Blog Posts

Controversial CV. Why Barbara Malimali Should Have Been Disqualified at the Outset. Unprofessional Conduct, Institutional Attacks on FICAC STAFF, Material Non-Disclosure, and Disparaging "Foreigners at FICAC"

23/2/2026

Two Non-Disclosures, One Duty to Act: Why the Judicial Services Commission Must Suspend BARBARA MALIMALI to protect FICAC

Barbara Malimali’s job application should not have progressed beyond preliminary screening due to serious concerns regarding professionalism, judgment, transparency, and suitability for high public office.

From the outset, Malimali adopted a confrontational and disparaging tone toward the very institution she sought to lead. Rather than demonstrating respect for FICAC, she repeatedly criticised its staff, competence, and operational priorities. Statements suggesting that FICAC lacked capable lawyers, mishandled investigations, and wasted public funds amounted to a public attack on the institution. An applicant for a senior leadership role was expected to demonstrate loyalty, discretion, and institutional confidence. This application did the opposite.

Of particular concern was her repeated criticism of “foreigners” and expatriates who previously worked within related institutions. These comments were inappropriate, divisive, and inconsistent with public service values of inclusiveness and professionalism. Senior officials were required to work within diverse teams and respect international cooperation. Malimali’s remarks demonstrated poor judgment and raised concerns about bias.

The application also contained politically charged commentary and personal opinions on past prosecutions and institutional history. These views were presented without evidence and appeared to be based on personal grievances rather than objective assessment. A judicial or quasi-judicial office demanded neutrality and restraint. This application reflected neither.

Another significant issue was the inclusion of irrelevant personal medical information, specifically the disclosure of blood donation and health records. Such information had no bearing on professional competence or suitability for office. Its inclusion suggested a lack of understanding of appropriate boundaries in formal applications and weakened the credibility of the submission.

The structure and tone of the letter were also problematic. Rather than presenting qualifications, experience, and leadership capacity in a focused and disciplined manner, Malimali devoted substantial space to criticism, speculation, and personal commentary. This detracted from any legitimate professional achievements and created an impression of impulsiveness and poor self-regulation.

Failure to Disclose Professional Sanctions

A major omission in the application was Malimali’s failure to disclose that she had previously been banned from practising law in Tuvalu. This was material information directly relevant to her fitness, integrity, and professional standing. Any applicant for a senior anti-corruption role was expected to make full and frank disclosure of disciplinary or regulatory actions.

The failure to disclose this information raised serious concerns about honesty, transparency, and ethical standards. In itself, this omission should have resulted in automatic disqualification.

Shortlisting, Interview, and Appointment by the JSC

Despite these deficiencies, Malimali was shortlisted, interviewed, and ultimately selected by the JSC to become FICAC Commissioner.

This decision raises serious questions about the robustness and credibility of the selection process. The shortcomings in her application were substantial, visible, and material. They should have been identified and addressed at the screening stage. Instead, they were either missed, overlooked or disregarded.

The fact that an applicant who had attacked the institution, made inappropriate public comments, included irrelevant personal information, and failed to disclose a professional ban was nevertheless appointed reflected systemic weaknesses in vetting, due diligence, and governance.

Post-Removal Conduct and High Court Ruling

Following her removal from office, Malimali sought reinstatement after a High Court ruling found that the termination process was unlawful. While the ruling addressed procedural legality, it did not validate the suitability of her original appointment.

Her attempt to regain the position occurred despite the unresolved concerns arising from her application, including institutional attacks, inappropriate commentary, irrelevant disclosures, and material non-disclosure. This reinforces the perception that due regard had not been given to professional standards and public confidence.

Conclusion

Barbara Malimali’s application failed at the threshold level for the following reasons:

Open attacks on FICAC and its staff
Inappropriate criticism of foreign professionals
Lack of institutional respect and neutrality
Inclusion of irrelevant personal health information
Failure to disclose her ban from legal practice in Tuvalu
Poor judgment and unprofessional tone
Failure to present a focused, merit-based case
Inadequate vetting by the JSC despite clear red flags

For these reasons, her application should have been disqualified at the initial screening stage. The content, omissions, and subsequent handling of her appointment raises serious concerns about integrity, transparency, and governance in senior public office appointments.

Furthermore, there remain FICAC officers currently serving in the office who previously testified against her before the Commission of Inquiry. It is reasonable to expect that they may now feel apprehensive about the prospect of her reinstatement.

SWORN To Last: Why Affidavits Survive Beyond Commission of Inquiry: Continuing Legal Force

SWORN AFFIDAVITS tendered before a Commission of Inquiry do not lose their relevance merely because the Commission has concluded its work or delivered its recommendations. An affidavit is not a political submission or a time-bound opinion; it is a statement made under oath, carrying enduring legal and evidentiary significance. Its probative value survives the lifespan of the Commission precisely because the obligation of truthfulness does not expire with the report. Where new evidence, analysis, or contextual information later emerges, those affidavits must be capable of renewed scrutiny. This is especially so where the affidavits concern matters of public office, integrity, or fitness to hold statutory authority. Subsequent developments may illuminate inconsistencies, omissions, or implications that were not apparent, or not tested, during the Commission’s original proceedings. To suggest that affidavits are rendered inert once a Commission dissolves would undermine the very purpose of sworn evidence. Accountability in public life is not confined to procedural timelines. Affidavits endure as part of the public record, and where fresh analysis raises legitimate questions, they remain not only relevant, but essential to informed oversight and the continuing public interest. Truth Without Expiry.

Why Lands Minister Vosarogo was an Inappropriate Referee for Barbara Malimali’s FICAC Commissioner Application.
Was he aware of the Tuvalu A-G's letter (23 May 2017) to Malimali banning her from practising in Tuvalu?

On 29 September 2017, Filimoni Vosarogo was disciplined and fined for professional misconduct (FJILSC 12 of 2017). Barely five months later, on 16 February 2018, he witnessed Barbara Malimali's declaration supporting her application for a Legal Practitioners Unit Certificate. At the time, Vosarogo was practising under a restricted practising certificate but was legally permitted to perform ordinary professional functions, including witnessing documents. At the disciplinary hearing, Malimali had appeared on his behalf, along with Vosarogo himself.

Summary of the Commission’s Decision in Chief Registrar v Vosarogo

The Fiji Independent Legal Services Commission found that Vosarogo had committed serious professional misconduct involving the management of his trust account. He pleaded guilty to four counts.

Although the misconduct was classified as “very serious”, the Commission accepted that Vosarogo had made substantial efforts towards rehabilitation since March 2016.

Suspension

The Commission ruled that Vosarogo had already effectively served his suspension. His practising certificate was suspended for a total of 10 months and 17 days, backdated to 1 March 2016. Taking into account periods when he was unable to practise, the Commission held that this suspension had been fully served by 29 September 2017.

Restricted Practising Certificate

Vosarogo was placed under a restricted practising certificate for a total period of 20 months and 7 days. From 30 September 2017 until 29 September 2018, he was permitted to practise only under strict conditions, including:

His trust account must be audited at his own expense every three months.
He must submit monthly bank statements to the Chief Registrar.
His law practice must be inspected regularly by a senior lawyer.
Any breach of these conditions would result in immediate suspension.

Fine

The Commission initially considered imposing a fine of about $20,000. However, after taking into accoun the repayment of $14,826.21 to the trust account, and the cost of training undertaken by Vosarogo, the fine was reduced to $3,000, payable by 26 March 2018.

Pro Bono Legal Work

To restore public confidence in the profession, Vosarogo was ordered to undertake five criminal trials for the Legal Aid Commission on a pro bono basis, each lasting no more than five days, and to be completed by September 2018. Failure to complete these cases would result in automatic suspension.

Costs

Vosarogo was ordered to pay $1,500 to the Chief Registrar, and $1,500 to the Commission, towards legal and administrative costs, payable by March 2018.

Warning to the Legal Profession

In his concluding remarks, the Commissioner Thomas Hickie warned all lawyers in Fiji that trust accounts are “sacrosanct”. Practitioners are personally responsible for supervising trust funds. Regular internal checks are essential. Ongoing training in trust account management is vital. The case was described as a serious warning to the profession.

Final Remarks to Vosarogo

Addressing Vosarogo directly, the Commissioner noted that this was his second disciplinary appearance since 2013. He stated that Vosarogo had largely rehabilitated himself and was being given a final opportunity to continue practising under strict supervision.

Using a sporting analogy, the Commissioner warned that Vosarogo was close to “three strikes” and urged him not to squander this chance.

Outcome

In summary, Vosarogo avoided permanent removal from the profession. He was allowed to continue practising. He remained under strict monitoring for at least 12 months. Any further misconduct was likely to result in severe consequences. The judgment closed by noting that the Commission would next hear submissions on the appointment of a senior practitioner to oversee Vosarogo’s practice.

Records show that on 16 February 2018, Vilimone [Filimoni] Vosarogo witnessed Malimali’s application for a practising certificate, the same application in which she was later accused of failing to disclose a Tuvalu banning order. At the time, Vosarogo was practising under a restricted practising certificate but was legally permitted to perform ordinary professional functions, including witnessing documents.

There is no evidence presently before us that he was prohibited from doing so. However, questions may arise as to whether he was aware of the Tuvalu order when he witnessed the application. If he had no knowledge of the alleged non-disclosure, no issue would arise. If he did have knowledge, that could raise regulatory concerns. These are matters that would require factual clarification by the relevant authorities.

Two Non-Disclosures, One Duty to Act: Why the Judicial Services Commission Must Suspend BARBARA MALIMALI to protect FICAC

The legitimacy of constitutional governance rests not merely on the existence of institutions, but on the integrity of those entrusted to lead them. When credible evidence emerges that a senior office-holder has failed on more than one occasion to disclose material facts relating to professional discipline, the issue ceases to be personal. It becomes institutional.

This is no longer a matter of political debate. It is a question of constitutional responsibility.

At issue are two separate alleged non-disclosures by Barbara Malimali, one when she applied for a practising certificate, and the other when she applied to be head of FICAC.
She failed to fully disclose a foreign regulatory ban when applying for a practising certificate; and she failed to disclose the same material fact when applying for appointment as FICAC Commissioner. Individually, either omission would raise serious concern. Together, they disclose a troubling pattern that strikes at the heart of fitness for office.

The Legal Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure

The law imposes a strict obligation of candour upon applicants seeking professional certification or high public office. This is not a mere formality. It is a substantive duty requiring full, accurate, and unambiguous disclosure of all material facts bearing upon character and suitability.

A prior regulatory ban imposed by a foreign jurisdiction is plainly material. It goes directly to professional standing; integrity and ethical conduct; fitness to practise law; and suitability for appointment to a senior prosecutorial role.

The duty is not satisfied by vague reference or partial acknowledgment. Courts across Commonwealth jurisdictions have consistently held that incomplete disclosure amounts to misleading disclosure. Silence, where there is a duty to speak, is legally consequential. Where decision-makers are deprived of critical information, the validity of the decision itself may be called into question.

Repetition and Pattern: Why Two Non-Disclosures Matter

The significance of this matter lies in repetition. The alleged omission did not occur once, under pressure or confusion. It allegedly occurred in two separate applications, made in different contexts, at different times. That repetition fundamentally alters the legal character of the conduct.

In regulatory jurisprudence, repeated non-disclosure is not treated as oversight. It is treated as evidence of deliberate avoidance or, at minimum, reckless disregard for disclosure obligations.

Such a pattern raises profound concerns about honesty; judgment; respect for institutional processes; and adherence to professional ethics.

These are not peripheral considerations. They are foundational to holding public office.

The Heightened Integrity Standard for Anti-Corruption Leadership

The office of FICAC Commissioner is not an ordinary administrative role. It carries coercive powers, prosecutorial discretion, and the authority to investigate corruption at the highest levels of public life.

