Blog Posts

USPSA FORENSIC REPORT: Allegations of FORGERY, Abuse of Office, Mismanagement and Governance Failures Resulting in $172,667.91 in Losses at USP Student Associations. Fiji Police Probe Recommended

3/7/2026

The forensic accounting report prepared by Dr Ilimotama Cawi (PhD, CPA, ACFE), an independent forensic accountant engaged to investigate the financial affairs of the University of the South Pacific Students Association (USPSA) Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch, paints a troubling picture of alleged financial misconduct, governance failures, abuse of office and systemic administrative breakdown within student governance structures during 2024–2025.

The investigation concluded that the combined economic loss to USPSA Federal and USPSA Laucala Branch amounted to $172,667.91, which the report attributes to a combination of financial greed, corrupt practices, abuse of office, obtaining financial advantage by deception, aiding and abetting, negligence, poor governance and mismanagement of funds.

Importantly, the report stresses that while USP itself established the student association under the University's Charter, the University is not legally liable for debts or liabilities incurred by the student organisation.

Breakdown of the Alleged Financial Losses

The forensic investigation identified five principal areas of loss:

Overseas travel and forgery: $12,516
Unpaid catering and borrowings through Navintees/Sashi: $123,614.35
Borrowings from USPSA Service Centre: $25,912.80
Unpaid student allowances: $1,500
USPSA Federal Auckland travel expenses: $9,124.76

These losses together totalled $172,667.91.

Sasa Biutiviti - Central Figure

Central Figure: Sasa Biutiviti

The report places the greatest responsibility on Sasa Biutiviti, who served as Finance Officer of the USPSA Laucala Branch. According to the findings, Biutiviti was allegedly involved in multiple acts of misconduct, including:

forging signatures;
obtaining financial advantage by deception;
abuse of office;
conflict of interest;
failure to repay borrowed funds;
misuse of disbursed university funds;
negligence in performing financial duties;
poor record-keeping and financial administration.

The report further states that Biutiviti admitted in writing that he had forged signatures relating to travel arrangements for a USPSA Federal Council meeting in the Cook Islands.

The Cook Islands "Observers" Trip and Alleged Forgery

One of the most serious findings concerns travel arrangements for three iTaukei student "observers" to attend the USPSA Federal Council meeting in the Cook Islands in November 2024.

The forensic report found that on 18 November 2024, Sasa Biutiviti allegedly forged the signatures of Dwayne Koroka, President of USPSA Laucala Branch; and Teligafou Sakaio, Vice-President of USPSA Laucala Branch.

The forged documents allegedly authorised travel costing $12,516, comprising airfare costs for Sasa Biutiviti, Asupa Balemaihawai, and Osea Kaloutani.

The report notes that the trip proposal had previously been discussed and rejected by the relevant iTaukei student council processes and therefore should not have proceeded.

Emosi Vakarua

The report identifies Emosi Vakarua, Secretary-General of USPSA Federal, as having approved and stamped documentation despite the absence of the required signatures from the Laucala Branch President and Vice-President.

The report further concludes that Vakarua:

failed to exercise due care;
failed to ensure constitutional compliance;
approved transactions that bypassed required approval mechanisms;
verbally approved certain borrowings; and
failed to act upon grievances subsequently raised.

The report therefore recommends both disciplinary action and police referral in relation to aspects of his conduct.

Lepani Naqarase

The forensic investigation also focuses heavily on Lepani Naqarase, Deputy Secretary-General of USPSA Federal.

According to the report, Naqarase:

insisted that the Cook Islands proposal proceed;
allegedly aided and abetted the approval process;
had an undisclosed personal interest in one of the proposed observers;
failed to declare that conflict of interest;
utilised the category of "observers" to facilitate the participation; and
failed to act after receiving grievances concerning the matter.

The report further notes that similar "observer" arrangements allegedly occurred previously during a USPSA Council meeting in Vanuatu.

Manasa Navara

The report identifies Manasa Navara, President of the iTaukei Students Association (ITSA), as another significant participant.

According to the findings:

Navara received and distributed borrowed funds;
participated in the approval and organisation of events financed through borrowed monies;
insisted on the participation of the Cook Islands observers despite constitutional concerns; and
allegedly aided and abetted actions undertaken by Sasa Biutiviti.

The report recommends that Navara also be referred to police for criminal investigation.

Osea Kaloutani and Asupa Balemaihawai

The report identifies Osea Kaloutani and Asupa Balemaihawai as two of the three beneficiaries selected to attend the Cook Islands meeting as observers.

However, the report does not make direct criminal findings against them.

Rather, they appear primarily as participants in the disputed observer travel arrangements.

Navintees Borrowings and Catering Debts

The largest financial loss identified concerns debts owed to Navintees Restaurant (Sashi) amounting to $123,614.35.

This consisted of $21,000 owed by the iTaukei Students Association; and $102,614.35 owed by USPSA Laucala Branch.

The report found that borrowed funds were repeatedly used to finance student activities due to chronic cash shortages and poor financial controls.

Investigators also found discrepancies in invoicing practices, including examples where catering invoices allegedly exceeded services actually provided.

