"In a constitutional democracy, private disputes must be resolved by law, not by ministerial influence. On that basis, Biman Prasad’s involvement was not institutionally justified and sets an undesirable precedent for political interference in commercial matters." |  |
"This was not an isolated incident. In August 2025, Prasad was also accused of attempting to interfere with the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC) over the release of some $7 million in public funds to Pacific Polytech, despite the institution operating only under a provisional licence and having failed to meet mandatory reporting and compliance deadlines. Instead of allowing the statutory regulator to enforce its own statutory conditions and withhold funding until full accreditation and regulatory requirements were satisfied, Prasad allegedly applied political pressure to secure the release of the money. The episode raised serious questions about favouritism, abuse of office, and the improper use of ministerial power to benefit a private entity, reinforcing concerns that Prasad has repeatedly blurred the line between public duty and private or political interests."
 The letter shown documents a commercial tenancy dispute between Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji and Pacific Polytech Ltd (PPL), culminating in a formal demand for eviction in May 2023. Crucially, it records that Biman Prasad, then Deputy Prime Minister, personally intervened in negotiations after a notice of termination had already been issued. This raises serious questions about the propriety and legitimacy of that intervention. Background to the Dispute According to the letter:
|    |
In effect, the legal relationship had already reached the enforcement stage when political involvement occurred.
Nature of Biman Prasad’s Intervention
The letter indicates that Biman Prasad, as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, requested negotiations. Meetings were held at the landlord’s headquarters. His involvement was described as informal and based on “respect and courtesy”. The landlord Sabha did not approve the requests made in these discussions.
This suggests that the intervention was not part of any statutory mediation process, court proceeding, or regulatory framework. It was purely political and informal.
Was the Intervention Proper?
From a governance and rule-of-law perspective, several concerns arise.
No Legal Mandate
There is no indication that Biman Prasad was acting under any lawful authority. Commercial tenancy disputes are governed by contract and civil law. They are resolved by negotiation between parties, arbitration (if agreed), or the courts.
A Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister has no formal role in private lease enforcement.
Risk of Undue Influence
When a senior minister intervenes in a private dispute, especially involving eviction and financial obligations, it risks pressuring one party, creating expectations of political favour, and undermining equality before the law. Even if well-intentioned, such involvement can distort bargaining power.
Conflict with Rule of Law Principles
In constitutional systems, ministers are expected to respect institutional boundaries. Private commercial disputes should not be resolved through political channels. Allowing ministers to “broker” outcomes weakens judicial independence, contract certainty, and investor confidence.
Ineffectiveness of Intervention
The letter shows that the intervention did not resolve the dispute. The Sabha, as landlord rejected proposals. Deadlines were missed. Eviction was pursued. This suggests the involvement created delay rather than resolution.
Possible Justifications
Supporters might argue that the intervention was aimed at protecting an educational institution. It sought to avoid disruption to students. It was humanitarian or pragmatic. However, even socially motivated interventions must operate within lawful frameworks, such as formal mediation or government-supported relocation assistance, not informal political pressure.
On the available evidence, Biman Prasad’s intervention appears legally unnecessary, institutionally inappropriate, politically risky, and ultimately ineffective. Sabha, as landlord, had exercised contractual rights. The matter was already on a legal trajectory. Political involvement did not change the outcome and arguably blurred the boundary between state power and private rights.
While Biman Prasad may have acted out of concern for continuity and social impact, the letter demonstrates that his intervention had no legal foundation and did not alter the landlord’s position.
In a constitutional democracy, private disputes must be resolved by law, not by ministerial influence. On that basis, Biman Prasad’s involvement was not institutionally justified and sets an undesirable precedent for political interference in commercial matters. In constitutional systems, ministers are expected to respect institutional boundaries.
Nature of Biman Prasad’s Intervention
The letter indicates that Biman Prasad, as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, requested negotiations. Meetings were held at the landlord’s headquarters. His involvement was described as informal and based on “respect and courtesy”. The landlord Sabha did not approve the requests made in these discussions.
This suggests that the intervention was not part of any statutory mediation process, court proceeding, or regulatory framework. It was purely political and informal.
Was the Intervention Proper?
From a governance and rule-of-law perspective, several concerns arise.
No Legal Mandate
There is no indication that Biman Prasad was acting under any lawful authority. Commercial tenancy disputes are governed by contract and civil law. They are resolved by negotiation between parties, arbitration (if agreed), or the courts.
A Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister has no formal role in private lease enforcement.
Risk of Undue Influence
When a senior minister intervenes in a private dispute, especially involving eviction and financial obligations, it risks pressuring one party, creating expectations of political favour, and undermining equality before the law. Even if well-intentioned, such involvement can distort bargaining power.
