Blog Posts

HOUSEGATE: Biman Prasad and ownership of another property CT15460 It seems he lied about second property when he claimed that he was sole owner of CT15460. In 2004 he jointly owned it with his wife RAJNI CHAND

3/9/2024

*On 19 February 2004, CT15460 is listed in the names of Biman Prasad and his wife Rajni Chand

In his 2014 Declaration under the Political Parties Act, he declares that he is the sole owner of CT15460. He repeats it in successive declarations until he becomes Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the Coalition government. In his January 2023 declaration he suddenly declares that he and is wife Rajni jointly own CT15460.
FICAC must question the couple and establish when did Biman Prasad make his wife joint owner of CT15460?
*Or like another property (CT11097), he brazenly lied about CT15460 in his declarations until he became Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in Sitiveni Rabuka's Coalition government.

In 2020, he still maintains that he is the sole owner of CT 15460 but reveals that his wife Rajni Chand is now sole owner of CT18979, market value of a staggering $990,000 (see below).
A search of CT18979 reveal that it was originally owned by the former politician and NFP supporter KRISHNA DATT and his wife who sold it to one LALITA WATI. She transferred it on to Rajni Chand on 4 July 2019.
Who is LALITA WATI?
*Is she the same person who, in 2024, jointly with Rajni Chand held $46,416.54 cash 'at bank'. What bank?

According to documents obtained by us, CT11097 was bought by the couple in September 2009.
In his declarations under the Political Parties Act, Biman Prasad kept claiming that he was the sole owner of that property.
In the 2017 declaration he merely states as follows:
'CT 11907 has been sold'.
Now, it transpires from documents that it was all along jointly owned by the couple until 2016, when they sold it to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd on 19 January 2016 for $550,000.
*Biman Prasad is a Director in Lotus (Fiji) and 50% Shareholder.

13th HIDDEN PLAYER ON THE FOOTBALL PITCH: It beggars belief that co-director SUNIL Chand of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd hid Prasad's link when their company Lotus sponsored the DREKETI Soccer Team in 2015

2/9/2024

FIFA president, Gianni Infantino with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Strategic Planning, National Development and Statistics, Professor Biman Prasad and Fiji Football Association president Rajesh Patel during the opening of the King Pele Fitness Centre at the Fiji Football Association headquarters in Vatuwaqa, Suva on Saturday, August 05, 2023.

Biman Prasad and Sunil Chand had registered Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd on 15 March 2014. Prasad was one of two directors of Lotus (Fiji).

13th Hidden Player: 11 players+Sunil Chand+Hidden Biman Prasad=13
In 2016, as director of Lotus Travels & Transfers, Prasad had put up a plot of land in Dreketi worth $60,000 as security to secure loan for LTT.

From The Fiji Sun*, 2 October 2015.

from Dreketi, Macuata, came to the rescue. 'I approached many people for sponsorship and finally Chand, who was born and brought up in Dreketi, understood our need and stepped forward to support us,' team spokesman Jai Karan said.

In its '2016 Lotus Tours & Transfers Ltd Business Proposal', the company was seeking for refinance of existing debts and additional funding for purchase of fleet for operation of car rental business from HFC Bank. The total debt subsequent to successful refinance and additional funding sought was stated at $802,500.
The total funding, the 'Business Proposal' claimed would be secured against the following securities to be pledged by the company and the Directors (Prasad, Chand and Kumar) as follows:
* 1st Registered Mortgage Debenture
First Registered Mortgage over Residential Property comprised in Crown Lease 12167, being Lot 25 on SO 1878, situated at Bulai Rd, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, with current market valuation of $400,000.
First registered mortgage given by Biman Chand Prasad over residential property comprised in Certificate of Title 27032, being Lot 9 on DP 5799, situated at Matasawalevu, Dreketi, with current market valuation of $60,000.

