*Nearly four years after NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad sued Hiroshi Taniguchi and the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation, the proceedings remain unresolved amid discussions about a possible withdrawal and disagreement over who should bear the defendants’ legal costs.
 | |
   |    |
Nearly four years after NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad commenced defamation proceedings against former NFP provisional candidate Hiroshi Taniguchi and the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation, the case remains alive, and its future uncertain.
Fijileaks understands that discussions have taken place concerning the possible withdrawal or discontinuance of the proceedings.
No agreement has been reached.
A disagreement is understood to have arisen over the legal expenses incurred in defending the claim. The position advanced during those discussions was that the proceedings should not simply disappear while the defendants, or at least one of them, remain responsible for the costs generated by litigation Prasad chose to commence.
Prasad is understood not to have accepted the proposed condition relating to costs.
The case is consequently understood to remain before the High Court, with a hearing fixed for July 2027.
Fijileaks has not obtained the latest court order, any formal notice of discontinuance or the confidential correspondence exchanged between the parties’ lawyers. We therefore do not assert that Prasad has filed a formal application to withdraw his claim.
What can be said is that discussions about bringing the litigation to an end appear not to have produced an agreement acceptable to all sides.
The lawsuit Prasad chose to bring
The proceedings arose during the heated months preceding Fiji’s 2022 general election.
On 19 October 2022, the NFP publicly announced that Prasad had sued Taniguchi and FBC over statements made after the party terminated Taniguchi’s provisional candidacy.
The party described the statements as false and defamatory. It said that a writ of summons filed by AK Lawyers had been issued from the Lautoka Registry of the High Court and served upon both defendants.
The NFP added that it would make no further comment while the proceedings remained before the court.
The lawsuit was therefore not a mere threat contained in a lawyer’s letter. Prasad invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court and called upon Taniguchi and FBC to defend themselves.
That distinction matters now.
Once proceedings are commenced, defendants must decide whether to retain lawyers, file their responses, preserve evidence and prepare for trial. Those obligations carry financial consequences. A plaintiff may decide that continuing the case is no longer desirable, but that decision does not necessarily erase the expenses already imposed upon the opposing parties.
The earlier settlement discussions
The possibility of settling at least part of the dispute entered the public record in July 2024.
The Fiji Times reported that the High Court in Lautoka had been told that Prasad and FBC were considering a settlement. The matter came before Master of the High Court Preetika Prasad, who allowed the lawyers time to file the proposed settlement conditions.
The report did not establish that the entire action had been settled. Nor did it show that Taniguchi had agreed to any settlement or withdrawal affecting the claim against him.
The distinction between the two defendants is important. An agreement between Prasad and FBC would not necessarily dispose of Prasad’s case against Taniguchi. Each defendant has a separate legal interest, and each may have incurred separate costs.
The proceedings were not brought to a complete and publicly recorded conclusion following the 2024 discussions.
They have instead remained unresolved.
Who should carry the cost?
The present difficulty is understood to concern the terms upon which the litigation might be ended.
If a plaintiff succeeds at trial, the ordinary expectation is that the unsuccessful defendant may be ordered to pay some portion of the plaintiff’s reasonable legal costs. The reverse consideration arises when a plaintiff abandons proceedings after requiring the defendant to prepare a defence.
The defendant may argue that he should not be left financially worse off because the person who commenced the litigation later decided not to pursue it.
That does not mean that a defendant automatically recovers every dollar spent. Costs remain subject to the applicable court rules, the terms of any agreement and, where necessary, the discretion of the court.
The court may consider the stage reached by the proceedings, the reason for discontinuance, the work already undertaken and whether either party acted unreasonably.
But the underlying question is difficult to avoid: if Prasad initiated the case and now wishes to bring it to an end, why should the defendants carry the financial burden created by his decision to sue?
Until the parties agree upon the answer, or the High Court determines it, the proceedings remain capable of continuing towards trial.
The dispute behind the defamation claim
The defamation proceedings cannot be separated entirely from the political rupture that preceded them.