USPSA Service Centre Borrowings

The forensic investigation found that USPSA Laucala Branch borrowed $25,912.80 from the USPSA Service Centre during 2024 and 2025.

According to the report:

the funds were borrowed due to insufficient cash reserves;
repayments were not made despite subsequent university disbursements; and
financial management processes were inadequate.

Unpaid Student Allowances

The report identified unpaid student sitting allowances amounting to approximately $1,500, which investigators attributed to failures by the finance office to properly administer and repay allocated funds.

USPSA Federal Governance Failures

The forensic accountant Cawi concluded that USPSA Federal itself failed to fulfil its constitutional role as the supervisory body responsible for ensuring good governance among branch associations.

The report found:

inadequate oversight;
failure to investigate complaints;
inadequate constitutional compliance monitoring;
absence of effective internal controls;
insufficient risk management;
lack of proper audit processes; and
systemic governance failures.

The report also noted that an internal audit by Grant Thornton Fiji had identified approximately $56,600 in personal funds being used to finance operational activities, itself described as a breach of USPSA by-laws.

Auckland Travel Expenditure

The investigation further found that Poonam Singh, USPSA Federal Finance Officer; and Kaushal Sen, USPSA Federal intern, incurred expenditure amounting to $9,124.76 relating to travel to Auckland for a USPSA Council meeting in 2025.

The report records these expenditures as part of the overall financial losses under investigation.

Key Recommendations

The forensic report makes several significant recommendations.

Criminal referrals to Fiji Police

The report recommends that the following individuals be referred to the Fiji Police Force:

Sasa Biutiviti for alleged abuse of office, forgery, obtaining financial advantage by deception, conflict of interest and misuse of funds;
Emosi Vakarua for alleged corrupt practices and aiding and abetting;
Lepani Naqarase for alleged corrupt practices and aiding and abetting; and
Manasa Navara for alleged corrupt practices and aiding and abetting.

Disciplinary action

The report also recommends disciplinary action against:

Emosi Vakarua;
Lepani Naqarase; and
Sasa Biutiviti, for negligence, failure to perform constitutional duties and breach of financial responsibilities.

Financial reforms

The report further recommends:

settlement of outstanding Navintees debts;
cessation of the practice of USPSA Federal overriding branch decisions;
strengthening of governance structures;
improved financial controls;
improved risk management systems;
enhanced internal auditing; and
stronger constitutional compliance mechanisms.

Conclusion

The forensic report presents what is arguably one of the most serious internal governance crises to emerge within USP student governance structures. It alleges not merely accounting irregularities, but a broader pattern of forged documents, unauthorised travel approvals, conflicts of interest, misuse of funds, governance failures and alleged criminal conduct involving both branch and federal student office bearers.

Whether the findings ultimately result in criminal prosecutions or disciplinary sanctions will depend on the actions taken by the relevant authorities, but the report itself concludes that the combined failures of individuals and institutions resulted in losses exceeding $172,000 and exposed fundamental weaknesses in the governance architecture of USPSA Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch.

About Dr Ilimotama Cawi

Dr Ilimotama Cawi (PhD, CPA, ACFE) is an independent forensic accountant with more than 35 years of experience in forensic accounting investigations involving both criminal and civil matters across the public and private sectors. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Accountancy specialising in Forensic Accounting, a Master of Forensic Accounting with Distinction, and undergraduate degrees in Accounting, Banking, Finance, Economics and Management. He is a Certified Practising Accountant (CPA Australia) and a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), where he is recognised as a Certified Forensic Accountant Specialist. Cawi states that he has served on the boards and committees of several major organisations, including Fijian Holdings Limited and Basic Industries Limited, where his responsibilities included the preparation, scrutiny and oversight of budgets, financial affairs and financial statements. His doctoral research examined the role of forensic accounting experts in assisting courts to understand complex financial matters, including fraud, corruption and financial misconduct. In the USPSA matter, he was engaged as an independent forensic accountant to investigate the financial affairs, governance structures and alleged fraudulent activities within USPSA Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch.

FROM PORT VILA TO THE FORENSIC REPORT: The USPSA Laucala Delegation at the 28th USPSA Council Meeting in Vanuatu

This photograph captures members of the USPSA Laucala delegation attending the 28th USPSA Council Meeting held in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in June 2024, several months before some of the same individuals would later feature prominently in the independent forensic accounting investigation into the affairs of USPSA Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch.

Pictured from left to right are Sasa Biutiviti, Finance Officer of USPSA Laucala Branch; Ricky Pana, Postgraduate Representative; Teligafou Sakaio, Vice-President of USPSA Laucala Branch; Nofo Hakaumotu, President of the Tongan Students Association (TSA); and Manasa Navara, President of the iTaukei Students Association (ITSA).

The delegates are dressed in matching kalavata, reflecting the cultural identity and solidarity of the Laucala campus delegation participating in the regional student governance meeting.

The Vanuatu Council Meeting itself is referenced in the forensic accounting report prepared by Dr Ilimotama Cawi, although not as a subject of direct financial loss findings. Rather, the report refers to the Vanuatu meeting in the context of the use of the category of "observers", noting that a similar arrangement had allegedly been used during the Vanuatu meeting before reappearing in the controversial Cook Islands trip of November 2024.