From Fijileaks Archive, 5 August 2023

SHARING IN LOTUS (LOOTOOS): A thorough forensic examination of the NFP leader Biman Prasad's finances raise questions about consideration he provided to Sunil Chand to get 33/50% shares in the Lotus companies

1/9/2024

BIMAN PRASAD didn't share the identity of the two companies he held 33% and 50% shares respectively, and failed to reveal that he held 30% shares (albeit for few months) in Platinum Hotels and Resorts Ltd.
It was only on 23 January 2024, as Minister for Finance, Strategic Planning, National Development, and Statistics, and as Deputy Prime Minister in Sitiveni Rabuka's Coalition government that he mentions the 'holy grail' name: LOTUS and the shares.
We call on FICAC to establish from Prasad what was the consideration he provided to his first cousin Sunil Chand to become a joint director in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd and Lotus Tours & Transfers Ltd (LTTL).
Prasad claims in his declaration that LTTL is dormant. Really?
FICAC must establish if the shares were a GIFT. If so, he should have stated in his declarations and revealed the identity of the two companies.
He might have breached PPR s24(vi) regarding declaration of GIFTS.

On 2 November 2015, his business partner Sunil Chand transferred 45% shares from his 95% to make Prasad 50% business partner in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

TRUTH and RECONCILIATION BULL: As Fijians prepare for the biggest 'Tagi Tagi - Cry, Cry' show since George Speight wept when told he will be hanged by the neck, we are asked what we think - reply soon on TRB

1/9/2024

We will wait for the LIARS and LOOTERS who might put their names forward to appear before the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
No one is better placed than our Founding Editor-in-Chief (that is me), who has doggedly pursued all those involved in the 1987, 2000, and 2006 Coups, including those who incited the mutiny and bloodbath at the RFMF barracks.
Who will be telling the TRUTH, and what TRUTH?
What about the 1987 bombers and betrayers, some now prominent lawyers and women rights activists?
What about those who begged for arms to be shipped into Fiji but went on to cut political deals with the 'devils'?
Anyway, nearly twenty years ago (August 2005), I wrote a comparative 10-part series (Fiji and South Africa) on another TRB, schemed by the Qarase government. We will revisit that doomed Truth and Reconciliation Bull that led to the 2006 Bainimarama coup.
First, we want to complete the investigation findings into LOTUS—'LOOT-us'—involving Biman Prasad and his first cousin and Australian investor Sunil Chand.
Biman Prasad's so-called TRUTHFUL declarations under the Political Parties Act do not RECONCILE with the evidence on us.

Excerpt from Fiji's Daily Post, VICTOR LAL, Friday 7 August 2005

A LITTLE TRUTH: In 1987, Indo-Fijian deposed political leaders requested us in London NOT to let on their 'secret arms shipment plan' into Fiji to the deposed FLP Cabinet Minister DR TUPENI BABA who had arrived with the deposed Indo-Fijian parliamentarians to 'Fight for Fiji'.
Our Editor-in-Chief, an old friend of Baba before the 1987 coups, honoured the secrecy of the oath but always retained Baba's warm friendship and trust, especially in political matters.
Will Sashi Kiran's TRB hear from our Editor-in-Chief - NO WAY, JOSE.
In 2012, during the Yash Ghai Commission hearings, the good old 'DOC' - RIP—sent the SDL's proposed submission (130 pages long) for my comment and criticism before it was submitted to the Ghai Commission.
I was shocked and repulsed by the age-old demand - the 'Tagi ni i-Taukei' and 'Fiji for i-Taukei Fijians', but there was one section that attracted our approval - IMMUNITY

______________ 2012:
Victor,
"Attached is the full set for SDL submission and annexes. Some annexes might be of interest as we are including statements from Senior military officers for the first time publicly in a formal submission to show the [2006] coup was not about a clean up exercise.
Cheers and all the best for your keen attention. Your 'expose' of the Regime remains one of the most brilliant. I will do a critic of the Thesis of the Regimes' AG in two weeks for posting in the SDL and your {Fijileaks] site.
Thanks
Tupeni

(ii) Amnesty not Immunity

• The SDL Party proposes that immunity should not be granted
unilaterally to the coup perpetrators in this and future Constitutions
as it would desecrate the sanctity of constitutional documents.

