Blog Posts

THE GREAT LEVERAGE GAME: How the GCC Held Fiji’s Governments Hostage Until Frank Bainimarama Broke the Spell. And in doing so, he shattered illusion that Fiji needed overlords in mats, regalia to SURVIVE

26/11/2025

Fiji's future, if it is to be reconciled, democratic, and genuinely modern, must never again be held hostage by a traditional institution whose power flows from mystique* rather than mandate.
If the RFMF had been a truly multiracial institution, a force where Indo-Fijians and every other community stood shoulder-to-shoulder in equal numbers at the Queen Elizabeth barracks, the mataganisau* would never have been meekly surrendered to the Great Council of Chiefs.

FRANKLY speaking: Bainimarama Didn’t Crush the GCC. He Deflated a Balloon That Had Been Floating on Borrowed Air

For decades, the Great Council of Chiefs did not merely advise; it dictated, overruled, and cornered elected governments. It hovered above the constitution like an unelected senate of high priests, sanctified by tradition, weaponised by politics, and drunk on its own mythology of indispensability.

Governments came and went, but one rule remained unspoken:
“Displease the GCC at your peril.”

It was the ultimate backstage veto power.

When Rabuka needed legitimacy after the 1987 coups, he trotted to the GCC like a prodigal son seeking benediction.
When Qarase needed nationalist fuel, the GCC delivered it in drums.
When Chaudhry sought to govern, the GCC’s silence became its message, and its silence became permission for extremism to bloom.
When the SDL government wanted ethno-centric bills, the GCC stood as the ceremonial ornament lending cultural gravitas to political exclusion.

The GCC mastered a peculiar form of political hostage-taking: never overtly unconstitutional, just implicitly untouchable. Governments were forced to navigate around it the way mariners plot their course around reefs, dangerous if you pretend they’re not there.

The Myth of Traditional Authority vs. The Reality of Political Interference

For years, Fijian politics danced to a tune beaten on the lali inside GCC chambers. Not written in any constitution, not codified in any democratic charter but powerful precisely because its influence was unofficial, amorphous, and resistant to scrutiny.

And then, in 2006, Bainimarama walked in and yanked the plug.

No negotiation.
No apology.
No ceremonial farewell.
Just: “You’re done.”

The chiefs who spent decades assuming they were Fiji’s conscience suddenly found themselves back under mango trees, "drinking homebrew", reminiscing about the era when prime ministers trembled at their summons.

Bainimarama’s Calculated Gambit

Critics claim it was authoritarian. Supporters claim it was revolutionary. But what it undeniably did was break the stranglehold of an unelected elite over a modern state.

He dismantled the myth that the GCC was an eternal pillar of stability. He exposed its dependence on political patronage and nationalist agitation. He forced Fiji to confront a hard truth: a democracy cannot function with two centres of sovereignty, one elected, one hereditary, one modern, one frozen in time.

After the GCC was abolished, something extraordinary happened:

Fiji did not collapse.
Civilization did not end.
Villages did not descend into chaos.

In fact, many provincial dynamics improved because development was no longer bottlenecked by chiefly politics.

Why the GCC’s Return Today Can’t Be a Return to Yesterday

The GCC that once held Fiji hostage is gone, not because Bainimarama banned it, but because its era has expired. The Fiji of 2025 is different:

Urban, multi-ethnic, digitally literate.
Tired of political games hidden behind traditional ceremony.
Wary of unelected power centres dressed in cultural sanctity.

The RFMF’s press release, though diplomatic, is a quiet warning: "No institution, traditional or otherwise, will again play puppeteer to Fiji’s future."

The RFMF is signaling that Fiji’s reconciliation must be built on accountability, not nostalgic power structures.

The Real Legacy: A Fiji Freed from Cultural Hostage-Taking

Whatever one thinks of Bainimarama (Fijileaks editor has been his staunchest critic since 2006), and there are many reasons to critique him, his dismantling of the GCC was the most democratically consequential act since independence.

He ended the era where governments whispered in fear of men (and a few token women) who believed birthright outranked ballot boxes. He ended the era of veiled threats hidden behind kava bowls and ceremonial pronouncements. He ended the political monopoly of a few elite families who used tradition as leverage while everyday iTaukei people struggled for genuine economic empowerment.

And he proved that Fiji could stand on its own feet without a chiefly safety net that never truly protected anyone except itself.

In the final measure, the RFMF press release attempts to turn a page. But Fiji cannot understand the page it turns unless it understands the chapter that preceded it.

And the truth is this:

The GCC did not guide Fiji; it constrained it.
It did not safeguard Fijian unity; it fossilized it.
It did not protect democracy; it overshadowed it.

Until Bainimarama sent them packing, not to exile, not to prison, but back to village roots, under mango trees, tasting the same homebrew as the people they once claimed to lead.

And in doing so, he shattered the illusion that Fiji needed overlords in mats and regalia to survive.

Fiji’s future, if it is to be reconciled, democratic, and genuinely modern, must never again be held hostage by the Great Council of Chiefs whose power flows from mystique rather than mandate.

When a Single-Ethnic Military Bows to a Single-Ethnic Council

If the RFMF had been a truly multiracial institution, a force where Indo-Fijians, and every other community stood shoulder-to-shoulder in equal numbers, the mataganisau would never have been meekly surrendered to the Great Council of Chiefs.

The truth is blunt

The RFMF’s historical composition made it susceptible to cultural pressure, chiefly symbolism, and the quiet coercion of “vanua loyalty” dressed as national duty. When your military reflects only one segment of the nation, its instincts bend toward the guardians of that segment’s traditional hierarchy.

That is how the GCC, an unelected body, was able for decades to treat national sovereignty like a family heirloom because the armed institution sworn to protect the Republic was emotionally and culturally wired to defer. Even the concept of the mataganisau, a sacred, solemn responsibility, was treated not as a state obligation but as a traditional rite to be performed upon command, without interrogation, without question, and without the balancing presence of other communities to say: “Hold on, this is not the business of chiefs. This is the business of a nation.”

A multiracial RFMF would have brought multiple cultural worldviews into the barracks; it would have diluted the grip of chiefly authority; it would have forced decisions to be weighed by constitutional principles, not vanua expectations.

Instead, Fiji inherited a military that mirrored one community’s social architecture, and the GCC took full advantage. That is how tradition slipped into the cockpit of state power, how the mataganisau slid from a national duty into a cultural performance, and how governments found themselves boxed in by an institution that could not imagine saying “no” to chiefly supremacy.

Fiji’s great challenge is not simply to reform institutions but to ensure they belong to all its people, not just those who share a bloodline with its ghosts.

The Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) issues a carefully crafted message (see below) reaffirming its commitment to national reconciliation, transparency, accountability and, most importantly civilian supremacy.

Key points:

The RFMF “hears public concerns” about the reconciliation process.
It admits the institution has a heavy historical burden, but declares it will not “remain prisoners of its past.”
It commits to honesty about past actions, without trying to evade accountability.
It stresses that reconciliation is not about avoiding legal processes.
It reasserts its duty to uphold civilian supremacy and shed any perception of military intimidation.
It invokes Nelson Mandela’s quote about freedom and mutual respect.
Major General Jone Kalouniwai signs off, pledging integrity and service to all Fijians.

The RFMF's submission to the YASH GHAI Commission on the GCC

ITAUKEI Culture Treasured for Centuries, Apparently Too Fragile To Survive One Afternoon Dance

THOUGHT for SUNDAY: Richard Naidu's Magic Defence of Biman Prasad. "If You Hide It for Ten (10) Years, It Becomes Too Old to Prosecute". God, Forbid, What Advice Is Munro Leys giving to its CORPORATE CLIENTS

22/11/2025

Just as Naidu repeatedly pointed out on his FB page the malfunctioning Government Buildings Clock in Suva that no one noticed for three months, equally, no one noticed Biman Prasad's false declarations until Fijileaks* unearthed them in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Prasad lied in the 2014 declaration to get elected to Fiji's Parliament.

RICHARD Naidu, since you are a senior partner at Munro Leys and a long-standing corporate lawyer, let’s put your “ten-years-old offence”, charge theory, to a practical test.

If one of your corporate clients deliberately hid crucial financial information from FRCS, not for ten years but even just ten days, would you stroll into court and argue:

“Your Honour, the offence is ten days old, and therefore it shouldn’t count”?

And more to the point. Would you ever advise a client:

“Keep hiding it. If you manage to bury it for ten years, I’ll argue it’s too old to prosecute”?

Because that is precisely the legal absurdity behind your claim that the concealment linked to Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd is “ten years old” and therefore somehow irrelevant.

You know, as every law graduate knows, that:

The offence is the concealment.
The offence repeats every year the concealment continues.
The offence becomes actionable when the concealment is discovered. It is not when the hidden asset was first created.

So here is the real question:

Would you ever let a corporate client adopt the “hide it for a decade, then call it old offence” defence or is this special treatment reserved only for former Finance Minister and DPM and the National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad?

Just as you have repeatedly pointed out the malfunctioning Government Buildings Clock in Suva, no one noticed Biman Prasad's false declarations until Fijileaks unearthed them in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Biman Prasad lied in 2014 declaration to get elected to Fiji's Parliament. And he continued to file false declarations from 2015-2024.

JUDICIAL HOUSE IN QUESTION: Magistrate Yogesh Prasad Should Have Rescused Himself Over Past Property Purchase from BIMAN Prasad in 2010

Magistrate Yogesh Prasad should have recused himself from hearing the case involving Biman Prasad because he previously purchased property from Prasad in 2010.

Under established judicial-ethics principles, a magistrate has an independent duty to step aside whenever a reasonable observer could suspect bias, regardless of how old the transaction is and regardless of whether FICAC or defence counsel object.

FICAC’s silence does not cure the conflict; impartiality is not something the parties can waive. In a politically sensitive case involving a senior minister, the standard is even higher. By continuing to preside despite a past financial relationship, Magistrate Prasad created the appearance of partiality, undermining public confidence and reinforcing fears of a two-tier justice system.

Fiji deserves a judiciary that avoids not only actual bias but the appearance of bias, especially in cases involving the powerful.

