Fijileaks (14 May 2024): Prasad says his wife was a trustee of the organisation (Global Girmit Institute) many years ago and is no longer there. Arre, Jhootha, Daulasu Levu, only last year your Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told us that you had declared to his Cabinet that your wife is a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute when you gave GGI $200,000 to host the international global conference at USP
*Given that they lived under the same roof at 152 Sekoula Rd, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, how could his wife's trusteeship of the Global Girmit Institute have escaped disclosure in his statutory declarations for six consecutive years (2018-2024)?
 |  |
*In fact, this is not the first occasion on which he has failed to disclose her connections in his statutory declarations.
*In his 2014 declaration, submitted when he first entered Parliament, he made a false declaration by omitting to disclose that he had jointly owned a property with his wife since 2009.
*That property was sold in 2016 to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, a company he founded with his cousin and in which he holds a 50% shareholding.
*He also failed to disclose his directorship in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, and lied about the true extent of his shares in Lotus (Fiji).
*He also failed to disclose that his wife, in exchange, got two villas worth $300,000 from Lotus (Fiji) Ltd in 2017.
*We filed all the three complaints with FICAC, supported by documentary evidence, before Barbara Malimali illegally closed the files in April 2025, including the file on GGI and his wife's link.
*In his 2014 declaration, submitted when he first entered Parliament, he made a false declaration by omitting to disclose that he had jointly owned a property with his wife since 2009.
*That property was sold in 2016 to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, a company he founded with his cousin and in which he holds a 50% shareholding.
*He also failed to disclose his directorship in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, and lied about the true extent of his shares in Lotus (Fiji).
*He also failed to disclose that his wife, in exchange, got two villas worth $300,000 from Lotus (Fiji) Ltd in 2017.
*We filed all the three complaints with FICAC, supported by documentary evidence, before Barbara Malimali illegally closed the files in April 2025, including the file on GGI and his wife's link.
SPOUSE, TRUSTEE, SILENCE: Why Biman Prasad’s Declarations Raise Hard Questions Under the Political Parties Act
The Global Girmit Institute did not emerge overnight. It was formally established as a charitable trust in May 2017, with its trustees appointed on 21 May that year. Among those trustees, according to official trust records, was Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, an academic and the wife of Biman Chand Prasad, then NFP leader and later Minister of Finance.
Trusteeship is not an honorary title. Under Fiji law, a trustee is a fiduciary office-holder with governance responsibility, legal accountability, and influence over the direction and affairs of an institution. It is precisely the kind of role the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act was designed to bring into the open when held by a spouse of a party official or Member of Parliament.
Yet across a succession of statutory declarations filed by Prasad between 2018 and 2024, there is no disclosure of his wife’s trusteeship.
That silence is now the central issue.
The Institute and the Timeline
The Global Girmit Institute began operations in 2017 and continued until it was deregistered in 2022 for administrative non-compliance. It was re-registered in February 2023. Throughout that entire period, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand remained a trustee. There is no record of resignation, suspension, or withdrawal.
This matters because disclosure obligations under the Political Parties Act are annual and continuing. They are not triggered only when an interest first arises; they apply every year the interest exists.
What the Law Requires
The Political Parties Act obliges party officials and MPs to file statutory declarations disclosing their interests and the interests of their spouses. The law is preventive, not punitive. It is designed to ensure transparency and to allow conflicts of interest to be identified before they become problems.
Three features of the Act are critical:
The Declarations: Year After Year
Based on the signed dates and “as at” dates appearing on Prasad’s declarations, the duty to disclose his wife’s trusteeship clearly applied in the following filings:
By each of these dates, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand had already been a trustee for years. The trusteeship existed, was ongoing, and was material.
The January 2017 declaration is not in issue. At that time, the trusteeship had not yet come into existence. From 2018 onward, however, the obligation was clear.