Public confidence in anti-corruption enforcement depends on the moral authority of the Commissioner. That authority is weakened, if not fatally compromised, where credible allegations suggest the office-holder failed to meet basic standards of transparency in her own applications.

A Commissioner tasked with enforcing accountability must be demonstrably accountable herself.

Anything less erodes institutional legitimacy.

The Constitutional Role of the Judicial Services Commission

The JSC bears constitutional responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of judicial and prosecutorial appointments. Its role is not passive. It is protective. When serious allegations of misconduct arise, the JSC must ensure procedural fairness; protect the credibility of the office concerned; and preserve public confidence in the justice system.

This responsibility is heightened where the allegations concern honesty in securing appointment. Failure to act risks creating the perception that standards apply unevenly, or worse, that they do not apply at all to those in power.

Why Immediate Suspension Is Legally Necessary

Suspension pending investigation is not a finding of guilt. It is a neutral administrative safeguard. Courts and oversight bodies routinely suspend senior officials where there are serious credibility concerns; continued occupation of the office risks institutional harm; and the investigation could be compromised by ongoing authority.

Here, suspension would serve three critical purposes:

Protecting Institutional Integrity. Ensuring that FICAC’s operations are not clouded by doubts about leadership legitimacy.
Preserving Public Confidence. Demonstrating that accountability applies uniformly.
Ensuring an Independent Inquiry. Allowing investigation without perceived or actual interference.

Allowing Barbara Malimali to return to office while allegations of repeated non-disclosure are examined exposes the institution to reputational damage and legal challenge. Every prosecution undertaken under a cloud of integrity concern becomes vulnerable to collateral attack.

The Risk of Inaction

Institutional damage rarely occurs in dramatic bursts. It accumulates through hesitation, delay, and perceived tolerance of questionable conduct. If the JSC does not act decisively, confidence in anti-corruption enforcement will erode; the legitimacy of ongoing investigations may be questioned; and the credibility of the appointment process itself may be undermined.

In constitutional governance, perception matters almost as much as proof. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.

Conclusion: A Duty That Cannot Be Deferred

This matter is no longer about an individual career. It concerns the integrity of constitutional processes and the credibility of the nation’s anti-corruption framework.

Where there are credible allegations of two separate failures to disclose a material regulatory sanction, once in professional certification and again in application for high public office, the threshold for interim action is plainly met.

The Judicial Services Commission must now initiate a formal investigation; suspend Malimali pending its outcome; and act transparently and decisively in accordance with constitutional duty.

Suspension is not punishment. It is protection of the institution, of the public interest, and of the rule of law

In matters of integrity at the highest levels of public office, hesitation is itself a decision. The law demands better.

LAND HAS EYES. And Lands Minister Filimone Vosarogo must tell us if he knew that Barbara Malimali had been banned from practising law in Tuvalu from May 2017.

Was Chief Justice Temo Right to Appoint Malimali Without Formal References? His decision was based primarily on his personal observation of Malimali’s performance over approximately fifteen years in the criminal courts.

The confirmation by Salesi Temo before the Commission of Inquiry that he did not obtain formal professional references before supporting the appointment of Barbara Malimali as head of FICAC raises serious questions about constitutional governance, administrative propriety, and institutional accountability in Fiji.

According to Temo, his decision was based primarily on his personal observation of Malimali’s performance over approximately fifteen years in the criminal courts. He concluded, on that basis, that she was an appropriate candidate for the role. While professional familiarity is not irrelevant, reliance on it alone falls well short of accepted standards for appointments to high-integrity public office.

The Constitutional Role of the Judicial Services Commission

As Chair of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the Chief Justice does not act in a personal or informal capacity. The JSC exists to function as an institutional safeguard. Its role is to ensure that appointments to sensitive offices are subjected to independent, structured, and transparent assessment.

In this context, the JSC’s responsibility is not merely to endorse a candidate, but to verify suitability through objective procedures. These normally include written references, character assessments, disclosure of adverse findings, and independent verification of professional history.

The purpose is to protect the integrity of both the appointee and the institution. By dispensing with these mechanisms, the process shifts from institutional scrutiny to individual discretion.

Why Personal Observation Is Not Enough

A senior judge’s long acquaintance with a candidate may provide useful insight into professional competence. However, it cannot substitute for formal vetting. Personal observation is inevitably selective, subjective, limited to courtroom performance, and insulated from confidential or adverse information. Formal references serve a different function. They allow third parties to disclose concerns, verify character, and provide context that may not be visible in public proceedings. Without them, significant risks remain undiscovered.

In governance terms, relying solely on personal impressions weakens the credibility of the appointment.

Administrative Law and Procedural Fairness

Under common-law principles applied in Fiji and comparable Commonwealth jurisdictions, senior public appointments must satisfy basic requirements of procedural fairness and reasonableness.

A lawful appointment process should be transparent, rationally structured, capable of external scrutiny, and based on relevant and sufficient evidence. A decision grounded primarily in “I have observed her work for many years” is vulnerable to challenge as arbitrary and inadequately reasoned. It lacks documentary support and makes meaningful review difficult.

If subjected to judicial scrutiny, such a process would be hard to defend as procedurally robust.

Implications for FICAC’s Independence

FICAC is an anti-corruption agency. Its authority depends not only on statutory powers but on public confidence in the integrity and independence of its leadership. An appointment process that lacks formal vetting creates perceptions of favouritism, suspicions of informality or patronage, institutional vulnerability, and reduced public trust. In a political environment where the independence of oversight bodies is frequently contested, these weaknesses are particularly damaging.

Comparative Commonwealth Practice

In comparable jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Singapore, appointments to integrity institutions normally involve multiple written referees, structured interview processes, independent panels, background and disciplinary checks, and formal documentation.A process based largely on personal familiarity would be regarded as inadequate and professionally unacceptable in these systems.

Was Temo Legally Entitled to Proceed This Way?

Formally, the answer depends on the precise wording of Fiji’s constitutional and statutory framework. If the rules do not expressly mandate written references, the process may not be automatically unlawful.

Substantively, however, it falls below constitutional best practice. In practical terms, this means the appointment may not be invalid solely for this reason, but it is weakened in legal, ethical, and institutional terms.It lacks the procedural resilience expected of appointments to sensitive public office.

Consequences for Future Challenges

If Malimali’s appointment is challenged in court, in Parliament, or through public accountability mechanisms, the absence of formal vetting will be a central vulnerability. It may support arguments that the JSC failed to discharge its constitutional duty, the process was procedurally defective, proper safeguards were ignored, and the appointment was insufficiently justified.Such arguments can underpin claims of abuse of discretion or institutional failure.

Conclusion

In constitutional and governance terms, reliance solely on personal observation was not appropriate.

As Chair of the JSC, Temo should have ensured that Malimali’s appointment was supported by formal references, independent verification, and documented assessment. By substituting institutional procedure with personal judgment, he weakened the legitimacy and defensibility of the process.

Conflict of Interest: One of the panellist's who interviewed and approved Malimali as the new FICAC Commissioner had witnessed her 2022 application for a practising certificate: the acting Chief Magistrate Josaia Waqaivolavola.
*TUVALU TRYST: When Waqaivolavola witnessed her 2022 Application for a Practising Certificate, was he aware that Malimali had been barred from practising law in Tuvalu? Also, he had not declared his conflict of interest when he sat on the interview panel

From Fijileaks Archive, 17 June 2025

From Tuvalu Tales to Taxpayer Cash: Calls Grow for Malimali to Pay Back Taxpayers' Money as short-lived FICAC Commissioner plus thousands of dollars that she had ordered FICAC to pay her counsel WAQANIKA

www.fijileaks.com/home/non-disclosure-misrepresentation-and-the-validity-of-appointment-did-barbara-malimalis-ficac-application-survive-the-test-of-candour

From Whistleblowers to Handcuffs: The Charlie Charters Detention and the Dangerous Expansion of FICAC’s Reach and s45 of Crimes Act 2009

21/2/2026

The overnight detention of Charlie Charters is no longer just a developing news story. It is now a constitutional moment.

When I previously argued that publishing whistleblower allegations on Facebook is not a crime, the point was grounded in law, not sentiment.

The events that have unfolded since his airport stop, the reported “deal,” the allegation of aiding and abetting under Section 45 of the Crimes Act 2009, and the reference to Section 13G of the FICAC Act, have only intensified the urgency of that analysis.

At stake is not merely the liberty of one individual.

At stake is whether the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) understands the legal boundaries of its own authority.

Publishing Whistleblower Material Is Not Automatically Criminal

Section 13G of the FICAC Act criminalises the unauthorised disclosure of official information by those bound by the Act, namely insiders. It is directed at internal breaches. It does not, on its face, criminalise third-party publication.

That distinction matters. If a FICAC employee unlawfully leaks confidential material, that employee may face legal consequences. But the person who receives and publishes that material does not automatically become a criminal participant. Democratic legal systems recognise a fundamental separation between the breach of duty by an insider; and the act of publication by an external party. Collapse that distinction, and investigative journalism becomes legally perilous by default.

The Aiding and Abetting Threshold

FICAC now indicates that Charters is being held on suspicion of aiding and abetting a whistleblower under Section 45 of the Crimes Act 2009. Aiding and abetting is not a casual label. It requires intentional assistance, encouragement, or facilitation of an offence. There must be evidence of active involvement, not merely receipt or publication of information.

Passive publication does not meet that standard.

If republication alone constitutes aiding and abetting, then every journalist who publishes leaked material would be exposed to criminal liability. That is not how the doctrine operates in serious criminal jurisprudence.

Unless there is proof of coordination or inducement, the legal footing for such a charge appears precarious.

The Airport “Deal”: A Critical Clue

Charters has stated that he was offered a “deal” at Nadi Airport that would have allowed him to continue his flight to Sydney, but that the terms were unacceptable. This detail cannot be brushed aside.

In the context of an alleged whistleblower breach, there is an obvious inference: investigators were likely seeking cooperation in identifying the internal source. If that is correct, the implications are profound.

Compelling a citizen (or even a publisher) to reveal a source strikes at the heart of press freedom and whistleblower protection. Even where shield laws are not codified, democratic norms strongly discourage coercive extraction of sources.

If detention becomes leverage for source disclosure, whistleblowing collapses.

The mechanism does not need to be formally declared. The pressure itself is sufficient.

Facebook Is Not a Lesser Platform

Some may attempt to diminish the significance of this case by noting that Charters publishes on Facebook rather than through mainstream media outlets.

That argument fails both legally and practically.

Journalistic protection attaches to function, not platform. If an individual gathers information of public interest, assesses its relevance, and publishes it for public scrutiny, the medium is immaterial. Social media has become a primary vehicle for civic reporting and political discourse.

To suggest that Facebook publishing is somehow less deserving of protection is to deny contemporary reality. The law does not, and should not, distinguish between ink on paper and text on a digital screen when constitutional freedoms are implicated.

Detention as Leverage

The manner of Charters’ detention raises its own questions. He was stopped at an airport. He was reportedly offered a conditional arrangement. He was detained overnight. He has not yet been formally charged.

In rule-of-law systems, detention prior to charge is justified by necessity: risk of flight, interference with evidence, or immediate public harm.

Here, the sequence suggests something else — strategic pressure. Detention isolates. It destabilises. It creates urgency. When used in the context of suspected whistleblower leaks, it functions less as prosecution preparation and more as leverage. That distinction is not semantic. It goes to the legitimacy of enforcement power.

Professional Officers, Institutional Direction

Charters has publicly acknowledged that the investigating officers have been professional and considerate. That recognition is important. The issue is not individual conduct on the ground. It is institutional direction and strategic decision-making. Good officers can operate within flawed frameworks. Professional investigators can execute politicised mandates. The concern is systemic, not personal.

The Chilling Effect

Even without a conviction, the message of this episode is unmistakable: Publish sensitive material and you may be detained. Refuse cooperation and you may be arrested. Challenge internal secrecy and you may be pressured. This is the anatomy of a chilling effect.