Prior Financial Dealings Trigger Mandatory Recusal

A property purchase from Biman Prasad, regardless of how old the transaction is, constitutes a past financial relationship. In judicial ethics, that alone is enough to raise:

reasonable apprehension of bias,
the appearance of partiality, or
compromised neutrality.

Magistrates are required to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

The 2010 transaction unquestionably meets the appearance threshold.

FICAC’s failure to object is irrelevant in law. Courts have consistently held that:

impartiality is not a right the parties can waive,
prosecutorial silence does not sanitise a conflict, and
a magistrate must protect public confidence, not merely party consent.

In other words, even if every lawyer in the room said “we are fine with it”, he still had to recuse himself.

This matter involves a former senior Cabinet Minister.

Public confidence in the criminal justice process is at stake.

In such cases, magistrates must err on the side of over-recusal, not under-recusal.

Magistrate Yogesh Prasad's continued involvement, despite a disclosed property transaction with a central political figure, is inconsistent with established principles of judicial neutrality.

The House That Changed Owners, Except in Biman Prasad's Declaration

We do not know whether the Tamavua house that Biman Prasad sold to Yogesh Prasad was jointly owned by Biman Prasad and his wife, Rajni Kaushal Chand, or owned solely by Biman Prasad.
However, in his 2014 statutory declaration, he LIED by claiming that he was the sole proprietor of a house on Burerua St, Suva.
This constitutes another criminal offence and should be investigated by FICAC.
And, for God's Sake, Biman Prasad's lawyer and NFP donor Richard Naidu cannot come before court and claim that it is "TEN Years Old".

From Fijileaks Archives

2014: Biman Prasad did not declare his DIRECTORSHIP in Lotus (Fiji) Ltd

In any case, the offence is a strict liability case with no statute of limitation. And even if there was one (which is not in this case) the words of the late Lord Denning is a stark warning to those who break the laws and then try and hide behind "passage of time", with Suva corporate lawyer Richard Naidu screaming, the offence is "ten years old".

Lord Denning

The great British judge Lord Denning was also involved in abritrating the 1968 Fiji sugarcane contract dispute between the growers and the processor, which led to a new contract being established.

In 2008, I had cited Lord Denning's words in Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34, after revealing that Mahendra Chaudhry, the FLP leader and Frank Bainimarama's then interim Finance Minister was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account.

Lord Denning: “The word 'fraud' here is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or his agent such that it would be 'against conscience' for him to avail himself of the lapse of time.

The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406.

In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it.

He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566.

Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it.

The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563.”

The limitation statute’s aim is to prevent citizens from being oppressed by stale claims, to protect settled interests from being disturbed, to bring certainty and finality to disputes and so on. These are, as legal commentators have pointed out, laudable aims but they can conflict with the need to do justice in individual cases where an otherwise unmeritorious defendant can play the limitation trump card and escape liability.

In Biman Prasad's case, he had a duty to disclose, and the cases from 2014 onwards are strict liability ones.

COMPANY DIRECTOR: In 2016, Biman Prasad listed his occupation as COMPANY DIRECTOR (not a sitting NFP parliamentarian) and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand as LECTURER (at USP). But in his 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 declarations, he FAILED to declare any of his directorships

FEO Attracts Narsey's Wrath. Narsey has launched himself into a public spectacle attacking Fiji Elections Office, while simultaneously pushing for alternative voting system that raises more questions than it answers

20/11/2025

*The Fijian public deserves to know: is he advancing democracy, or destabilising it?

Prof (Wadan) Narsey questioned whether internal resistance within the Fiji Elections Office (FEO) may be contributing to the delay.

“Is it that some senior staff in the Fiji Elections Office are opposed to introducing the proposed system given that it would require more work from them than required by the Bainimarama/Sayed-Khaiyum system that they have implemented for the last three national elections?”

Prof Narsey stressed that the Fiji Electoral Commission remains the “superior authority” and has the prerogative to bring in new staff if current officers are reluctant to implement the proposed People’s Open List System (POLCS).

“If necessary, [it] could appoint additional new staff more amenable to implementing the democratic changes.”

Wadan Narsey’s Public Assault on the FEO: Democracy or Disruption?

What we are witnessing is not mere academic critique. It is a full-on ideological assault. Wadan Narsey, once lauded as an independent electoral reform thinker, has launched himself into a brazen public spectacle attacking the Fiji Elections Office, while simultaneously entrenching an alternative voting system that raises more questions than it answers.

The Fijian public deserves to know: is he advancing democracy, or destabilising it?

Why the FEO is being targeted

In a recent Fiji Times column, Narsey publicly questioned why the Electoral Law Reform Report has not yet been tabled in Parliament and implicitly suggested that some senior staff in the FEO are resisting reforms because “it would require more work from them than required by the Bainimarama/Sayed-Khaiyum system.”

Let’s examine that claim:

It assumes that FEO staff are inert bureaucrats refusing reform for comfort’s sake.
It implies a conspiracy: that the system is being kept in place not for voters, but for vested party or individual advantage.
It bypasses due process and places the FEO on the defensive.
More dangerously, it sets the stage for dismantling institutions under the guise of “progress”.

Targeting the FEO is risky. It is the pillar of electoral management. When you weaken it, you weaken the very architecture of democracy.

The so-called “alternative electoral system” under the spotlight

Narsey, as part of the review team, publicly released details of the proposed “Proportional Open List Constituency System” (POLCS) which would see Fiji divided into 25 constituencies, each electing two MPs (one open, one reserved for women) plus additional seats for party proportionality.

On paper the model sounds inclusive. But scratch beneath the surface:

Two MPs per constituency (one open, one reserved) might sound fair but may reduce local accountability if not implemented properly.
The “open list” concept presumes parties will behave ethically. But in the Fijian context of clientelism, how realistic is that presumption?
The system would require much more detailed voter education, operational capacity and administrative cost; ironically, the very tasks that Narsey accuses the FEO of resisting.
It creates a parallel narrative: the “old system” is broken, so we need this new system now. But change rushed is change brittle.

Narsey’s logic is self-contradictory

He accuses FEO staff of being unwilling to do extra work. But the POLCS proposal demands more from them: more complex ballots, more seats, more lists, more proportional allocations. If the system is so burdensome for FEO under the current model, why assume they’ll handle a more demanding system better?

He accuses political self-interest of delaying reform, and then suggests FEO’s resistance is part of that interest.

But the FEO is not the adversary to political parties; it is the instrument of public trust.

His framing flips that relationship: public institution equals enemy of reform, specialist academic equals saviour of democracy.

What’s missing in the narrative

Narsey’s public commentary gives two big omissions:

First, cost.

No transparent cost-benefit analysis of how the new system will be financed, what budget increases are required, how much voter confusion might increase.

Second, transition risk.

Overhauling the electoral system mid-cycle (or too close to an election) creates serious risk of administrative failure, delays, and litigation.

Yet Narsey’s narrative dismisses such concerns as “resistance”.

The danger for democracy

When you assemble the pieces:

Attack the institution (FEO)
Propose a sweeping new system (POLCS)
Imply the current system is rigged for insiders
Demand rapid implementation under pressure

What you have is a blueprint for institutional capture. Under the banner of “reform” you can weaken oversight, bypass checks, and create an environment where future abuse is easier.

As someone involved in electoral oversight, Narsey should know better: good reforms take time, transparency and buy-in.

The Fijian voters deserve clean, incremental reform grounded in consultation.

They do not deserve grand announcements that delegitimise independent institutions and push through sweeping change without full transparency.

Wadan Narsey should answer the following:

On what legal basis is FEO being labelled as obstructive? Provide evidence, not implication.
How will the POLCS model avoid the disadvantages and costs you assume are negligible?
Why should the public trust a system that criticises the current institution yet demands far greater complexity?

Until answers are provided, what looks like reform may in fact be a Trojan horse.

Let us treat the FEO not as the enemy of democracy, but as its front-line defender.

And let us treat electoral system change not as a virtue in itself, but as the means to a more transparent, fair and stable democracy.

***BAN CONVICTED POLITICIANS From Contesting Elections, Full Stop!

19 March 2024: Mataiciwa Fires Back

Acting Supervisor of Elections, Ana Mataiciwa says her referral of the complaint against Deputy Prime Minister and National Federation Party Leader, Professor Biman Prasad to FICAC was not only within her statutory rights as the Acting Supervisor to act on the complaint but equally under her statutory duty to refer the matter.

In response to the allegations made by the Professor Prasad, the Acting Supervisor Mataiciwa reiterates Section 18 of the Electoral Act 2014 which states that if the Electoral Commission or the Supervisor becomes aware at any time of the probable commission of an election related criminal offence including any criminal offence prescribed in the Act, it must immediately report the matter in writing to FICAC, and all election officials must fully cooperate in the investigation of any election related offence.

Mataiciwa says her office received the complaint, the complaints process was followed, and after assessment, powers under Section 18 of the Act was invoked, requesting FICAC to investigate a 'probable' breach.

She says this must not be misconstrued as finding Professor Prasad guilty of any offence.

Mataiciwa says this underscores her dedication to upholding independence, electoral integrity, and transparency.

She says in respect of FICAC’s statutory role to investigate probable breaches to the three existing electoral laws, all enquiries regarding the complaint should be directed to FICAC.

Deputy Prime Minister and National Federation Party Leader, Professor Biman Prasad says he can assure the Fijian Elections Office, and the public, that the allegations in respect of his declaration of assets and liabilities as reported by the Fiji Sun are completely malicious and without substance.

Professor Prasad says according to the front-page report, the FEO has referred a complaint against him to FICAC for investigation.

He says he is surprised to read this.

The Deputy Prime Minister says the FEO has not put these allegations to him for response or comment.

He says he does not see how the Acting Registrar of Political Parties and Supervisor of Elections could reach the view that there was a case for FICAC to investigate without first asking for answers from him.

Professor Prasad says his lawyers will be writing separately to her on this.

He also says nobody from the Fiji Sun contacted him for his comment on the news published today.

The Deputy Prime Minister says the report stated that he said “this is not a good time” when he was supposedly contacted by a journalist to comment on the news.

Professor Prasad says this is unethical and irresponsible.

He says this is also absolutely false and a concoction.

His lawyers will also be writing to the Fiji Sun on this issue.

