*Who asked former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad to transmit or support Pacific Polytech's grant request? |  |
The document below shows that the former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad functioned as a political intermediary for a non-compliant institution - the Pacific Polytech- seeking public funds, bypassing standard administrative processes. Although the attempt failed, it demonstrates (1) Improper ministerial involvement (2) Institutional pressure tactics (3) Governance weaknesses, and (4) Recurrent risk of politicised funding. |  *We provided FICAC with extensive materials concerning Pacific Polytech. However, in a single decision, the newly appointed FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, closed Biman Prasad's entire files. Despite the Fiji High Court ruling, Malimali must not be reinstated at FICAC. |
 |  |
Ms Forwood Fijileaks documents further supplemented and reinforced the complaint previously lodged by Sydney-based complainant Alex Forwood to FICAC (13 August 2024).
Read together, they provide additional documentary and contextual evidence demonstrating systemic procedural failures, material non-compliance with eligibility and governance requirements, and the improper continuation of the grant assessment process despite clear regulatory disqualification.
The combined material raises serious questions as to whether established public finance controls, administrative law standards, and institutional accountability mechanisms were disregarded in the handling of Pacific Polytech application, and behind the scene role played by then Finance Minister Prasad
Read together, they provide additional documentary and contextual evidence demonstrating systemic procedural failures, material non-compliance with eligibility and governance requirements, and the improper continuation of the grant assessment process despite clear regulatory disqualification.
The combined material raises serious questions as to whether established public finance controls, administrative law standards, and institutional accountability mechanisms were disregarded in the handling of Pacific Polytech application, and behind the scene role played by then Finance Minister Prasad
The LETTER alleging BIMAN PRASAD's intervention in the funding bid
 |  |
Howards Lawyers' Wylie Clarke Supports Enforcement of Eligibility Rules Warns Against Pacific Polytech grant for 2025-2026
   When the National Federation Party again defended the $7 million allocation to Pacific Polytech in the Fiji Times this week, the party repeated its familiar position: the grant was scrutinised by Cabinet, approved by Parliament, and therefore legitimate. The defence was delivered by NFP president Parmod Chand, not by the party leader and former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad. Once again, Prasad, who controlled the Finance Ministry at the time the funds were released, has remained largely in the background, while the party machinery has carried the political argument. Behind this renewed public defence, however, lies a contemporaneous legal opinion that raises serious questions about whether the funding complied with statutory and administrative law requirements. |  Wylie Clarke, Howards Lawyers   Steve Chand FHEC Chairman   |
The Latest NFP Defence
In the Fiji Times report, NFP reaffirmed that the Polytech grant was included in the national budget. It was reviewed by Cabinet. It was debated and passed by Parliament. It therefore met standards of transparency and accountability.
This narrative frames the controversy as settled by political process.
By having Parmod Chand articulate this defence, NFP has presented it as a collective party position rather than a personal justification by Prasad. The emphasis is on institutional legitimacy, not regulatory detail.
In the Fiji Times report, NFP reaffirmed that the Polytech grant was included in the national budget. It was reviewed by Cabinet. It was debated and passed by Parliament. It therefore met standards of transparency and accountability.
This narrative frames the controversy as settled by political process.
By having Parmod Chand articulate this defence, NFP has presented it as a collective party position rather than a personal justification by Prasad. The emphasis is on institutional legitimacy, not regulatory detail.
Prasad’s Continued Distance
Notably, Prasad himself has avoided becoming the public face of the dispute. While critics, including Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, have pursued the issue forcefully, Prasad has largely confined himself to general comments about procedure and budgetary systems.
He has avoided direct engagement with critics, detailed discussion of regulatory compliance, and public reference to internal legal advice. Instead, the party president has taken the lead.
This appears to be a deliberate political strategy: allowing the party to absorb controversy while the former Finance Minister maintains a technocratic and detached profile.
The FHEC Regulator’s Legal Advice: Wylie Clarke’s Opinion
While NFP was projecting confidence in public, the statutory regulator, the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC) was dealing with serious legal concerns. In November 2025, FHEC obtained external legal advice from Howards Lawyers. The opinion, signed by partner Wylie Clarke, was addressed to the Commission.