Two Returns, One Year, Still No Disclosure
In 2020, two declarations were filed: one capturing interests at the start of the year, another at year-end. Multiple filings in a single year can occur for administrative reasons. What matters is that both declarations covered periods when the trusteeship existed, and neither disclosed it.
Duplication did not correct the omission. It repeated it.
What About Errors and Dates?
Some declarations contain internal inconsistencies in dates. Those are administrative defects that should have been queried by the Elections Office. But they do not erase the legal duty to disclose. Once the true execution date is established, and the documents are signed and witnessed, the law asks a simple question: did the interest exist on that date?
Here, the answer is consistently yes.
Can Charges Be Laid?
Under the Political Parties Act, filing a false or incomplete declaration can constitute an offence. Repeated omissions across multiple years significantly strengthen the case that the failure was not accidental.
Which Years Matter Most?
From an enforcement perspective, not all years are equal. The strongest candidate years are those with clean dates, long-standing trusteeship, and no transitional explanations:
These filings occur well after the trusteeship began and after multiple opportunities to correct any omission.
Earlier years, such as 2018, remain relevant but are more likely to be relied upon as background evidence establishing a pattern.
The Bigger Question
This is not about whether the Global Girmit Institute did good work, nor about whether any personal benefit was obtained. The Political Parties Act does not require proof of gain. It requires disclosure.
Transparency is not optional. It is the price of public office.
Whether regulators act is a matter for them. But the documentary record raises a legitimate and unavoidable question: why was a long-standing spousal trusteeship never declared - year after year - when the law required it to be?
That question has yet to be answered.
Across multiple statutory declarations signed by Biman Prasad between 2019 and 2024, there is no disclosure of his wife’s trusteeship of the Global Girmit Institute.
This is not a single omission. It is repeated non-disclosure.
Does Cabinet approval or public funding negate liability?
Absolutely NOT.
Charge 1: False or Incomplete Declaration (Spousal Interest)
Statute: Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act
Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, being a party official and/or Member of Parliament required by law to file a statutory declaration of interests, did knowingly or recklessly fail to disclose that his spouse, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, was a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute, an incorporated trust, at the time of filing his declaration as at 31 December 2020, signed on 6 April 2021, contrary to the Act.
Charge 2: False or Incomplete Declaration (Repeat Offence)
Statute: Political Parties Act
Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, on 30 December 2022, signed and filed a statutory declaration which omitted a material spousal interest—namely, the trusteeship of Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand--without reasonable excuse, contrary to the Act.
Charge 3: Continuing Non-Disclosure (Most Recent Filing) Statute: Political Parties Act
Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, on 31 January 2024, signed a statutory declaration which again failed to disclose an ongoing spousal trusteeship interest that had existed since 2017, thereby continuing a pattern of non-disclosure, contrary to the Act.
Earlier years (2018–2019) could be pleaded as background facts establishing knowledge, continuity, and opportunity to correct.
Evidential Sufficiency
Duty:
The Act clearly requires disclosure of spousal interests, including governance roles such as trusteeships.
Existence:
Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand was appointed a trustee on 21 May 2017 and remained so throughout all relevant periods.
Non-Disclosure:
No declaration from 2018–2024 discloses this interest.
Mental Element:
Repeated omission across multiple years strongly supports an inference of knowledge or recklessness, defeating a simple “oversight” explanation.
Conclusion
There is a prima facie evidential case.
Public Interest Factors (Favouring Prosecution
Senior public office held (Minister of Finance).
Repeated omissions, not an isolated error.
Subject matter directly related to public funding and governance.
Need to maintain integrity of the disclosure regime.
Factors Against:
No allegation of personal enrichment is required (and not relied upon).
Balance:
Public interest favours prosecution, at least on a limited number of representative counts.