Whistleblowers will hesitate. Independent publishers will self-censor. Public discourse will narrow. Anti-corruption agencies are meant to expand transparency, not contract it.

A Broader Crisis of Credibility

This case sits against a backdrop of public concerns about selective enforcement, opaque decision-making, and unexplained case closures. When enforcement appears inconsistent, and when procedural shortcuts surface, public trust erodes rapidly.

An anti-corruption body’s authority depends entirely on perceived impartiality. Once citizens suspect that discretion is being exercised unevenly, or that investigative tools are being used to suppress rather than expose, legitimacy begins to fracture. That fracture is difficult to repair.

The Central Question

The issue is no longer whether FICAC should exist. It must. The issue is whether it will operate within clear legal confines or continue stretching its authority into areas that threaten fundamental freedoms.

If Charters actively assisted a criminal breach, that should be proven in court with evidence. If he merely published material provided to him, detention becomes disproportionate and constitutionally troubling. Those are two very different scenarios. The public deserves clarity.

My earlier analysis asserted that publishing whistleblower allegations on Facebook is not a crime. The events surrounding Charlie Charters’ detention have only sharpened that principle.

This moment is larger than one individual. It is about whether enforcement power will be exercised with restraint, precision, and transparency, or with pressure, ambiguity, and institutional defensiveness.

An anti-corruption agency cannot protect public integrity by undermining civil liberty.

If it attempts to do so, it risks becoming the very problem it was created to solve.

As someone with a history of exposing wrong-doing, beginning with the 1982 "Carroll Report" for the Alliance Party on how to cripple NFP-WUF Coalition at the 1982 general election to FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry, revealing $2 million hidden in a Sydney account, and extending to the leaked murder charge sheet against dictator Frank Bainimarama, I know the importance of transparency.

Without such disclosures, Fiji risks descending into the kind of repression depicted in Animal Farm. Alarmingly, it is already close. GOD, HELP FIJI.

FICAC Must Be Defended But Its Politicisation Must Be Condemned
*In any functioning democracy, an independent anti-corruption agency is not optional. It is foundational. The existence of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) is not merely justified; it is indispensable.

*Corruption corrodes institutions, distorts public trust, and undermines economic and political stability. Without an enforcement body dedicated to investigating abuse of office, illicit enrichment, and maladministration, accountability becomes rhetoric rather than reality.

*Those who argue that FICAC should be dismantled are attacking the wrong target. The problem has never been the existence of FICAC. The problem is what happens when any anti-corruption body becomes politicised.

Facebook Blogger Charlie Charters Detention by FICAC. Lets Face Up: Why Publishing Whistleblower Allegations on FACEBOOK Is Not A Crime FICAC has little basis to criminally charge him for Facebook posts alone

21/2/2026

FB blogger Charters

The detention of Charlie Charters by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) raises serious legal, constitutional, and democratic concerns. At the centre of the controversy is one fundamental question: on what lawful basis can a citizen be detained for publishing allegations provided by a whistleblower?

So far, no clear answer has been given.

Charters’ alleged “offence” appears to be the publication on social media of leaked information and claims concerning conduct within FICAC, including allegations involving the acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika and her husband. These posts, whether uncomfortable, controversial, or politically sensitive, fall squarely within the realm of public-interest speech. In any democratic society governed by the rule of law, such speech is protected unless it clearly violates a specific criminal statute.

To date, no such statute has been publicly identified.

The Limits of Section 13G

Authorities and commentators have pointed to Section 13G of the FICAC Act as a possible legal basis. However, a plain reading of that provision makes its scope clear. It criminalises the unauthorised disclosure of official information by current or former FICAC officers and staff. It is designed to prevent internal leaks by insiders.

It does not apply to journalists, bloggers, whistleblowers outside the institution, or members of the public who receive and publish information.

In other words, Section 13G targets the source of a leak inside FICAC, not the recipient who disseminates it.

If a FICAC employee unlawfully disclosed information, that person may be investigated and charged under the Act. But extending that provision to justify the detention of an outsider has no legal foundation.

Publication Is Not a Crime

Publishing allegations, even serious ones, does not automatically constitute a criminal offence.

In most legal systems, including Fiji’s, the act of reporting or commenting on alleged misconduct by public officials is protected by constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of the media. These protections exist precisely to ensure that matters of public concern can be scrutinised without fear of state retaliation.

If published material is false and damages someone’s reputation, the remedy is civil defamation proceedings. Courts, not police cells, are the proper forum for resolving such disputes.

Defamation is not grounds for arrest.

Similarly, unless there is evidence that Charters fabricated documents, hacked systems, bribed officials, or actively obstructed an investigation, there is no obvious criminal offence involved in receiving and sharing leaked material.

So far, no such allegations have been substantiated.

The Chilling Effect on Whistleblowers and Media

Detaining a Facebook blogger without clearly stating the offence has broader consequences.

It sends a warning to whistleblowers that speaking out may lead to retaliation. It signals to journalists, bloggers, and commentators that reporting on sensitive matters carries personal risk. It encourages self-censorship and silence.

This is how democratic accountability erodes: not through overt bans, but through fear.

When enforcement agencies act without transparency, they undermine public trust. When citizens cannot tell where lawful investigation ends and intimidation begins, the rule of law is weakened.

Due Process and Constitutional Safeguards

Under Fiji’s constitutional framework, any person who is detained must be informed promptly of the reason for their detention and the legal basis for it. Authorities must be able to point to a specific offence and a specific statutory power.

Detention cannot be based on vague suspicion, political discomfort, or institutional embarrassment.

It must be grounded in law.

If an agency believes a crime has been committed, it must charge the individual and present evidence in court. If it cannot do so, continued detention becomes arbitrary.

Arbitrary detention is unlawful.

Public Interest and Accountability

The allegations published by Charters concern potential impropriety within a powerful public institution. Whether those allegations are true or false is a matter that deserves proper investigation, not suppression.

If they are false, they can be disproved. If they are true, the public has a right to know.
Either way, silencing the messenger does not resolve the underlying issues. Transparency, not intimidation, is the proper response.

A Dangerous Precedent

If publishing leaked information becomes grounds for detention, a dangerous precedent is set. Any citizen who shares documents, questions officials, or exposes wrongdoing could be targeted next.

Today it is a Facebook post. Tomorrow it could be an investigative article.

Next week it could be a private message.

Once that line is crossed, no one who speaks critically is truly safe.

Conclusion

Based on publicly available information, there is no clear legal basis for detaining a private citizen solely for publishing whistleblower allegations. Section 13G of the FICAC Act does not apply to outsiders. Defamation is a civil matter. No other offence has been transparently identified.

Until authorities clearly state the law they are relying on and the evidence supporting it, this detention remains deeply troubling.

In a society governed by law, power must answer to principle. Silence enforced by fear is not justice. Accountability enforced by law is.

Anything less is a betrayal of democratic values.

INCITING TO MUTINY. The Arrest of Bainimarama, Sitiveni Qiliho Does Not Bury Section 131. Why Fiji Still Needs a Constitutionally Alert RFMF

19/2/2026

"What must be resisted, firmly and without apology, is the emerging narrative that these arrests somehow “close the chapter” on Section 131 of the Constitution, neutralise the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, and confine it permanently to political irrelevance. The prosecution of two former officials does not repeal the Constitution. It does not suspend history. And it does not erase institutional responsibility. Section 131 remains in force. Its meaning has not changed. And neither has the reality that Fiji’s stability still depends on how that provision is understood, respected, and practised."

Inciting To Mutiny Suspect

The Danger of Turning Prosecution into Political Licence

There is now a real risk that these prosecutions will be weaponised politically. Some will argue that because Bainimarama and Qiliho stand accused, any future reference to Section 131 is illegitimate. That any citizen who speaks about the RFMF’s constitutional role is “inviting mutiny”. That any concern about governance is “sedition”. That any appeal to institutional vigilance is criminal.

This is profoundly dangerous. It converts law enforcement into a tool of intimidation. It transforms civic engagement into a legal hazard. And it teaches citizens that silence is safer than conscience. A society in which people are afraid to invoke their own Constitution is already in constitutional decline.

History offers a brutal warning.

Under Idi Amin Dada, Uganda’s armed forces aligned themselves with ethnic populism and authoritarian power. Once the army chose sides, the fate of Ugandan Asians was sealed. Expulsion, dispossession, and exile followed swiftly. Legal protections collapsed. Courts became irrelevant. Appeals to fairness became meaningless.

Uganda’s tragedy did not begin with decrees. It began when institutions stopped belonging to everyone. Minorities did not flee because of rhetoric alone. They fled because they saw that the state, including its security forces, no longer stood neutrally between citizens and power.

That lesson is not about replicating outcomes. It is about recognising institutional failure early.

When minorities lose confidence that the state will protect them impartially, they stop thinking about rights. They start thinking about exits. They will have no faith in RFMF.

Colonel Viliame Draunibaka

It is alleged that Bainimarama between the 1st of January 2023 and the 31st of July 2023 around Suva, sent viber messages to Brigadier General Manoa Gadai in his attempt to incite him to take over command and overthrow the authority of the Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Major General Jone Kalouniwai.

For the second count of inciting to mutiny, it is alleged that Bainimarama and Qiliho between the 1st of July 2023 to the 31st of July, 2023 jointly spoke to Lt Colonel Atunaisa Vakatale, Colonel Aseri Rokoura, Colonel Viliame Draunibaka and others, who were senior officers of RFMF in their joint attempt to incite the senior officers to unlawfully arrest and take over the authority of the Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Major General Jone Kalouniwai.

Colonel Atunaisa Vakatale

Colonel Aseri Rokoura

The Arrest of Bainimarama and Qiliho Does Not Bury Section 131

The arrest and charging of Frank Bainimarama and Sitiveni Qiliho on allegations of inciting mutiny is a serious and consequential development in Fiji’s political and legal life. These are not minor charges. They go to the heart of civil–military relations and constitutional order. They must be tested in open court, on evidence and law, without fear or favour.

That is how the rule of law functions.

But what must be resisted, firmly and without apology, is the emerging narrative that these arrests somehow “close the chapter” on Section 131 of the Constitution, neutralise the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, and confine it permanently to political irrelevance. The prosecution of two former officials does not repeal the Constitution. It does not suspend history. And it does not erase institutional responsibility.

Section 131 remains in force. Its meaning has not changed. And neither has the reality that Fiji’s stability still depends on how that provision is understood, respected, and practised.

Section 131 Was Never Meant to Produce a Silent Military

Section 131 assigns to the RFMF responsibility for the “security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians.” Those words were not chosen casually. “Well-being” is not limited to territorial defence. It speaks to constitutional stability, social cohesion, and civic peace. “All Fijians” is not a slogan. It is a legal and moral commitment to equality.

This provision was never intended to authorise coups. Nor was it designed to manufacture a mute, disengaged military that retreats into the barracks whenever politics becomes uncomfortable. It was meant to embed the RFMF within the democratic order while recognising that, in Fiji’s particular history, institutional guardianship matters.

To pretend otherwise is to engage in wilful amnesia.

A professional military in a democracy is restrained, lawful, and subordinate to civilian authority. But it is not blind, indifferent, or morally vacant. It is constitutionally literate. It is alert to institutional decay. It understands when social cohesion is under strain. And it remains committed to the integrity of the Republic as a shared civic project.

The Danger of Turning Prosecution into Political Licence

There is now a real risk that these prosecutions will be weaponised. Some will argue that because Bainimarama and Qiliho stand accused, any future reference to Section 131 is illegitimate. That any citizen who speaks about the RFMF’s constitutional role is “inviting mutiny.” Any concern about governance is “sedition”. That any appeal to institutional vigilance is criminal.

This is profoundly dangerous.

It converts law enforcement into a tool of intimidation. It transforms civic engagement into a legal hazard. And it teaches citizens that silence is safer than conscience. A society in which people are afraid to invoke their own Constitution is already in constitutional decline.

