Credit: Oxford Street Artist (OSA) London
On 22 November 2024, I participated in what the Commission of Inquiry (COI) described as a professional "meet-and-greet" session with the Commissioner, Justice David Ashton-Lewis, and Janet Mason, who was then acting as Senior Counsel Assisting the Commission.
The engagement was conducted via audio-visual link (AVL). It commenced at 10.00am Fiji time and lasted almost four hours. Because I was participating from Oxford, England, home to the world-renowned University of Oxford, the session began late on Thursday evening and concluded in the early hours of Friday morning.
This was not a public hearing. It was not sworn testimony. It was not an adversarial proceeding. Rather, it was a structured preliminary engagement designed to assess the nature of the evidence I wished to present, its relevance to the Commission's terms of reference, and whether it was appropriate for formal consideration by the COI.
The Procedural Background
The significance of that meeting cannot be understood without reference to the exchanges that preceded it.
On 16 November 2024, I received the following communication directly from Commissioner Ashton-Lewis: "Please understand that if the Commission of Inquiry is to allow your evidence to be given by video link then you will need to provide an affidavit to the Commission. I will ask Mrs Mason to correspond with you shortly."
Soon afterwards, Janet Mason wrote to me explaining the procedural safeguards that would apply if my evidence were to be received: "As a matter of natural justice your affidavit will be made available to the Hon. Biman Prasad and Ms. Malimali, and they will be permitted to submit reply evidence."
She added: "We assume that there will be matters of contention between your evidence, and that of the Hon. Biman Prasad and Ms. Malimali."
Those communications demonstrate that both the Commissioner and Senior Counsel approached the matter with procedural fairness, transparency and a clear commitment to natural justice. The rights of all affected parties were expressly recognised from the outset.
The Four-Hour Engagement
During the 22 November session, I outlined in detail the documentary material and contextual evidence in my possession relating to Biman Prasad, the NFP leader, former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, and Adjunct Professor Monash University and Adjunct Professor James Cook, Australia.
I explained the chronology of events, the provenance of documents, the sources of information, and the reasons why I believed certain matters warranted further scrutiny.
Both the Commissioner and Senior Counsel asked detailed questions. The discussion was probing but measured. Careful rather than combative.
At no stage was the engagement hostile, dismissive or predetermined. Instead, it reflected a Commission conscious of the limits of its mandate and the distinction between an inquiry and a criminal or regulatory investigation.
The Commissioner's Assessment
At the conclusion of the session, Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason reached a clear procedural view. While the material I outlined raised serious issues, they considered that it was not best tested through a Commission of Inquiry hearing.
Instead, they concluded that the substance of the evidence was more appropriately a matter for investigation by FICAC, and where relevant, the Fiji Police Force.
Accordingly, I was advised that the appropriate investigative pathway was through those agencies rather than through my appearance as a witness before the Commission.
Importantly, this was not a rejection of the material. Nor was it a finding on credibility.
It was a judgment about forum, jurisdiction and investigative responsibility.
That distinction is critical.
The Wider Context
During the course of the engagement, I was informed that the next individual scheduled to meet the Commission later that day was Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
I mention this merely to illustrate the systematic nature of the Commission's work. The COI was conducting an organised process involving individuals at the highest levels of public life and public administration.
What Happened Afterwards
By the time the Commission completed its work, it had already reached draft conclusions concerning the handling of Biman Prasad's file at FICAC. Among those conclusions was the view that, given the sensitivities involved, independent legal scrutiny of the file was necessary.
Those conclusions later found their way into the Commission's final report.
However, a separate development occurred before that report became public. In April 2025, Barbara Malimali, acting in her official capacity as FICAC Commissioner, closed the investigation file relating to Biman Prasad.
That decision was made after the Commission had substantially completed its work but before the report was released. Consequently, the COI report neither addressed nor evaluated the April 2025 closure decision. I draw no conclusion regarding the motive. I make no allegation of impropriety.
The point is one of chronology.
The Commission had already concluded that independent scrutiny of the file was required. Yet the final administrative decision to close that file occurred outside the report's scope and without reference to its conclusions. That sequence forms part of the public record.
Where Matters Stand Today
As matters presently stand, Adjunct Professor Biman Chand Prasad faces one formal criminal charge; additional complaints remain before the relevant authorities; and investigative processes continue. Those matters have not been finally determined.
They have not been judicially resolved.
Nothing in this article asserts guilt or predicts outcome.
The point is simply that the issues raised have not disappeared and continue to be subject to independent legal and investigative processes.
Why This Matters
The events of 22 November 2024 explain why the Commission directed my evidence towards FICAC and the Police rather than receiving it in a public hearing.
The Commissioner recognised that allegations involving a serving Cabinet Minister required proper investigative handling through the institutions established for that purpose.
That approach was entirely consistent with the manner in which Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason dealt with me throughout the process. They insisted upon affidavits.
They required disclosure. They protected the rights of reply. They observed the principles of natural justice.
Measured against that record, some of the allegations subsequently directed against the Commissioner and Senior Counsel sit uneasily with the conduct I personally witnessed during my engagement with them.
Conclusion
I did not ultimately appear before the Commission of Inquiry because, after careful consideration, Justice Ashton-Lewis, advised by Senior Counsel Janet Mason, concluded that my evidence belonged elsewhere.
That decision was reasoned.
It was procedurally fair.
What occurred afterwards, including decisions taken beyond the scope of the Commission's report, now forms part of the continuing public record.
That record should be stated accurately, carefully and without embellishment.