Of the individuals pictured, Sasa Biutiviti and Manasa Navara later became central figures in the forensic investigation. The report alleges that Biutiviti, as Finance Officer, was involved in acts of forgery, abuse of office, obtaining financial advantage by deception, and mismanagement of funds, while Navara, as ITSA President, was alleged to have participated in and supported certain decisions relating to the disputed Cook Islands observer delegation and borrowings associated with ITSA activities.

The report also records that Teligafou Sakaio, as Vice-President of USPSA Laucala Branch, was one of the office bearers whose signature was allegedly forged by Biutiviti in relation to the approval documentation for the Cook Islands trip.

While the photograph captures a moment of regional student representation and camaraderie at the 28th USPSA Council Meeting in Port Vila, it has acquired additional historical significance because several of the office bearers depicted later became key participants, witnesses, or subjects in a forensic investigation that ultimately identified alleged losses of $172,667.91 arising from what the report described as financial mismanagement, governance failures, abuse of office and other irregular practices within USPSA Federal and the USPSA Laucala Branch.

Electoral Commission Rejects Call for an Independent Investigation into FEO conduct. As a lawyer and former Supervisor of Elections, Should Mohammed Saneem Have Known the Correct Constitutional Process?

2/7/2026

A Brief Note To Our Readers: Fijileaks has been somewhat inactive in recent weeks because your Founding Editor has been travelling abroad and therefore temporarily absent from his "tent on Oxford Street, London", the location from which, according to NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad, Fiji's political destiny is apparently plotted after "a few more bottles of beer." Consequently, publication may remain intermittent over the next weeks. However, readers, critics, political leaders and their media surrogates can rest assured that your Founding Editor will return to his Oxford Street tent to resume normal operations, armed with a laptop, Wi-Fi, and an undiminished appetite for asking inconvenient questions.

Electoral Commission Rejects Saneem's Call for Independent Investigation:

A Question of Process and Jurisdiction

The Electoral Commission of Fiji has formally declined former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem's request for the establishment of an Independent Investigation Committee to investigate the conduct of four Fiji Elections Office officials.

In a statement issued on 2 July 2026 and signed by Electoral Commission Chairperson Justice Usaia Ratuvili, the Commission said that after careful consideration, it had concluded that the matters raised by Saneem fall outside its constitutional mandate and should instead be dealt with by the Constitutionally mandated authorities.

The Commission's Position

The Electoral Commission confirmed that it had reviewed Saneem's request and was aware of the findings delivered by the Chief Justice Salesi Temo in Criminal Case HC 165 of 2025 involving Saneem and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

However, the Commission stated that disciplinary matters concerning the Supervisor of Elections and staff of the Fiji Elections Office fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC), noting that Saneem himself had already lodged a formal complaint with that body.

The Commission further emphasised that the appointment, terms and conditions of employment, and removal of former Fiji Elections Office officials are matters governed by the legal framework regulating the Supervisor of Elections and the Constitutional Offices Commission, rather than by the Electoral Commission itself.

As a result, the Electoral Commission said it would await the outcome of the relevant constitutional processes.

The statement also reaffirmed that the Electoral Commission remains the constitutional custodian of elections and is focused on preparations for the 2026 General Election.

A Procedural Rather Than Political Response

The Electoral Commission's response is notable not for what it says about the merits of Saneem's allegations, but for what it says about constitutional process.

The Commission has not rejected Saneem's complaints outright. Rather, it has taken the position that the complaints must be addressed through the correct constitutional channels. In effect, the Commission has drawn a clear distinction between its role as overseer of electoral processes and the separate responsibilities vested in the Constitutional Offices Commission regarding employment, disciplinary and administrative matters involving the Supervisor of Elections.

This distinction is important because Fiji's constitutional framework deliberately separates electoral oversight from employment and disciplinary jurisdiction over constitutional office holders.

Should Saneem Have Known Better?

The Commission's response inevitably raises a broader question: whether Mohammed Saneem, as both a lawyer and Fiji's former Supervisor of Elections, should already have been fully aware of these constitutional boundaries.

Saneem served as Supervisor of Elections for almost a decade and operated at the centre of Fiji's constitutional and electoral architecture. As a legally trained professional who worked extensively with the Electoral Commission, the Constitutional Offices Commission and other constitutional bodies, he would be expected to possess a detailed understanding of where disciplinary authority and investigative powers lie.

Indeed, the Electoral Commission itself noted that Saneem had already lodged his complaint with the Constitutional Offices Commission — the very body constitutionally empowered to deal with such matters.

That reality may lead some observers to conclude that the request for an independent committee was less a matter of legal uncertainty and more an attempt to seek an additional avenue of review or to place public pressure on the relevant institutions.

Looking Ahead

The Electoral Commission's statement effectively closes one avenue pursued by Saneem while leaving open the constitutional process already underway before the Constitutional Offices Commission.

For now, the Commission has signalled that it intends to remain focused on its primary constitutional responsibility: ensuring that preparations for Fiji's next general election proceed without interruption.