Uganda and the Cost of Institutional Alignment

History offers a brutal warning. Under Field-Marshal Idi Amin, Uganda’s armed forces aligned themselves with ethnic populism and authoritarian power. Once the army chose sides, the fate of Ugandan Asians was sealed. Soldiers enforced decrees, intimidated and robbed families, seized property, and ensured that resistance was futile. Legal protections collapsed. Courts became irrelevant. Appeals to fairness became meaningless.

Uganda’s tragedy did not begin with mass expulsions. It began when institutions stopped belonging to everyone. Minorities did not flee merely because of rhetoric. They fled because they saw that the state, including its security forces, no longer stood neutrally between citizens and power.

That lesson is not about predicting identical outcomes. It is about recognising institutional failure early. When minorities lose confidence that the state will protect them impartially, they stop thinking about rights. They start thinking about exits.

Indo-Fijian Anxiety Is Not Paranoia

For many Indo-Fijians, the accelerating iTaukeinisation of public life is not an abstract concern. It is read through history: coups, displacement, constitutional manipulation, and repeated reminders that belonging in Fiji has too often been conditional.

When political language becomes ethnic, when institutions tilt toward majoritarian comfort, and when constitutional safeguards weaken, fear is not irrational. It is empirical.

If the present moment is interpreted as a licence for unchecked nationalism, safe in the belief that the military has been politically neutralised, then Fiji will be storing up long-term instability. No society remains cohesive when one community lives in permanent uncertainty about its future.

The Role of Major-General Kalouniwai Is Now Pivotal

This is why the leadership of Ro Jone Kalouniwai is historically significant. The Commander’s role is not political brokerage. It is institutional stewardship.

It is to ensure that the RFMF remains apolitical, professional, constitutionally literate, loyal to equal citizenship, and resistant to ethnic or partisan capture. Professionalism does not mean disengagement. It means disciplined awareness. It means understanding that exclusionary politics undermines national security as surely as any external threat.

A military loyal to the Constitution must be loyal to its spirit, not merely its text.

Citizens Must Be Free to Appeal to Institutions

There will be moments—there must be moments—when citizens feel compelled to call upon institutions to uphold constitutional norms. That is not sedition. That is democratic citizenship. Questioning whether institutions are fulfilling their mandate is not incitement. It is accountability.

Warning of democratic backsliding is not mutiny. It is civic vigilance. If such speech becomes criminalised, Fiji will have crossed a quiet but decisive threshold: from constitutional democracy to managed silence.

If Nationalism Is Allowed to Harden in Fiji

If this moment is misread, if it becomes a political trophy for aggressive ethno-nationalism, then Fiji will have invited a far more dangerous future.

If majoritarian iTaukei power is exercised without restraint, if institutions retreat into convenient silence, and if constitutional safeguards are hollowed out under cover of “law and order,” then the arrests of two men will mark not democratic progress, but institutional drift.

Democracies rarely collapse dramatically. They decay through complacency, selective enforcement, and the slow silencing of dissent. In such environments, minorities read the signals: in appointments, in rhetoric, in policy choices, in selective outrage, and in institutional timidity. When those signals accumulate, trust evaporates.

Uganda did not fall apart because of one decree. It fell apart because institutions stopped belonging to everyone.

Prosecution Must Not Become Erasure

The courts must do their work. If wrongdoing is proved, consequences must follow. No one is above the law. But prosecution must not become a historical erasure. It must not be used to discredit constitutional debate, intimidate civic engagement, silence minorities, neutralise institutional responsibility, rewrite Section 131 out of relevance.

The Constitution does not belong to governments. It belongs to citizens.

The Real Test of Fiji’s Maturity

The test before Fiji is not whether it can prosecute former leaders. Many countries can do that. The real test is whether it can do so while preserving free constitutional debate, institutional integrity, minority security, equal citizenship, and democratic confidence.

Section 131 remains part of Fiji’s constitutional architecture. The RFMF remains a central institution. And Ro Jone Kalouniwai remains its steward.

None of that disappears because two men are charged.

If Fiji allows fear, opportunism, and ethnic politics to hollow out these foundations, it will not be escaping its past. It will be repeating it, slowly, quietly, and with far greater long-term cost.

History shows that slow collapses are often the hardest to stop. Loyalties shift in Fiji

Yesterday's Bainimarama loyalists are now Tomorrow's State witnesses.
In June 2023, a military delegation, led by Col ATUNAISA VAKATALE, the Commanding Officer of Fiji's largest foot soldiers, and Col ASERI ROKOURA, feted their former military commander at his residence

Looking to RFMF: In December 2022, Rabuka crossed a constitutional red line rhetorically, but did he cross the criminal threshold operationally

People’s Alliance leader Sitiveni Rabuka says his request for the military to intervene in the electoral counting process was denied by Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) Commander Major General Ro Jone Kalouniwai.

From Fijileaks Archive, 16 December 2022

“I wish to reassure the people of Fiji that the RFMF will not respond to People’s Alliance (PAP) leader Sitiveni Rabuka’s insistence or any political party, that we intervene under our responsibilities from Section 131.2 of the 2013 Constitution” Kalouniwai said.

“The constitutional responsibility of the RFMF section 131.2 does not make any reference to intervening or getting involved with the electoral processes or management of voting or counting of votes with the assistance of the military,” he said.

Kalouniwai explained that using the military in any form during the electoral process is unconstitutional.

“The RFMF will leave it in the good hands of those responsible of the electoral process under the 2013 constitution.”

The Commander went on to say the constitution has other avenues that the opposition parties can resort to when seeking redress.

“In this instance, I urge any dispute with reference to the electoral process be referred to the Supervisor of Elections, the Electoral Commission and the Court of Disputed Returns. These are the various organisations that deal with all electoral matters.”

The statement comes after a group of opposition party leaders called for a halt to vote counting on Thursday, demanding an audit of the country’s electoral system.

It was triggered by an anomaly in provisional results that was displayed on a Fiji Election Office results app on Wednesday night.

The app was taken offline for several hours and then restarted in the early hours of Thursday showing an almost unassailable lead for the ruling Fiji First Party over all other parties.

Speaking for a group of political parties at a media conference in Suva on Thursday, PAP leader Sitiveni Rabuka said the anomaly raised questions about the integrity of the entire electoral system.

Meanwhile, five political parties have today launched a petition to gather support in their quest to prove the election results are not free and fair.

The People’s Alliance, National Federation Party, Fiji Labor Part, Unity Fiji, and We Unite parties are working a coalition of parties.

PA leader Sitiveni Rabuka says they will be launching the petition in a few days.

The five leaders are also now saying they agree that manual count has been happening but they do not want the use of the results software and also the app.

Where Were Hangmen in 1987, 2000 and 2006? Sandeep Singh's Sudden Love Affair with Gallows. The gallows brigade were nowhere to be seen. What about Rabuka, Speight, Bainimarama for their treasonous coups

15/2/2026

“I don’t care if somebody is killed to save hundreds of our younger generation, I support the death penalty. That should be part of the law. Put the military on the ground and start the drug war.”
This was the strong remark from investment consultant Sandeep Singh during the public consultations on the Counter Narcotics Bill held at the Suva Civic Centre.

Suddenly, Fiji has discovered the death penalty.

At public consultations, on talkback radio, and across social media, a new political fashion has emerged. Faced with drugs, crime, prostitution, and social breakdown, some citizens now insist that only one solution remains: bring back hanging. The argument is delivered with great passion and moral certainty. Executions, we are told, will restore order, discipline society, and save the nation.

It is a simple solution. It is also a dishonest one.

Because before Fiji rushes to resurrect the gallows, there is a question that the new hangmen never answer: where were they when Fiji experienced real treason?

Fiji does not need to imagine what treason looks like. It has lived through it. In 1987, Sitiveni Rabuka overthrew an elected government, suspended the Constitution, and ruled by decree. He did it twice. In any serious constitutional system, that conduct constitutes treason in its clearest legal sense: the unlawful seizure of state power.

In 2000, George Speight and his supporters stormed Parliament and held the government hostage at gunpoint. It was an organised, violent insurrection that paralysed the state and plunged the country into chaos. That, too, was textbook treason.

In 2006, Frank Bainimarama followed in Rabuka and Speight's footsteps.

If hanging is the appropriate response to treason, Fiji should have been building gallows in 1987, 2000 and 2006.

It did not.

There were no mass petitions demanding executions. There were no public campaigns calling for Rabuka, Speight or Bainimarama to be put to death. There were no outraged commentators demanding “maximum punishment”. Instead, there was silence, accommodation, negotiation, and eventually rehabilitation.

Rabuka became Prime Minister. More than once. Speight went to prison and later walked free. The country was urged to reconcile, forgive, and move on.

The gallows brigade was nowhere to be seen.

Why? Because demanding accountability from powerful men is risky. It invites backlash. It threatens careers. It unsettles political alliances. It requires courage.

Demanding executions for drug suspects, by contrast, is safe. They are convenient targets. Calling for their deaths costs nothing. This is not moral courage. It is moral convenience.

Those who now shout “hang them” display extraordinary bravery only when there is no danger involved. They are fierce when confronting the powerless and silent when confronting power. That is not principle. It is performance.

The inconsistency is glaring. If hanging is justified for crimes that damage society, why was it not justified for crimes that destroyed constitutional government? If treason deserves death, why were coup-makers forgiven? If law matters, why did it matter only when the targets were politically harmless?

The answer is uncomfortable but obvious. Fiji has never practised consistent justice. It has practised selective memory.

Coups were treated as unfortunate episodes. Drug crimes are treated as existential threats. Constitutional destruction was excused. Social decay is dramatized. The hierarchy is clear: some crimes are forgivable, others are unforgivable, depending on who commits them.

This selective severity teaches a dangerous lesson. It tells citizens that power matters more than legality. It tells future adventurers that if you succeed in breaking the state, time will protect you. It tells ordinary people that punishment is reserved for the weak. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of status.

The current enthusiasm for executions is therefore not about public safety. It is about frustration looking for an outlet. It is about anger without analysis. It is about punishing visible symptoms while ignoring structural failures in policing, prosecution, governance, and social policy.

Hanging people will not fix corrupt institutions. It will not improve investigations. It will not strengthen courts. It will not restore trust. It will only satisfy rage for a moment.

Fiji does not need gallows. It needs consistency. It needs credible law enforcement. It needs independent courts. It needs accountability that applies equally to generals, politicians, businessmen, and street criminals.

Until the country is willing to confront its own history honestly, including how it treated coup-makers with indulgence, calls for executions will remain what they are now: noisy, hypocritical, and hollow.

We were soft on treason.

Now we are pretending to be tough on everything else.

That is not justice.

It is confusion dressed up as courage.

"Reviewing the current political landscape, I believe Mr Sitiveni Rabuka is the leader who will best be able to take Fiji forward and bring the changes that Fiji needs at this time. He is humble and compassionate. He is a leader that listens. He has learnt from his past mistakes. He has the experience of being a former head of government. I trust him. The founders of Mr Rabuka’s party give me confidence that if they win a majority of seats in the general elections, Fiji will have a government that is kinder, gentler and more inclusive." Graham Leung

NIKO NAWAIKULA PLAYING WITH FIRE, AGAIN: How Ethno-Nationalism Bogus "Indigenous Rights" and Minority Silence Keep FIJI on the BRINK

14/2/2026

Fiji has been here before. The country remembers the cost, though some now pretend it was never paid.

The renewed campaign against the Commercial Use of Marine Areas (CUMA) Bill, spearheaded by Niko Nawaikula and amplified by familiar ethno-nationalist voices, is not a neutral debate about law. It is a revival of a political script that has already pushed Fiji into catastrophe.

Wrapped in the language of indigenous rights, it repeats the same absolutism, selective history, and mobilisation cues that helped tear the country apart in 2006, and nearly did so from within in 1987.