We have sought comments from the Acting Registrar of Parties, Ana Mataiciwa and the Fiji Sun.

ANA MATAICIWA Stood On Solid Legal Ground

She Had No Discretion Once a Probable Breach Was Identified

Section 18 of the Electoral Act 2014 imposed a mandatory duty:

If the SoE became aware of the probable commission of an offence under the elections or political finance laws,
She had to immediately report the matter in writing to FICAC.

This was a compulsory statutory obligation, not a matter of administrative choice or political preference.

Once the complaint revealed credible grounds, the SoE was legally prohibited from interviewing Prasad or giving him a chance to explain himself before referring the matter.

Thus, Prasad’s complaint that he had not been approached beforehand was legally unfounded.

The Referral Did Not Amount to Any Finding of Guilt

Mataiciwa correctly clarified that the referral:

Did not find Prasad guilty,
Did not reach any determination on the merits,
Simply passed the matter to the agency legally authorised to conduct investigations: FICAC.

Had she failed to refer the matter, she could have exposed herself to misconduct allegations, including:

Abuse of office,
Failure to carry out a statutory duty,
Compromising the independence of the FEO and FICAC.

The Referral Demonstrated Institutional Independence

Mataiciwa’s statement stressed independence, integrity, and transparency.

Given that the complaint targeted a sitting Deputy Prime Minister, the FEO’s willingness to refer the matter indicated that:

The FEO was functioning independently,
The SoE was applying the law uniformly,
FICAC retained exclusive jurisdiction over election-related corruption matters.

Responsibility Shifted Fully to FICAC

Mataiciwa made it clear that once the referral was made, the file was entirely FICAC’s responsibility.

Under the relevant Acts:

Only FICAC could investigate,
Only FICAC could recommend charges,
The DPP would decide whether prosecution proceeded.

Prasad’s Public Reaction Was Legally Weak

Prasad’s argument that he should have been consulted before referral was contrary to the law.

It suggested either a misunderstanding of the statutory scheme or an attempt to re-frame the SoE’s mandatory obligations as discretionary.

His claim of being “surprised” implied wrongdoing by the FEO, which Mataiciwa’s detailed statutory explanation effectively dismantled.

If anything, Prasad’s reaction signalled:

Political discomfort,
An inaccurate interpretation of the law,
A possible attempt to push back against an independent constitutional office.

Conclusion

Mataiciwa delivered a precise, confident, and legally grounded response.

Her interpretation of Section 18 was correct.

Her actions aligned with her statutory duty.

Her clarification that the referral did not imply guilt reinforced due process and institutional independence.

By challenging her actions publicly, Prasad may have attempted to place political pressure on the FEO but Mataiciwa’s statement demonstrated that the law, not politics, governed her decision.

THE LAW SCHOOL OF FEAR. How FNU’s TOP Leadership SILENCED Its Students, Protected a Lecturer, Turned Public University Into a PRIVATE Fiefdom. Rokomokoti named multiple times in Whistleblower REPORT

19/11/2025

In the annals of Fiji’s long, troubled relationship between power and accountability, a new chapter has quietly written itself inside the Fiji National University’s School of Law.

It is a story of frightened students, an alleged rogue lecturer, an indifferent bureaucracy, and a Head of School who, rather than defending the vulnerable, allegedly presided over, and participated in, the silencing of dissent.

A 70-page confidential report by the Fiji National University Law Students Association (FNULSA), obtained by Fijileaks, reads like an indictment of a law school in moral and administrative collapse.

It documents a climate of fear, humiliation, and retaliation. It exposes a pattern of harassment by the lecturer (name withheld) ________, and an even more disturbing pattern of institutional interference by senior administrators entrusted with safeguarding student welfare.

Ana Rokomokoti: When FNU Students Ask Questions, It's a Problem. When Dialogue Fiji Does, It's a Panel. Priorities, Priorities

It is a story that, had it emerged in the corridors of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR) in the 1920s, would have felt familiar: the powerless begging for fairness; the powerful responding with delay, deflection, and disdain.

But this is not 1920. It is 2025. And the institution is not a plantation company. It is a university, funded by Fiji’s taxpayers, meant to be a sanctuary for learning, integrity, and the rule of law.

Fijileaks lays bare the facts.

Harassment in the Classroom: The Lecturer Who Left Students in Tears

The report describes lecturer _______ as a man who wielded classroom authority like a club, not a tool for education:

asking struggling students who paid their fees,
telling others they did not deserve to be enrolled,
publicly shaming female students during presentations,
delivering hour-long tirades over poor marks, with students fleeing the room in tears.

In any civilised academic environment, such allegations would trigger immediate formal investigation, suspension pending inquiry, and psychological support for affected students.

Instead, the Head of School, Ana Rokomokoti, allegedly responded with verbal counselling and pleas for students to “be understanding” because “he has a family.”

This is the same logic we have seen throughout Pacific institutional culture: the protection of the insider over the rights of the victim.

And always, always, the promise of “due process” that never arrives.

The Cover Up: Delay as a Tool of Suppression

When complaints mounted, the administrative machinery at FNU began to operate with the precision of a Soviet-era ministry: slow, opaque, and designed to exhaust the complainant.

Human Resources only contacted students after the semester had ended, when the complainants were scattered, exhausted, and less able to push for action.

In Fiji we know this tactic well: Delay is the handmaiden of impunity.

It is the same formula used to bury corruption complaints, disciplinary reports, and internal audits. Here, it was deployed against 19-and 20-year-olds whose only mistake was to demand dignity in the classroom.

Targetting of FNULSA: A Student Association Treated as an Enemy of the State

What elevates this report from a teacher misconduct case to a full-blown institutional scandal is the systematic targeting of FNULSA, the law students’ elected representative body.

Incident 1: The Silencing Order

When FNULSA attempted to represent the Year 2 students, as required by its constitution, the Head of School told the Association: “Your continued input is no longer needed.”

In one sentence, the HOS extinguished the mandate of the only body designed to protect students from precisely the kind of abuse being reported.

It was a political move, and a dangerous one.

Incident 2: Public Humiliation at Orientation

At the 2025 Orientation, the HOS allegedly interrupted the FNULSA Treasurer, ordered him to sit, and warned new students: “Be careful who you listen to.”

This is the language of authoritarian systems, not universities. When power fears scrutiny, it discredits the messenger.

Incident 3: Bureaucratic Sabotage

The Acting Head of Department then invented a rule, nonexistent in any FNU statute, banning FNULSA from emailing faculty using non-FNU addresses.

When FNULSA complied, the HOD summoned them and tried to seize control of the EU-funded Inter-Tertiary Moot Competition, insisting it be hosted by the School, not the Association.

No written directive was ever provided. Because power that fears documentation fears accountability.

The parallels with Fiji’s political history are unmistakable: when institutions rot, the first casualty is always the independent voice.

Academic Mismanagement: A Law School That Cannot Follow the Law

The report details academic failings that would be unthinkable at any reputable institution:

assessments announced with 24–48 hours’ notice,
marking criteria that contradicted the exam instructions,
fictional statutes penalised for lack of real case law,
mid-semester marks released after teaching ended,
errors in publicly posted grades,
repeated lecturer absences,
a presentation scheduled on a public holiday.

In one case, a student’s posted grade (17/30) was corrected to 25/30 only after challenge. How many mistakes remain unchallenged?

FNU’s own policies were violated with impunity. Students’ futures - scholarships, GPA, job prospects - were gambled away in a haze of academic chaos.

And still, no accountability.

Ethics Taught Without Ethics

Perhaps the most tragic irony lies in the Legal Ethics course.

When students raised the issue of institutional inaction, the lecturer claimed FNULSA had gone “to the media” - a complete falsehood.

Shortly after this confrontation, the FNULSA student's marks mysteriously vanished.

If true, this is not merely victimisation. It is retaliation, a grave academic offence.

It is also the oldest method of silencing dissent in Fiji: punish the ringleader to frighten the rest.

The Political Shadow

The report notes that:

The Head of School was a SODELPA election candidate.
The lecturer at the centre of the scandal was involved in SODELPA’s campaign.

FNULSA reasonably asks:

Were conflicts of interest declared?
Was there political influence in recruitment?
Did political loyalties shape the handling — or burying — of student complaints?

In a country where politics infects even the smallest bureaucratic cell, these questions cannot be dismissed.

The Broader Context: A University Acting Like a Closed Shop

This scandal is not about one lecturer. It is not even about one Head of School. It is about a public institution that:

shields staff from accountability,
silences students who challenge it,
mismanages academic processes, and
treats its own regulations as optional.

It is the same pattern we have exposed for years across Fiji’s institutions: power without scrutiny becomes impunity; impunity becomes culture; culture becomes abuse.

FNULSA’S Final Word, And A Warning

The report ends with a demand for:

an independent investigation,
reassessment of affected grades,
protection for student leaders,
and escalation to state oversight bodies, including FICAC, citing possible abuse of trust in a taxpayer-funded entity.

For once, students are speaking the language of accountability, the language Fiji’s institutions have forgotten.

The question now is whether FNU’s leadership will continue the cycle of suppression, or confront the truth it has avoided.

If history is any guide, we know what happens when institutions ignore their own rot.

Questions Raised Over Governance and Academic Processes Linked to FNU Law School Head Ana Rokomokoti

A separate confidential whistleblower report submitted to Fiji National University (FNU) has brought renewed attention to the role and decision-making of Ana Rokomokoti, the FNU's Head of the School of Law, Ethics and Governance.

The document, compiled by individuals seeking protection under FNU’s whistleblower policy, outlines a series of concerns about academic management, staff appointments, and internal processes associated with the law faculty under her tenure.

The claims remain allegations and have not been tested or confirmed by any independent authority.

According to the report, contributors believe that several academic and administrative decisions made under Rokomokoti’s leadership departed from established university procedures.

A key area of concern relates to her promotion to Assistant Professor, which the authors state was granted without the usual advertising process and, in their view, without meeting the university’s stated minimum qualification requirements. The report also notes that the criteria for academic promotions allow for discretion in exceptional cases, and that no official explanation has been provided publicly regarding the basis for her elevation.