Whether Saneem's complaints ultimately result in further investigation will now depend not on the Electoral Commission, but on the institutions that the Constitution specifically empowers to consider them.

COMING SOON: IF SANEEM'S CONTRACT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, WHAT ABOUT HIS ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT? Revisiting the 'Cutting Corner' Questions That Never Went Away

From Fijileaks Archive

WHO GETS PAID TWICE? Mataqali Nabukarabe's Watering Compensation Demand and the Forgotten Fiji Taxpayer. The WATER Authority of Fiji is NOT a Milking Cow, with Mataqali threatening to cut off the Water SUPPLY

23/6/2026

*If one citizen receives only the general benefits available to everyone, while another receives those same benefits plus lease income, resource compensation, royalty payments, and communal grants, is the overall distribution of public and economic benefits still equitable?

The dispute over compensation payments to Mataqali Nabukarabe for the Nasarava Water Catchment in Vanua Levu raises a question that Fiji's political leaders seem increasingly reluctant to answer: Where does this end?

According to public reports, the mataqali negotiated a compensation package exceeding $1.4 million for the use of the Nasarava water source. More than $600,000 has already been paid, with the balance still outstanding.

The dispute has now escalated to threats that the water supply serving thousands of residents in Labasa could be disrupted unless the remaining payments are made. The Minister for Lands, Filimoni Vosarogo, has urged patience and assured the landowners that payment will eventually be completed.

But the real issue is not whether government should honour a lawful agreement.

It should. The real issue is what Fiji has become. Increasingly, the country resembles a resource-rent state in which every river, water source, forestry operation, quarry, tourism development, road project and infrastructure investment becomes another opportunity for compensation claims funded by the public purse.

And the public purse is not an abstract concept.

It consists of money contributed by every taxpayer in Fiji.

The shopkeeper in Labasa.
The market vendor in Suva.
The cane farmer in Ba.
The Indo-Fijian businessman in Nadi.
The Chinese entrepreneur in Lautoka.
The Rotuman teacher.
The part-European civil servant.

The ordinary wage earner who pays VAT every time they buy a loaf of bread.

Yet one group - the iTaukei - increasingly appears twice in the queue. First, as beneficiaries of compensation payments, lease revenues, royalty streams and resource-owner settlements.

Second, as beneficiaries of the same government programmes available to everyone else.

This is where the public debate becomes uncomfortable.

When a mataqali receives hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation, are its members also eligible for government grants, educational assistance programmes, per-child payments, provincial subsidies, communal development funds, agricultural assistance schemes, scholarship programmes and other taxpayer-funded initiatives?

The answer, generally, is yes.

Legally, there is nothing wrong with that.

But politically and economically, it raises an important question.

Has Fiji ever conducted a serious national accounting exercise to determine the cumulative value of all benefits flowing through the system?

* How much comes from lease money?
* How much from compensation?
* How much from royalty payments?
* How much from provincial grants?
* How much from communal development funding?
* How much from special assistance channelled through traditional institutions?
* How much from general taxpayer-funded programmes?

No government has ever produced a comprehensive balance sheet.

Consequently, taxpayers are repeatedly asked to fund new compensation packages without ever being shown the wider picture.

The same lack of transparency applies to the payments themselves.

When $1.4 million is paid to a mataqali, where exactly does the money go?

* How much reaches ordinary members?
* How much is invested?
* How much is retained?
* How much improves education, housing, healthcare or local business development?
* How much is publicly accounted for?

These are not anti-iTaukei questions.

They are accountability questions.

They would be asked of any institution receiving substantial sums derived from public funds.

Yet anyone who raises them is often accused of questioning indigenous rights rather than seeking transparency.

No one disputes that resource owners deserve fair compensation.

The issue is whether Fiji has created a system in which compensation has become an ever-expanding entitlement with no obvious limiting principle.

Today it is a water catchment.

Tomorrow it may be another river.

The next day another road reserve.

The following week another public utility.

Eventually the question ceases to be whether compensation is justified and becomes whether the nation can continue to afford an endless series of settlements financed by taxpayers who are themselves excluded from the benefits.

Particularly absent from this discussion are the thousands of non-iTaukei families who have lived in Fiji for generations.

Many have been in Fiji for over a century.

They built businesses. They developed towns. They established farms. They staffed schools and hospitals. They paid taxes. They created employment. They contributed to the economic development of provinces where they have lived for four or five generations.

Take the case of Tailevu. I have watched with growing alarm how, in the name of indigenous rights and provincial entitlement, many non-iTaukei families who helped build the province are increasingly treated as historical footnotes.

My own maternal grandfather and his brother introduced one of the first bus services into rural Tailevu in the 1960s. Their buses connected villages from Verata to Vugalei with markets and commercial centres, enabling villagers to travel, trade and sell produce. They invested capital, took risks and helped connect communities long before government services reached many of these areas.

Yet history records a darker reality.

During the 1987 coups and again during the 2000 coup, many non-iTaukei families in Tailevu became victims rather than partners in the provincial story they had helped build.

Businesses were disrupted. Properties were attacked. Livestock and produce were stolen. Families were intimidated. Some were beaten.