Fijileaks: As one of two complainants, we had provided all the documentary evidence to FICAC but in one sweep, Barbara Malimali closed Prasad's entire files. We call on Fiji Police to launch a probe against her conduct. The use of superannuation as a pretext to close the Prasad file does not withstand legal scrutiny and gives rise to a separate, serious case to answer concerning abuse of office and improper interference.
The Global Girmit Institute did not emerge overnight. It was formally established as a charitable trust in May 2017, with its trustees appointed on 21 May that year. Among those trustees, according to official trust records, was Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, an academic and the wife of Biman Chand Prasad, then NFP leader and later Minister of Finance.
Trusteeship is not an honorary title. Under Fiji law, a trustee is a fiduciary office-holder with governance responsibility, legal accountability, and influence over the direction and affairs of an institution. It is precisely the kind of role the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act was designed to bring into the open when held by a spouse of a party official or Member of Parliament.
Yet across a succession of statutory declarations filed by Prasad between 2018 and 2024, there is no disclosure of his wife’s trusteeship.
That silence is now the central issue.
The Institute and the Timeline
The Global Girmit Institute began operations in 2017 and continued until it was deregistered in 2022 for administrative non-compliance. It was re-registered in February 2023. Throughout that entire period, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand remained a trustee. There is no record of resignation, suspension, or withdrawal.
This matters because disclosure obligations under the Political Parties Act are annual and continuing. They are not triggered only when an interest first arises; they apply every year the interest exists.
What the Law Requires
The Political Parties Act obliges party officials and MPs to file statutory declarations disclosing their interests and the interests of their spouses. The law is preventive, not punitive. It is designed to ensure transparency and to allow conflicts of interest to be identified before they become problems.
Three features of the Act are critical:
- Spousal interests must be disclosed, even if the official does not personally hold the role.
- Unpaid positions still count if they involve governance, authority, or fiduciary responsibility.
- Each declaration stands alone. An omission in one year is not cured by silence in another.
The Declarations: Year After Year
Based on the signed dates and “as at” dates appearing on Prasad’s declarations, the duty to disclose his wife’s trusteeship clearly applied in the following filings:
- 2018 declaration, signed in January 2019
- Declaration as at 6 January 2020, signed 11 January 2020
- Declaration as at 31 December 2020, signed 6 April 2021
- Declaration as at 30 December 2022, signed 31 January 2023
- Declaration as at 25 January 2023, signed 30 January 2023
- Declaration as at 23 January 2024, signed 31 January 2024
By each of these dates, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand had already been a trustee for years. The trusteeship existed, was ongoing, and was material.
The January 2017 declaration is not in issue. At that time, the trusteeship had not yet come into existence. From 2018 onward, however, the obligation was clear.
Two Returns, One Year, Still No Disclosure
In 2020, two declarations were filed: one capturing interests at the start of the year, another at year-end. Multiple filings in a single year can occur for administrative reasons. What matters is that both declarations covered periods when the trusteeship existed, and neither disclosed it.
Duplication did not correct the omission. It repeated it.
What About Errors and Dates?
Some declarations contain internal inconsistencies in dates. Those are administrative defects that should have been queried by the Elections Office. But they do not erase the legal duty to disclose. Once the true execution date is established, and the documents are signed and witnessed, the law asks a simple question: did the interest exist on that date?
Here, the answer is consistently yes.
Can Charges Be Laid?
Under the Political Parties Act, filing a false or incomplete declaration can constitute an offence. Repeated omissions across multiple years significantly strengthen the case that the failure was not accidental.
Which Years Matter Most?
From an enforcement perspective, not all years are equal. The strongest candidate years are those with clean dates, long-standing trusteeship, and no transitional explanations:
- Declaration as at 31 December 2020 (signed April 2021)
- Declaration as at 30 December 2022 (signed January 2023)
- Declaration as at 23 January 2024 (signed January 2024)
These filings occur well after the trusteeship began and after multiple opportunities to correct any omission.
Earlier years, such as 2018, remain relevant but are more likely to be relied upon as background evidence establishing a pattern.