Taniguchi had been selected as an NFP provisional candidate before his candidacy was terminated. He subsequently spoke publicly about his removal and made allegations concerning Prasad’s conduct.
Prasad denied wrongdoing and rejected Taniguchi’s account. The NFP maintained that proper party procedures had been followed and that Taniguchi had failed to comply with party policies.
The dispute also unfolded against the background of a separate complaint made by Taniguchi’s wife, Ari.
As Fijileaks disclosed at the time, Prasad was alleged to have sent Mrs Taniguchi a series of personal text messages. Among them was a message telling her: “You look so pretty.”
Mrs Taniguchi also alleged that Prasad hugged her and kissed her on the cheek at the NFP office on two occasions - 22 July and 12 August 2022.
Those allegations led to Prasad being charged with two counts of indecently insulting or annoying a person under section 213(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Prasad denied wrongdoing.
The criminal proceedings were subsequently discontinued after the then Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Pryde decided that the charges should not proceed.
No court heard the complete evidence and determined whether Mrs Taniguchi’s allegations were true. Their inclusion here records the publicly documented background to the political and legal dispute; it does not treat the allegations as established fact.
Equally, the discontinuance of the criminal charges was not a judicial finding that the alleged incidents did or did not occur.
Two legally distinct proceedings
The criminal complaint made by Mrs Taniguchi and the civil defamation proceedings brought by Prasad must not be confused.
They involved different causes of action, different legal tests and different procedural histories.
In the criminal matter, the State would have carried the burden of proving the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. That process ended without a trial.
In the defamation case, Prasad is the plaintiff. He chose to sue Taniguchi and FBC, and he carries the responsibility of proving the essential elements of his civil claim. The defendants are entitled to contest his account, rely upon any available defences and require him to prove the loss or injury for which he seeks relief.
If the defamation case proceeds to trial, the High Court, not the political parties, the media or either side’s supporters, will determine the issues properly placed before it.
If it is withdrawn, the terms of that withdrawal will matter.
A consensual settlement may contain no admission of liability. A discontinuance does not, by itself, prove that the original claim was false or improperly brought. Conversely, it would not amount to a finding that the disputed statements were true.
The legal position must be described with that precision.
Why the uncertainty matters
Prasad commenced these proceedings while seeking election to public office and while leading one of Fiji’s longstanding political parties. The lawsuit concerned statements arising directly from an internal political dispute and the removal of a proposed election candidate.
The case was therefore never purely private in its political significance.
Prasad was entitled to defend his reputation and seek relief through the courts if he believed that false and damaging statements had been published about him. Taniguchi and FBC were equally entitled to defend the claim and require Prasad to prove it.
What would be unsatisfactory is for proceedings of considerable public interest to disappear without a clear account of whether they were settled, discontinued or left dormant, and without clarity over who was required to pay the costs.
The public should not confuse withdrawal discussions with a completed withdrawal.
Unless and until the High Court records a discontinuance, settlement or final determination, the case remains unresolved.
A “pretty” difficult position
The irony is difficult to overlook.
A controversy that included allegations of personal text messages, one of which told Mrs Taniguchi that she looked “pretty”, has developed into litigation that now appears anything but pretty.
Prasad brought the lawsuit.
The defendants were required to answer it.
If Prasad continues to maintain that the disputed statements were false and defamatory, he remains entitled to have his claim decided by the High Court.
If he wishes to discontinue it, the question becomes whether those required to defend themselves should be left to pay the expenses they incurred because of his action.
That is not merely a matter of political point-scoring. It is an ordinary and legitimate question about the consequences of commencing legal proceedings and later seeking to bring them to an end.
Questions for Biman Chand Prasad
In the interests of fairness, Prasad should be invited to answer the following questions:
Until those questions are answered, or the latest court record becomes available, the responsible conclusion is necessarily limited.
Discussions have taken place concerning the possible termination of the proceedings. No complete agreement is understood to have been reached. Legal costs remain a point of contention, and the case appears destined to continue unless the parties settle their differences or the High Court intervenes.
Nearly four years after Prasad chose to sue Hiroshi Taniguchi, the lawsuit remains unresolved.
