 By the time the Higher Education Commission Fiji (HECF) wrote to the Solicitor-General on 29 January 2026, the truth was already unavoidable: the $7 million grant to Pacific Polytech had no lawful foundation. This was not an internal memo. It was not routine correspondence. It was a formal response to the Solicitor-General’s legal opinion, and it amounted to a public sector body telling the State’s chief legal adviser: 'We cannot lawfully do this.' In HECF’s own words, disbursing the money would be ultra vires, beyond its legal powers. But buried in this letter is a more disturbing reality: this illegal grant did not emerge from nowhere. It flowed from decisions made under the watch of former Finance Minister and NFP leader Biman Prasad. A Direct Reply to the State’s Top Lawyer  Ropate Green The letter, addressed to the Solicitor-General, confirms that HECF was responding to formal legal advice dated 27 January 2026. The Commission was asked whether the grant could lawfully proceed. Its answer was simple: No. Executing or disbursing the grant would breach the Higher Education Act. This means as follows: the issue had reached the highest legal office, serious doubts already existed, and HECF felt compelled to formally resist. This was not confusion. It was institutional defiance of an unlawful expectation. |     |
A Grant Without Legal Standing
HECF explained to the Solicitor-General that Pacific Polytech was not fully registered when the funding process began. Full registration came only on 27 August 2025, long after budget deadlines. Under the Higher Education Act 2008, only compliant and recognised institutions qualify for funding. Pacific Polytech did not. Yet $7 million was allocated anyway.
Deadlines Ignored, Rules Suspended
The Commission’s reply details repeated non-compliance:
By law, that should have disqualified the institution. Instead, the process was overridden.
The Finance Ministry and Biman Prasad’s Role
Here lies the political core of the scandal. In paragraph 7 of its letter, HECF states plainly: the $7 million grant was allocated by the Ministry of Finance, not by HECF. This is crucial. At the time the allocation was made, the Ministry of Finance was under Biman Prasad’s leadership. In other words:
This did not happen accidentally. It required ministerial authority. It required political approval. It required a conscious decision to bypass regulatory safeguards.
The June 2025 Email Trail
HECF’s letter also refers to correspondence dated 13 June 2025 between Biman Prasad and the Commission’s Director. The Commission stresses that it never formally recommended funding. It never requested the grant. It never endorsed the allocation.
This strongly suggests political pressure from the Finance Ministry, pressure that HECF later refused to legitimise. In effect, the regulator was being asked to clean up a political decision.
'Do Not Use Us to Launder This'
Throughout the letter, HECF repeatedly refuses to 'route', 'facilitate', or ''execute' payment. It tells the Solicitor-General that following the advice to proceed would mean acting beyond its powers. This is bureaucratic language for, 'Do not make us complicit'.
HECF was being positioned as an institutional shield, a way to make an unlawful allocation look legitimate. It declined.
Where Is Biman Prasad’s Accountability?
If his ministry allocated the funds, the regulator opposed it, the institution was ineligible, legal advice warned against payment, then responsibility cannot be evaded. The central question is unavoidable: why did Biman Prasad’s Ministry approve this grant? Was it political patronage? Favouritism? Electoral calculation? Pressure from vested interests?
Or simple contempt for the regulatory process? So far, Prasad has offered no detailed convincing public explanation. Silence is not accountability.
Students as Political Cover
Supporters will say Pacific Polytech serves disadvantaged students. That may be true.
But students must not be used as a moral cover for illegality. When ministers distribute funds outside the law, they gamble with students’ futures. If investigations follow, if accreditation fails, if funding is clawed back, it is students who will suffer. Not politicians.
Two Systems of Government
This case reveals Fiji’s dual governance structure: the legal system - statutes, regulators, procedures. The political system - ministers, discretion, pressure. Under Biman Prasad’s Finance Ministry, the second overrode the first. That is how corruption becomes 'normalised'. No bribes. No envelopes. Just decisions made behind closed doors.
Evidence, Not Allegation
This is not speculation. It is documented in an official letter to the Solicitor-General, signed by senior HECF officials. It records:
The Unanswered Questions
Fijians deserve answers:
Without answers, 'good governance' is just branding.
Law Versus Political Power
The Pacific Polytech affair is not merely about $7 million. It is about whether ministers are above the law. HECF chose legality. The Solicitor-General sought clarity.