This is not an argument against scrutiny of CUMA. Laws must be examined, criticised, and improved. But there is a profound difference between reform and recklessness. Fiji cannot afford to forget that difference.

The Lesson of 2006, and Why It Still Matters

The 2006 Qoliqoli Bill did not exist in isolation. It was introduced into a volatile environment where race, land, tribalism, provincialism, and state power were already dangerously entangled. The insistence that anything short of total, unconditional vesting of qoliqoli amounted to betrayal polarised the nation and fed a crisis of legitimacy.

The result was not the empowerment of iTaukei communities. It was a coup, the collapse of democratic governance, years of repression, and deep economic harm, borne most heavily by iTaukei themselves.

To revive that framing today - “absolute ownership or injustice” - is to ignore history. Or worse, to exploit it.

Imported Frameworks That Do Not Fit Fiji

At the centre of the current campaign is a heavy reliance on international indigenous instruments such as UNDRIP and ILO Convention 169. These frameworks were developed for peoples who are politically marginalised minorities in their own states, dispossessed by settler colonialism and excluded from power. The Incas and Aztecs under colonial annihilation, Aboriginal Australians denied land and sovereignty, Adivasis in India marginalised by dominant majorities: these are the paradigmatic cases.

The iTaukei people are not in that position.

In Fiji, iTaukei are the majority population. They own more than 90 per cent of land. Indigenous institutions are constitutionally entrenched. Political power, the public service, and the security forces are overwhelmingly iTaukei-led. To claim that iTaukei require the same restorative framework as colonised minorities elsewhere is not only a poor fit; it is politically incendiary. It transforms a constitutionally powerful majority into a fictional victim class and recasts fellow citizens as intruders.

UNDRIP was never intended to override the authority of a functioning, multi-ethnic state or to justify legal exceptionalism over national resources. When stretched that far, it becomes a weapon, not a rights instrument.

Marine Areas Are Not Land, and No State Governs Them Absolutely

Another sleight of hand is the treatment of qoliqoli as if they were identical to land. They are not. Marine areas implicate navigation rights, environmental protection, international maritime law, national food security, and shared access. No modern state - indigenous-led or otherwise - vests total, unregulated control of its marine spaces without oversight.

The State exists to regulate, enforce, and balance competing interests in the public interest. CUMA, whatever its flaws, reflects an attempt to retain national oversight over commercial marine activity while allowing customary participation. To portray this as an existential assault on indigenous identity is agitation, not analysis.

Power Without Capacity Is Not Justice

There is also a reality the “total control” narrative refuses to confront. Many iTaukei communities are under severe social strain. Drugs, particularly methamphetamine, are devastating families, villages, and youth. Chiefs, churches, police, and health workers all acknowledge it. The victims are overwhelmingly iTaukei.

Against this backdrop, handing over absolute control of vast marine and commercial resources without strong governance is not empowerment; it is exposure. Ownership brings responsibility - regulation, enforcement, transparency, resistance to criminal capture. Drug networks thrive where oversight is weak and authority fragmented. Romanticising custom while ignoring social breakdown does not protect communities; it places them at risk.

Ownership without capacity is not justice. It is negligence.

The Messenger Matters

Context also includes who is delivering the message. Niko Nawaikula is not a detached commentator. He is a former politician who was convicted and jailed for abusing taxpayer-funded travel allowances. That history does not permanently bar him from public debate. But it does matter when he presents himself as a moral authority urging communities to distrust government and “stand up” against the State.

Fiji has seen this pattern before: personal political rehabilitation through ethnic mobilisation. It has never ended well.

The Silence That Enables Extremism

Ethno-nationalism thrives not only because it is shouted loudly, but because it is rarely challenged. For decades, Indo-Fijians, descendants of girmitiya, born in Fiji with no other homeland, have learned to survive by keeping their heads down. Each coup taught the same lesson: protest invites punishment; silence buys survival. That instinct is understandable. It has also been costly.

When Indo-Fijians are labelled vulagis - foreigners in the land of their birth - and Indo-Fijian leaders fail to challenge it decisively, humiliation becomes normalised. Silence is not neutral; it validates the worldview of extremists and teaches them that intimidation works.

The Unspoken Warning from 1987

Fiji came perilously close to tearing itself apart from within in 1987. While the coups were carried out in the name of indigenous supremacy, a fact rarely acknowledged is that a small number of Indo-Fijians, pushed to desperation, briefly decided they would no longer absorb violence passively. The bombs in Suva. The guns in Lautoka.

These were not acts of liberation. They were acts of despair, and they terrified the nation. They remain a warning that systematic humiliation and exclusion do not always remain peaceful. Fiji escaped catastrophe then by luck as much as wisdom. It should not assume restraint is infinite.

Bogus “Indigenous Rights” as Political Weaponry

What is being advanced by Nawaikula is not protection of culture or dignity. It is racial entitlement dressed up as international law. It imports grievance frameworks designed for Incas, Aztecs, Aboriginal Australians, and Adivasis, and applies them to a context where the supposed beneficiaries already hold constitutional dominance.

This is not rights advocacy. It is ethno-nationalism. And history shows what ethno-nationalism produces in Fiji: coups, repression, economic decline, and long-term harm to indigenous people themselves.

Reform Yes, Radicalisation No

None of this argues for complacency. CUMA should be scrutinised. Consultation must be genuine. Customary participation can and should be strengthened. But reform must occur within constitutional order, grounded in Fiji’s history and present realities, not nostalgia or imported absolutes.

Every coup in Fiji has weakened indigenous security, not strengthened it. Every period of instability has harmed iTaukei livelihoods first. The politics of permanent grievance have never delivered dignity or prosperity.

A Final Warning

Fiji cannot afford to relearn the lessons of 1987 and 2006. Total control sold as liberation risks becoming another trigger for division and instability. Indigenous dignity will not be advanced by selective history, borrowed frameworks, or moral posturing from compromised platforms.

Justice in Fiji will be built through strong institutions, honest governance, social healing, and reform rooted in reality. Not by playing with fire, again.

We have already seen where this road leads. And it was not justice.

GET OUT OF OUR PREMISES, Sanatan Dharm Sabha to Pacific Polytech. Was Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and the NFP leader BIMAN Prasad Right to Intervene in a Private Landlord and Tenant Lease Dispute

14/2/2026

"In a constitutional democracy, private disputes must be resolved by law, not by ministerial influence. On that basis, Biman Prasad’s involvement was not institutionally justified and sets an undesirable precedent for political interference in commercial matters."

"This was not an isolated incident. In August 2025, Prasad was also accused of attempting to interfere with the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC) over the release of some $7 million in public funds to Pacific Polytech, despite the institution operating only under a provisional licence and having failed to meet mandatory reporting and compliance deadlines. Instead of allowing the statutory regulator to enforce its own statutory conditions and withhold funding until full accreditation and regulatory requirements were satisfied, Prasad allegedly applied political pressure to secure the release of the money. The episode raised serious questions about favouritism, abuse of office, and the improper use of ministerial power to benefit a private entity, reinforcing concerns that Prasad has repeatedly blurred the line between public duty and private or political interests."

The letter shown documents a commercial tenancy dispute between Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji and Pacific Polytech Ltd (PPL), culminating in a formal demand for eviction in May 2023. Crucially, it records that Biman Prasad, then Deputy Prime Minister, personally intervened in negotiations after a notice of termination had already been issued.

This raises serious questions about the propriety and legitimacy of that intervention.

Background to the Dispute

According to the letter:

A Notice of Termination had already been issued by Sabha, the landlord.
Negotiations were held in early April 2023 following requests from Biman Prasad.
The landlord expressly states it never withdrew the termination.
A proposal and counter-proposal were exchanged but failed.
PPL did not respond to reminders and missed the final deadline to vacate.
By mid-May 2023, the landlord demanded immediate possession and threatened legal action.

In effect, the legal relationship had already reached the enforcement stage when political involvement occurred.

Nature of Biman Prasad’s Intervention

The letter indicates that Biman Prasad, as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, requested negotiations. Meetings were held at the landlord’s headquarters. His involvement was described as informal and based on “respect and courtesy”. The landlord Sabha did not approve the requests made in these discussions.

This suggests that the intervention was not part of any statutory mediation process, court proceeding, or regulatory framework. It was purely political and informal.

Was the Intervention Proper?

From a governance and rule-of-law perspective, several concerns arise.

No Legal Mandate

There is no indication that Biman Prasad was acting under any lawful authority. Commercial tenancy disputes are governed by contract and civil law. They are resolved by negotiation between parties, arbitration (if agreed), or the courts.

A Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister has no formal role in private lease enforcement.

Risk of Undue Influence

When a senior minister intervenes in a private dispute, especially involving eviction and financial obligations, it risks pressuring one party, creating expectations of political favour, and undermining equality before the law. Even if well-intentioned, such involvement can distort bargaining power.

Conflict with Rule of Law Principles

In constitutional systems, ministers are expected to respect institutional boundaries. Private commercial disputes should not be resolved through political channels. Allowing ministers to “broker” outcomes weakens judicial independence, contract certainty, and investor confidence.

Ineffectiveness of Intervention

The letter shows that the intervention did not resolve the dispute. The Sabha, as landlord rejected proposals. Deadlines were missed. Eviction was pursued. This suggests the involvement created delay rather than resolution.

Possible Justifications

Supporters might argue that the intervention was aimed at protecting an educational institution. It sought to avoid disruption to students. It was humanitarian or pragmatic. However, even socially motivated interventions must operate within lawful frameworks, such as formal mediation or government-supported relocation assistance, not informal political pressure.

On the available evidence, Biman Prasad’s intervention appears legally unnecessary, institutionally inappropriate, politically risky, and ultimately ineffective. Sabha, as landlord, had exercised contractual rights. The matter was already on a legal trajectory. Political involvement did not change the outcome and arguably blurred the boundary between state power and private rights.

While Biman Prasad may have acted out of concern for continuity and social impact, the letter demonstrates that his intervention had no legal foundation and did not alter the landlord’s position.

In a constitutional democracy, private disputes must be resolved by law, not by ministerial influence. On that basis, Biman Prasad’s involvement was not institutionally justified and sets an undesirable precedent for political interference in commercial matters. In constitutional systems, ministers are expected to respect institutional boundaries.

Click, Click, Click. From Constitutional Limits to Camera Limits. When Boundaries Allegedly Didn't Apply to Biman Prasad

*Christopher Pryde said the decision to drop the case was made after a comprehensive review of the evidence and defences available to Professor Biman Prasad.
"It had been decided that there was insufficient reliable and credible evidence in the docket for a reasonable prospect of conviction, were the matter to proceed to court. At no time was the evidence assessed with regard to politics or the status of the suspect."

From Fijileaks Archive, 8 June 2023

3 June 2023

Subject: Termination of Pacific Polytechnic Agreement with Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses

Dear Hon. Prime Minister,

Hope this email find you well. This email is in regard to the determination of the rental contract between Pacific Polytechnic (PPL) and Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses.

A 90-days termination notice was given to PPL on 15th February 2023. Sanatan Fiji has given this campuses to PPL on rental for the operation of technical college. PPL was supposed to vacate the premises before 15th May 2023, however they failed to. Reminders were sent to PPL for vacant possession and payment of rental arrears during this 90 day period (letter attached to this email). A notification letter was also given to Fiji Higher Education Commission (letter attached).

16th /17th May Sanatan Fiji had requested PPL to give vacant possession of properties however, PPL refused to do so. Sanatan Fiji tried to negotiate with PPL but there was no positive response.

Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha Fiji is faith based organization, we have tried other methods to resolve these issue, but were unsuccessful.

We are left with the last resort to continue with the legal action against PPL/filing of court case.

PPL owes Sanatan Fiji a total of $16000.00 (FJD) for rental arrears. We wish to inform you that Sanatan Fiji is not liable for any business being conducted on our Nabua and Lautoka premises.

This is because a fair 90 day notice was given to PPL to sort out their business. We are humbly requesting you to assist us in the dilemma.

