s national retirement fund, holding the lifetime savings of thousands of contributors. Procurement processes involving the Fund therefore demand the highest standards of transparency, disclosure, and fiduciary integrity.
The removal of Adish Naidu is therefore not merely an administrative reshuffle.
It is the first major institutional casualty of the “Adish Naidugate” affair.
And it may not be the last.
Editor’s Note: Adish Naidu claimed to Fijileaks that NAL in New Zealand and Pola Designs in Fiji had allegedly “stolen” the Yellow Architects rubber stamp and included his name in their tender bid without his knowledge. Both parties have been “hiding” from Fijileaks despite repeated questions sent to them.
DISMISSED FNPF Director Naidu Now Entangled in $82,000 Sheraton Debt Controversy
The dismissal of Adish Naidu from the Fiji National Provident Fund Board over the “Adish Naidugate” tender conflict scandal has now cast renewed attention on another controversy already swirling around the former Board Director and Fiji Architects Association president.
At the centre of the second dispute is an alleged unpaid debt of approximately $82,000 owed to the FNPF-owned Sheraton Fiji Golf & Beach Resort following the Fiji Architects Association conference hosted at the luxury Denarau property.
Fijileaks had earlier revealed internal correspondence and claims indicating that the Sheraton Hotel had allegedly been pursuing payment from Fiji Architects Association president Adish Naidu and event sponsors after the conference bill reportedly remained outstanding.
The controversy has become even more politically explosive because the Sheraton resort itself falls within the broader FNPF commercial empire.
Critics are now asking whether it was appropriate for a sitting FNPF Board Director to preside over an organisation allegedly owing substantial sums to an FNPF-owned hotel while simultaneously participating in high-level Fund governance.
The issue raises uncomfortable questions about corporate governance, fiduciary obligations, disclosure standards, and reputational conflicts.
Naidu’s removal from the FNPF Board followed advice from the Reserve Bank of Fiji and ministerial action under section 11(5) of the FNPF Act 2011 after the collapse of the Grantham Plaza warehouse consultancy tender process.
That tender became the focus of a major governance scandal after documents revealed Naidu’s alleged involvement in a consultancy consortium connected to the procurement exercise while he remained an FNPF Board Director.
Internal governance concerns reportedly concluded that the situation created a conflict serious enough for the tender process itself to be halted.
Now, attention is shifting to whether the Sheraton conference debt controversy represents merely poor organisational management or whether it forms part of a wider pattern of blurred governance boundaries involving public institutions, professional bodies, and commercial relationships linked to FNPF assets.
The coincidence is politically devastating.
In one controversy, Naidu allegedly appeared inside a consultancy structure linked to an FNPF procurement process.
In the other, he allegedly presided over a professional association facing demands from an FNPF-owned hotel to settle a substantial unpaid conference bill.
Together, the two scandals now threaten to deepen scrutiny not only of Naidu himself but also of the wider governance culture surrounding entities and individuals operating around Fiji’s most powerful statutory fund.
FICAC’s interest in aspects of the warehouse tender affair is therefore unlikely to silence questions surrounding the Sheraton controversy.
Instead, the former FNPF Director ADISH NAIDU may now find himself confronting scrutiny on multiple fronts simultaneously.
The dismissal of Adish Naidu from the Fiji National Provident Fund Board over the “Adish Naidugate” tender conflict scandal has now cast renewed attention on another controversy already swirling around the former Board Director and Fiji Architects Association president.
At the centre of the second dispute is an alleged unpaid debt of approximately $82,000 owed to the FNPF-owned Sheraton Fiji Golf & Beach Resort following the Fiji Architects Association conference hosted at the luxury Denarau property.
Fijileaks had earlier revealed internal correspondence and claims indicating that the Sheraton Hotel had allegedly been pursuing payment from Fiji Architects Association president Adish Naidu and event sponsors after the conference bill reportedly remained outstanding.
The controversy has become even more politically explosive because the Sheraton resort itself falls within the broader FNPF commercial empire.
Critics are now asking whether it was appropriate for a sitting FNPF Board Director to preside over an organisation allegedly owing substantial sums to an FNPF-owned hotel while simultaneously participating in high-level Fund governance.
The issue raises uncomfortable questions about corporate governance, fiduciary obligations, disclosure standards, and reputational conflicts.
Naidu’s removal from the FNPF Board followed advice from the Reserve Bank of Fiji and ministerial action under section 11(5) of the FNPF Act 2011 after the collapse of the Grantham Plaza warehouse consultancy tender process.
That tender became the focus of a major governance scandal after documents revealed Naidu’s alleged involvement in a consultancy consortium connected to the procurement exercise while he remained an FNPF Board Director.
Internal governance concerns reportedly concluded that the situation created a conflict serious enough for the tender process itself to be halted.
Now, attention is shifting to whether the Sheraton conference debt controversy represents merely poor organisational management or whether it forms part of a wider pattern of blurred governance boundaries involving public institutions, professional bodies, and commercial relationships linked to FNPF assets.
The coincidence is politically devastating.
In one controversy, Naidu allegedly appeared inside a consultancy structure linked to an FNPF procurement process.
In the other, he allegedly presided over a professional association facing demands from an FNPF-owned hotel to settle a substantial unpaid conference bill.
Together, the two scandals now threaten to deepen scrutiny not only of Naidu himself but also of the wider governance culture surrounding entities and individuals operating around Fiji’s most powerful statutory fund.
FICAC’s interest in aspects of the warehouse tender affair is therefore unlikely to silence questions surrounding the Sheraton controversy.
Instead, the former FNPF Director ADISH NAIDU may now find himself confronting scrutiny on multiple fronts simultaneously.
 |  |
www.fijileaks.com/home/the-adish-naidugate-fnpf-board-director-adish-naidu-at-centre-of-undeclared-conflict-that-halted-fnpf-warehouse-tender-he-should-voluntarily-resign-if-not-the-finance-minister-should-ask-him-to-resign
From Fijileaks Archive, 22 April 2026
“THE LETTER OF INTENT QUESTION”: If Adish Naidu Claims His Rubber Stamp Was ‘Stolen’ for the FNFP Warehouse Tender, How Did Sunil Chand Obtain Yellow Architects’ Support Letter for the Nabavatu Tender?
*Adish Naidu told Fijileaks that NAL and Pola Designs allegedly stole Yellow Architects’ rubber stamp and inserted his name into the FNPF warehouse tender documents without his knowledge. However, he has yet to explain how Sunil Chand, the cousin of former Finance Minister Biman Prasad, came to possess and submit a formal Letter of Intent from Yellow Architects in support of the Nabavatu housing tender.
The Lotus Connection: Biman Prasad’s Undeclared Directorships and the 5 September FICAC Drama
*Meanwhile, Biman Chand Prasad repeatedly failed to declare in his statutory declarations, from 2014 onwards, that he was a co-director of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd alongside his cousin, Sunil Chand.
*FICAC had allegedly been preparing to charge him on 5 September 2024 before the process was disrupted following the arrest and subsequent release of Barbara Malimali after the intervention of prominent Fiji lawyers earlier that morning.
 |  |
*In 2016, his cousin and business partner Sunil Chand transferred another 45% shares to Biman Chand Prasad, making him a 50% shareholder in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd. He did not disclose the transfer of these shares nor disclosed that he was a DIRECTOR of Lotus (Fiji), a company that was building those 28 VILLAS.
*In 2016, Biman Prasad and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand also sold a Suva property to Lotus (Fiji), and in exchange the company paid the Capital Gains Tax, and Mrs Prasad got two villas - again these two villas were not declared in the statutory declarations.