The Bigger Question
This is not about whether the Global Girmit Institute did good work, nor about whether any personal benefit was obtained. The Political Parties Act does not require proof of gain. It requires disclosure.
Transparency is not optional. It is the price of public office.
Whether regulators act is a matter for them. But the documentary record raises a legitimate and unavoidable question: why was a long-standing spousal trusteeship never declared - year after year - when the law required it to be?
That question has yet to be answered.
Across multiple statutory declarations signed by Biman Prasad between 2019 and 2024, there is no disclosure of his wife’s trusteeship of the Global Girmit Institute.
This is not a single omission. It is repeated non-disclosure.
Does Cabinet approval or public funding negate liability?
Absolutely NOT.
- Cabinet processes and grant approvals are irrelevant to compliance with the Political Parties Act.
- Disclosure duties are personal statutory obligations, not displaced by Cabinet knowledge, verbal briefings, or alleged institutional awareness.
Charge 1: False or Incomplete Declaration (Spousal Interest)
Statute: Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act
Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, being a party official and/or Member of Parliament required by law to file a statutory declaration of interests, did knowingly or recklessly fail to disclose that his spouse, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, was a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute, an incorporated trust, at the time of filing his declaration as at 31 December 2020, signed on 6 April 2021, contrary to the Act.
Charge 2: False or Incomplete Declaration (Repeat Offence)
Statute: Political Parties Act
Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, on 30 December 2022, signed and filed a statutory declaration which omitted a material spousal interest—namely, the trusteeship of Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand--without reasonable excuse, contrary to the Act.
Charge 3: Continuing Non-Disclosure (Most Recent Filing) Statute: Political Parties Act
Particulars:
That Biman Chand Prasad, on 31 January 2024, signed a statutory declaration which again failed to disclose an ongoing spousal trusteeship interest that had existed since 2017, thereby continuing a pattern of non-disclosure, contrary to the Act.
Earlier years (2018–2019) could be pleaded as background facts establishing knowledge, continuity, and opportunity to correct.
Evidential Sufficiency
Duty:
The Act clearly requires disclosure of spousal interests, including governance roles such as trusteeships.
Existence:
Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand was appointed a trustee on 21 May 2017 and remained so throughout all relevant periods.
Non-Disclosure:
No declaration from 2018–2024 discloses this interest.
Mental Element:
Repeated omission across multiple years strongly supports an inference of knowledge or recklessness, defeating a simple “oversight” explanation.
Conclusion
There is a prima facie evidential case.
Public Interest Factors (Favouring Prosecution
Senior public office held (Minister of Finance).
Repeated omissions, not an isolated error.
Subject matter directly related to public funding and governance.
Need to maintain integrity of the disclosure regime.
Factors Against:
No allegation of personal enrichment is required (and not relied upon).
Balance:
Public interest favours prosecution, at least on a limited number of representative counts.
Fijileaks: As one of two complainants, we had provided all the documentary evidence to FICAC but in one sweep, Barbara Malimali closed Prasad's entire files. We call on Fiji Police to launch a probe against her conduct. The use of superannuation as a pretext to close the Prasad file does not withstand legal scrutiny and gives rise to a separate, serious case to answer concerning abuse of office and improper interference.
The Case Against Barbara Malimali for Stopping the Investigation Into Biman Prasad: The Matter at Hand
A serious question arises regarding Barbara Malimali, the former FICAC Commissioner, and whether she has a case to answer in relation to her conduct concerning the investigation of Biman Prasad. Specifically, the issue centers around WhatsApp messages exchanged between Malimali and Kuliniasi Saumi, a senior FICAC officer, in which she allegedly directed that Prasad’s file be halted.
This occurred after her appointment in 2024 and is a significant matter of concern due to the implications of abuse of office and interference with due process.