Conflict with Rule of Law Principles
In constitutional systems, ministers are expected to respect institutional boundaries. Private commercial disputes should not be resolved through political channels. Allowing ministers to “broker” outcomes weakens judicial independence, contract certainty, and investor confidence.
Ineffectiveness of Intervention
The letter shows that the intervention did not resolve the dispute. The Sabha, as landlord rejected proposals. Deadlines were missed. Eviction was pursued. This suggests the involvement created delay rather than resolution.
Possible Justifications
Supporters might argue that the intervention was aimed at protecting an educational institution. It sought to avoid disruption to students. It was humanitarian or pragmatic. However, even socially motivated interventions must operate within lawful frameworks, such as formal mediation or government-supported relocation assistance, not informal political pressure.
On the available evidence, Biman Prasad’s intervention appears legally unnecessary, institutionally inappropriate, politically risky, and ultimately ineffective. Sabha, as landlord, had exercised contractual rights. The matter was already on a legal trajectory. Political involvement did not change the outcome and arguably blurred the boundary between state power and private rights.
While Biman Prasad may have acted out of concern for continuity and social impact, the letter demonstrates that his intervention had no legal foundation and did not alter the landlord’s position.
In a constitutional democracy, private disputes must be resolved by law, not by ministerial influence. On that basis, Biman Prasad’s involvement was not institutionally justified and sets an undesirable precedent for political interference in commercial matters. In constitutional systems, ministers are expected to respect institutional boundaries.
Click, Click, Click. From Constitutional Limits to Camera Limits. When Boundaries Allegedly Didn't Apply to Biman Prasad
  |  |
*Christopher Pryde said the decision to drop the case was made after a comprehensive review of the evidence and defences available to Professor Biman Prasad.
"It had been decided that there was insufficient reliable and credible evidence in the docket for a reasonable prospect of conviction, were the matter to proceed to court. At no time was the evidence assessed with regard to politics or the status of the suspect."
From Fijileaks Archive, 8 June 2023
3 June 2023
Subject: Termination of Pacific Polytechnic Agreement with Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses
Dear Hon. Prime Minister,
Hope this email find you well. This email is in regard to the determination of the rental contract between Pacific Polytechnic (PPL) and Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses.
A 90-days termination notice was given to PPL on 15th February 2023. Sanatan Fiji has given this campuses to PPL on rental for the operation of technical college. PPL was supposed to vacate the premises before 15th May 2023, however they failed to. Reminders were sent to PPL for vacant possession and payment of rental arrears during this 90 day period (letter attached to this email). A notification letter was also given to Fiji Higher Education Commission (letter attached).
16th /17th May Sanatan Fiji had requested PPL to give vacant possession of properties however, PPL refused to do so. Sanatan Fiji tried to negotiate with PPL but there was no positive response.
Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha Fiji is faith based organization, we have tried other methods to resolve these issue, but were unsuccessful.
We are left with the last resort to continue with the legal action against PPL/filing of court case.
PPL owes Sanatan Fiji a total of $16000.00 (FJD) for rental arrears. We wish to inform you that Sanatan Fiji is not liable for any business being conducted on our Nabua and Lautoka premises.
This is because a fair 90 day notice was given to PPL to sort out their business. We are humbly requesting you to assist us in the dilemma.
Hope our request is accepted.
Your faithfully
National President
Dhirendra Nand
Sanatan Fiji
Subject: Termination of Pacific Polytechnic Agreement with Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses
Dear Hon. Prime Minister,
Hope this email find you well. This email is in regard to the determination of the rental contract between Pacific Polytechnic (PPL) and Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses.
A 90-days termination notice was given to PPL on 15th February 2023. Sanatan Fiji has given this campuses to PPL on rental for the operation of technical college. PPL was supposed to vacate the premises before 15th May 2023, however they failed to. Reminders were sent to PPL for vacant possession and payment of rental arrears during this 90 day period (letter attached to this email). A notification letter was also given to Fiji Higher Education Commission (letter attached).
16th /17th May Sanatan Fiji had requested PPL to give vacant possession of properties however, PPL refused to do so. Sanatan Fiji tried to negotiate with PPL but there was no positive response.
Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha Fiji is faith based organization, we have tried other methods to resolve these issue, but were unsuccessful.
We are left with the last resort to continue with the legal action against PPL/filing of court case.
PPL owes Sanatan Fiji a total of $16000.00 (FJD) for rental arrears. We wish to inform you that Sanatan Fiji is not liable for any business being conducted on our Nabua and Lautoka premises.
This is because a fair 90 day notice was given to PPL to sort out their business. We are humbly requesting you to assist us in the dilemma.
Hope our request is accepted.
Your faithfully
National President
Dhirendra Nand
Sanatan Fiji