*Immunity from prosecution was granted to those involved in the 1987 coup. Immunity
was also granted to some of the perpetrators of the 2000 coup. Immunity is again being
sought for those involved in the 2006 coup. Section 8 of the Fiji Constitutional Process
(Constituent Assembly and Adoption of Constitution) Decree 2012 requires that
appropriate provision for immunity be included in the Constitution.

*Since 1987 our Constitution has been littered with immunity provisions. It would appear
that this cycle of “coup – immunity – coup – immunity” will not stop. Immunity provisions
desecrate our supreme law, the Constitution. The illegal overthrow of an elected
government is one of the most serious crimes that one can commit. Fiji has experienced
four coups during the last forty years. Everyone should know the seriousness of the
crime of treason and its consequences.

*The coup cycle in Fiji must stop. It cannot stop if immunity is granted each time an
illegal overthrow of Government takes place. Those involved in a coup must account for
their actions before the law. The principle of “no man is above the law” must be applied
equally to everybody. There should be no exception to this principle.

*Amnesty on the other hand refers to an act of forgiveness granted by the President “for
the purpose of excusing and erasing from legal memory the illegality of an act or
omission committed in association with a political objective during the designated
period”.
In plain language amnesty is a pardon. Amnesty is often used in other countries for
offences that are political in nature. This means, they were committed in pursuit of
certain political ideals and objectives.

*People will hopefully be encouraged to come forward and voluntarily disclose the details
of what happened in 2006, and their role in this. In such process, the country will also
benefit by hearing from those who took part, and by listening to their explanations for
their actions.

*However, the Special Commission on the Coups which will determine amnesty will do
so only if it is satisfied that all the facts regarding individual participation or involvement
are fully documented. The Special Commission on the Coup will prepare a detailed
report on its work, with recommendations on how Fiji can avoid coups and outbreaks of
civil unrest and makes recommendations for amnesty in accordance with the severity of
each case. Amnesty will be granted by His Excellency, the President.

*In support of this proposal it is argued that treason is a most serious crime. The crime
involves the perpetrators on one side and the victims on the other. Particular individuals
are the victims, as well as the entire population of Fiji. The country itself is a victim. It is
important that the issue of amnesty be discussed in an independent Forum, so that the
interests of the perpetrators, the victims and the country are fully taken into account.

• The SDL proposes that if amnesty is recommended following
investigation by a Special Commission on Coups and amnesty could
be offered to those who have met all the conditions. After
appropriate investigations by the Special Commission on the Coups,
the following would apply when and if amnesty is given:

*That all military leaders be:

i. terminated from their positions and dishonorably discharged from
the military including all military personnel taken in the civil service
after the coup;
ii. stripped of all military awards, medals and honors/decorations;

iii. not be allowed to take part in political elections for life;

iv. not be allowed to take up any public office for life.

Furthermore all plaques or public monuments made in their name be
removed.
All these measures should be pursued vigorously by the incoming government.

ONE OF TEN HOODED GUNMEN WHO STORMED PARLIAMENT IN 1987
AND THEN 'YOUNG NAVAL OFFICER' ENFORCING RABUKA'S COUP.
*Will these two, among thousands, ever tell the TRUTH to Fiji?

CRY, THE BELOVED COUNTRY
Sashi Kiran, 'Who Raped, Murdered, and Dumped my 24-year-old sister's body in the Rewa River? A politically and racially motivated heinous crime following the 1987 Sitiveni Rabuka coups'.

*Who has given you permission to weep and call for reconciliation on our family's behalf?

The grieving mother died a broken-hearted woman without ever seeing her killers brought to justice. In fact, she never saw her daughter's face because the body and face was so badly decomposed after floating downstream in the Rewa River for two weeks.
Both - mother and daughter - lie in separate graves in their beloved Fiji.