During the George Speight coup, some of my own maternal family members hid in the bush for days to avoid roaming mobs and the complete breakdown of law and order in parts of the province.

For those families, the memory of Tailevu is not merely one of contribution.

It is also one of abandonment.

Their labour helped build the province.

Their taxes helped fund the state.

Their businesses helped sustain local economies.

Yet when discussions arise about ownership, compensation and entitlement, they are often nowhere to be seen.

Their contribution is acknowledged only when the tax bill arrives. Unlike resource-owning groups, they possess no communal land rights, no royalty streams, no compensation claims over rivers or catchments, no collective lease distributions and no provincial institutions through which additional public resources may be channelled.

They contribute. They pay. But they rarely appear at the negotiating table.

The Nasarava dispute therefore raises a larger national question.

Are we building a modern democratic state based on equal citizenship and shared obligations?

Or are we creating a permanent compensation economy in which some citizens receive benefits as taxpayers while others receive benefits both as taxpayers and as collective resource owners?

The issue is not whether Mataqali Nabukarabe should receive what was promised.

If a valid agreement exists, it should be honoured.

The issue is whether Fiji is willing to have an honest conversation about who receives what, who pays for it, where the money goes and whether the current model remains economically sustainable.

Water is an essential public service. It is not merely another commodity.

When access to a water source serving thousands of ordinary citizens becomes entangled in compensation disputes, Fiji must ask itself whether the balance between private rights and public interest has shifted too far.

Until that conversation occurs, every new compensation dispute will raise the same unanswered question: Who is really paying, and who is really benefiting?

DE FIJI À LA FRANCE
FROM THE EIFFEL TOWER TO DIOR AND THE ARC DE TRIOMPHE: When Paris Discovers Fiji's Cabinet Minister hits town in style

JO NATA: 'There was a man sipping a fruit cocktail at a hotel bar in Suva, waiting for the call. But when a new face appeared on television screen, he quietly retreated to his hole.' Cocktail Man was Savenaca Draunidalo

21/6/2026

*Behind the removal of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara as President of Fiji, and the Speight coup, stood two shadowy and faceless high-ranking paramount chiefs

*The late Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter and I were nearing completion of a book on the 2000 coup when he passed away. Yet throughout our research, one name kept recurring: Ratu Savenaca Draunidalo. Today, Jo Nata's evidence before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in which he described, but did not identify, the mysterious "Cocktail Man", seems to provide the final piece of a puzzle that had long troubled us during the writing of the manuscript.

The Man with the Fruit Cocktail: Why the Name Savenaca Draunidalo Kept Appearing

For more than two decades I have attempted to reconstruct, as accurately as possible, the events surrounding the May 2000 coup and the violence that followed. In that process, I have interviewed participants, examined confidential reports, reviewed court records, studied police investigations and listened carefully to the testimony of those who were present.

One name kept resurfacing.

Not once. Not twice. But repeatedly.

The name was Ratu Savenaca Draunidalo.

Long before the events of 2000, Draunidalo had already secured a place in Fiji's political history as one of the soldiers involved in the 1987 military overthrow of the democratically elected government of Dr Timoci Bavadra. Like many figures associated with Fiji's coup culture, his story did not end in 1987.

As I continued to piece together the fragmented narrative of May 2000, references to Draunidalo emerged from different directions. Sometimes the references were direct. Sometimes they appeared only as passing remarks. Sometimes they surfaced in conversations that had nothing to do with him. Yet his name continued to appear often enough to attract attention.

That is why a particular recollection from Jo Nata stood out.

"There was a man sipping a fruit cocktail at a hotel bar in Suva, waiting for the call. But when a new face appeared on the television screen, he quietly retreated to his hole."

On its face, it was merely an anecdote. But viewed against the broader backdrop of information gathered over many years, the description took on greater significance.

Jo Nata did not publicly identify the individual in the testimony relied upon for this article. However, the historical evidence assembled over many years of research, points to one individual whose name repeatedly surfaces in discussions surrounding the political and military intrigue of that period: Savenaca Draunidalo.

The purpose of this article is not to pronounce guilt or innocence. History is rarely that simple. Rather, it is to examine why the same name continues to emerge whenever investigators, journalists, former soldiers and political insiders attempt to explain the forces operating behind the scenes during one of the most turbulent periods in Fiji's modern history.

The unanswered question is not whether Draunidalo existed on the margins of Fiji's coup history. That is beyond dispute.

The question is how close to the centre he really was in 2000?

Jo Nata

5 August 2000: Media adviser to coup leader George Speight, Jo Nata leaves court after being denied bail in Suva. Nata, coup leader George Speight and his hierarchy appeared in court charged with the unlawful possession of guns, unlawful assembly, unlawful burial of a body and were remanded to the prison island of Nukulau, for a review of their bail application.

SMILING Coupist: George Speight

Quarantine Station, Nukulau Island

AN IRONY OF FIJIAN HISTORY: Jo Nata, Jale Moala and I Once Worked for the Fiji Sun That Rabuka Shut Down After His 1987 Coup

The image carries with it a certain irony that Fiji's political history rarely fails to provide.