The original compliment may have been “You look so pretty”.
The litigation it helped place in the public spotlight has become distinctly, and expensively, messy.
Fijileaks understands that discussions have taken place concerning the possible withdrawal or discontinuance of the proceedings.
No agreement has been reached.
A disagreement is understood to have arisen over the legal expenses incurred in defending the claim. The position advanced during those discussions was that the proceedings should not simply disappear while the defendants, or at least one of them, remain responsible for the costs generated by litigation Prasad chose to commence.
Prasad is understood not to have accepted the proposed condition relating to costs.
The case is consequently understood to remain before the High Court, with a hearing fixed for July 2027.
Fijileaks has not obtained the latest court order, any formal notice of discontinuance or the confidential correspondence exchanged between the parties’ lawyers. We therefore do not assert that Prasad has filed a formal application to withdraw his claim.
What can be said is that discussions about bringing the litigation to an end appear not to have produced an agreement acceptable to all sides.
The lawsuit Prasad chose to bring
The proceedings arose during the heated months preceding Fiji’s 2022 general election.
On 19 October 2022, the NFP publicly announced that Prasad had sued Taniguchi and FBC over statements made after the party terminated Taniguchi’s provisional candidacy.
The party described the statements as false and defamatory. It said that a writ of summons filed by AK Lawyers had been issued from the Lautoka Registry of the High Court and served upon both defendants.
The NFP added that it would make no further comment while the proceedings remained before the court.
The lawsuit was therefore not a mere threat contained in a lawyer’s letter. Prasad invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court and called upon Taniguchi and FBC to defend themselves.
That distinction matters now.
Once proceedings are commenced, defendants must decide whether to retain lawyers, file their responses, preserve evidence and prepare for trial. Those obligations carry financial consequences. A plaintiff may decide that continuing the case is no longer desirable, but that decision does not necessarily erase the expenses already imposed upon the opposing parties.
The earlier settlement discussions
The possibility of settling at least part of the dispute entered the public record in July 2024.
The Fiji Times reported that the High Court in Lautoka had been told that Prasad and FBC were considering a settlement. The matter came before Master of the High Court Preetika Prasad, who allowed the lawyers time to file the proposed settlement conditions.
The report did not establish that the entire action had been settled. Nor did it show that Taniguchi had agreed to any settlement or withdrawal affecting the claim against him.
The distinction between the two defendants is important. An agreement between Prasad and FBC would not necessarily dispose of Prasad’s case against Taniguchi. Each defendant has a separate legal interest, and each may have incurred separate costs.
The proceedings were not brought to a complete and publicly recorded conclusion following the 2024 discussions.
They have instead remained unresolved.
Who should carry the cost?
The present difficulty is understood to concern the terms upon which the litigation might be ended.
If a plaintiff succeeds at trial, the ordinary expectation is that the unsuccessful defendant may be ordered to pay some portion of the plaintiff’s reasonable legal costs. The reverse consideration arises when a plaintiff abandons proceedings after requiring the defendant to prepare a defence.
The defendant may argue that he should not be left financially worse off because the person who commenced the litigation later decided not to pursue it.
That does not mean that a defendant automatically recovers every dollar spent. Costs remain subject to the applicable court rules, the terms of any agreement and, where necessary, the discretion of the court.
The court may consider the stage reached by the proceedings, the reason for discontinuance, the work already undertaken and whether either party acted unreasonably.
But the underlying question is difficult to avoid: if Prasad initiated the case and now wishes to bring it to an end, why should the defendants carry the financial burden created by his decision to sue?
Until the parties agree upon the answer, or the High Court determines it, the proceedings remain capable of continuing towards trial.
The dispute behind the defamation claim
The defamation proceedings cannot be separated entirely from the political rupture that preceded them.
Taniguchi had been selected as an NFP provisional candidate before his candidacy was terminated. He subsequently spoke publicly about his removal and made allegations concerning Prasad’s conduct.
Prasad denied wrongdoing and rejected Taniguchi’s account. The NFP maintained that proper party procedures had been followed and that Taniguchi had failed to comply with party policies.