The whistleblower document further outlines concerns about staff recruitment and internal appointments at the School of Law, alleging that some teaching roles were filled without open advertisement. These matters are presented as questions of process rather than personal criticism, with the complainants emphasising that transparent recruitment is a key component of academic governance.

Another significant issue raised relates to the handling of student grievances. Several students reported difficulties in seeking redress for alleged harassment or unprofessional conduct by a former staff member. The report claims that these complaints were not resolved in a timely manner, and that some students perceived a reluctance from faculty leadership, at the time overseen by Rokomokoti, to escalate the matter through formal channels. It remains unclear what internal steps were taken, and FNU has not publicly commented on the specific case.

The report also refers to Rokomokoti’s candidacy in the 2022 General Election, questioning whether her participation was managed in alignment with rules governing political activity by staff of publicly funded institutions. The authors state that employees of such institutions are generally expected to resign or take leave before contesting national elections. They acknowledge, however, that internal legal advice or administrative approvals may have been sought and that no public findings have been made.

More broadly, the document situates these concerns within a pattern of what the authors describe as inconsistencies in academic delivery and assessment processes at the School of Law. These include the late release of marks, changes to assessment formats with limited notice, and instances in which rules on academic progression or attendance were perceived to have been applied unevenly. The report argues that leadership plays a central role in ensuring predictable and fair processes across student cohorts.

None of the allegations in the whistleblower report have been independently verified, and individuals named in the document, including Rokomokoti, have not issued public responses. The report’s authors have called for an external review involving independent academic experts and relevant statutory bodies to objectively assess the matters raised.

As with any whistleblower disclosure, the claims represent the perspective of those who compiled the report and should not be taken as findings of fact. The issues raised, however, underscore wider concerns about governance, transparency, and quality assurance in legal education, areas which stakeholders across Fiji have long viewed as essential to preserving confidence in the profession and the institutions that train its future members.

Right of Reply Note:

Attempts were made to obtain comment from the Ministry of Education, the Fiji National University, and Ms Ana Rokomokoti regarding the matters raised in the whistleblower report. As of publication time, no responses had been received.

Fijileaks will publish any reply or clarification in full if provided: [email protected]

From Fijileaks Archive, 26 January 2015 (Oh, lawyer Richard Naidu will argue, Major Ana Rokomokoti enforced decrees against lawyers in 2015)

From Fiji Law Society to Interim Regime's then Lickspittle and Chief Registrar of the Fiji High Court, Major Ana Rokomokoti, 2009, who had forcibly entered the Fiji Law Society Office and removed files and records as regime took over all lawyer regulatory functions.

“I have reason to believe that this convention will be contrary to the provisions of the Public Emergency Regulations 2009" - Police Commissioner IOANE NAIVALURUA to Fiji Law Society, 21 October 2011

But see cartoon below of Fiji's then Interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum secretly registering FFP domain name and e-mail account, contrary to his own PER 2009

Frankly frightful of Naivalurua's
every step!

Defence Application on behalf of BIMAN PRASAD for the Permanent Stay Proceedings Lacks Legal Foundation and Evidentiary Support. FICAC as an institution has charged him and failure to declare is strict liability case

16/11/2025

FISHY LEGAL MOVE: Ordinary fish seller jailed for one FALSE Report to Fiji Police (Giving False Information to a Public Servant) that two men assaulted him and stole $2,900 in fish sales money while he was selling fish by the roadside at Ravirai in Ba.
*The NFP leader and former Finance Minister's legal team want charges Permanently Stayed for years of False Declarations to the FEO

"Discovery in 2025 does not invalidate an offence committed in 2015. The delay results from the concealment of the true facts, within the statutory declarations, not from FICAC. There is no legal basis for a permanent stay, and no prejudice is suffered by the accused. Biman Prasad was a Member of Parliament, NFP leader, and chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament since the beginning of 6 October 2014 until his forced resignation by SODELPA as PAC chair in May 2016. In April 2017, he was also removed by SODELPA leader Ro Kepa as the Opposition's Shadow Minister for Economy." - Fijileaks

Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad has been granted a non-cash bail bond of $10,000 by the Suva Magistrates Court this morning.

Prasad was represented by Suva lawyer Richard Naidu, while Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption Commissioner Lavi Rokoika and Senior Legal Officer Joseph Work appeared as prosecution in this matter.

He faces a count of failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements.

On or about 30th December 2015 in Suva, Prasad, as an office holder of the registered National Federation Party under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, allegedly failed to comply with Section 24(1)(b)(iv) by omitting to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Pte Limited in his annual declaration of assets, liabilities, and income submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties.

He is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, having allegedly recklessly submitted a declaration omitting his directorship, which rendered it materially false.

FICAC told the court that they have served full-phase disclosures.

Before commencing with this matter, Magistrate Yogesh Prasad declared his conflict of interest, noting that he purchased a property from Prasad through an agent back in 2010; neither of the counsels objected to this and agreed to continue with the matter.

One of his bail sureties: Businessman SAKIUSA RAIVOCE with Prasad

Biman Prasad with his lawyer Richard Naidu

Prasad’s counsel informed the court that they will be filing for a permanent stay in the High Court regarding two grounds, namely the validity of Rokoika’s appointment and the prejudicial delay, as the charges in this matter relate to 2015.

Rokoika did not seek strict bail conditions, noting that Prasad is not a flight risk; however, if and when the former DPM leaves the jurisdiction, he needs to inform the court and FICAC of his intentions to travel.

Prasad was not required to surrender his passport, nor was any restriction on travel, such as a stop departure order, issued.

The matter will be called again on the 8th of next month. Source: FBC News, 17 November

We examine the Defence's Grounds for Seeking a Permanent Stay

The defence has indicated that it will seek a permanent stay on two grounds: (1) the alleged invalidity of the Acting FICAC Commissioner’s appointment, and (2) purported prejudicial delay relating to conduct in 2015.

Neither ground meets the high common-law threshold for a permanent stay, nor do they establish any impairment of trial fairness sufficient to terminate proceedings.

On Alleged Invalidity of Rokoika’s Appointment as acting FICAC Commissioner

A challenge to the administrative validity of a prosecutorial appointment is not a legal basis to extinguish criminal liability.

It is a settled principle that the prosecutorial authority of an institution exists independently of any temporary defect in the appointment of one of its officers. Even if it were assumed (without concession) that Rokoika’s appointment was irregular, such irregularity:

does not nullify FICAC’s statutory authority;
does not invalidate charges properly laid;
does not constitute an abuse of process; and
does not impair the fairness of the trial.

At most, the remedy would lie in administrative review of the appointment, not a permanent stay of criminal proceedings. Courts will not allow technical arguments of this nature to shield an accused from answering serious allegations of false declaration, especially when the evidence is documentary and independent of any prosecutorial officer.

On the Argument of Prejudicial Delay

The law requires delay to be both “inordinate” and “demonstrably prejudicial”. The mere passage of time, without specific impairment to the defence, does not justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay.

The charges concern non-disclosure of a directorship and a false statutory declaration. These are documentary matters. There is no reliance on fading memory, unavailable witnesses, or lost physical evidence. The defence has not identified any actual prejudice arising from the lapse of time.

In addition, the alleged offence is effectively a continuing omission. Delay cannot transform a continuing breach into an unfair prosecution.

Public-interest considerations weigh heavily against a stay. The Political Parties Act exists to promote transparency and integrity among holders of public office. To grant a permanent stay on documentary offences of this nature would undermine public confidence in accountability mechanisms.

On the Issue of Disclosure and Bail

FICAC has served full disclosures, demonstrating readiness for trial. The court declined to impose strict bail restrictions, indicating an absence of flight-risk concerns and normal progression of the case. These factors reinforce that there is no procedural unfairness warranting a stay.

Conclusion

The proposed stay application is legally unsustainable. Neither the alleged irregularity in Rokoika’s appointment nor the lapse of time since 2015 constitutes a basis to prevent the matter from proceeding to hearing. The case involves straightforward documentary allegations that can be fairly adjudicated.

The public interest in maintaining integrity in political-party declarations weighs decisively against a permanent stay.

In any case, the offence is a strict liability case with no statute of limitation. And even if there was one (which is not in this case) the words of the late Lord Denning is a stark warning to those who break the laws and then try and hide behind "passage of time".

The great British judge Lord Denning was also involved in abritrating the 1968 Fiji sugarcane contract dispute between the growers and the processor, which led to a new contract being established. In 2008, I had cited Lord Denning's words in Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34, after revealing that Mahendra Chaudhry, the FLP leader and Frank Bainimarama's then interim Finance Minister was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account.

Lord Denning: “The word 'fraud' here is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or his agent such that it would be 'against conscience' for him to avail himself of the lapse of time.

The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406.

In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it.

He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566.

Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it.

The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563.”

The limitation statute’s aim is to prevent citizens from being oppressed by stale claims, to protect settled interests from being disturbed, to bring certainty and finality to disputes and so on. These are, as legal commentators have pointed out, laudable aims but they can conflict with the need to do justice in individual cases where an otherwise unmeritorious defendant can play the limitation trump card and escape liability.

In Biman Prasad's case, he had a duty to disclose, and the case is a strict liability one.

In 2000, Mahendra Chaudhry received $2million from India, and deposited it into his Sydney bank account. In 2008, I revealed it in the Fiji Sun, leading to the abduction, torture, and deportation of the paper's publisher the late Russell Hunter (RIP) out of Fiji. The Fiji Times also ran a skeleton story, led by then journalist Kamal Iyer, now general secretary of the NFP. Richard Naidu, Biman Prasad's current lawyer, had commented to me, "What a cracker", regarding my front page headline in the Fiji Sun of 24 February 2008.

In 2014, Naidu was serving as a legal adviser to the Reserve Bank of Fiji, where he argued that Chaudhry should have repatriated that money to Fiji. Later that same year Chaudhry was prosecuted, fined, and disqualified from contesting the 2014 election.

In that same year Biman Prasad allegedly committed multiple offences in his statutory declarations and was scheduled to be charged by FICAC on 5 September 2024. The rest is history.

So, why is it that now, after Prasad has been charged, his legal team is claiming too much time has passed?

Only recently, Prasad himself was relying on the $2million involved in 2000 and 2014 conviction to criticise Chaudhry: "Chaudhry is the biggest crook, a compulsive liar."