Jo Nata, Jale Moala and I were all journalists at the old Fiji Sun, the newspaper that was forcibly closed by Sitiveni Rabuka following his 1987 military coups. At the time, the newspaper stood among the casualties of the assault on constitutional democracy, press freedom and elected government.

Nearly four decades later, we find ourselves reflecting on another chapter of Fiji's troubled coup history.

Jale Moala, himself a veteran journalist and former colleague, has publicly responded to recent attempts by Jo Nata to re-enter the national conversation through expressions of remorse over his role in George Speight's 2000 coup. Moala's comments, reproduced in the accompanying image, reflect a view held by many Fijians who lived through the trauma of May 2000 and its aftermath.

For me, the story carries an additional and rather poignant dimension. Jo Nata was not merely a former colleague in journalism. He was also my classmate in the late 1970s. Like many who passed through those classrooms, we embarked on very different journeys in life.

None of us could have imagined then that one former schoolmate would eventually enter Parliament at gunpoint alongside George Speight, another would become a leading journalist chronicling Fiji's political upheavals, and a third would spend much of his life documenting and investigating the very coups that shaped modern Fiji.

History has a habit of bringing old acquaintances back together in unexpected ways.

The image therefore is not simply about Jo Nata. It is also about memory. It reminds us how a generation of journalists were scattered by the events of 1987, 2000 and 2006, yet remain linked by those defining moments in Fiji's national story.

Whether Jo Nata's expressions of remorse should earn him a public platform is a matter on which reasonable people will disagree. What cannot be disputed is that the consequences of the 2000 coup were profound and enduring, affecting not only governments and institutions but countless ordinary families whose lives were disrupted by the political violence and uncertainty of that period.

And perhaps that is the greatest irony of all: three former Fiji Sun colleagues - one a participant in a coup, one condemning it, and one chronicling it from exile while living in a tent on London's 'Oxford Street' (in NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad's twisted imagination), still debating the meaning of those events almost forty years after the first coup silenced the newspaper that once brought them together.

THE IRONY OF 14 MAY 1987: Adi Kuini Bavadra's Former Husband, Captain Savenaca Draunidalo, Served as Rabuka's Second-in-Command in the Overthrow of the Bavadra Government on 14 May 1987

From Fijileaks Archive, 6 August 2024

BUKARAU: "Naupoto gave a short brief, which basically said, "if you try anything to escape or untie the rope, you will be dead". He said this 2-3 times. There were about 6 men in front of us, and a lot more at the back with weapons...We received kicks, rifle butts and continuous verbal abuses. George, Ligairi and Silatou were getting most of the abuses and we had people rubbing their boots on the back of our heads. We than sailed to Nukulau through Beqa waters. We were constantly assaulted and abused thoughout the 2 hours or so journey. We were soaked and from the rough seas. I could feel that certain individuals did not have their hearts and minds on what was happening (assault and abuses). I received a swelling on the left side of my face and 3 days later we were taken to hospital."

KOROVUSERE: "It was still dark when we reached the Naval Base. Naupoto warned us that if we tried to do anything, we would be shot. Mua was kicked on the esohagus. Silatolu at one stage had difficuty breathing due to the continuous punching. I was asked about Adi Samanunu and what she was doing in the country. I was kicked on the face. They told us to experience life in the navy and one of our detainees was threatened of being sexually assaulted, and that it was normal in the Navy. Once we arrived near Nukulau, one of the boys said I was his Commanding Officer in Sinai and Lebanon, whilst I was being kicked and had his foot on my head. Our hands were released at about 0800hrs once we were inside the perimeter fence."

LIGAIRI: "Upon arrival [at the Naval Base] I was the second last to board the awaitig ship. We were moved to the forecastle and we were handled roughly. NAUPOTO briefed us and his orders were very aggressive. I had a feeling that he didn't care about who we were. I never expected Fijians to behave and act in that manner. I was so confused that I did not listen to what they were saying or asking. A lot of questions about my ability to change myself into rats and other things were put forward. I was assaulted with punches, rifle butts, kicks to my head and body. I was also very concerned about our safety particulalry with our hands tied at our backs and the possiblity of us getting washed to the sea. The assault inflicted on me has caused me headaches, blurred vision and this is due to a rifle barrel pushed to the side of my head."

SAVUA: "We were than taken to the Naval Base. Upon arrival we boarded the ship and briefed by Naupoto, "If you try anything to escape or untie the rope, you will be dead". One of the navy personnel began verbal abuses. Abusive verbal language was hurled at me and others, "Savua/Mua drau vei cai". One of them asked me if I wanted to be Commander. They stated that this was Commander's (Bainimarama's) vessel...They even threatened to sexually assault Nata and stated that it was quite common in the Navy. They continued to butt and assault us. Wainiqolo was inflicting most of the punishment...The assault continued right until we arrived at Nukulau and when the ship was anchored off at Nukulau"