It was not written for political consumption. It was a regulatory risk assessment prepared for internal guidance. The advice recorded that Pacific Polytech:
These were not technical irregularities. They were fundamental defects under the higher education regulatory framework. Wylie Clarke further warned that inconsistent application of eligibility rules could expose FHEC to judicial review and reputational harm.
The opinion did NOT endorse the funding. It cautioned against it.
Two Competing Narratives
The Polytech controversy is defined by two conflicting frameworks.
The Political Narrative (NFP)
The Legal Narrative (Howards Lawyers (Wylie Clarke, Opinion)
These narratives operate on different planes. One relies on political authority. The other relies on statutory compliance. They are not interchangeable.
Why Parliamentary Approval Is Not Enough
A central weakness in NFP and Biman Prasad's defence is the assumption that Parliamentary approval cures all defects. Under administrative law, this is incorrect. Parliamentary appropriation authorises spending in principle. It does not legalise unlawful administration. Where statutory preconditions for funding are not met, political endorsement cannot retrospectively validate the decision.
This principle underpins Wylie Clarke's advice. He did not treat budget approval as decisive. He examined regulatory compliance, and found serious problems.
The Institutional Chain of Responsibility
The Polytech funding followed a standard administrative path:
Although Prasad is not named in the legal opinion, a standard practice in regulatory advice, the Ministry of Finance under his leadership controlled the final stage. Under Fiji’s system Regulators recommend, Parliament appropriates, and Finance authorises disbursement.
Once legal risks were documented, the responsibility to pause, remedy defects, or proceed rested with financial authorities. At that time, those authorities were under Biman Prasad’s ministerial control.
Timing: The Crucial Detail
One of the most important aspects of Wylie Clarke's opinion is timing It was not retrospective. It was obtained while funding decisions were still being finalised. This means:
The controversy is therefore not about hindsight. It is about decisions taken with knowledge of vulnerability.
“Former” Does Not Mean “Unaccountable”
Biman Chand Prasad is now the former Finance Minister in Rabuka's Coalition government. The fact is important but it does not erase past responsibility. In public administration, accountability attaches to the office-holder at the time decisions are made.
The Polytech funds were authorised and released during Prasad’s tenure. Whether he now holds the finance portfolio is legally irrelevant to the assessment of that period. Institutional responsibility does not expire when a minister changes roles.
Political Buffering: Chand in Front, Prasad Behind
Against this background, Prasad’s continued distance from the Chaudhry/NFP exchange takes on greater significance. By allowing Parmod Chand to lead the public defence, Prasad has reduced personal exposure, avoided personalised confrontation, and kept attention on party politics rather than administrative legality.
The NFP president Parmod Chand functions as the buffer. In other words, critics respond to Chand. Media quotes Chand. Debate becomes partisan.
Meanwhile, the former Finance Minister Biman Prasad remains one step removed.
Accountability and the Party–State Divide
This strategy may be effective politically, but it complicates public accountability. The central issue is not party loyalty. It is a regulatory legality. The Howards Lawyers (Wylie Clarke) opinion raises questions about:
These are matters of state administration, not party messaging. By framing the dispute as NFP versus critics, attention is diverted from the administrative record.
What the Documents Do, and Do Not Show
The available record does not establish criminal intent, personal misconduct by Prasad, or direct political interference. But it does establish that:
That sequence is a legitimate subject of public scrutiny.
Broader Implications for Governance
The Polytech case raises wider questions for Fiji’s public finance system:
If statutory criteria can be softened in practice and defended later through political process, public confidence erodes.
Politics in Public, Law in Private
Publicly, NFP - through Parmod Chand - continues to present the Polytech grant as beyond reproach because Parliament approved it. Privately, the regulator’s own lawyers recorded that the process was legally vulnerable.
Biman Prasad, now the former Finance Minister, has largely stayed out of the political exchange, allowing the party to carry the argument. It is skilful political management. But documents outlast press statements.