The Arch of Irony: First They Sue Me, Now NFP and Prasad Quote Me

The irony of MC Lawyers

FIRCA had chosen MC Lawyers as its legal sword. Years later, the irony became unavoidable. One of its partners, Suresh Chandra, also the chair of the Electoral Commission, was found guilty of professional misconduct for misusing over $2 million in client trust funds. The Independent Legal Services Commission declared him unfit to practice law.

The very firm that once tried to muzzle me and the Fiji Sun collapsed under the weight of its own dishonesty.

Tikoduadua’s role

And there was Pio Tikoduadua, then a member of FIRCA’s board. He could have said: “Let’s confront Chaudhry, let’s prove to the public we are serious about tax integrity.” Instead, he joined the chorus that decided: “Let’s sue Victor Lal and the Fiji Sun.”

That’s the record. That’s what I mean when I say being on the outside after 2006 coup gave me a ringside seat. I saw who lined up to protect the powerful, and who paid the price for exposing them.

The boomerang of history

But history has a wicked sense of humour. Fast-forward to August 2025. Who is standing at a podium calling Chaudhry a “crook” for hiding that very same $2 million in Sydney? None other than Biman Prasad, the leader of the National Federation Party, and today the political boss of none other than Pio Tikoduadua.

In 2008, my reporting was defamatory, scandalous, and actionable. In 2025, the very same reporting is a convenient weapon for Pio Tikoduadua's political allies.

They sued me for it. They quote me for it.

On 12 March 2014, the now disbarred lawyer Suresh Chandra of MC Lawyers, who had pursued me in 2008, acted on behalf of Biman Prasad's cousin Sunil Chand, in selling Off-The-Plan Villa Units to ten investors, including two purchased by Biman Prasad
himself.

On 15 March 2014, Prasad and Chand incoporated Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, appointing Biman Prasad as one of two directors, with Prasad holding 5% shareholding in the company. He later became a 50% shareholder in the company.
Despite this, Prasad failed to disclose his DIRECTORSHIP of Lotus (Fiji) and his two villa purchases in his statutory declarations.

LEGAL REBUTTAL TO CLAIMS RAISED BY PRASAD’S COUNSEL RCHARD NAIDU: A RECAP

The Claim of “Invalid Appointment of the Acting FICAC Commissioner” Is Legally Irrelevant to the Validity of the Charges or the Summons

Richard Naidu argues that the charges should be permanently stayed because Lavi Rokoika’s appointment as Acting FICAC Commissioner is invalid.

This argument is misconceived in law for several reasons:

(a) Validity of prosecution is determined at the time the charges were laid

The charges against Biman Prasad were:

initiated under FICAC,
filed by duly authorised FICAC prosecutors,
brought before a competent court.

Even if (for argument’s sake) there is a defect in the appointment of the Commissioner, FICAC as an institution continues to exist under statute, and its prosecutorial powers do not evaporate merely because of a dispute about the temporary office holder.

The law is clear: An irregularity in the appointment of a particular office holder does not automatically invalidate the acts of the institution unless the statute expressly makes validity dependent on the personal authority of the individual (which the FICAC Act does not).

(b) The “de facto officer doctrine” applies

Under common law, actions taken by a public officer acting under colour of authority remain valid even if their appointment is later challenged.

Courts have applied this principle repeatedly in past constitutional and administrative cases. Therefore:

Charges remain lawful.
Summons remain valid.
Proceedings are not void.

(c) Courts do not grant permanent stays merely because the accused raises issues about internal appointments

A permanent stay is an exceptional remedy reserved for:

abuse of process,
impossibility of fair trial, or
conduct so oppressive that continuing the prosecution would offend judicial conscience.

A complaint about who was Acting Commissioner does not meet that threshold.

The Summons and Service Were Proper: “Defendant was overseas” is not a legal defect

Richard Naidu claims the summons is defective because Prasad was overseas, so FICAC did not interview him.

This is legally weak.

(a) An interview is NOT a legal prerequisite to charging

There is no rule in criminal procedure requiring investigators to interview a suspect before laying a charge.

A defendant has no right to be interviewed.

Charges can be laid:

based on documents,
based on evidence already obtained,
or when the suspect is abroad.

The claim that “there was no interview” has zero bearing on whether the summons is lawful.

(b) The Criminal Procedure Act allows service when a defendant is abroad

The Magistrates’ Court can:

issue a summons,
adjourn until the accused returns,
or even issue a warrant if necessary.

Being overseas does not invalidate a summons; if it did, every accused person could simply travel abroad to avoid charges.

(c) Biman Prasad attended court. Therefore he accepted jurisdiction

Once the accused appears, any argument about defective service becomes academic.

The court has seized jurisdiction, and the defendant is bound.

The 10-Year Delay Argument is Factually and Legally Unfounded

Naidu claims there is “prejudicial delay” because the matter dates back to 2015.

(a) The offence is one of continuing misrepresentation

False declarations under the Political Parties Act:

remain offences until the truth is corrected,
continue for each election cycle where the false declaration is relied upon,
restart limitation periods when the falsehood is repeated.

Biman Prasad allegedly made multiple subsequent declarations, each time omitting the same items.

Thus, delay is illusory, and the misconduct is ongoing.

(b) The accused must demonstrate actual prejudice

Courts do not stay prosecutions merely because time has passed.

He must prove:

evidence is lost,
witnesses are unavailable,
memories are faded in a way that deprives him of a fair defence.

Given that this case is entirely documentary:

declarations,
land title records,
company records,
tax filings - there is no factual prejudice.

remains overseas,
maintains political office,
knowingly allows false declarations to stand,
he cannot then argue that his own failure to disclose creates “prejudicial delay.”

The Charges Themselves Are Legally Sound

Biman Chand Prasad faces:

Failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements, and
Providing false information in a statutory declaration.

Key legal points:

These are strict liability offences under Fiji’s political integrity laws.

Intent is not required.
Material omissions (such as shareholdings, property interests, or beneficial ownerships) constitute false declarations.
The prosecution only needs to prove the declaration was false or misleading in a material way.

The Application For A Permanent Stay Has No Merit

A permanent stay is a death blow to a prosecution and is only granted in the rarest cases. None of the arguments raised meet the legal threshold:

Appointment of Acting FICAC Commissioner is irrelevant; de facto officer doctrine applies.
Summons issued while accused overseas is perfectly lawful.
Lack of interview is not a requirement.
Delay is not prejudicial; offences are continuing; evidence is documentary.
Charges are based on statutory declarations; the evidence is strong.

The defence’s application appears to be a political smokescreen, not a legally sustainable argument.

From Fijileaks Archive, 18 September 2024

BIMAN PRASAD didn't disclose his wife's two villas in 2018 Declaration

RAKIRAKI LAND FIRE SALE: Indo-Fijian Widow Loses Her LAND to Fiji Development Bank. Economist and Professor Gains Windfall. How Shanti Devi's LOSS Became BIMAN Prasad and his SON's 10.4 Hectare LAND

14/11/2025

The NFP leader, and until lately the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Biman Prasad, didn't declare in his 2022 mandatory statutory declaration that a piece of land he bought for $60,000 in 2007 in Rakiraki from FDB belonging to Shanti Devi, a widow of Mohan, he gifted it to his NZ based son Mayuresh Bhan Prasad in 2021 for a nominal sum of $100, citing "for natural love and affection".*

"This is a historical convention for the National Federation Party before the 2018 General Election. It is in this town of Rakiraki that the NFP was born under a mango tree and later formalised and launched in Nadi."
3 September 2016, Biman Prasad to NFP Annual Convention

March 2023: NFP Leader and former Finance Minister and DPM Biman Prasad unveils the plaque to open the new party office in Rakiraki

When an Indo-Fijian Widow's Financial Woes Became the USP Economic Lecturer's Discount. The FDB Fire Sale Turned into Biman Prasad's Bargain Land in Rakiraki*

Summary of Key Rakiraki Land Sale Details

Instrument No: 605959
Transferor (Seller): Fiji Development Bank (FDB), a statutory body corporate under the Fiji Development Bank Act (Cap. 214), headquartered at 360 Victoria Parade, Suva.
Registered Proprietor (Previous Owner/Mortgagor): Shanti Devi (widow of Mohan) of Rakiraki, Fiji.
Transferee (Purchaser): Biman Chand (PhD) of 152 Sekoula Road, Laucala Beach Estate, Nasinu.

Land Description:

Title No.: CT 36435
Lot 2 on DP 7602 (Part of Waikaum & Cakova)
Province/Island: Viti Levu
District/Town: Rakiraki
Area: 10.3883 hectares
Sale Agreement Date: 5 September 2006
Transfer Date: Executed 10 April 2007
Registration Date: 27 April 2007 at 1:50 p.m.
Consideration (Sale Price): $60,000.00

Nature of the Transfer

This was not a voluntary sale by the registered owner Shanti Devi.

It was a forced sale conducted by the Fiji Development Bank (FDB), exercising its statutory “power of sale” as mortgagee under a mortgage registered on 29 November 2005 (Notification No. 577079).

Under Fiji's property law and the Land Transfer Act, when a borrower (mortgagor) defaults on their loan, the mortgagee (in this case, FDB) is entitled, after due notice and compliance with statutory requirements, to sell the mortgaged property to recover the outstanding debt.

Why FDB Sold Shanti Devi's Land

FDB sold the land in exercise of its power of sale because the mortgagor, Shanti Devi, had defaulted on her loan obligations secured by the land.

This is explicitly stated in the document’s heading: “TRANSFER BY MORTGAGEE IN EXERCISE OF POWER OF SALE.”

FDB’s sale was to recover the unpaid loan amount or part thereof. Upon default, the bank was legally entitled to:

Take possession of the property;
Sell it (by private treaty or public auction); and
Apply the proceeds toward the outstanding mortgage debt, interest, and costs.

The bank’s seal and officers’ signatures (Executive Manager, Asset Management Unit and Senior Manager, Legal Services) confirm that this was a bank-initiated recovery sale.