MUA: "We were driven to Walu Bay. They told us to come out of the truck one by one. I was walking behind Speight when he was thumped from the back. We were ushered to the forecastle of KIRO. We were seated between the gun turrett and the wave breaker. As soon as the ship left the pier the assault started. I was kicked in the face, rifle butted on the face and verbally abused. I lost one tooth in the process. This sequence went on for approximately 3 hours until we got here (Nukulau). My vision was blurred for 3 days due to the injuries I sustained. I was kicked around and on the esophagus. When this happened, I almost lost all consciousness and I thought I was going to die. We were told that we were going to an unknown destination...During the transfer to Nukulau, I slipped and was given two more kicks before I reached ashore. I cannot believe that people could be so brutal. The Military Police (MP) who were on Nukulau wept and asked us to forgive them for what had happened on the ship [Kiro]"

KONATACI: "We were taken to the Naval Base and as soon as we arrived, they shoved us onto the ship and forced us to the forecastle. We were given instrcutions to stay in one place and not to move or we would be shot. We were told to sit in front of the ship (forecastle), and as we sat down we were punched, kicked and verbally abused whilst our hands were tied. It seemed they were acting on instructions. As we left the harbour towards the open sea, I was very frightened naturally because I came from the highlands. My hand was kicked and my fingers were crushed with a boot, which was fractured. It was around 07000hrs, when we arrived near Nukulau. I could see others carrying injuries...A lot of verbal abuse was hurled at us. The two Lauan colleagues particularly copped a lot of abuse. I thought that we would be treated well and arrested as political prisoners and not be treated the way we were."

NATA: "We were taken to Naval Base and as soon as we got off, I was punched on the left, and I knew we were in for a rough ride. Once we got to the forecastle, we were warned in unequivocal terms that we were to follow orders. We were taken for a 2 and half hours ride and throughout the journey I was punched, kicked, butted and abused. Apart from the inhumane treatment, I was disappointed with the sexual taunts and the threat to be sexually assaulted. We were threatened and one particular chap WAINIQOLO (Leading Seaman Walesi) was very abusive and continued to physically assault us. Both Mua and mysef were badly hurt because of our links to Lau and Tui Nayau, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara so was George Speight, Ligari and Silatolu. The MP's treated us well and they even cried when they saw the state we were in...My colleagues would have mentioned other details of the assault".

SPEIGHT: "As we moved away from the pier, the assault began...They punched, kicked, rifle butted and one person continued to kick my head. We were buffetted by the big waves and the assault continued. I felt numb after the first half an hour. The most painful was the rope tied behind my back, which became very sore. The most excruciating pain was when I fell back with my full weight. This is when I felt fairly numb. We were subjected to this until the sun rose and this whole episode lasted about two to two and half hours. Before we were helped to our feet one of the officers took pictures of us on an instamatic camera. The 3 MPs (Military Police) who escorted us from QEB to Naval Base were all waiting at Nukulau. Two of them broke down and cried when they saw the state we were in. We were then freed from the ropes by the MPs, which were tied with our hands together. By this time I was so tired that I slept for about three days."

Fijileaks Editor: Major Epeli Nailatikau, Chief Medical Officer, RFMF, who had attended to the detainees, detailed the injuries, noting "Assault by navy personnel in navy boat - while on transfer to Nukulau" - Report on Injury or Illness Form

NILESH LAL DEFENDS DIALOGUE FIJI AGAINST “TALKFEST” CRITICISM "In my view, the dialogue succeeded in its primary objective of providing a much-needed reality check on the state of the Fijian economy in 2026"

20/6/2026

A public debate has emerged following characterisation of the recent Dialogue Fiji economic forum as a "talkfest", with Dialogue Fiji Executive Director Nilesh Lal responding to defend the event's purpose, scope and outcomes.

In an email to FijiLeaks, Lal argued that some of the criticism directed at the two-day economic dialogue was based on an incomplete understanding of the event. He suggested that a number of commentators appeared to have formed their views after watching only a single livestreamed panel discussion rather than considering the full programme.

According to Lal, the forum consisted of considerably more than the publicly broadcast panel sessions. He noted that the event included an IMF keynote address, three major panel discussions, extensive audience engagement and structured breakout group sessions involving a wide range of stakeholders.

Those stakeholders included government representatives, opposition politicians, economists, business leaders, development partners, academics, civil society organisations and members of the public.

Lal also pointed out that Dialogue Fiji conducted a nationwide public priorities survey involving 1,266 respondents before the event. The survey sought public views on the issues that should be prioritised in the 2026-2027 National Budget and was used to help shape discussions during the forum.

In his response, Lal rejected suggestions that key national issues had been ignored. He maintained that topics such as labour shortages, outward migration, workforce development, healthcare, infrastructure, productivity, public debt, fiscal sustainability and long-term economic growth were discussed extensively throughout both the panel discussions and breakout sessions.

He further argued that the purpose of the dialogue was not necessarily to produce immediate solutions to every challenge facing Fiji, but rather to create a platform for evidence-based discussion and engagement among stakeholders with differing perspectives.

Lal also cited the level of public interest in the event, noting that registrations exceeded venue capacity, the livestream attracted thousands of viewers, and the discussions generated extensive media coverage and continuing public debate. He pointed to comments by the Prime Minister indicating that concerns raised during the dialogue had helped inform preparations for the forthcoming national budget.

The exchange highlights a broader question about the role of national policy forums in Fiji.