Key Facts and Evidence
WhatsApp messages produced before the Commission of Inquiry indicate that Malimali stated:
These communications were taken by the Commission to indicate that Malimali may have been influencing the course of investigations for reasons unrelated to the statutory process or public interest.
Legal Issues at Play
Abuse of Office
Interference with Investigations
Does Malimali Have a Case to Answer?
Given the facts and the legal framework established in Bainimarama's case, Malimali could potentially have a case to answer. The WhatsApp messages and their implications for the integrity of the investigation process suggest that she may have improperly used her office to influence prosecutorial decisions for reasons unrelated to law or public interest.
The legal questions that remain are:
The matter warrants further investigation and, potentially, legal action if credible evidence shows that Malimali exceeded her authority in this regard.
Charges relating to Barbara Malimali(Crimes Act)
Count 1: Abuse of Office Statute: Crimes Act, s 139
Particulars:
That Barbara Malimali, while Commissioner of FICAC, abused her office by terminating or causing the termination of investigations relating to Biman Chand Prasad on the basis of irrelevant considerations (superannuation issues), and/or for an improper purpose, thereby acting prejudicially to the administration of justice.
Count 2: Interference with the Administration of Justice (Alternative) Statute: Crimes Act (relevant provisions)
Particulars:
That Barbara Malimali, by directing or influencing investigative priorities and expressing that she did not want the Prasad file pursued, interfered with or attempted to interfere with the proper exercise of statutory investigative functions.
A serious question arises regarding Barbara Malimali, the former FICAC Commissioner, and whether she has a case to answer in relation to her conduct concerning the investigation of Biman Prasad. Specifically, the issue centers around WhatsApp messages exchanged between Malimali and Kuliniasi Saumi, a senior FICAC officer, in which she allegedly directed that Prasad’s file be halted.
This occurred after her appointment in 2024 and is a significant matter of concern due to the implications of abuse of office and interference with due process.
Key Facts and Evidence
WhatsApp messages produced before the Commission of Inquiry indicate that Malimali stated:
- “I need a big one charged… to shut the critics up!”
- “But it has to be proper… no charging willy nilly.”
- “Well, I was after people who abused funds NOT the elections ones!”
- Additionally, it was implied in a separate message that Prasad’s file should not be handled.
These communications were taken by the Commission to indicate that Malimali may have been influencing the course of investigations for reasons unrelated to the statutory process or public interest.
Legal Issues at Play
- Under Sections 352–355 of the Crimes Act, public officials can be prosecuted if their communications demand or influence a subordinate’s conduct unlawfully.
- Malimali’s statements to Saumi regarding Prasad’s file could potentially be considered unwarranted demands, as they suggest improper influence over prosecutorial decisions that should be made independently and impartially.
Abuse of Office
- Section 139 of the Crimes Act defines abuse of office as the use of a public official’s powers to achieve personal, improper, or unlawful outcomes.
- If Malimali’s message is shown to have influenced the course of the investigation for reasons outside the statutory remit, it could constitute abuse of office, especially if Saumi’s actions were directed by these communications.
Interference with Investigations
- Under general legal principles regarding interference with justice, communications from an official that seek to shape or influence the outcome of an investigation could be considered interference with due process.
- Malimali’s direction, even if indirect or implied, to halt the investigation into Prasad’s file could be seen as interfering with the impartiality of the investigation process, thereby raising legal concerns about the integrity of her actions as FICAC Commissioner.
Does Malimali Have a Case to Answer?
Given the facts and the legal framework established in Bainimarama's case, Malimali could potentially have a case to answer. The WhatsApp messages and their implications for the integrity of the investigation process suggest that she may have improperly used her office to influence prosecutorial decisions for reasons unrelated to law or public interest.
The legal questions that remain are:
- Was her conduct sufficient to be classified as unlawful interference under the Crimes Act and related provisions on abuse of office?
- Can the evidence establish that Saumi's actions were directly influenced by her communications, thereby disrupting the lawful execution of FICAC’s investigative powers?