Legal Effect of the Transfer

By operation of law:

FDB’s exercise of the power of sale extinguished the mortgagor’s interest (Shanti Devi’s ownership) in the property.
The purchaser (Biman Chand, PhD) obtained good title free of prior encumbrances, as long as FDB complied with the mortgage and statutory requirements.
The Registrar of Titles formally registered the transfer on 27 April 2007, completing the change of ownership.

In short, the Fiji Development Bank sold the land because Shanti Devi defaulted on her FDB mortgage loan. The purchaser, Dr Biman Prasad, PhD, acquired the 10.3883-hectare Rakiraki property for $60,000 on 27 April 2007.

BIMANOMICS AT WORK:
*The much smaller plot of land beside Biman Prasad's $60,000 Rakiraki land (2007) is now worth $355,000 in 2025

On 12 January 2021, Biman Prasad transferred his plot of land to his NZ based son for a nominal consideration of $100, and it was formally registered on 4 February 2021

12 January 2021: So, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad Just Happened To Be Living with Biman Prasad and wife Rajni Khausal Chand at 152 Sekoula Rd, Laucala Beach, Suva, on Rakiraki Land Transfer Day.
We ask FICAC and Fiji Police and FRCA to investigate whether false information was knowingly provided during the transfer of Rakiraki land from the NFP leader and now former Finance Minister Biman Prasad to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad, on 12 January 2021, specially concerning Mayuresh Bhan Prasad's claimed residence* at 152 Sekoula Rd, Laucala Beach, Suva.

BACKGROUND and CHRONOLOGY: Ownership history

Between 2014 and 2020, Biman Chand Prasad declared ownership of a parcel of land in Rakiraki, identifying it by its Certificate of Title number (36435) in consecutive public asset declarations.

This demonstrates his consistent knowledge of the land and its legal particulars.

Transfer to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad

Records indicate that on 4 February 2021, the land was transferred to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad. The transfer documentation lists Mayuresh’s residential address as: “152 Sekoula Road, Suva.”

Publicly available evidence suggesting possible falsity

Independent evidence, Linkedin employment profile, including a published Otago Daily Times (New Zealand) record, confirms that Mayuresh Bhan Prasad obtained New Zealand citizenship in 2008.

There is credible information suggesting:

long-standing residence in New Zealand;
no known occupation or residence at 152 Sekoula Road during the relevant period;
possible physical absence from Fiji around the transfer date.

This creates reasonable grounds to suspect that the residential particulars recorded in the land-transfer instrument may have been inaccurate or misleading.

Grounds For Reasonable Suspicion

This complaint is not asserting wrongdoing as fact.

It asserts that reasonable suspicion exists, because the following appear inconsistent:

Citizenship and residence

A person who has been a New Zealand citizen since 2008 is unlikely, absent contrary evidence, to have been residing at a family address in Suva on 12 January 2021.

Immigration and travel records

If immigration logs reveal the transferee was not present in Fiji on or near the transfer date, the address listed would be materially false.

Utility and public-record indicators

Residency can be verified or disproven through:

EFL and Water Authority billing records,
FRCS/TIN address records,
Voter registration records,
Tenancy or electoral listings.

Registration requirements

Residential details are required to ensure:

Identity accuracy,
Compliance with land-registration rules,
Compliance with anti-money-laundering (AML/KYC) laws,
Proper tax treatment of transfers.

Any false address compromises the legality and validity of the transaction.

Possible Offences (For FICAC Assessment)

(All listed as possible offences only, not asserted as proven.)

Crimes Act 2009

Section 201: False or misleading information to a public official
Section 256–257: Use of false documents / uttering a false document
Section 325: Obtaining a financial or property advantage by deception
Section 334–340: General fraud and deception offences
Section 66: Aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit an offence

FICAC Act

Providing false information to a public body
Abuse of office (if a public officer participated)

Land/Title laws

Supplying false particulars in a transfer instrument
Any offence under the Registration of Titles Act relating to fraudulent registration

AML/KYC rules

Providing false identification details for a transaction involving real property

This list is not exhaustive; it outlines the statutory basis for FICAC jurisdiction.

Why The Matter Merits Formal Investigation

The case involves a public official (the grantor) and his immediate family member.
The information relates to a registered land transfer, a process requiring strict truthfulness.
The suspected false information concerns a simple, binary fact: whether the transferee resided at 152 Sekoula Road in early 2021.
Verification is straightforward and documentary.

The public interest is clear: the integrity of land records, public disclosures, and anti-corruption processes depends on the accuracy of information provided to government authorities.

Request for Action to Fiji Police Force and FICAC

Open a formal investigation into whether false information was provided in this land transfer.

Conclusion:

This complaint does not allege guilt.

It asserts that reasonable grounds exist to suspect that false information was provided in the course of an official land transfer, and that the matter falls within FICAC’s jurisdiction for investigation.

In his 2021 and 2022 statutory declarations, Biman Chand Prasad didn't declare that he had disposed of the Rakiraki land to his son.

He also failed to declare that he had gifted Shanti Devi's former family land to his son, who by all accounts, has been living and working in New Zealand.

SHANTI DEVI:
We are left to wonder what fate, and what financial misery, befell Shanti Devi, Mohan's widow from Rakiraki. Shanti means Peace. The Prasads' are sitting on a fortune

Rakiraki Land Slipped Away From Shanti Devi But Elsewhere, the Forecast for the Prasad Family Was Permanent Shade and Bright Financial Skies

2005: NFP Removed its Party President (DORSAMI NAIDU) the Moment He Was Charged. So Why Does Biman Prasad Get Special Protection in 2025. PRASAD remains the NFP leader despite being charged by FICAC

11/11/2025

Naidu was subsequently acquitted of the charges against him

TRANSPARENCY Champion Forgets to Declare the Company He Co-Founded with his Cousin but Remembered GDN Just Fine

In 2014, he disclosed in his statutory declaration that he was a DIRECTOR of GDN - Global Development Network. A decade later, he even addressed its meeting in 2024, in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.
However, in that same 2014 declaration, he lied in order to enter Parliament as an NFP MP. He failed to disclose that he had co-founded and was a DIRECTOR of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, a mandatory declaration under the Political Parties Act.
*Paragraph (6) of the statutory declaration form for 2014 clearly reminded Biman Chand Prasad that providing any false information constitutes an offence punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to TEN (10) YEARS

The Hidden Loophole: How Leaving Superannuation Out of the Statutory Declarations Undermines Fiji’s Integrity Laws under the Political Parties Act. Malimali's closure of Biman Prasad's FICAC FILE a case for Debate

9/11/2025

"The complaint that the Honourable Dr. Prasad should have disclosed his superannuation is debatable. Since 2014, the Honourable Dr. Prasad has provided his declaration to the Fijian Elections Office without including superannuation information, and there is no evidence before FICAC that the Supervisor of Elections or the Electoral Commission ever advised Honourable Dr. Prasad that his declarations were insufficient or requested that superannuation information be included in the declaration form."
The former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali

Why We Are Exposing the “Superannuation Excuse” Behind the Closure of the Biman Prasad File. And Why Superannuation Must Be Declared under PPAct of 2013

Fijileaks is publishing this piece because the public has a right to know how a serious complaint alleging undeclared directorships, hidden shareholdings, and benefits linked to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd) was quietly shut down by the former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, using a completely irrelevant technicality about superannuation.

The complaint was never about superannuation. It was about whether the NFP leader and former Finance Minister Biman Prasad failed to disclose directorships, concealed business interests with his cousin Sunil Chand, and he and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand received financial benefits that should have been reported under Section 24 of the Political Parties Act.

Yet Barbara Malimali latched onto the line that “superannuation is not required to be declared” and used that single point to bury the entire "FICAC File". One irrelevant argument was allowed to extinguish multiple, far more serious allegations. Why? Who benefited? And what was she trying to avoid investigating?

But there is a deeper issue. Fijileaks argues that superannuation should be included in statutory declarations in the first place.

Why? Because superannuation is not just a retirement nest egg. It is a financial asset capable of being manipulated, inflated, or used to disguise benefits. A third party can quietly top up a politician’s FNPF account without it ever appearing in bank records. Employers, contractors, or political donors can channel “contributions” that look clean on paper but function as hidden payments.

In a country where FNPF is one of the most powerful financial institutions, politicians who influence FNPF policy, appointments, or investments should not be allowed to hide behind a loophole. Superannuation, like bank accounts, shares, and directorships, carries potential conflicts of interest and must form part of any honest integrity regime.

So we write this because the public has been misled into believing there was “no case to answer” against Biman Prasad when in fact the real allegations were untouched, and the superannuation excuse was a convenient smokescreen. A device. A cover. A way to shutter a politically sensitive file without confronting the actual breaches.

Fijileaks will not allow selective reasoning or technical loopholes to bury the truth. Fiji deserves to know whether the superannuation argument was a genuine interpretation of the law or a deliberate misuse of authority designed to protect a senior Cabinet minister from charges, as FICAC was going to charge Prasad on 5 September 2024.

Fijileaks Editorial: Whether Superannuation qualify as "Material Benefits"?

Whether superannuation benefits received by political party office-holders (e.g., MPs and party leaders) qualify as “material benefits” under Section 18 of the Political Parties Act 2013, and if so, whether the existing disclosure forms and regulatory guidelines adequately require such benefits to be reported.

The answer is in the affirmative. Superannuation is a material financial benefit and should be disclosed under Section 18, even if not explicitly listed. However, due to gaps in declaration form design and guidance, there is ambiguity, which can be resolved through statutory reform or regulatory clarification.

Section 18 – General Duty of Disclosure

Section 18(1):

“A political party shall… provide the Registrar with a statement of its assets and liabilities, including all sources of funds, donations, and contributions in kind.”

Section 18(2)(b):

“…any financial or material support received by the party or any of its officials from any other source.”

These provisions apply to benefits received by officials, even if not originating from the party or a formal salary.

Section 24 – Individual Office-holder Declarations

Office-holders must provide annual declarations of assets, income, and liabilities.
While superannuation is not named, the broad obligation to declare all financial interests logically includes:

Pensions
Deferred compensation
Continuing income from public or quasi-public institution

Superannuation as a Material Benefit: Ongoing Income Source
Superannuation constitutes monthly or lump-sum payments, similar to other income streams. If received during a person’s time in office, it meets the threshold of a financial benefit, regardless of when the entitlement arose.