And yet that so-called new champion of indigenous rights MICK BEDDOES continues to peddle his perverse theory that since i-Taukei Fijians are the FIRST NATION PEOPLES of Fiji, they must have more rights than OTHERS in Fiji.
If so, Indo-Fijians will continue to be murdered in the name of bogus i-Taukei rights in Fiji.

In 2006, Fijileaks* founding Editor-in-Chief Victor Lal was instrumental in persuading Government House that MICK BEDDOES must be appointed the Leader of the Opposition! From Fiji Sun archive:

MICK BEDDOES MUST BE APPOINTED LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

By VICTOR LAL

Beddoes to Lal: 'Just Got Appointed'

The dictates of the Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.

In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?

In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.

Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.

Chaudhry and Opposition leadership

On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.

Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.

In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.

The Multi-Party Case and FLP

Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.

In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.

Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.

Precedents and Chaudhry

As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.

In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.

Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.

More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.

The Korolevu Declaration

The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.

On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.

Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.

Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.

In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’

The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.

In President’s Deliberate Judgment.

In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.

Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.

The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.

In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.

And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.

He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.

In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.

As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.

But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.

NEW DOOR TO LOTUS (FIJI) VILLAS. Biman Prasad and his first-cousin Sunil Chand exploited legal loophole and evicted hotel & resort company leasing 18 units and handed it to New Door Apartments to manage Units

29/8/2024

Meanwhile, Fiji's Finance Minister Biman Prasad and his tango with Aussie Investor SUNIL CHAND through their company Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
On 12 March 2014, Prasad bought two off-plan units from Sunil Chand, and three days later, on 15 March, they registered Lotus (Fiji).
He failed to declare the two units in his statutory declarations from
2014 to 2024.

NEW TENANT IN WESTVILLE VILLAS: BIMAN PRASAD's wife RAJNI KAUSHAL CHAND ended up with TWO UNITS (9 and 11) but Prasad didn't declare them in his statutory declarations.
Does Prasad still own Units (10 &11) he bought Off-Plan from Sunil Chand in March 2014? He didn't declare the two units in his declarations.
Coming soon: Our analysis reveal that Lotus (Fiji) directors Biman Prasad and Sunil Chand have allegedly caused FRCA loss in Capital Gains Tax of nearly $400,000 (over $850,000 in current terms).
FICAC must take them into custody and those who have received corrupt benefits from Prasad.
His buddy 'Doodwallah - Soodoo' Udit Singh must be asked to step aside and a stop departure order be issued against him so a thorough audit could be conducted into Lotus (Fiji) and its two directors.
How did Prasad become 50% shareholder in Lotus?
Where did they get $4million to build the villas?

*Basically, Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd that was managing the 18 villa units out of the 28 units lost control of it after Lotus (Fiji) directors Biman Prasad and Sunil Chand failed to secure strata titles from the i-Taukei Trust Board.

However, the two took control of the 18 units, including other units after the five-year lease before the strata titles was to be issued, expired. Full details soon as the unit owners, including PHRL, have taken Lotus (Fiji) and Sunil Chand to court in Fiji.
The Westville units are currently managed by New Door Apartments

From Fijileaks Archive, 1 February 2024

VILLAGATE: Biman Prasad, Lotus (Fiji) director that built VILLAS in Nadi, had bought 2 villas from SUNIL CHAND (his future co-director) from OFF-PLAN. Chand was selling at $150,000 each. Does Prasad own two villas?

27/8/2024

Did Biman Prasad sell Units 10 and 11 on to other buyers?
In many cases, property investors or property speculators purchase off-plan property with the aim of making substantial capital gains.

Suresh
Chandra

*FICAC must question Biman Prasad, and for him to explain if he revealed in his declarations the two villas he bought from off-plan on 12 March 2014, three days before Prasad and Sunil Chand registered Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd on 15 March 2014. His declarations regarding houses and land are so vague and slap-dash that only a full criminal investigation will allow us to reach the truth and reconcile his questionable declarations from 2014 to 2024.