Hope our request is accepted.

Your faithfully
National President
Dhirendra Nand
Sanatan Fiji

A Breakdown of Ministerial Standards: How Biman Prasad as FINANCE Minister Undermined the Statutory Process in Higher Education Funding

13/2/2026

The Higher Education Commission Fiji’s letter to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka (published below) ultimately recorded more than an administrative dispute over grant eligibility.

It documented a clear failure of ministerial discipline by the Minister for Finance, Biman Prasad, whose conduct stood in direct conflict with the principles of lawful governance, respect for statutory independence, and ethical restraint expected of a senior Cabinet Minister.

While the Commission refrained from explicit criticism, the facts it placed on record were sufficient to demonstrate that Biman Prasad acted outside the boundaries of proper ministerial behaviour, compromised institutional process, and exposed the public funding system to perceptions of arbitrariness and preferential access.

Disregard for Statutory Authority

At the heart of the issue was Biman Prasad’s engagement with grant submissions that were, by law, required to be processed exclusively by the Fiji Higher Education Commission. The Higher Education Act 2008 and the Higher Education Regulations 2009 clearly vested authority for assessing higher education grants in the Commission, not in the Ministry of Finance and not in any individual minister.

Despite this, Biman Prasad received, entertained, and corresponded on funding requests from Pacific Polytech and ServicePro International, institutions that had either failed to meet eligibility requirements or had submitted incomplete documentation. This conduct demonstrated a fundamental disregard for the separation between political authority and statutory regulation.

A minister committed to upholding the rule of law would have rejected such submissions outright and redirected them to the Commission. Biman Prasad did not do so.

Normalising Bypass and Preferential Access

The letter made clear that the affected institutions bypassed the Commission entirely and approached the Minister for Finance directly. Biman Prasad’s willingness to accept and engage with these submissions normalised an improper channel, creating the impression that access to public funding could be achieved through political routes rather than lawful process.

This behaviour was unministerial not merely because it breached protocol, but because it undermined fairness. Institutions that complied with the law were subjected to rigorous assessment, while others were afforded direct ministerial attention, despite being non-compliant. Even if no funds were ultimately released, the damage to institutional credibility and public confidence had already been done.

Failure to Respect Regulatory Independence

The Higher Education Commission was placed in an untenable position. By recording Biman Prasad’s involvement, the Commission effectively signalled that it had been forced to defend its statutory independence against political intrusion.

That a statutory body felt compelled to seek Prime Ministerial direction and legal advice from the Solicitor-General underscored the seriousness of the situation. This was not routine consultation; it was a response to ministerial conduct that blurred authority and threatened regulatory integrity.

A minister acting consistently with the Ministerial Code would have protected, not tested, the independence of the Commission.

Evasion of Ministerial Responsibility

Biman Prasad’s email, referenced in the letter, acknowledged that there had been insufficient time for ministers to consider the submissions before the budget. Yet rather than treating this as a reason to exclude non-compliant requests, he allowed the matter to linger unresolved, effectively passing the burden back to the Commission and, ultimately, to the Prime Minister.

This was a failure of leadership. Ministerial responsibility required decisiveness grounded in law. Instead, Biman Prasad’s conduct contributed to administrative paralysis, uncertainty, and reputational risk for the government.

Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breach in Substance, If Not in Form

Although the letter did not invoke the Ministerial Code of Conduct explicitly, Biman Prasad’s actions conflicted with its core principles:

He failed to act strictly within statutory authority.
He failed to maintain clear boundaries between political office and regulatory bodies.
He enabled, rather than prevented, procedural irregularity.
He exposed public funding decisions to perceptions of bias and informality.

Even absent proof of corrupt intent, this behaviour amounted to a serious lapse in ministerial ethics. Ministerial codes exist precisely to prevent this kind of conduct, where influence replaces process and discretion overrides law.

His intervention highlighted a deeper problem: the casual erosion of governance norms by a senior minister entrusted with safeguarding public finance.

In retrospect, Biman Prasad’s conduct represented a textbook example of unministerial behaviour.

By engaging with non-compliant funding submissions, disregarding statutory process, and failing to uphold the independence of a regulatory body, he weakened institutional safeguards and diminished public confidence in the integrity of government decision-making.

The Higher Education Commission’s letter stands as a restrained but powerful record of this failure.

It showed that while the system ultimately resisted improper influence, it did so despite, not because of, the conduct of the Minister for Finance BIMAN CHAND PRASAD.

Responding to fijivillage News, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Professor Biman Prasad says the Commission can make submissions and provide advice, but the decision on budget allocations rests with Cabinet and Parliament.

Professor Prasad says funding allocations have been made following proper parliamentary processes.

The Deputy Prime Minister adds that he is of the understanding that the Commission had not received a timely submission from the two training providers and thus made a late submission to the Ministry of Finance.

Fijileaks: Biman Prasad did not disclose his own role in the PP funding saga.

*Was BIMAN CHAND PRASAD, former USP Economics Professor, Adjunct Professor at Punjab University, Patiala, India, Adjunct Professor, James Cook University, Australia, former Director, Fiji Institute of Applied Studies, former chairman of the Fiji Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, Shadow Minister of Finance, National Planning and Statistics, and later Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister (now NFP backbencher and still NFP party leader) CORRECT in his August 2025 Response to Fijivillage?

BIMAN Prasad’s response was partially correct in a narrow constitutional sense, but materially misleading and legally incomplete when assessed against the Higher Education Act 2008, the Higher Education Regulations 2009, and the facts later placed on record by the Higher Education Commission Fiji (HECF).

1: “The Commission can make submissions and provide advice, but the decision on budget allocations rests with Cabinet and Parliament.”

Why This Was Only Partly Correct

It is true that Cabinet and Parliament hold ultimate authority over the approval of the national budget, and the Minister for Finance tables the Appropriation Bill, and Parliament authorises expenditure. However, this statement collapsed two legally distinct stages into one, creating a misleading impression.

What the Law Actually Requires

Under the Higher Education Act and Regulations the Commission is not merely advisory in relation to higher education grants. The HECF is the statutory gatekeeper for eligibility, compliance, assessment, and recommendation of higher education grant funding.

Cabinet and Parliament approve aggregate budget allocations, but they do not lawfully replace the Commission’s role in determining which institutions qualify under the Act. Budget authority does not extinguish statutory conditions attached to spending.

Biman Prasad’s statement was constitutionally convenient but legally incomplete, as it obscured the binding statutory role of the Commission.

2: “Funding allocations have been made following proper parliamentary processes.”

Why This Statement Was Misleading

The HECF letter later confirmed that no grant agreements were executed for Pacific Polytech and ServicePro. The Commission did not recommend funding for them. The Commission was unable to authorise release of funds due to non-compliance.

Parliamentary approval of a budget line does not equate to lawful allocation or disbursement to specific recipients. Proper parliamentary process requires lawful assessment, compliance with enabling legislation, and execution of grant agreements.

None of these occurred for the two providers.

While the budget itself followed parliamentary procedure, the specific funding outcomes Prasad was defending did not, making his statement technically true but substantively misleading.

3. The Commission “had not received a timely submission” and the providers therefore made a “late submission to the Ministry of Finance.”

Why This Was Legally Incorrect

This was the weakest part of Biman Prasad’s response. The Higher Education Regulations do not permit an alternative submission pathway. Key facts from the HECF letter:

Late submission does not create a right to submit elsewhere.
Submission to the Ministry of Finance is not recognised in law for higher education grants.
Pacific Polytech was only provisionally registered at the relevant time and therefore ineligible regardless of timing.
ServicePro’s submission was incomplete, missing mandatory documents.

A late or missed deadline does not transfer statutory authority from the Commission to the Minister for Finance. Biman Prasad’s explanation was legally unsound. There is no lawful basis for treating late submissions to the Ministry of Finance as valid substitutes for Commission processes.

Overall Assessment of His August 2025 Statement

What He Got Right

Cabinet and Parliament approve the national budget.
Ministers do not personally assess institutional compliance.

What He Got Wrong

He understated the Commission’s binding statutory role.
He implied that budget authority could override regulatory non-compliance.
He suggested that late submissions justified bypassing the Commission.
He failed to acknowledge that no lawful funding recommendation existed.

Biman Prasad’s August 2025 response was defensive rather than accurate. It relied on broad constitutional principles while sidestepping the specific legal framework governing higher education grants.

While he was correct that Cabinet and Parliament control the budget, he was incorrect to imply that this authority legitimised funding pathways that contravened the Higher Education Act and Regulations.

In governance terms, his statement did not withstand scrutiny once the FHEC formally placed the facts and legal position on record.

From Fijileaks Archive, 10 August 2024

How Pacific Polytech Was Funded Despite a Fragile Financial Reality in Audited Statements

Pacific Polytechnic Limited’s (PP) audited financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2021 revealed an institution that survived not through financial strength or sustainable operations, but through continued reliance on government grants, donor assistance, and related-party support.

Despite this, Pacific Polytech went on to receive funding, a decision that, when examined against the contents of its own financial report, appeared financially imprudent and contrary to principles of responsible public accountability. A close analysis of the accounts showed that the funding decision was not supported by the underlying financial reality.

A Profit That Existed Only on Paper

The financial statements reported a net profit of $38,039 for the year. However, this figure did not arise from strong operational performance or a viable education business model. Instead, the surplus was almost entirely the result of external grants and donor funding, particularly wage and employment support linked to COVID-19 relief measures.

Tuition fees and internally generated income remained minimal. Without grants and donations, Pacific Polytech would not have covered its operating costs. The reported profit therefore created an illusion of financial health, masking the fact that the institution was structurally dependent on external support to remain solvent.

Dependence on Grants, Not Sustainability

The statement of comprehensive income showed that the largest sources of income were government employment schemes and donor contributions. This raised a fundamental question: why was further funding provided to an entity whose business model depended on funding in the first place?

Rather than demonstrating progress toward self-sufficiency, the financial report confirmed the opposite. Pacific Polytech remained reliant on external assistance to pay wages, meet expenses, and continue operations. Funding under these circumstances did not support growth or transformation; it merely prolonged dependency.

Public funds are typically intended to support measurable outcomes, build institutional capacity, or assist transition to sustainability. The accounts did not demonstrate that any of these objectives were being met.

Auditor’s Warning on Going Concern

While the auditors issued an unmodified opinion, they explicitly drew attention to a material uncertainty related to going concern. The report stated that Pacific Polytech’s ability to continue operating depended on ongoing donor and government assistance and on uncertain future conditions following the COVID-19 pandemic.

This warning was not a technicality. It was a clear signal that the institution’s survival was contingent and fragile. Funding an organisation under such circumstances effectively transferred financial risk from the institution to the funder, without evidence that the risk would diminish over time.

Granting funding in the face of an acknowledged going-concern uncertainty contradicted basic principles of fiscal prudence.

Weak Balance Sheet and Limited Financial Resilience

As at 31 December 2021, Pacific Polytech’s financial position remained weak. Although cash at bank stood at $93,258, total liabilities amounted to $194,039, leaving the organisation exposed and vulnerable. The balance sheet showed limited reserves and no meaningful buffer against future shocks.

Significant liabilities included accrued expenses, lease obligations, and advances linked to related parties. This meant that any new funding was likely to be absorbed by existing commitments rather than used to improve educational delivery or long-term capability.
In effect, funding did not strengthen the institution; it simply kept it afloat.

Governance and Related-Party Warnings

The notes to the financial statements disclosed advances and support from related parties, including directors. While such arrangements were disclosed, they highlighted deeper governance concerns. An institution reliant on director support and informal financial backing did not exhibit the independence or robustness typically expected of a publicly funded body.

There was no evidence in the accounts of independent capitalisation, external investment, or a clear strategy to exit reliance on related-party financing. This raised legitimate concerns about transparency, accountability, and whether public funds were indirectly propping up private arrangements.