But under Biman Prasad, the Finance Ministry chose discretion over compliance. Until that choice is explained and accounted for, Fiji’s anti-corruption rhetoric remains hollow. Because money spent without legal authority is not development.
It is decay.
HECF explained to the Solicitor-General that Pacific Polytech was not fully registered when the funding process began. Full registration came only on 27 August 2025, long after budget deadlines. Under the Higher Education Act 2008, only compliant and recognised institutions qualify for funding. Pacific Polytech did not. Yet $7 million was allocated anyway.
Deadlines Ignored, Rules Suspended
The Commission’s reply details repeated non-compliance:
- November 2024: Funding call issued.
- January 2025: Deadline extended.
- 31 January 2025: No submission.
- March 2025: Late submission received.
By law, that should have disqualified the institution. Instead, the process was overridden.
The Finance Ministry and Biman Prasad’s Role
Here lies the political core of the scandal. In paragraph 7 of its letter, HECF states plainly: the $7 million grant was allocated by the Ministry of Finance, not by HECF. This is crucial. At the time the allocation was made, the Ministry of Finance was under Biman Prasad’s leadership. In other words:
- The statutory regulator did not recommend funding.
- The institution was non-compliant.
- Legal doubts existed.
- Yet the Finance Ministry approved the money.
This did not happen accidentally. It required ministerial authority. It required political approval. It required a conscious decision to bypass regulatory safeguards.
The June 2025 Email Trail
HECF’s letter also refers to correspondence dated 13 June 2025 between Biman Prasad and the Commission’s Director. The Commission stresses that it never formally recommended funding. It never requested the grant. It never endorsed the allocation.
This strongly suggests political pressure from the Finance Ministry, pressure that HECF later refused to legitimise. In effect, the regulator was being asked to clean up a political decision.
'Do Not Use Us to Launder This'
Throughout the letter, HECF repeatedly refuses to 'route', 'facilitate', or ''execute' payment. It tells the Solicitor-General that following the advice to proceed would mean acting beyond its powers. This is bureaucratic language for, 'Do not make us complicit'.
HECF was being positioned as an institutional shield, a way to make an unlawful allocation look legitimate. It declined.
Where Is Biman Prasad’s Accountability?
If his ministry allocated the funds, the regulator opposed it, the institution was ineligible, legal advice warned against payment, then responsibility cannot be evaded. The central question is unavoidable: why did Biman Prasad’s Ministry approve this grant? Was it political patronage? Favouritism? Electoral calculation? Pressure from vested interests?
Or simple contempt for the regulatory process? So far, Prasad has offered no detailed convincing public explanation. Silence is not accountability.
Students as Political Cover
Supporters will say Pacific Polytech serves disadvantaged students. That may be true.
But students must not be used as a moral cover for illegality. When ministers distribute funds outside the law, they gamble with students’ futures. If investigations follow, if accreditation fails, if funding is clawed back, it is students who will suffer. Not politicians.
Two Systems of Government
This case reveals Fiji’s dual governance structure: the legal system - statutes, regulators, procedures. The political system - ministers, discretion, pressure. Under Biman Prasad’s Finance Ministry, the second overrode the first. That is how corruption becomes 'normalised'. No bribes. No envelopes. Just decisions made behind closed doors.
Evidence, Not Allegation
This is not speculation. It is documented in an official letter to the Solicitor-General, signed by senior HECF officials. It records:
- Ineligibility,
- Missed deadlines,
- Ministerial allocation,
- Regulatory refusal,
- Legal obstruction.
The Unanswered Questions
Fijians deserve answers:
- Who within the Finance Ministry approved the grant?
- Did Biman Prasad personally authorise it?
- What legal advice was ignored?
- Was Cabinet informed?
- Will FICAC and the Auditor-General investigate?
Without answers, 'good governance' is just branding.
Law Versus Political Power
The Pacific Polytech affair is not merely about $7 million. It is about whether ministers are above the law. HECF chose legality. The Solicitor-General sought clarity.
But under Biman Prasad, the Finance Ministry chose discretion over compliance. Until that choice is explained and accounted for, Fiji’s anti-corruption rhetoric remains hollow. Because money spent without legal authority is not development.
It is decay.
To be continued: the two legal opinions from the Solicitor-General
 |  |
From Fijileaks Archives