Public Resource Origin
When the superannuation:

Is funded (in part) by public institutions, like the University of the South Pacific (USP),
Includes employer top-ups or enhanced packages, or
Is not automatically available to the general population.

It is materially distinguishable from private income and should be declared, especially under a law designed to protect political integrity and transparency.

Purpose of the Act
The purpose of the Act, as derived from the long title and statutory scheme, is to:

Promote financial transparency
Prevent undue influence or secret enrichment
Enable public accountability

Therefore, a purposive interpretation requires including superannuation in declarations.

Current Gap: Lack of Specific Guidance

While the law implicitly requires such disclosure, the prescribed declaration forms:

Do not contain a line-item for superannuation, pension, or retirement benefits
Do not clarify whether prior entitlements must be included
Have not been updated to reflect changing public expectations

This has led to inconsistencies, including:

Non-disclosure by senior MPs such as Biman Prasad since 2014
No prosecution or penalty, due to FICAC’s determination that the omission was technical, not willful

Recommendation: Legal and Regulatory Reform

To resolve ambiguity and ensure consistent enforcement:

Revise declaration forms to explicitly list “pension, superannuation, or retirement income” as a required entry.
Issue guidance to all political parties clarifying that deferred or ongoing benefits must be declared under Section 18 and Section 24.

Legislative Amendment (If required)

Introduce an amendment to Section 18(2) to include:
“This includes, but is not limited to, salaries, allowances, pensions, gratuities, superannuation, retirement funds, or any other benefit or entitlement derived from public office, past or present.”

Transitional Declaration Order

Require all current office-holders to submit a supplemental declaration addressing any previously undisclosed superannuation or pension benefit, without penalty if submitted in good faith.

Conclusion
There is a strong legal basis for requiring superannuation to be disclosed under the Political Parties Act 2013. The fact that Biman Prasad failed to do so, even if not malicious, reveals a regulatory gap.

This memo recommends that Parliament act to:

Clarify the disclosure duty,
Reform the declaration process,
Restore confidence in equal enforcement of political financial accountability.

Superannuation is not a technical side issue. It is a central part of a person’s financial life and a potential vector for influence. Leaving it out of statutory declarations undermines the integrity of the disclosure system and gives cover to those who want to exploit it.

Did Barbara Malimali Use Superannuation as a Pretext to Close the Biman Prasad Investigation? A Case for Abuse of Office

The decision by Barbara Malimali to close the complaint file against Biman Prasad on the grounds that he “was not required to declare his superannuation”, despite strong evidence he had allegedly committed multiple offences, demands urgent police scrutiny.

From Fijileaks Archive

"It was not right for you to tell the second respondent [Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho] to stay away from investigating the alleged mismanagement of taxpayer’s fund at the University of the South Pacific by top senior officials, who appear to be citizens of Fiji. The second respondent was the Commissioner of Police. The second respondent’s brief as Police Commissioner was guided by section 5 of the Police Act 1965. It was mandatory for the second respondent to prevent and detect crimes and enforce the criminal law of the Republic of Fiji. The police were investigating the USP mismanagement of funds at the time.

The police had sought the Director of Public Prosecution’s assistance. He had recommended the caution interview of the suspects. By telling the second respondent to stay away from the USP investigation, you have in a sense effectively sabotaged the police investigation. To this day, the investigation had not been completed. Your action was inconsistent with the oath of your office.

Breach of the Public’s Trust.

At the material time, the second respondent was the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji. By virtue of section 129 (3) of the Constitution, he commands the Fiji Police Force and is responsible for its administration, organization, deployment and its control, and in those matters, he is not subject to anyone’s control. He is the top police officer and it is his task to lead the police maintain law and order. By virtue of section 5 of the Police Act 1965, he leads the police in preserving the peace, protecting life and property, prevent and detect crime and to enforce the criminal law of this country.

However, when he, on 15 July 2020, at Suva in the Central Division, directed the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, he was certainly abusing his office, which was an arbitrary act, prejudicial to the rights of USP.

What he did was a direct violation of section 5 of the Police Act 1965 and as such, was a breach of the public trust in him.

(ii) By acceding to the first respondent’s request to stay away from the USP investigations reported in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, the second respondent violated his constitutional independence as guaranteed by section 129 (5) of the 2013 Constitution.

In sentencing you [Bainimarama}, I am guided by section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009, that is, to punish you in a manner which is just in all the circumstances; to protect the community; to deter others from committing similar offences and to signify that the court and community denounce what you did in Count No. 1. I start with a sentence of 6 months imprisonment. For the aggravating factor, I add 2 ½ years making a total of 3 years imprisonment. For all the mitigating factors, I deduct 2 years, leaving a balance of 1 year imprisonment. On Count No. 1, I sentence you to 1 year imprisonment.

Not on Taxpayers. Just $11,551.68 of Taxpayer Money! Rock Solid Denial. Limestone Coast Organisers of Fiji DAY party in Australia say Tabuya's costs for her travel, accommodation and meal costs fully funded by them

8/11/2025

*In Fiji’s new era of “transparency”, it seems a taxpayer-funded ticket upgrade is now called community support, and five-figure travel claims are “largely funded” by everyone except the taxpayers footing the bill for Tabuya's Aussie party

Premila Kumar

Lynda Tabuya

Sitiveni Rabuka

Not on Fijian Taxpayers. Just $11,551.68 of Fijian Taxpayer money

By any normal standard, $11,551.68 is a serious amount of money.

But in Fiji’s new world of ministerial transparency, that’s apparently “not taxpayers’ money.”

Minister for Information Lynda Tabuya has defended her trip to South Australia for Fiji Day celebrations, claiming that it was “largely funded by the Fijian community” and that the only cost to Government was her “ticket upgrade and standard per diem.”

Sounds modest until you read the fine print.

In a written statement to Parliament, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka shows otherwise.

According to the official list of ministerial travel costs, the Minister for Information’s trip cost taxpayers $11,551.68.

That’s more than Rabuka himself ($8,899.95) and almost twice the cost of Minister Sashi Kiran's $6,328.00.

If this is what “community-funded” means, then Fiji must have discovered a new type of invisible public accounting where community goodwill magically appears in the Ministry of Finance’s ledgers.

While the official breakdown isn’t shown, a realistic estimation (based on Fiji government travel norms) could look like this:

Airfare and upgrade: around $4,500
Per diem: about $3,000
Accommodation and extras: $2,000
Representation costs and admin fees: roughly $2,000

Total: $11,551.68, all signed off under the Prime Minister’s letterhead.

So yes, maybe the “community” did chip in with applause and flower garlands.

But the taxpayers paid for the flight, the hotel, the allowance, and the upgrade.

In other words, the “only” cost to the Coalition government was the whole trip.

QUESTIONS FOR MINISTER FOR INFORMATION LYNDA TABUYA

Funding clarity and evidence

If the organisers said the trip was “fully funded,” why did the Coalition government still pay for a ticket upgrade and per diem?
Can you produce documentation or correspondence showing exactly who funded the base airfare and accommodation?
Were any funds received directly or indirectly from PALM/NEC contractors, labour recruiters, or businesses that employ Fijian workers in Australia?

Conflict of interest and ethics

Did you or your ministry conduct any due diligence to ensure the funders had no commercial or political interests linked to your ministerial portfolio?
Were you accompanied by any government staff or advisers whose travel costs were also partly subsidised?
Under the Civil Service or Ministerial Code of Conduct, do you consider it appropriate to accept partial sponsorship for official travel from private or community groups?

Authorisation and accountability

You stated the trip was approved by the Prime Minister. Was this approval written? If so, on what date?
Was Cabinet informed or did it appear in any Cabinet paper as required for overseas ministerial travel?
Did you declare the funding source in any post-travel report or register of gifts/benefits?

Cost and transparency

What was the exact cost to taxpayers of the “ticket upgrade” and “standard travel per diem”?
Were per diems claimed for all days of travel, including those funded by organisers?
Will you release receipts or travel acquittals to verify the spending?

Policy and precedent

Would other ministers now be entitled to accept partial sponsorship from foreign-based Fijian communities?
Does this not set a precedent for outside groups to fund ministerial travel in exchange for political visibility?
What safeguards exist to prevent misuse or hidden quid pro quo arrangements?

Political and public messaging

Why does your statement emphasize PALM/NEC remittances when the trip’s funding controversy concerns ministerial ethics, not remittance appreciation?
Do you acknowledge that remittance earners’ sacrifices are being used rhetorically to justify questionable travel costs?
Why didn’t the Ministry issue a proactive statement disclosing funding details before public pressure arose?

Broader integrity questions

Will you commit to publishing all future ministerial travel disclosures and funding sources online for public scrutiny?

As an ex-MP who’s been there, let me say this clearly: most overseas trips by MPs and senior civil servants are a worthless waste of public money and time.

They do little or nothing for the nation — except line the pockets of the traveller with generous per diems and provide a taxpayer-funded holiday under the pretext of “official duty.”

This is why such trips must be strictly regulated. MPs and ministry officials should travel only when absolutely necessary — and only when the benefits to Fiji are clear, measurable, and immediate.

Too many leave for 20, 30, even 40 days, while their ministries fall behind on targets that actually matter to our people.

We saw the rot begin during the FFP years, when the former PM was sent to events meant for Permanent Secretaries — reportedly just to collect allowances and enjoy another overseas jaunt.

One former FFP MP, now sitting comfortably in opposition, is said to have raked in over $20,000 in allowances from a three-week “climate change” meeting.

And now — history repeats itself. According to today’s Fiji Times, the Government spent a total of $64,813.67 just to send the Prime Minister, five ministers, and one assistant minister overseas to “celebrate Fiji Day.” The breakdown is as follows:

• A-G Siromi Turaga — $11,783.84
• Lynda Tabuya — $11,551.68
• Penioni Ravunawa — $10,500.55
• PM Sitiveni Rabuka — $8,899.95
• Jese Saukuru — $8,583.93
• Agni Deo Singh — $7,165.72
• Sashi Kiran — $6,328.00
Total: $64,813.67 — for just one celebration.

The irony is painful. While in opposition, these same leaders condemned the FFP for wasteful spending — yet now, in power, they are walking the same path.