*What is Buying Off-Plan? Buying off-plan means you agree to buy a property before the developer has finished building it. You may even agree to buy it before construction has begun.

On 15 March 2014 Biman Prasad and Sunil Chand registered Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd. Prasad was listed as one of the two directors. The other was Sunil Chand. While Chand held 95 shares, Biman Prasad had FIVE shares.
We now know that a year later, on 2 November 2015, on the completion of the first stage of the villas, Chand suddenly transferred 45% of his shares out of the 95 he held in Lotus (Fiji) to Biman Prasad.
Prasad effectively became a partner - director - in the company. It can be asked if it was always the game plan to make Biman Prasad an equal partner in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd?
Sunil Chand boasted to the media that it had cost the company $4million to build the villas.
*Where did Prasad and Chand obtain $4million to build the Westville villas?

The Off-Plan Sale and Purchase Agreement
The above cited by Fijileaks was drawn up by Suresh Chandra of MC Lawyers.

He is the former Electoral Commission chair and disgraced lawyer who was lately disbarred from practicing after being found guilty of defrauding his trust account clients.

He was found guilty for unrecorded money amounting to $2.139million.

The Sale of Agreement was between Sunil Chand (Vendor) and the Purchaser(s). The Lot was an area of 42 square meters of land and was to be delivered to the purchaser in the form of sub-lease of native land, being the subject, however, to such encumbrances, liens and interest implied in leases under the Property Law Act of Fiji. Purchase price (exclusive of value tax) was $150,000.
Deposit - 10% of purchase price - $15,000
Balance of Purchase Price - 40% close up (slab, external walls and roofs).
$60,000 and 50% on final completion (handover) - $75,000
Total: $150,000
The contracts were signed between February-April 2014.
Most were Indo-Fijians living in Australia, with three residing in Fiji, among them Biman Chand Prasad.
Three days before Prasad and Chand registered Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd on 15 March 2014, Biman Prasad bought the two lots on 12 March.
Whether he still owns the two lots only a thorough investigation by FICAC and the Supervisor of Elections will provide us the answer.
What is clear is that we don't see him declaring the ownership of the two lots in his statutory declarations in 2014 (signed on 28 July 2014) nor in subsequent declarations including the 24 July 2024 declaration.
On 12 March 2014 he buys two units from Sunil Chand's Off-Plan offer
Three days later, on 15 March 2014, the two form Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd to build the Westville villas in Nadi.
On 29 March 2014 BIMAN PRASAD is elected the leader of the National Federation Party, and leads the party into the 2014, 2018, and 2022 general elections (forms coalition with Sitiveni Rabuka's PAP to fight the 2022 election with the promise of Deputy PM).
After the 2022 general election, he becomes Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance and line-manager of FRCA, run by his doodwallah* (soodoo) buddy UDIT SINGH, brought over from New Zealand.
Under the Political Parties Act 2014, Biman Prasad is required by law to truthfully and faithfully declare his assets, liabilities and income annually.
We have called on FICAC to intervene, for his declarations from 2014-2014 are highly questionable and in breach of s24 of the Political Parties Act

The Chief Registrar v SURESH CHANDRA, MC LAWYERS
The practitioner (Suresh Chandra) was a Principal of MC Lawyers and Trustee of MC Lawyers Trust Account kept with Bank of Baroda. That trust account is currently frozen. The practitioner is not a holder of a valid practising certificate since 2020.
Section 12 of Trust Accounts Act requires a trustee to submit audit reports for each financial period.
The practitioner did not submit his audit reports for three financial periods from 2016 to 2018. He provided the Chief Registrar with four extensions from the Office of the Attorney-General to submit his pending audit reports. The extension was given pursuant to section 12 (2) of the Trust Accounts Act.
The last extension was granted until 31 July 2020 for the practitioner to submit his three pending audit reports. After that no further extension was granted and the practitioner’s practising certificate was not renewed.
Eventually when the Chief Registrar received the pending audit reports, an anomaly of unreconciled sum of $2.139 million trust funds was reflected in the audits reports.