For my part, the events of 22 November 2024 remain a matter of fact, not speculation: a four-hour engagement in which the Commission determined that the appropriate forum for the evidence I possessed was not the COI hearing room, but the investigative agencies of the State.
The engagement was conducted via audio-visual link (AVL). It commenced at 10.00am Fiji time and lasted almost four hours. Because I was participating from Oxford, England, home to the world-renowned University of Oxford, the session began late on Thursday evening and concluded in the early hours of Friday morning.
This was not a public hearing. It was not sworn testimony. It was not an adversarial proceeding. Rather, it was a structured preliminary engagement designed to assess the nature of the evidence I wished to present, its relevance to the Commission's terms of reference, and whether it was appropriate for formal consideration by the COI.
The Procedural Background
The significance of that meeting cannot be understood without reference to the exchanges that preceded it.
On 16 November 2024, I received the following communication directly from Commissioner Ashton-Lewis: "Please understand that if the Commission of Inquiry is to allow your evidence to be given by video link then you will need to provide an affidavit to the Commission. I will ask Mrs Mason to correspond with you shortly."
Soon afterwards, Janet Mason wrote to me explaining the procedural safeguards that would apply if my evidence were to be received: "As a matter of natural justice your affidavit will be made available to the Hon. Biman Prasad and Ms. Malimali, and they will be permitted to submit reply evidence."
She added: "We assume that there will be matters of contention between your evidence, and that of the Hon. Biman Prasad and Ms. Malimali."
Those communications demonstrate that both the Commissioner and Senior Counsel approached the matter with procedural fairness, transparency and a clear commitment to natural justice. The rights of all affected parties were expressly recognised from the outset.
The Four-Hour Engagement
During the 22 November session, I outlined in detail the documentary material and contextual evidence in my possession relating to Biman Prasad, the NFP leader, former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, and Adjunct Professor Monash University and Adjunct Professor James Cook, Australia.
I explained the chronology of events, the provenance of documents, the sources of information, and the reasons why I believed certain matters warranted further scrutiny.
Both the Commissioner and Senior Counsel asked detailed questions. The discussion was probing but measured. Careful rather than combative.
At no stage was the engagement hostile, dismissive or predetermined. Instead, it reflected a Commission conscious of the limits of its mandate and the distinction between an inquiry and a criminal or regulatory investigation.
The Commissioner's Assessment
At the conclusion of the session, Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason reached a clear procedural view. While the material I outlined raised serious issues, they considered that it was not best tested through a Commission of Inquiry hearing.
Instead, they concluded that the substance of the evidence was more appropriately a matter for investigation by FICAC, and where relevant, the Fiji Police Force.
Accordingly, I was advised that the appropriate investigative pathway was through those agencies rather than through my appearance as a witness before the Commission.
Importantly, this was not a rejection of the material. Nor was it a finding on credibility.
It was a judgment about forum, jurisdiction and investigative responsibility.
That distinction is critical.
The Wider Context
During the course of the engagement, I was informed that the next individual scheduled to meet the Commission later that day was Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
I mention this merely to illustrate the systematic nature of the Commission's work. The COI was conducting an organised process involving individuals at the highest levels of public life and public administration.
What Happened Afterwards
By the time the Commission completed its work, it had already reached draft conclusions concerning the handling of Biman Prasad's file at FICAC. Among those conclusions was the view that, given the sensitivities involved, independent legal scrutiny of the file was necessary.
Those conclusions later found their way into the Commission's final report.
However, a separate development occurred before that report became public. In April 2025, Barbara Malimali, acting in her official capacity as FICAC Commissioner, closed the investigation file relating to Biman Prasad.
That decision was made after the Commission had substantially completed its work but before the report was released. Consequently, the COI report neither addressed nor evaluated the April 2025 closure decision. I draw no conclusion regarding the motive. I make no allegation of impropriety.
The point is one of chronology.
The Commission had already concluded that independent scrutiny of the file was required. Yet the final administrative decision to close that file occurred outside the report's scope and without reference to its conclusions. That sequence forms part of the public record.
Where Matters Stand Today
As matters presently stand, Adjunct Professor Biman Chand Prasad faces one formal criminal charge; additional complaints remain before the relevant authorities; and investigative processes continue. Those matters have not been finally determined.
They have not been judicially resolved.
Nothing in this article asserts guilt or predicts outcome.
The point is simply that the issues raised have not disappeared and continue to be subject to independent legal and investigative processes.
Why This Matters
The events of 22 November 2024 explain why the Commission directed my evidence towards FICAC and the Police rather than receiving it in a public hearing.
The Commissioner recognised that allegations involving a serving Cabinet Minister required proper investigative handling through the institutions established for that purpose.
That approach was entirely consistent with the manner in which Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason dealt with me throughout the process. They insisted upon affidavits.
They required disclosure. They protected the rights of reply. They observed the principles of natural justice.
Measured against that record, some of the allegations subsequently directed against the Commissioner and Senior Counsel sit uneasily with the conduct I personally witnessed during my engagement with them.
Conclusion
I did not ultimately appear before the Commission of Inquiry because, after careful consideration, Justice Ashton-Lewis, advised by Senior Counsel Janet Mason, concluded that my evidence belonged elsewhere.
That decision was reasoned.
It was procedurally fair.
What occurred afterwards, including decisions taken beyond the scope of the Commission's report, now forms part of the continuing public record.
That record should be stated accurately, carefully and without embellishment.
For my part, the events of 22 November 2024 remain a matter of fact, not speculation: a four-hour engagement in which the Commission determined that the appropriate forum for the evidence I possessed was not the COI hearing room, but the investigative agencies of the State.
