 EDITORIAL FROM FIJILEAKS Some years ago, Fijileaks made the deliberate decision to close its public comments section. It was not a step taken lightly. When the site was first established, in 2012, the comments facility was intended to encourage debate, invite constructive criticism, and allow readers to contribute to discussions on issues of public importance in Fiji. In theory, a comments section can enrich public discourse. In practice, ours increasingly did the opposite. |  |
Over time, the overwhelming majority of comments ceased to be genuine contributions to debate. Instead, the section became a dumping ground for abuse, personal attacks, and repetitive trolling. A handful of individuals began posting under multiple aliases, sometimes three, four, or even five times a day, and often using fake or non-existent email addresses. In some instances, the same individuals appeared to be conducting arguments with themselves under different names, creating the illusion of wider public participation.
Because we at Fijileaks are proficient in iTaukei and Fiji Hindi, it was also very clear to us that many comments went far beyond criticism or disagreement. They frequently descended into crude name-calling, insults, and offensive language in both languages that were simply not acceptable on a platform devoted to public interest journalism.
There has also long been a mistaken belief among some readers that Fijileaks operates from a partisan political agenda. At different times we have been labelled “anti-FFP”, and more recently some have tried to portray us as “anti-Coalition”. That perception appeared to encourage certain individuals to treat the comments section as a political battleground where abuse and insults could be hurled at will.
The reality is quite different. Fijileaks has never operated as a political campaign platform for or against any party. Our reporting has always been driven by documents, evidence, and the public interest. In many instances we have simply handed the fruits of our investigative work to the relevant authorities, irrespective of the political parties or individuals involved.
Indeed, the record shows that this approach applies even when the individuals concerned are known to us personally. A case in point is National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad, a personal friend of four decades. Since 2014, Fijileaks had provided him with more space on the site than perhaps any other political figure, often publishing his views and responses in full.
That changed only when we began receiving documentary material relating to his statutory declarations and associated matters. As with any other investigation, those documents were examined and reported in the public interest, and the relevant files were also provided to the appropriate authorities, to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, the RFMF Commander Ro Jone Kalouniwai, Fiji Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu, and FICAC (Francis Puleiwai, Barbara Malimali, and Lavi Rokoika).
Similarly, in 2014 we welcomed Lynda Tabuya into politics as something of a breath of fresh air in Fiji's political landscape. Yet by 2023, we revealed her escapades in Room 233 in a Melbourne hotel that left many observers deeply shocked. As with other cases, Fijileaks reported the matter on the basis of the available evidence and the public interest, not because of any partisan allegiance.
Ironically, some of the very individuals who now hail Charlie Charters in relation to the Fiji Sports Council scandal are among those who have appeared before the Fiji High Court seeking to have charges against Biman Prasad thrown out, charges arising from evidence and documentation that Fijileaks had earlier provided to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). Such contradictions underline precisely why Fijileaks does not operate according to political camps or shifting loyalties. The documents and the facts must speak for themselves.
We have also observed our personal friend Tanya Waqanika increasingly taking to Facebook and appearing emboldened by the Fiji High Court decision in the Barbara Malimali case, in which she acts for the claimant. That is her professional right as a lawyer. However, it is worth recalling that during the Bainimarama–Khaiyum era, when she was dismissed from the legal department at Fiji Television, Fijileaks played a role in protecting her anonymity while publishing materials that exposed matters of public concern during that period. She was too frightened of the possible retaliation from the military-cum civilian Bainimarama government.
Today, when we have raised questions about her role in what has been widely referred to as the Barbara Malimali saga, we have done so in a professional and evidence-based manner. We have not descended into the sort of personal abuse or name-calling that so often characterised the comments section when it was open.
It is also important to emphasise that even when we receive so-called leaks from whistleblowers, we do not simply rush to upload them on the site. Documents and allegations are carefully examined and subjected to our own scrutiny. In many cases we conduct additional inquiries and verification before publishing anything. Only when we are satisfied that the material meets our own editorial standards and is supported by credible evidence do we proceed to publish it.
Some days we cannot help but chuckle when we see certain Facebook warriors engaged in open warfare. Many of these same individuals spent sixteen years during the Bainimarama–Khaiyum era remaining safely silent or hidden from the regime, yet privately relied on Fijileaks as a platform through which their concerns, documents and grievances could reach the public domain. In effect, they used Fijileaks as a channel to fight their battles when the political climate made it difficult for them to do so openly.
Moderating the growing volume of abusive and repetitive comments eventually became an increasingly time-consuming exercise. Every comment had to be screened, checked and frequently removed. A disproportionate amount of time and effort was being spent policing a space that had ceased to serve its intended purpose.
Frankly speaking, very few of those comments added any meaningful value to the issues being reported. Fijileaks exists to publish documented evidence, analyse facts, and expose matters of public concern. The comments section, in its final phase, contributed little to that mission.
Closing it therefore became the most sensible course of action.
Since our inception in 2012, the TruthforFiji cartoons have remained the only regular visual contributions that we consistently publish alongside our stories. Those cartoons often capture, in a single frame, the essence of what many of our investigations and commentaries seek to expose - power, hypocrisy, and the absurdities of public life in Fiji.
It is also worth remembering that, unlike many mainstream media outlets and online news platforms in Fiji, Fijileaks has never charged readers a single cent to access its content. Nor do we operate as a commercial business enterprise. The platform exists solely in the public interest.