THE INDEPENDENT LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
at SUVA.  JUDGEMENT: 23 April 2023,
Justice Gihan Kulatunga, Commissioner
Conclusion
Mr.  Suresh Chandra from the inception of these proceedings did not directly accept his responsibility for the failure to maintain the Trust Account on the required minimum standard. Throughout the enquiry, he made all attempts to blame his employee Ms. Ashwini for the embezzlement of the Trust funds.
Mr. Chandra in fact did not give evidence but remained silent. It is relevant to note that as opposed to an accused in a criminal matter, a practitioner in these disciplinary proceedings does not enjoy a right to remain silent.
I find that the nature and gravity of the Respondent’s (Suresh Chandra's) misconduct viewed objectively calls for a severe sanction. As discussed earlier, the Respondent’s misconduct included the failure to properly supervise his staff and amongst other things, providing a large number of signed incomplete trust cheques to the employee.
In many ways, it is this foundational and fundamental failure that led to the other matters described in the allegations. It is clear that a trust reconciliation, if properly and randomly was conducted within the two-year period would have alerted and revealed the fraudulent manipulation of the trust account balance.
A timely discovery should have interrupted the scheme of the employee. Essentially, unsupervised staff and the failure to reconcile the trust account on a monthly basis for almost two-years provided the environment for the fraud. The Respondent is responsible through his own casual, careless and cavalier approach in managing the trust account, signing incomplete cheques and his failure to supervise.
In the above circumstances I make the following orders.
(a) The name of the Respondent Legal Practitioner Mr.  Suresh Chandra  be struck from the roll of the practitioner’s held by the Chief Registrar.
(b) It is directed that the Law Firm MC Lawyers seized to operate as or engage in legal practice with immediate effect.
(c) That the Respondent Practitioner Mr.  Suresh Chandra  pay a fine in a sum of $500,000 to the Chief Registrar. If and when such fine is paid the Chief Registrar is hereby directed and ordered to pay the said sum to the credit of the Trust Account of MC Lawyers or to otherwise utilize the said sum to meet and settle the sums due to the clients of MC Lawyers.
(d) Pursuant to section 124 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2009, the costs payable by the Respondent towards the reasonable costs incurred by Chief Registrar is summarily assessed in the sum of $2,000.00.
(e) Both of the above sums set out above are to be paid within three months of today, that is, by 12 noon on 26th July 2023, to be paid to the Chief Registrar.

Fijileaks: We had long ago revealed MC Lawyers and Suresh Chand but he was shielded by Aiyaz Khaiyum who was then Minister for Elections and Chandra was the Electoral Commission chairperson.
We may also recall that NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD had refused to sign a joint letter drafted by FLP, Freedom Alliance, Unity Fiji, calling for the removal of Suresh Chandra as chairperson of Electoral Commission.

We don't know Prasad's reasoning but it is abundantly clear that Suresh Chandra was acutely aware that Biman Prasad had bought two units from the Off-Plan from Chandra's then client SUNIL CHAND on 12 March 2014.

From Fijileaks Archives

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION: NFP leader, DPM, Finance Minister, FRCA line-manager's declarations do NOT reconcile with TRUTH in documents. Evidence reveal he had 50% shares in Lotus (Fiji) Ltd in 2015, not in 2018