No Evidence of a Turnaround Strategy

Crucially, the financial report did not outline a credible pathway toward sustainability. There was no detailed turnaround plan, no evidence of improving revenue diversification, and no indication that dependence on grants would reduce in future years.

Instead, the report repeatedly acknowledged uncertainty, COVID-19 disruption, and reliance on continued assistance. Funding under these circumstances did not incentivise reform or improvement. It rewarded stagnation.

Why the Funding Decision Was Wrong

Taken as a whole, Pacific Polytech’s 2021 financial report showed an institution that was technically compliant but economically fragile. It did not demonstrate financial independence, sustainable operations, adequate resilience, and reduced reliance on public or donor funding.

By approving funding despite these clear warning signs, Biman Prasad and other decision-makers ignored the substance of the financial information in favour of its surface appearance. The result was a funding outcome that rewarded dependency rather than performance, shifted financial risk onto the public, and undermined confidence in how education funding decisions were made.

Pacific Polytech should not have received funding arising from its 2021 financial report. The accounts themselves showed an organisation surviving on external assistance, facing acknowledged going-concern risks, and lacking a credible path to sustainability. Funding in such circumstances was not an investment in education outcomes. It was a stop-gap measure that postponed difficult questions about governance, viability, and accountability - questions that the financial statements had already answered.

NOTE: At the time Pacific Polytech sought public support, it formally acknowledged that it had not been granted income-tax exemption and was merely “intending” to apply. Despite this unresolved status, government funding subsequently flowed. This sequence raises serious questions about regulatory due diligence, financial oversight, and whether public funds were committed before Pacific Polytech had met basic compliance standards expected of publicly supported educational bodies.

From Political Defence to Legal Reality: NFP president Chand’s Polytech Narrative, Howards Lawyers Warning, and Role of BIMAN PRASAD. Wylie Clarke to FHEC: 'Pacific Polytech cannot be exception to funding rules.'

12/2/2026

Who asked former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad to transmit or support Pacific Polytech's grant request?
Why was PP routed politically rather than through normal FHEC processes?

The document below shows that the former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad functioned as a political intermediary for a non-compliant institution - the Pacific Polytech- seeking public funds, bypassing standard administrative processes. Although the attempt failed, it demonstrates (1) Improper ministerial involvement (2) Institutional pressure tactics (3) Governance weaknesses, and (4) Recurrent risk of politicised funding.

*We provided FICAC with extensive materials concerning Pacific Polytech. However, in a single decision, the newly appointed FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, closed Biman Prasad's entire files. Despite the Fiji High Court ruling, Malimali must not be reinstated at FICAC.

Ms Forwood

Fijileaks documents further supplemented and reinforced the complaint previously lodged by Sydney-based complainant Alex Forwood to FICAC (13 August 2024).

Read together, they provide additional documentary and contextual evidence demonstrating systemic procedural failures, material non-compliance with eligibility and governance requirements, and the improper continuation of the grant assessment process despite clear regulatory disqualification.

The combined material raises serious questions as to whether established public finance controls, administrative law standards, and institutional accountability mechanisms were disregarded in the handling of Pacific Polytech application, and behind the scene role played by then Finance Minister Prasad

The LETTER alleging BIMAN PRASAD's intervention in the funding bid

Howards Lawyers' Wylie Clarke Supports Enforcement of Eligibility Rules Warns Against Pacific Polytech grant for 2025-2026

When the National Federation Party again defended the $7 million allocation to Pacific Polytech in the Fiji Times this week, the party repeated its familiar position: the grant was scrutinised by Cabinet, approved by Parliament, and therefore legitimate.

The defence was delivered by NFP president Parmod Chand, not by the party leader and former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad.

Once again, Prasad, who controlled the Finance Ministry at the time the funds were released, has remained largely in the background, while the party machinery has carried the political argument. Behind this renewed public defence, however, lies a contemporaneous legal opinion that raises serious questions about whether the funding complied with statutory and administrative law requirements.

Wylie Clarke,
Howards Lawyers

Steve Chand
FHEC Chairman

The Latest NFP Defence

In the Fiji Times report, NFP reaffirmed that the Polytech grant was included in the national budget. It was reviewed by Cabinet. It was debated and passed by Parliament. It therefore met standards of transparency and accountability.

This narrative frames the controversy as settled by political process.

By having Parmod Chand articulate this defence, NFP has presented it as a collective party position rather than a personal justification by Prasad. The emphasis is on institutional legitimacy, not regulatory detail.

Prasad’s Continued Distance

Notably, Prasad himself has avoided becoming the public face of the dispute. While critics, including Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, have pursued the issue forcefully, Prasad has largely confined himself to general comments about procedure and budgetary systems.

He has avoided direct engagement with critics, detailed discussion of regulatory compliance, and public reference to internal legal advice. Instead, the party president has taken the lead.

This appears to be a deliberate political strategy: allowing the party to absorb controversy while the former Finance Minister maintains a technocratic and detached profile.

The FHEC Regulator’s Legal Advice: Wylie Clarke’s Opinion

While NFP was projecting confidence in public, the statutory regulator, the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC) was dealing with serious legal concerns. In November 2025, FHEC obtained external legal advice from Howards Lawyers. The opinion, signed by partner Wylie Clarke, was addressed to the Commission.

It was not written for political consumption. It was a regulatory risk assessment prepared for internal guidance. The advice recorded that Pacific Polytech:

Missed original and extended submission deadlines,
Submitted incomplete and deficient documentation,
Remained only provisionally registered during key assessment periods,
Failed to meet eligibility criteria at critical times,
Was ineligible for parts of the relevant funding cycle.

These were not technical irregularities. They were fundamental defects under the higher education regulatory framework. Wylie Clarke further warned that inconsistent application of eligibility rules could expose FHEC to judicial review and reputational harm.

The opinion did NOT endorse the funding. It cautioned against it.

Two Competing Narratives

The Polytech controversy is defined by two conflicting frameworks.

The Political Narrative (NFP)

Parliament approved the budget.
Cabinet scrutinised it.
Therefore the grant is legitimate.

The Legal Narrative (Howards Lawyers (Wylie Clarke, Opinion)

Eligibility criteria were not properly satisfied.
Documentation and deadlines were deficient.
Registration status was problematic.
Legal risk was identified in advance.

These narratives operate on different planes. One relies on political authority. The other relies on statutory compliance. They are not interchangeable.

Why Parliamentary Approval Is Not Enough

A central weakness in NFP and Biman Prasad's defence is the assumption that Parliamentary approval cures all defects. Under administrative law, this is incorrect. Parliamentary appropriation authorises spending in principle. It does not legalise unlawful administration. Where statutory preconditions for funding are not met, political endorsement cannot retrospectively validate the decision.

This principle underpins Wylie Clarke's advice. He did not treat budget approval as decisive. He examined regulatory compliance, and found serious problems.

The Institutional Chain of Responsibility

The Polytech funding followed a standard administrative path:

FHEC assessed eligibility.
External lawyers identified compliance risks.
Vulnerabilities were documented.
Treasury processed the payments.
Funds were released.

Although Prasad is not named in the legal opinion, a standard practice in regulatory advice, the Ministry of Finance under his leadership controlled the final stage. Under Fiji’s system Regulators recommend, Parliament appropriates, and Finance authorises disbursement.

Once legal risks were documented, the responsibility to pause, remedy defects, or proceed rested with financial authorities. At that time, those authorities were under Biman Prasad’s ministerial control.

Timing: The Crucial Detail

One of the most important aspects of Wylie Clarke's opinion is timing It was not retrospective. It was obtained while funding decisions were still being finalised. This means:

Problems were known,
Risks were articulated,
Warnings were recorded before funds were fully committed.

The controversy is therefore not about hindsight. It is about decisions taken with knowledge of vulnerability.

“Former” Does Not Mean “Unaccountable”

Biman Chand Prasad is now the former Finance Minister in Rabuka's Coalition government. The fact is important but it does not erase past responsibility. In public administration, accountability attaches to the office-holder at the time decisions are made.

The Polytech funds were authorised and released during Prasad’s tenure. Whether he now holds the finance portfolio is legally irrelevant to the assessment of that period. Institutional responsibility does not expire when a minister changes roles.

Political Buffering: Chand in Front, Prasad Behind

Against this background, Prasad’s continued distance from the Chaudhry/NFP exchange takes on greater significance. By allowing Parmod Chand to lead the public defence, Prasad has reduced personal exposure, avoided personalised confrontation, and kept attention on party politics rather than administrative legality.

The NFP president Parmod Chand functions as the buffer. In other words, critics respond to Chand. Media quotes Chand. Debate becomes partisan.

Meanwhile, the former Finance Minister Biman Prasad remains one step removed.

Accountability and the Party–State Divide

This strategy may be effective politically, but it complicates public accountability. The central issue is not party loyalty. It is a regulatory legality. The Howards Lawyers (Wylie Clarke) opinion raises questions about:

Consistency of enforcement,
Fairness between institutions,
Integrity of eligibility assessment,
Protection of public funds.

These are matters of state administration, not party messaging. By framing the dispute as NFP versus critics, attention is diverted from the administrative record.

What the Documents Do, and Do Not Show

The available record does not establish criminal intent, personal misconduct by Prasad, or direct political interference. But it does establish that:

Compliance defects were documented,
Legal risk was identified,
Warnings were issued,
Funding proceeded,
Political defence followed.

That sequence is a legitimate subject of public scrutiny.

Broader Implications for Governance

The Polytech case raises wider questions for Fiji’s public finance system:

Are eligibility rules applied uniformly?
Do politically connected institutions receive flexibility?
Are regulators empowered to halt risky decisions?
Does Finance adequately heed regulatory warnings?

If statutory criteria can be softened in practice and defended later through political process, public confidence erodes.

Politics in Public, Law in Private

Publicly, NFP - through Parmod Chand - continues to present the Polytech grant as beyond reproach because Parliament approved it. Privately, the regulator’s own lawyers recorded that the process was legally vulnerable.

Biman Prasad, now the former Finance Minister, has largely stayed out of the political exchange, allowing the party to carry the argument. It is skilful political management. But documents outlast press statements.

The Howards Lawyers opinion through its principal partner Wylie Clarke remains part of the permanent administrative record. It shows that legal doubts existed before money was released.

In the end, the central question is not who won the media exchange. It is whether public funds were disbursed in full compliance with the law, despite documented warnings to the contrary.

On that question, accountability remains unresolved, and Prasad in the background.

THE national budgets that allocated grants to Pacific Polytech were scrutinised and approved by Cabinet, says National Federation Party (NFP) president Parmod Chand.

Mr Chand was responding to a statement by Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry, posted on the party’s social media page, claiming that the Higher Education Commission (HEC) had decided not to release a $7million government grant which he alleged was unlawfully allocated to Pacific Polytech by former Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad in the 2025–2026 Budget.

Mr Chand said the grants allocated to Pacific Polytech in successive budgets were done with transparency and accountability.

What If Justice Had Taken Its Course on 5 September 2024?
On 5 September 2024, when Barbara Malimali was arrested by FICAC officers in connection with a separate matter, serious questions arose about accountability and due process.
One is left to wonder what her legal and professional fate might have been, and what might have become of the Biman Prasad, Ganesh Chand, and Pacific Polytech files, had Wylie Clarke and other lawyers not intervened to secure her release that day.
Without that intervention, the investigations may have proceeded independently, transparently, and without political or institutional interference.
Instead, the episode has fuelled enduring doubts about whether justice was allowed to run its natural course.

DEPUTY DPP and Politics. John Rabuku to Dr Jone Hawea, 'Totoka...Join PAP and become a Minister'. Facebook comment sparks questions over Neutrality and CONDUCT. Once again, DPP officers mired in controversy

11/2/2026

Fresh questions are being raised over the political neutrality of Fiji’s prosecutorial system following a Facebook exchange involving John Rabuku, who is Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and comments encouraging political alignment with the People’s Alliance Party (PAP).