The dispute also unfolded against the background of a separate complaint made by Taniguchi’s wife, Ari.
As Fijileaks disclosed at the time, Prasad was alleged to have sent Mrs Taniguchi a series of personal text messages. Among them was a message telling her: “You look so pretty.”
Mrs Taniguchi also alleged that Prasad hugged her and kissed her on the cheek at the NFP office on two occasions - 22 July and 12 August 2022.
Those allegations led to Prasad being charged with two counts of indecently insulting or annoying a person under section 213(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Prasad denied wrongdoing.
The criminal proceedings were subsequently discontinued after the then Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Pryde decided that the charges should not proceed.
No court heard the complete evidence and determined whether Mrs Taniguchi’s allegations were true. Their inclusion here records the publicly documented background to the political and legal dispute; it does not treat the allegations as established fact.
Equally, the discontinuance of the criminal charges was not a judicial finding that the alleged incidents did or did not occur.
Two legally distinct proceedings
The criminal complaint made by Mrs Taniguchi and the civil defamation proceedings brought by Prasad must not be confused.
They involved different causes of action, different legal tests and different procedural histories.
In the criminal matter, the State would have carried the burden of proving the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. That process ended without a trial.
In the defamation case, Prasad is the plaintiff. He chose to sue Taniguchi and FBC, and he carries the responsibility of proving the essential elements of his civil claim. The defendants are entitled to contest his account, rely upon any available defences and require him to prove the loss or injury for which he seeks relief.
If the defamation case proceeds to trial, the High Court, not the political parties, the media or either side’s supporters, will determine the issues properly placed before it.
If it is withdrawn, the terms of that withdrawal will matter.
A consensual settlement may contain no admission of liability. A discontinuance does not, by itself, prove that the original claim was false or improperly brought. Conversely, it would not amount to a finding that the disputed statements were true.
The legal position must be described with that precision.
Why the uncertainty matters
Prasad commenced these proceedings while seeking election to public office and while leading one of Fiji’s longstanding political parties. The lawsuit concerned statements arising directly from an internal political dispute and the removal of a proposed election candidate.
The case was therefore never purely private in its political significance.
Prasad was entitled to defend his reputation and seek relief through the courts if he believed that false and damaging statements had been published about him. Taniguchi and FBC were equally entitled to defend the claim and require Prasad to prove it.
What would be unsatisfactory is for proceedings of considerable public interest to disappear without a clear account of whether they were settled, discontinued or left dormant, and without clarity over who was required to pay the costs.
The public should not confuse withdrawal discussions with a completed withdrawal.
Unless and until the High Court records a discontinuance, settlement or final determination, the case remains unresolved.
A “pretty” difficult position
The irony is difficult to overlook.
A controversy that included allegations of personal text messages, one of which told Mrs Taniguchi that she looked “pretty”, has developed into litigation that now appears anything but pretty.
Prasad brought the lawsuit.
The defendants were required to answer it.
If Prasad continues to maintain that the disputed statements were false and defamatory, he remains entitled to have his claim decided by the High Court.
If he wishes to discontinue it, the question becomes whether those required to defend themselves should be left to pay the expenses they incurred because of his action.
That is not merely a matter of political point-scoring. It is an ordinary and legitimate question about the consequences of commencing legal proceedings and later seeking to bring them to an end.
Questions for Biman Chand Prasad
In the interests of fairness, Prasad should be invited to answer the following questions:
- Have you or your lawyers proposed withdrawing or discontinuing the defamation proceedings against Hiroshi Taniguchi?
- Has any formal notice of discontinuance been filed in the High Court?
- Have you been asked to pay legal costs incurred in defending the proceedings?
- If so, have you refused to meet those costs?
- Has the claim against FBC been settled separately?
- Does the defamation claim against Taniguchi remain active?
- Is the case listed for hearing in July 2027?
- If the proceedings remain active, do you intend to take the case to trial?
Until those questions are answered, or the latest court record becomes available, the responsible conclusion is necessarily limited.