27/8/2024

We were repeatedly told that he became a 50% shareholder in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd in 2018. Lotus (Fiji) was formed by SUNIL CHAND, the former Fiji-born carpenter and joiner, who is also Director and Founder of Lotus Construction (Australia).
On 15 March 2014, Lotus Construction (Fiji) was formed by Chand, with Biman Prasad gifted 5% shares in the company. They built the $4million Westville Villas in Nadi, that former FFP Minister Parveen Bala opened in early 2015. The villas were touted as suiting retirees who wanted to return to Fiji, and other prospective buyers.
Yesterday, we revealed that the NFP leader, Deputy Prime Minister, and Fiji's FINANCE Minister Prasad had lied in his declarations to the Fiji Elections Office that he was the sole owner of CT1107 house.
Our investigation reveal that the house was jointly owned by Biman Prasad and his wife Rajni Chand. The couple sold it to Lotus (Fiji) for $550,000 on 19 January 2016. In other words, Biman Prasad sold his house to his own company - Lotus Construction (Fiji).
Our updated evidence reveal that on 2 November 2015 Sunil Chand transferred 45% of his shares from 95 per cent he held on 15 March 2014 to Biman Prasad, so both now had 50 per cent each shares in Lotus (Fiji)
95-45 = 45+5=50% shares held by Biman Chand Prasad in Lotus (Fiji).
One of his NFP MPs, SASHI KIRAN is running around Fiji as Chairperson of the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Truth and Reconciliation must begin with her own party leader.
The TRUTH is that his declarations do not RECONCILE with the documentary evidence that we have been revealing in the last few days.
*In the section on shares, he didn't disclose the identity of the company in which he held 50 per cent shares - i. e. in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
CRY, OUR BELOVED COUNTRY, FIJI

On 2 November 2015, his business partner Sunil Chand transferred 45% shares from his 95% to make Prasad 50% business partner in Lotus (Fiji). On 19 January 2016 the couple sell their house for $550,000 to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd in which Prasad has 50% shares since 2015:

LIED IN HIS DECLARATIONS: For three consecutive years, Biman Prasad claimed House with CT11907 belonged to him but in 2016 same HOUSE was jointly sold for $550,000 by him and his wife Rajni to Lotus (Fiji) Ltd

26/8/2024

According to documents obtained by us, CT11097 was bought by the couple in September 2009.
In his declarations under the Political Parties Act, Biman Prasad kept claiming that he was the sole owner of that property.
In the 2017 declaration he merely states as follows:
'CT 11907 has been sold'.
Now, it transpires from documents that it was all along jointly owned by the couple until 2016, when they sold it to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd on 19 January 2016 for $550,000.
We call on FICAC to question NFP leader, for he lied in his declarations when he claimed that he was the sole owner of the 'CT 11907' house.
At the time of the sale to Lotus, Prasad had 5% shares in the company, and was one of the two directors with one SUNIL CHAND.
*By 2018, he had 50% shares with Sunil Chand in Lotus (Fiji), the owners of the 28 lots of villas in Nadi.

SILVER MEDALLIST: Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD was DIRECTOR in Platinum Hotels & Resort Ltd on 21/11/ 2015 with SUNIL CHAND but both suddenly quit on 19 January 2016. No mention in 2015/2016 Declarations

26/8/2024

BIMAN PRASAD and his co-director in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd SUNIL CHAND (50/50 SHARES) held 30% shares each in Platinum Hotels & Resort Ltd that was established by the two and another colleague (held 40% shares) in November 2015 to provide hospitality services, with registered office of PHR at Nacovi, Nadi.
On 19 January 2016 Prasad and Chand suddenly quit as directors.
The NFP leader Prasad should have declared his directorship in his 2015 and 2016 declarations as it fell within the statement period, being the 1 January to 31 December of each year.
It is also pursuant to section 24 (1) (a) (b) (iv) of the Political Parties Act 2014. He didn't disclose his Platinum Hotels & Resort directorship.