The controversy arose after Dr Jone Hawea, former Deputy Leader of the We Unite Fiji (WUF) Party, publicly announced his resignation from both his leadership role and party membership in a Facebook post on Tuesday.

Dr Hawea stated that his decision was made after “careful consideration” and reaffirmed his commitment to contributing to national development and the vision of a “New Fiji.”

In response to the resignation post, Rabuku commented publicly, suggesting that Dr Hawea should 'join PAP', a remark that quickly drew attention and criticism online. Other users joined the thread, debating political loyalties and motivations, before Rabuku further engaged in the discussion.

While Rabuku’s supporters argue that the comment was made in a personal capacity and merely as a response to a political development, it must be noted that that the issue is not whether the comment was invited, but whether it was appropriate for someone holding, or acting in, a constitutionally independent office such as the DPP.

Under Fiji’s constitutional framework, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required to operate independently and without political influence. Senior legal officers are also bound by public service and institutional codes of conduct that emphasise political neutrality, particularly in public forums.

Although Fiji law does not prohibit public officers from holding private political views, publicly encouraging an individual to join a specific political party, especially on a widely accessible platform like Facebook, may be viewed as political advocacy, rather than private expression.

Social media is now firmly recognised as a public space, and conduct on such platforms can attract scrutiny if it undermines public confidence in the independence of state institutions. This is especially relevant where the individual involved is easily identifiable and widely known to hold a senior legal position.

At this stage, there is no indication of any formal complaint or investigation. However, the incident has reignited debate about where the line should be drawn between personal expression and professional responsibility for holders of powerful constitutional offices.

The broader concern remains whether public confidence in the neutrality of the Office of the DPP can be maintained when senior figures engage openly in partisan political discussions online, even when those discussions arise from seemingly casual or reactive Facebook exchanges.

As Fiji navigates a politically active period, the episode highlights a core principle of the rule of law: justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. For the Office of the DPP, maintaining both actual and perceived independence remains critical, particularly where future prosecutions may involve the very political actors being publicly discussed online.

From Fijileaks Archive, 24 September 2025

The rule of law depends not only on the fair administration of justice but also on public confidence that prosecutors, as officers of the court, act impartially, uphold the presumption of innocence, and avoid conduct that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings. When those entrusted with prosecutorial authority use their public platforms to comment on active cases, they risk eroding that confidence and undermining the integrity of the justice system itself.

That concern is now squarely before Fiji's general public following revelations that a senior Assistant DPP Tabuakuro, though not a member of the prosecuting team, has repeatedly used social media platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn to post commentary and news stories about the ongoing criminal trial of former Attorney-General Aiyaz Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem.

Prejudicial Commentary: “When He Is Convicted…”

In one of the most troubling examples, the Assistant DPP Tabuakuro personally posted a Facebook comment declaring: “When he is convicted, he must repay the $55,000 as restitution to the State. #justicealwaysprevails.”

This was not an offhand remark by a private citizen. It was published by a senior state prosecutor on her own social media page. The language - “when he is convicted” -presupposes guilt, anticipates sentencing, and dismisses the presumption of innocence.

For any prosecutor, such language would be inappropriate. For a senior Assistant DPP, it is profoundly damaging. It gives the appearance that the prosecutorial office itself regards a conviction as a foregone conclusion, a perception fundamentally incompatible with the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Fiji.

A Pattern of Public Engagement, Not an Isolated Incident

The prejudicial post is not an isolated lapse. The Assistant DPP’s own LinkedIn and Facebook activity show repeated sharing and amplification of news stories about the pending trial of Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem including:

A Mai TV post announcing that the High Court has scheduled their trial for 15 September to 3 October 2025, referring to the charges they face.
An FBC News report headlined “Court told no tax relief approved for Saneem”, shared on her LinkedIn profile.

While the content of those media articles is public, the fact that a serving Assistant DPP is reposting and circulating them in connection with a case she is not prosecuting reinforces the appearance of institutional interest and personal involvement. In the public mind, these actions, especially when combined with her earlier comment predicting conviction, risk transforming the ODPP’s role from impartial prosecutor into partisan commentator.

Ethical Duties of Prosecutors and the Risk of Bias

The Constitution requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to act independently and 'without fear, favour, or prejudice'. That duty extends to all officers acting under the DPP’s authority, including Assistant Directors. Independence and impartiality are not merely operational obligations, they include a duty to avoid public conduct that undermines confidence in the fairness of proceedings.

The United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) provide that prosecutors must:

“Perform their duties fairly, consistently, and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights.”
“Refrain from public statements that may prejudice ongoing proceedings.”

The Assistant DPP Tabuakuro’s repeated posts and comments, especially those suggesting an inevitable conviction, appear to violate each of these core principles.

Sub Judice and Contempt: A Real Risk of Prejudice

Under Fiji’s common law of contempt, any public statement that creates a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial can constitute sub judice contempt. This risk is amplified when the speaker is a state prosecutor, whose words carry institutional weight.

The repeated online activity by the Assistant DPP could be argued to have:

Influenced public opinion by presenting guilt as a certainty.
Created apprehension of institutional bias within the ODPP.
Compromised the perceived impartiality of the prosecution service as a whole.

Even if intended as private or personal activity, prosecutors are held to higher standards precisely because their words can affect the administration of justice.

Privacy Is No Defence: Closed Pages Still Carry Consequences

It is also understood that at least one of the prejudicial posts (on Facebook) was made in a closed or semi-private social media group before being leaked. That does not mitigate the seriousness of the conduct. Courts and disciplinary bodies have consistently held that prosecutorial misconduct is not excused by privacy settings.

If a post concerns an active case, prejudges its outcome, and is foreseeably shareable, the prosecutor remains responsible for its impact, regardless of where or how it was published. Indeed, the use of a closed group may suggest an awareness that the content was inappropriate for public view, aggravating the misconduct rather than excusing it.

Possible Consequences and Institutional Remedies

Given the seriousness of the conduct, several remedies are available:

Internal Disciplinary Review: The ODPP should investigate the Assistant DPP’s conduct and consider disciplinary measures for prejudicial commentary.
Referral to the Legal Practitioners Unit: The conduct may constitute professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act.
Judicial Remedies: Defence counsel may seek judicial acknowledgment of the prejudicial conduct or request assurances of prosecutorial impartiality.
Public Accountability: The ODPP should publicly reaffirm its commitment to independence and distance itself from any statements or conduct suggesting bias.

Conclusion

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Public confidence in the rule of law depends on the impartiality of those who administer it.

By repeatedly posting and sharing commentary about an ongoing criminal trial, including a direct statement that a defendant 'will be convicted', Tabuakuro has crossed a bright ethical line. Whether on a public platform or a closed page, such conduct risks contaminating the judicial process and weakening the credibility of the ODPP itself.

The issue is no longer just about one trial. It is about the integrity of Fiji’s justice system, and whether those entrusted with prosecutorial power, are willing to respect the constitutional principles that give that power legitimacy.

The Chief Justice (or any judge of the High Court or Supreme Court) can initiate contempt of court proceedings against a prosecutor, including an Assistant DPP, if her conduct poses a real risk of prejudicing an ongoing trial or undermining the authority and integrity of the judicial process.

It is alleged that Rasova falsely stated that his permanent place of residence was in Nasenivolau, Nabouwalu village, Ono, Kadavu and obtained $21,350 in parliamentary allowances between July 2019 and April 2020.

The Suva Magistrates Court has found that former SODELPA MP Simione Rasova has a case to answer in court.

He appeared before Magistrate Joseph Daurewa this afternoon, who delivered the ruling given by Magistrate Pukeria Low.

Rasova has 28 days to appeal the ruling.

The former MP is charged with one count of providing false information to a public servant, allegedly lying about his residence, and obtaining a financial gain.

It is alleged that Rasova falsely stated that his permanent place of residence was in Nasenivolau, Nabouwalu village, Ono, Kadavu and obtained $21,350 in parliamentary allowances between July 2019 and April 2020. Source: Fijivillage News, 11 February 2026

<<Previous

Forward>>

Two Non-Disclosures, One Duty to Act: Why the Judicial Services Commission Must Suspend BARBARA MALIMALI to protect FICAC

SWORN To Last: Why Affidavits Survive Beyond Commission of Inquiry: Continuing Legal Force

*Why Lands Minister Vosarogo was an Inappropriate Referee for Barbara Malimali’s FICAC Commissioner Application.*Was he aware of the Tuvalu A-G's letter (23 May 2017) to Malimali banning her from practising in Tuvalu?

Two Non-Disclosures, One Duty to Act: Why the Judicial Services Commission Must Suspend BARBARA MALIMALI to protect FICAC

From Fijileaks Archive, 17 June 2025

From Tuvalu Tales to Taxpayer Cash: Calls Grow for Malimali to Pay Back Taxpayers' Money as short-lived FICAC Commissioner plus thousands of dollars that she had ordered FICAC to pay her counsel WAQANIKA

​www.fijileaks.com/home/non-disclosure-misrepresentation-and-the-validity-of-appointment-did-barbara-malimalis-ficac-application-survive-the-test-of-candour

The Danger of Turning Prosecution into Political Licence ​

Yesterday's Bainimarama loyalists are now Tomorrow's State witnesses.In June 2023, a military delegation, led by Col ATUNAISA VAKATALE, the Commanding Officer of Fiji's largest foot soldiers, and Col ASERI ROKOURA, feted their former military commander at his residence

Looking to RFMF: In December 2022, Rabuka crossed a constitutional red line rhetorically, but did he cross the criminal threshold operationally

People’s Alliance leader Sitiveni Rabuka says his request for the military to intervene in the electoral counting process was denied by Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) Commander Major General Ro Jone Kalouniwai.

From Fijileaks Archive, 16 December 2022

"In a constitutional democracy, private disputes must be resolved by law, not by ministerial influence. On that basis, Biman Prasad’s involvement was not institutionally justified and sets an undesirable precedent for political interference in commercial matters."

Click, Click, Click. From Constitutional Limits to Camera Limits. When Boundaries Allegedly Didn't Apply to Biman Prasad

From Fijileaks Archive, 8 June 2023

From Fijileaks Archive, 10 August 2024

How Pacific Polytech Was Funded Despite a Fragile Financial Reality in Audited Statements

*Who asked former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad to transmit or support Pacific Polytech's grant request?​*Why was PP routed politically rather than through normal FHEC processes?

*We provided FICAC with extensive materials concerning Pacific Polytech. However, in a single decision, the newly appointed FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, closed Biman Prasad's entire files. Despite the Fiji High Court ruling, Malimali must not be reinstated at FICAC.

The LETTER alleging BIMAN PRASAD's intervention in the funding bid

Howards Lawyers' Wylie Clarke Supports Enforcement of Eligibility Rules Warns Against Pacific Polytech grant for 2025-2026

From Fijileaks Archive, 24 September 2025

It is alleged that Rasova falsely stated that his permanent place of residence was in Nasenivolau, Nabouwalu village, Ono, Kadavu and obtained $21,350 in parliamentary allowances between July 2019 and April 2020.

Archives

Why Lands Minister Vosarogo was an Inappropriate Referee for Barbara Malimali’s FICAC Commissioner Application.
Was he aware of the Tuvalu A-G's letter (23 May 2017) to Malimali banning her from practising in Tuvalu?

www.fijileaks.com/home/non-disclosure-misrepresentation-and-the-validity-of-appointment-did-barbara-malimalis-ficac-application-survive-the-test-of-candour

The Danger of Turning Prosecution into Political Licence

Yesterday's Bainimarama loyalists are now Tomorrow's State witnesses.
In June 2023, a military delegation, led by Col ATUNAISA VAKATALE, the Commanding Officer of Fiji's largest foot soldiers, and Col ASERI ROKOURA, feted their former military commander at his residence

Who asked former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad to transmit or support Pacific Polytech's grant request?
Why was PP routed politically rather than through normal FHEC processes?