The matter warrants further investigation and, potentially, legal action if credible evidence shows that Malimali exceeded her authority in this regard.
Charges relating to Barbara Malimali(Crimes Act)
Count 1: Abuse of Office Statute: Crimes Act, s 139
Particulars:
That Barbara Malimali, while Commissioner of FICAC, abused her office by terminating or causing the termination of investigations relating to Biman Chand Prasad on the basis of irrelevant considerations (superannuation issues), and/or for an improper purpose, thereby acting prejudicially to the administration of justice.
Count 2: Interference with the Administration of Justice (Alternative) Statute: Crimes Act (relevant provisions)
Particulars:
That Barbara Malimali, by directing or influencing investigative priorities and expressing that she did not want the Prasad file pursued, interfered with or attempted to interfere with the proper exercise of statutory investigative functions.
On 24 December 2024, FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali instructed staff to “find files” to silence or neutralize critics, indicating a politically motivated use of prosecutorial power. |  Saumi  |
UPPING THE PRESSURE: Our Emails, Our Rights: Being Complainants Against Biman Prasad Doesn't Stop at Malimali's Blood Pressure
From Fijileaks Archive:
 |   Victor Lal |
 |  |
Assets Declared Before They Existed: Just Another Administrative Miracle. We remain, patiently, waiting for an explanation
 Dear Mr Kumar, I write in relation to the statutory declaration of assets, liabilities, and income made by Mr Biman Chand Prasad in which you appear as the legal practitioner and Commissioner for Oaths who administered and certified the declaration. The document states that it is a declaration of assets, liabilities. and income as at 6 January 2019. |   |
It records bank balances, property interests, and other financial particulars expressly stated to be current as at that date. However the statutory declaration section records that the declaration was declared at Suva on 17 January 2018 and was signed and certified on that basis by both the declarant (Biman Chand Prasad) and yourself.
This creates an apparent inconsistency because the declaration purports to disclose financial information as at 6 January 2019. Yet it was sworn and certified on 17 January 2018. As a matter of fact it would not have been possible in January 2018 to swear to asset positions stated to exist in January 2019.
As you would appreciate, the legal validity of a statutory declaration depends on the facts declared being capable of being true at the time the oath is administered. The role of the Commissioner for Oaths includes ensuring that the declaration sworn is coherent, intelligible, and temporally accurate.
I would therefore be grateful if you could clarify whether the date of 17 January 2018 was an error and if so how it arose, and whether the declaration was in fact sworn on a later date and subsequently misdated and what steps if any were taken to satisfy yourself that the declaration accurately reflected the date stated on its face.
This request is made in good faith and in the interests of maintaining the integrity of statutory declarations made under the Political Parties Registration Conduct Funding and Disclosures framework.
I would appreciate your response at your convenience.
Yours sincerely,
Victor Lal
Fijileaks
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Two Attachments
This creates an apparent inconsistency because the declaration purports to disclose financial information as at 6 January 2019. Yet it was sworn and certified on 17 January 2018. As a matter of fact it would not have been possible in January 2018 to swear to asset positions stated to exist in January 2019.
As you would appreciate, the legal validity of a statutory declaration depends on the facts declared being capable of being true at the time the oath is administered. The role of the Commissioner for Oaths includes ensuring that the declaration sworn is coherent, intelligible, and temporally accurate.
I would therefore be grateful if you could clarify whether the date of 17 January 2018 was an error and if so how it arose, and whether the declaration was in fact sworn on a later date and subsequently misdated and what steps if any were taken to satisfy yourself that the declaration accurately reflected the date stated on its face.
This request is made in good faith and in the interests of maintaining the integrity of statutory declarations made under the Political Parties Registration Conduct Funding and Disclosures framework.
I would appreciate your response at your convenience.