The decision to close the comments section was therefore not about silencing readers. It was about protecting the integrity of the platform and ensuring that our limited time and resources remain focused where they matter most: investigative journalism and exposing the truth.
Those who genuinely wish to engage with us, raise matters of public interest, or leak documents have always had a direct and open channel. Our contact email, clearly displayed on the right-hand side of the site, remains available to anyone who wishes to communicate with us: [email protected]
Because we at Fijileaks are proficient in iTaukei and Fiji Hindi, it was also very clear to us that many comments went far beyond criticism or disagreement. They frequently descended into crude name-calling, insults, and offensive language in both languages that were simply not acceptable on a platform devoted to public interest journalism.
There has also long been a mistaken belief among some readers that Fijileaks operates from a partisan political agenda. At different times we have been labelled “anti-FFP”, and more recently some have tried to portray us as “anti-Coalition”. That perception appeared to encourage certain individuals to treat the comments section as a political battleground where abuse and insults could be hurled at will.
The reality is quite different. Fijileaks has never operated as a political campaign platform for or against any party. Our reporting has always been driven by documents, evidence, and the public interest. In many instances we have simply handed the fruits of our investigative work to the relevant authorities, irrespective of the political parties or individuals involved.
Indeed, the record shows that this approach applies even when the individuals concerned are known to us personally. A case in point is National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad, a personal friend of four decades. Since 2014, Fijileaks had provided him with more space on the site than perhaps any other political figure, often publishing his views and responses in full.
That changed only when we began receiving documentary material relating to his statutory declarations and associated matters. As with any other investigation, those documents were examined and reported in the public interest, and the relevant files were also provided to the appropriate authorities, to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, the RFMF Commander Ro Jone Kalouniwai, Fiji Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu, and FICAC (Francis Puleiwai, Barbara Malimali, and Lavi Rokoika).
Similarly, in 2014 we welcomed Lynda Tabuya into politics as something of a breath of fresh air in Fiji's political landscape. Yet by 2023, we revealed her escapades in Room 233 in a Melbourne hotel that left many observers deeply shocked. As with other cases, Fijileaks reported the matter on the basis of the available evidence and the public interest, not because of any partisan allegiance.
Ironically, some of the very individuals who now hail Charlie Charters in relation to the Fiji Sports Council scandal are among those who have appeared before the Fiji High Court seeking to have charges against Biman Prasad thrown out, charges arising from evidence and documentation that Fijileaks had earlier provided to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). Such contradictions underline precisely why Fijileaks does not operate according to political camps or shifting loyalties. The documents and the facts must speak for themselves.
We have also observed our personal friend Tanya Waqanika increasingly taking to Facebook and appearing emboldened by the Fiji High Court decision in the Barbara Malimali case, in which she acts for the claimant. That is her professional right as a lawyer. However, it is worth recalling that during the Bainimarama–Khaiyum era, when she was dismissed from the legal department at Fiji Television, Fijileaks played a role in protecting her anonymity while publishing materials that exposed matters of public concern during that period. She was too frightened of the possible retaliation from the military-cum civilian Bainimarama government.
Today, when we have raised questions about her role in what has been widely referred to as the Barbara Malimali saga, we have done so in a professional and evidence-based manner. We have not descended into the sort of personal abuse or name-calling that so often characterised the comments section when it was open.
It is also important to emphasise that even when we receive so-called leaks from whistleblowers, we do not simply rush to upload them on the site. Documents and allegations are carefully examined and subjected to our own scrutiny. In many cases we conduct additional inquiries and verification before publishing anything. Only when we are satisfied that the material meets our own editorial standards and is supported by credible evidence do we proceed to publish it.
Some days we cannot help but chuckle when we see certain Facebook warriors engaged in open warfare. Many of these same individuals spent sixteen years during the Bainimarama–Khaiyum era remaining safely silent or hidden from the regime, yet privately relied on Fijileaks as a platform through which their concerns, documents and grievances could reach the public domain. In effect, they used Fijileaks as a channel to fight their battles when the political climate made it difficult for them to do so openly.
Moderating the growing volume of abusive and repetitive comments eventually became an increasingly time-consuming exercise. Every comment had to be screened, checked and frequently removed. A disproportionate amount of time and effort was being spent policing a space that had ceased to serve its intended purpose.
Frankly speaking, very few of those comments added any meaningful value to the issues being reported. Fijileaks exists to publish documented evidence, analyse facts, and expose matters of public concern. The comments section, in its final phase, contributed little to that mission.
Closing it therefore became the most sensible course of action.
Since our inception in 2012, the TruthforFiji cartoons have remained the only regular visual contributions that we consistently publish alongside our stories. Those cartoons often capture, in a single frame, the essence of what many of our investigations and commentaries seek to expose - power, hypocrisy, and the absurdities of public life in Fiji.
It is also worth remembering that, unlike many mainstream media outlets and online news platforms in Fiji, Fijileaks has never charged readers a single cent to access its content. Nor do we operate as a commercial business enterprise. The platform exists solely in the public interest.
The decision to close the comments section was therefore not about silencing readers. It was about protecting the integrity of the platform and ensuring that our limited time and resources remain focused where they matter most: investigative journalism and exposing the truth.
Those who genuinely wish to engage with us, raise matters of public interest, or leak documents have always had a direct and open channel. Our contact email, clearly displayed on the right-hand side of the site, remains available to anyone who wishes to communicate with us: [email protected]