BIMANGATE: Finally, we 'drive through' Lotus Tours & Transfer Limited files and can reveal that his vague one-third (33%) share in company 1 in his declaration was in Lotus Tours with his 'cousin' and nephew in 2015

25/8/2024

One is lost for words that the NFP leader, Deputy Prime Minister, and Fiji's Finance Minister, was once a Professor of Economics, Accounting, and Statistics at USP.
His declarations under the Political Parties Act relating to shares in companies, and directorship, are so vague and elusive that a faint hearted investigator would have given up after a few hours of inspecting the declarations.
First, we thought the 'poor chap' was just hiding the true nature of his wealth, assets, land, shares and directorship from the megalomaniac Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum but now we suspect he had other compelling reasons, and he has to explain to FICAC.
We were, however, determined from the moment we got hold of his declarations, from 2014 to 2024, to forensically go through and lay bare the irregularities in his declarations.
In his declarations he has a notorious slap-dash streak of simply stating, 'Shares in Business, Value$ - 85,000', 'Shares in Business/Companies-85,000, estimated total value as 31/12/2015', 'Shares in Business/Companies, 2 companies. Value$: One third (33% share in company 1 (and 50% share in another). No where has Prasad specifically mentioned that he has 50% shares in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd. He merely states, 'Lotus Construction Ltd'. As we know, Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd is the sister company of Lotus Construction (Australia) Ltd. Sunil Chand owns Lotus (Australia).

The 33% share in 'Company 1' evaded us for days but in the past 24 hours, we finally made a major breakthrough and can reveal that he owns 33% shares with Sunil Chand and his nephew Krishil Kisan Kumar in Lotus Tours & Transfers Ltd. When the company was formed his nephew was still employed with the HFC Bank but was the principal contact for Lotus Tours & Transfers Limited.
*The company was formed on 5 September 2015 by Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, the owners of Westville Villas in Nadi. Biman Prasad and Sunil Chand have 50% shares each in Lotus (Fiji). It started operations in May 2016, to cater for tourists coming to Fiji.

Kumar

In its '2016 Lotus Tours & Transfers Ltd Business Proposal', the company was seeking for refinance of existing debts and additional funding for purchase of fleet for operation of car rental business from HFC Bank. The total debt subsequent to successful refinance and additional funding sought was stated at $802,500.
The total funding, the 'Business Proposal' claimed would be secured against the following securities to be pledged by the company and the Directors (Prasad, Chand and Kumar) as follows:
* 1st Registered Mortgage Debenture
First Registered Mortgage over Residential Property comprised in Crown Lease 12167, being Lot 25 on SO 1878, situated at Bulai Rd, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, with current market valuation of $400,000.
First registered mortgage given by Biman Chand Prasad over residential property comprised in Certificate of Title 27032, being Lot 9 on DP 5799, situated at Matasawalevu, Dreketi, with current market valuation of $60,000.
First registered mortgage over vacant land comprised in Certificate of Title 42203, being 2 on DP 9474, situated at Naidiri Bay Road, Malomalo, Nadi, with current market valuation of $65,000.
First registered Bill of Sale over 17 second-hand motor vehicles with estimated current market value of $437,000 (Motor vehicle details to be provided in due course).
Unlimited guarantee from Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd
Unlimited Guarantee from Directors.

First Registered Mortgage over Residential Property comprised in Crown Lease 12167, being Lot 25 on SO 1878, situated at Bulai Rd, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, with current market valuation of $400,000.
The Owner/Lessee are listed as DIP NARAYAN and RITA DEVI NARAYAN
Date of Ownership: 14 March 1997
In 2016, in consideration of the sum of $380,000 the Narayans, after being explained by the solicitors in Hindustani, transferred (sold) the property to Lotus Tours & Transfers Ltd.

HANGING BY THE FINGERNAILS BUT FOR HOW LONG, AS FIJI WAITS

LOTUS RENTAL: DORMANT?
In his 23/1/2024 declaration, Biman Prasad declares that he has one third share in one company, Lotus Rental - DORMANT.
He says he has 50% share in Lotus Construction.
Lotus Construction Property Lot 1 SO 5571 TLTB 32593 (valued- $5,600,000.
Loan ANZ: $1,207,095.13 & $163,229.05.
We call on FICAC to check with FRCA if Lotus Rental is Dormant?

<<Previous

Forward>>