The Howards Lawyers opinion through its principal partner Wylie Clarke remains part of the permanent administrative record. It shows that legal doubts existed before money was released.
In the end, the central question is not who won the media exchange. It is whether public funds were disbursed in full compliance with the law, despite documented warnings to the contrary.
On that question, accountability remains unresolved, and Prasad in the background.
Notably, Prasad himself has avoided becoming the public face of the dispute. While critics, including Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, have pursued the issue forcefully, Prasad has largely confined himself to general comments about procedure and budgetary systems.
He has avoided direct engagement with critics, detailed discussion of regulatory compliance, and public reference to internal legal advice. Instead, the party president has taken the lead.
This appears to be a deliberate political strategy: allowing the party to absorb controversy while the former Finance Minister maintains a technocratic and detached profile.
The FHEC Regulator’s Legal Advice: Wylie Clarke’s Opinion
While NFP was projecting confidence in public, the statutory regulator, the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC) was dealing with serious legal concerns. In November 2025, FHEC obtained external legal advice from Howards Lawyers. The opinion, signed by partner Wylie Clarke, was addressed to the Commission.
It was not written for political consumption. It was a regulatory risk assessment prepared for internal guidance. The advice recorded that Pacific Polytech:
- Missed original and extended submission deadlines,
- Submitted incomplete and deficient documentation,
- Remained only provisionally registered during key assessment periods,
- Failed to meet eligibility criteria at critical times,
- Was ineligible for parts of the relevant funding cycle.
These were not technical irregularities. They were fundamental defects under the higher education regulatory framework. Wylie Clarke further warned that inconsistent application of eligibility rules could expose FHEC to judicial review and reputational harm.
The opinion did NOT endorse the funding. It cautioned against it.
Two Competing Narratives
The Polytech controversy is defined by two conflicting frameworks.
The Political Narrative (NFP)
- Parliament approved the budget.
- Cabinet scrutinised it.
- Therefore the grant is legitimate.
The Legal Narrative (Howards Lawyers (Wylie Clarke, Opinion)
- Eligibility criteria were not properly satisfied.
- Documentation and deadlines were deficient.
- Registration status was problematic.
- Legal risk was identified in advance.
These narratives operate on different planes. One relies on political authority. The other relies on statutory compliance. They are not interchangeable.
Why Parliamentary Approval Is Not Enough
A central weakness in NFP and Biman Prasad's defence is the assumption that Parliamentary approval cures all defects. Under administrative law, this is incorrect. Parliamentary appropriation authorises spending in principle. It does not legalise unlawful administration. Where statutory preconditions for funding are not met, political endorsement cannot retrospectively validate the decision.
This principle underpins Wylie Clarke's advice. He did not treat budget approval as decisive. He examined regulatory compliance, and found serious problems.
The Institutional Chain of Responsibility
The Polytech funding followed a standard administrative path:
- FHEC assessed eligibility.
- External lawyers identified compliance risks.
- Vulnerabilities were documented.
- Treasury processed the payments.
- Funds were released.
Although Prasad is not named in the legal opinion, a standard practice in regulatory advice, the Ministry of Finance under his leadership controlled the final stage. Under Fiji’s system Regulators recommend, Parliament appropriates, and Finance authorises disbursement.
Once legal risks were documented, the responsibility to pause, remedy defects, or proceed rested with financial authorities. At that time, those authorities were under Biman Prasad’s ministerial control.
Timing: The Crucial Detail
One of the most important aspects of Wylie Clarke's opinion is timing It was not retrospective. It was obtained while funding decisions were still being finalised. This means:
- Problems were known,
- Risks were articulated,
- Warnings were recorded before funds were fully committed.
The controversy is therefore not about hindsight. It is about decisions taken with knowledge of vulnerability.
“Former” Does Not Mean “Unaccountable”
Biman Chand Prasad is now the former Finance Minister in Rabuka's Coalition government. The fact is important but it does not erase past responsibility. In public administration, accountability attaches to the office-holder at the time decisions are made.