Discussions have taken place concerning the possible termination of the proceedings. No complete agreement is understood to have been reached. Legal costs remain a point of contention, and the case appears destined to continue unless the parties settle their differences or the High Court intervenes.
Nearly four years after Prasad chose to sue Hiroshi Taniguchi, the lawsuit remains unresolved.
The original compliment may have been “You look so pretty”.
The litigation it helped place in the public spotlight has become distinctly, and expensively, messy.
SUED FIRST, SILENT AFTERWARDS
Biman Chand Prasad had already taken Hiroshi Taniguchi and FBC to court when Fijileaks revealed the alleged texts.
Fijileaks invited the NFP leader to confirm or deny that he had sent the WhatsApp messages. He never replied.
The chronology is important. On 19 October 2022, Biman Prasad announced that he had instituted defamation proceedings against former NFP provisional candidate Hiroshi Taniguchi and the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation over statements Taniguchi had made to FBC.
Fijileaks reported the existence of the alleged WhatsApp messages that same day. However, it was only afterwards, principally from 8 November 2022, that Fijileaks began revealing their alleged contents and publishing the surrounding evidence.
Before publication, Fijileaks gave Prasad an opportunity to state whether the messages attributed to him were genuine. We asked him directly to confirm or deny that he had exchanged the alleged messages with Mrs Taniguchi. He did neither. He offered no explanation and did not reply.
His silence was not, and should not be presented as, proof that every allegation was true. But it is a material part of the journalistic record: Prasad was approached, the substance of the allegations was put to him, and he declined to provide any response for publication.
The sequence therefore cannot honestly be reversed. Prasad did not sue Taniguchi because Fijileaks had published the detailed messages. His proceedings against Taniguchi and FBC were already under way before Fijileaks placed the alleged texts before its readers, and before Prasad ignored an express invitation to confirm or deny them.
We had, out of deference to his wife Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, alerted her to the texts.
Biman Chand Prasad had already taken Hiroshi Taniguchi and FBC to court when Fijileaks revealed the alleged texts.
Fijileaks invited the NFP leader to confirm or deny that he had sent the WhatsApp messages. He never replied.
The chronology is important. On 19 October 2022, Biman Prasad announced that he had instituted defamation proceedings against former NFP provisional candidate Hiroshi Taniguchi and the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation over statements Taniguchi had made to FBC.
Fijileaks reported the existence of the alleged WhatsApp messages that same day. However, it was only afterwards, principally from 8 November 2022, that Fijileaks began revealing their alleged contents and publishing the surrounding evidence.
Before publication, Fijileaks gave Prasad an opportunity to state whether the messages attributed to him were genuine. We asked him directly to confirm or deny that he had exchanged the alleged messages with Mrs Taniguchi. He did neither. He offered no explanation and did not reply.
His silence was not, and should not be presented as, proof that every allegation was true. But it is a material part of the journalistic record: Prasad was approached, the substance of the allegations was put to him, and he declined to provide any response for publication.
The sequence therefore cannot honestly be reversed. Prasad did not sue Taniguchi because Fijileaks had published the detailed messages. His proceedings against Taniguchi and FBC were already under way before Fijileaks placed the alleged texts before its readers, and before Prasad ignored an express invitation to confirm or deny them.
We had, out of deference to his wife Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, alerted her to the texts.
 |  |
 |  |
From Fijileaks Archives, 8 November 2022
WOMEN’S NGOs QUESTION PITA WISE APPOINTMENT BUT NOT ONE STOOD UP FOR MRS ARI TANIGUCHI IN 2022
Fijileaks: Where were Fiji’s women’s organisations when Mrs Taniguchi needed their voices?
COMING, NOUZAB FAREED v BIMAN PRASAD
One Woman's Nervous Laughter Did Not Destroy Her Credibility, So Why Was Ari Taniguchi Never Allowed to Put Her Evidence Before a Court?
The Fareed judgment does not prove that Biman Chand Prasad would have been convicted. It does, however, expose striking questions about the reasoning used to stop the Taniguchi prosecution before a magistrate could hear Ari, her supporting witness, examine the WhatsApp material and decide for itself whether her allegations were proved.