Yours sincerely,
Victor Lal
Fijileaks
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Two Attachments
Economics Professor, Senior Lawyer, Two Signatures - Zero Alarm Bells (2018-2019) |  |
From Fijileaks Archives
Kiran informed the Fijivillage Straight Talk audience that the accounts are still being audited by the Auditor-General?
*Prasad also claims that some 'deranged bloggers' are claiming that he (Prasad) gave money to his wife Rajni.
*He was indirectly calling our Editor-in-Chief the 'deranged blogger'.
*If anyone who is DERANGED and a BLOODY LIAR, it is Prasad who falsely claimed that his wife Rajni had long ago ceased to be a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute, which received $200,000 to organize a two-day international conference at USP where she is employed by Pal Ahluwalia who was the keynote speaker at the conference.
*In fact, the 'Excel Sh*t doesn't even reveal how much Ahluwalia and the USP were paid to organize the conference.
*The Global Girmit Institute must provide a comprehensive breakdown of the $200,000 it received from Prasad, without the tender process.
*BIMAN PRASAD continuing with his PACK OF LIES:
*Professor Prasad says in 2023, the total budget was $500,000 but the total expenditure was $380,308.76. He says from this money, $125,000 came through sponsorship and the government utilised $255,308.76.
*He further says the Global Girmit Institute was the only institute who could organise an international conference in such a short period of time.
*He says his wife was a trustee of the organisation many years ago and is no longer there.
* Professor Prasad says for them to say that he gave money to his wife is the type of warped logic they are trying to come up with.
*The financial report on Fijivillage online news site by Biman Prasad must have a authority indicating its official figures.
*If Kiran had any knowledge about these accounts (she was Deputy Chair of the celebrations) why didn't she state during the Straight Talk about the accounts?
*Where is the Office of the Auditor-General's seal?
*Why was the account over budgetted?
*How do we rule out that sponsors were brought in after the event? - To show low cost/spending.
*The $50,000 for admin is too vague and significant portion of total cost of event and warrants further breakdown.
*Prasad also claims that some 'deranged bloggers' are claiming that he (Prasad) gave money to his wife Rajni.
*He was indirectly calling our Editor-in-Chief the 'deranged blogger'.
*If anyone who is DERANGED and a BLOODY LIAR, it is Prasad who falsely claimed that his wife Rajni had long ago ceased to be a TRUSTEE of the Global Girmit Institute, which received $200,000 to organize a two-day international conference at USP where she is employed by Pal Ahluwalia who was the keynote speaker at the conference.
*In fact, the 'Excel Sh*t doesn't even reveal how much Ahluwalia and the USP were paid to organize the conference.
*The Global Girmit Institute must provide a comprehensive breakdown of the $200,000 it received from Prasad, without the tender process.
*BIMAN PRASAD continuing with his PACK OF LIES:
*Professor Prasad says in 2023, the total budget was $500,000 but the total expenditure was $380,308.76. He says from this money, $125,000 came through sponsorship and the government utilised $255,308.76.
*He further says the Global Girmit Institute was the only institute who could organise an international conference in such a short period of time.
*He says his wife was a trustee of the organisation many years ago and is no longer there.
* Professor Prasad says for them to say that he gave money to his wife is the type of warped logic they are trying to come up with.
*The financial report on Fijivillage online news site by Biman Prasad must have a authority indicating its official figures.
*If Kiran had any knowledge about these accounts (she was Deputy Chair of the celebrations) why didn't she state during the Straight Talk about the accounts?
*Where is the Office of the Auditor-General's seal?
*Why was the account over budgetted?
*How do we rule out that sponsors were brought in after the event? - To show low cost/spending.
*The $50,000 for admin is too vague and significant portion of total cost of event and warrants further breakdown.
DE-REGISTRATION had not harmed GGI's relationship with DONORS and FUNDERS, operating out of Chicken Darbha (Coop), resembling more like the Indian Coolie Depot