The Polytech funds were authorised and released during Prasad’s tenure. Whether he now holds the finance portfolio is legally irrelevant to the assessment of that period. Institutional responsibility does not expire when a minister changes roles.
Political Buffering: Chand in Front, Prasad Behind
Against this background, Prasad’s continued distance from the Chaudhry/NFP exchange takes on greater significance. By allowing Parmod Chand to lead the public defence, Prasad has reduced personal exposure, avoided personalised confrontation, and kept attention on party politics rather than administrative legality.
The NFP president Parmod Chand functions as the buffer. In other words, critics respond to Chand. Media quotes Chand. Debate becomes partisan.
Meanwhile, the former Finance Minister Biman Prasad remains one step removed.
Accountability and the Party–State Divide
This strategy may be effective politically, but it complicates public accountability. The central issue is not party loyalty. It is a regulatory legality. The Howards Lawyers (Wylie Clarke) opinion raises questions about:
- Consistency of enforcement,
- Fairness between institutions,
- Integrity of eligibility assessment,
- Protection of public funds.
These are matters of state administration, not party messaging. By framing the dispute as NFP versus critics, attention is diverted from the administrative record.
What the Documents Do, and Do Not Show
The available record does not establish criminal intent, personal misconduct by Prasad, or direct political interference. But it does establish that:
- Compliance defects were documented,
- Legal risk was identified,
- Warnings were issued,
- Funding proceeded,
- Political defence followed.
That sequence is a legitimate subject of public scrutiny.
Broader Implications for Governance
The Polytech case raises wider questions for Fiji’s public finance system:
- Are eligibility rules applied uniformly?
- Do politically connected institutions receive flexibility?
- Are regulators empowered to halt risky decisions?
- Does Finance adequately heed regulatory warnings?
If statutory criteria can be softened in practice and defended later through political process, public confidence erodes.
Politics in Public, Law in Private
Publicly, NFP - through Parmod Chand - continues to present the Polytech grant as beyond reproach because Parliament approved it. Privately, the regulator’s own lawyers recorded that the process was legally vulnerable.
Biman Prasad, now the former Finance Minister, has largely stayed out of the political exchange, allowing the party to carry the argument. It is skilful political management. But documents outlast press statements.
The Howards Lawyers opinion through its principal partner Wylie Clarke remains part of the permanent administrative record. It shows that legal doubts existed before money was released.
In the end, the central question is not who won the media exchange. It is whether public funds were disbursed in full compliance with the law, despite documented warnings to the contrary.
On that question, accountability remains unresolved, and Prasad in the background.
THE national budgets that allocated grants to Pacific Polytech were scrutinised and approved by Cabinet, says National Federation Party (NFP) president Parmod Chand.
Mr Chand was responding to a statement by Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry, posted on the party’s social media page, claiming that the Higher Education Commission (HEC) had decided not to release a $7million government grant which he alleged was unlawfully allocated to Pacific Polytech by former Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad in the 2025–2026 Budget.
Mr Chand said the grants allocated to Pacific Polytech in successive budgets were done with transparency and accountability.
Mr Chand was responding to a statement by Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry, posted on the party’s social media page, claiming that the Higher Education Commission (HEC) had decided not to release a $7million government grant which he alleged was unlawfully allocated to Pacific Polytech by former Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad in the 2025–2026 Budget.
Mr Chand said the grants allocated to Pacific Polytech in successive budgets were done with transparency and accountability.
What If Justice Had Taken Its Course on 5 September 2024?
*On 5 September 2024, when Barbara Malimali was arrested by FICAC officers in connection with a separate matter, serious questions arose about accountability and due process.
*One is left to wonder what her legal and professional fate might have been, and what might have become of the Biman Prasad, Ganesh Chand, and Pacific Polytech files, had Wylie Clarke and other lawyers not intervened to secure her release that day.
*Without that intervention, the investigations may have proceeded independently, transparently, and without political or institutional interference.
*Instead, the episode has fuelled enduring doubts about whether justice was allowed to run its natural course.
 |  |