How can we justify spending $64,000 of our own limited funds for a feel-good trip abroad while hospitals lack medicine, schools crumble, and families struggle to put food on the table?

Worse still, many of these trips are already fully or partly funded by wealthier nations eager to buy influence and secure our votes in international forums. The sponsors win — Fiji loses. We pay our own way to attend, then clap for someone else’s agenda.

We must demand better. The next government must tighten travel regulations and keep all overseas missions to the barest minimum — only when it truly serves the national interest. No more luxury junkets disguised as diplomacy. No more taxpayer-funded sightseeing tours.

If MPs and officials really want to serve Fiji, let them stay home, fix their ministries, and deliver real results for the people who elected them — not selfies from five-star hotels abroad.

From Fijileaks Archives

NFP's Poster Boy in 2022 Election, Director of FIAS, a Defunct Institute: Biman Prasad Sold Voters Directorship of Fiji Institute of Applied Studies that had been de-registered in January 2022 under Charitable Trusts Act

5/11/2025

*The Fijian Voters thought they were getting an academic leader. It turns out the only thing active was the NFP campaign spin machine

*September 2022 Election Campaign:
CURRENTLY, he (Biman Prasad) is the Director of Fiji Institute of Applied Studies and Parliamentary Leader of the National Federation Party

Ganesh Chand

Anand Chand

Nadesa Goundar

BIMAN PRASAD's residential home? In March 1997, FIAS registered its office at Sekoula Road, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, Fiji

Biman Prasad Director of an Institute That Died Mid-Election Year

The National Federation Party loves to preach transparency and accountability. But when it comes to its own backyard, suddenly the facts get flexible.

During the 2022 elections, NFP marketed its leader, Professor Biman Prasad, as the “Director of the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies” (FIAS). Sounds academic, legitimate, and respectable - exactly the kind of intellectual polish a party wants on its campaign brochure.

Except there’s a small problem.

FIAS was formally cancelled on 26 January 2022.

That’s right. It was in the same year Prasad was touting the title to voters, the entity was quietly erased from the charitable trusts register. So while Fiji went to the polls believing Prasad was helming an active institution, public records were busy pulling the plug.

To recap:

Prasad held himself out as Director of FIAS in 2022
Official records show the trust was cancelled 26 January 2022
His 2023 statutory declaration (covering 2022) does not disclose the directorship

So, what was FIAS in 2022?

A functioning trust?

A dissolved shell?

Or an election prop that conveniently disappeared once scrutiny arrived?

Either way, the timeline does not flatter the NFP leader’s narrative.

If FIAS had effectively ceased operations before or by January 2022, then advertising oneself as its Director during the campaign is misleading at best.

If FIAS was still active up to cancellation, then why was the role not declared in the mandatory filings? The Political Parties Act does not provide exemptions for “inconvenient positions”.

And if FIAS deliberately shut down right as elections approached - well, that raises another set of questions entirely.

What voters were shown and what the register shows cannot be reconciled with a straight face.

Yet this is the same party that positions itself as the moral compass of Fiji’s politics. The same leader who chides others for “lack of transparency”.

It seems accountability is much easier to demand than to practise.

So here we are:

The Fiji Institute of Applied Studies may have breathed its last breath in January 2022, but the National Federation Party’s Institute of Political Fairy Tales continued its cheerful work.

And the lesson?

You don’t need a PhD in economics to know that voters deserved the truth. Not a disappearing act.

Based on the documentary evidence shown, there may be grounds to investigate a potential false representation under the Political Parties Act and/or ethical misrepresentation to voters.

In politics, credibility is currency. And during Fiji’s 2022 general election, Biman Prasad, leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) and later Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, traded heavily on his role as a respected academic and economist.

To seal his appeal, he flaunted a title: Director of the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS).

That title wasn’t incidental. It was central. It appeared prominently on the NFP’s campaign website and in public speeches. It was used to present Prasad as a man of ideas, independence, and global insight, the thinking voter’s candidate.

But once the votes were counted and the ministerial seat secured, that very title vanished, not from his resume but from his legal obligations.

In his 2023 statutory declaration of assets, liabilities and interests (for the year ending 2022), Prasad completely failed to disclose that he was a director of FIAS, the very organisation he invoked to earn public trust. This is not only hypocritical. It is, by any measure, a violation of the Political Parties Act, and potentially a criminal offence.

COMING NEXT: Prior to FIAS deregistration, senior figures, including Biman Prasad and Ganesh Chand, participated in planning sessions to "get it [FIAS] legal again" and transfer operations to Pacific Polytech.
The correspondence confirms the restructing as deliberate and coordinated, with proposals to re-register FIAS under new vehicles and transfer its functions. The timing raises questions about asset handling, charity government, and public office conflicts.

<<Previous

Forward>>

When a Single-Ethnic Military Bows to a Single-Ethnic Council

The RFMF's submission to the YASH GHAI Commission on the GCC

ITAUKEI Culture Treasured for Centuries, Apparently Too Fragile To Survive One Afternoon Dance

JUDICIAL HOUSE IN QUESTION: Magistrate Yogesh Prasad Should Have Rescused Himself Over Past Property Purchase from BIMAN Prasad in 2010

The House That Changed Owners, Except in Biman Prasad's Declaration

From Fijileaks Archives

2014: Biman Prasad did not declare his DIRECTORSHIP in Lotus (Fiji) Ltd

COMPANY DIRECTOR: In 2016, Biman Prasad listed his occupation as COMPANY DIRECTOR (not a sitting NFP parliamentarian) and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand as LECTURER (at USP). But in his 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 declarations, he FAILED to declare any of his directorships

*The Fijian public deserves to know: is he advancing democracy, or destabilising it?

***BAN CONVICTED POLITICIANS From Contesting Elections, Full Stop!

19 March 2024: Mataiciwa Fires Back

Ana Rokomokoti: When FNU Students Ask Questions, It's a Problem. When Dialogue Fiji Does, It's a Panel. Priorities, Priorities

From Fijileaks Archive, 26 January 2015 (Oh, lawyer Richard Naidu will argue, Major Ana Rokomokoti enforced decrees against lawyers in 2015)

From Fiji Law Society to Interim Regime's then Lickspittle and Chief Registrar of the Fiji High Court, Major Ana Rokomokoti, 2009, who had forcibly entered the Fiji Law Society Office and removed files and records as regime took over all lawyer regulatory functions.

We examine the Defence's Grounds for Seeking a Permanent Stay

The Arch of Irony: First They Sue Me, Now NFP and Prasad Quote Me

On 12 March 2014, the now disbarred lawyer Suresh Chandra of MC Lawyers, who had pursued me in 2008, acted on behalf of Biman Prasad's cousin Sunil Chand, in selling Off-The-Plan Villa Units to ten investors, including two purchased by Biman Prasad​himself.

From Fijileaks Archive, 18 September 2024

BIMAN PRASAD didn't disclose his wife's two villas in 2018 Declaration

"This is a historical convention for the National Federation Party before the 2018 General Election. It is in this town of Rakiraki that the NFP was born under a mango tree and later formalised and launched in Nadi."3 September 2016, Biman Prasad to NFP Annual Convention

March 2023: NFP Leader and former Finance Minister and DPM Biman Prasad unveils the plaque to open the new party office in Rakiraki

*When an Indo-Fijian Widow's Financial Woes Became the USP Economic Lecturer's Discount. The FDB Fire Sale Turned into Biman Prasad's Bargain Land in Rakiraki

BIMANOMICS AT WORK:*The much smaller plot of land beside Biman Prasad's $60,000 Rakiraki land (2007) is now worth $355,000 in 2025

On 12 January 2021, Biman Prasad transferred his plot of land to his NZ based son for a nominal consideration of $100, and it was formally registered on 4 February 2021

SHANTI DEVI:​We are left to wonder what fate, and what financial misery, befell Shanti Devi, Mohan's widow from Rakiraki. Shanti means Peace. The Prasads' are sitting on a fortune

Rakiraki Land Slipped Away From Shanti Devi But Elsewhere, the Forecast for the Prasad Family Was Permanent Shade and Bright Financial Skies

TRANSPARENCY Champion Forgets to Declare the Company He Co-Founded with his Cousin but Remembered GDN Just Fine

From Fijileaks Archive

*In Fiji’s new era of “transparency”, it seems a taxpayer-funded ticket upgrade is now called community support, and five-figure travel claims are “largely funded” by everyone except the taxpayers footing the bill for Tabuya's Aussie party

Not on Fijian Taxpayers. Just $11,551.68 of Fijian Taxpayer money

From Fijileaks Archives

*The Fijian Voters thought they were getting an academic leader. It turns out the only thing active was the NFP campaign spin machine

*September 2022 Election Campaign:CURRENTLY, he (Biman Prasad) is the Director of Fiji Institute of Applied Studies and Parliamentary Leader of the National Federation Party

BIMAN PRASAD's residential home? In March 1997, FIAS registered its office at Sekoula Road, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, Fiji

Archives

On 12 March 2014, the now disbarred lawyer Suresh Chandra of MC Lawyers, who had pursued me in 2008, acted on behalf of Biman Prasad's cousin Sunil Chand, in selling Off-The-Plan Villa Units to ten investors, including two purchased by Biman Prasad
himself.

"This is a historical convention for the National Federation Party before the 2018 General Election. It is in this town of Rakiraki that the NFP was born under a mango tree and later formalised and launched in Nadi."
3 September 2016, Biman Prasad to NFP Annual Convention

When an Indo-Fijian Widow's Financial Woes Became the USP Economic Lecturer's Discount. The FDB Fire Sale Turned into Biman Prasad's Bargain Land in Rakiraki*

BIMANOMICS AT WORK:
*The much smaller plot of land beside Biman Prasad's $60,000 Rakiraki land (2007) is now worth $355,000 in 2025

SHANTI DEVI:
We are left to wonder what fate, and what financial misery, befell Shanti Devi, Mohan's widow from Rakiraki. Shanti means Peace. The Prasads' are sitting on a fortune

*September 2022 Election Campaign:
CURRENTLY, he (Biman Prasad) is the Director of Fiji Institute of Applied Studies and Parliamentary Leader of the National Federation Party