Supporters of such dialogues argue that they provide an important opportunity for policymakers, experts, businesses and citizens to discuss national challenges, exchange ideas and develop recommendations that can inform future policy decisions.

Critics, however, often question whether conferences and forums translate into tangible outcomes, particularly when many of the issues being discussed have been identified repeatedly over a number of years.
The debate surrounding the Dialogue Fiji event therefore reflects two different perspectives. One focuses on the value of public engagement, consultation and policy discussion. The other focuses on whether such discussions ultimately lead to measurable action and implementation.

Whatever one's view of the forum itself, the continuing discussion suggests that the event has succeeded in generating public attention around some of Fiji's most pressing economic and social challenges, including the cost of living, migration, labour shortages, healthcare, public debt and economic growth.

As Fiji prepares for its next national budget, the longer-term significance of the dialogue may ultimately be judged not by the discussions that took place during the two-day event, but by whether any of the ideas and recommendations emerging from it are reflected in future government policy.

State of the Fijian Economy Dialogue 2026 REPORT: A Nation Confronts Its Economic Reality

DRUNK, DISHEVELLED AND A FAIGITIVE: OXFORD STREET TENT RESIDENT ANALYSES DIALOGUE FIJI'S STATE of ECONOMY REPORT

The State of the Fijian Economy Dialogue 2026, convened at the Grand Pacific Hotel in Suva on 9-10 June 2026, represented one of the most significant public forums on economic policy held in Fiji in recent years.

Bringing together government officials, opposition politicians, economists, international development institutions, business representatives, trade unions, civil society organisations, academics, journalists and members of the public, the Dialogue sought to move beyond partisan politics and focus attention on the underlying realities of the Fijian economy.

The organisers framed the event around a central proposition: Fiji has recovered from the immediate economic devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but recovery should not be mistaken for long-term economic security. The country now faces a complex combination of slowing growth, rising living costs, increasing public debt, labour shortages, outward migration, infrastructure deficits and mounting global uncertainty.

Beyond Political Rhetoric

One of the most striking features of the proceedings is the organisers' explicit attempt to separate economic analysis from political tribalism. The report repeatedly emphasises that the Dialogue was not designed to defend or attack any government. Rather, it was intended as a forum for evidence-based discussion and critical examination of economic trends affecting ordinary Fijians.

This point is important because Fiji's public discourse has often been dominated by constitutional questions, governance disputes and political rivalries. Dialogue Fiji's Executive Director, Nilesh Lal, argued that excessive attention to politics has distracted public attention from emerging economic challenges that may prove equally consequential for the country's future.

The Dialogue therefore positioned itself as an intervention in national debate: a call for Fiji to confront economic realities before they become economic crises.

A Consensus Emerging on Economic Risks

Despite the ideological diversity of the participants, the proceedings reveal a remarkable degree of consensus regarding the broad direction of Fiji's economic challenges.

Participants generally agreed that Fiji faces slowing economic growth; rising inflationary pressures; labour shortages; outward migration of skilled workers; high public debt levels; Infrastructure deficits; fiscal sustainability concerns; and structural constraints limiting productivity growth.

What differed was not necessarily the diagnosis but the emphasis placed upon particular risks and the remedies proposed.

The IMF's Warning: Recovery Is Slowing

The keynote address by IMF Regional Representative Dr Giovanni Ganelli provided perhaps the most authoritative external assessment of Fiji's economic position.

The IMF acknowledged Fiji's strong post-pandemic recovery, largely driven by tourism and external demand. However, the Fund projected economic growth to slow to approximately 2.4 per cent in 2026, compared with 3.2 per cent previously, while inflation was expected to rise significantly.

The IMF identified several interconnected risks: persistent high public debt; widening external imbalances; labour shortages linked to migration; infrastructure deficiencies; governance and implementation constraints; exposure to global oil price shocks; and vulnerability to natural disasters.

Particularly noteworthy was the IMF's concern that the fiscal gains achieved since the pandemic could be reversed. The organisation argued that Fiji would need to balance immediate cost-of-living relief measures with the longer-term necessity of rebuilding fiscal buffers and reducing debt exposure.

The IMF's message was therefore one of cautious optimism: recovery remains real, but vulnerabilities remain substantial.

Nilesh Lal

The Public Debt Debate

Perhaps the most contentious and intellectually significant contribution came from Nilesh Lal's presentation on what he described as the "debt-to-GDP illusion."

Lal challenged the common narrative that Fiji's fiscal position has substantially improved because the debt-to-GDP ratio has declined from pandemic-era highs. According to his analysis, this ratio masks a more troubling reality.

While GDP has expanded rapidly since the pandemic, public debt itself has continued to increase. Lal highlighted figures showing public debt rising from approximately $5.7 billion before the pandemic to around $11.7 billion in FY2025–26, while budget deficits remain substantial and capital expenditure has declined as a proportion of total spending.

His central argument was that debt sustainability cannot be measured solely through ratios. If debt continues to rise while productive investment declines, future generations may inherit larger debt burdens without the infrastructure and productive assets necessary to support economic growth.

This critique represents one of the Dialogue's most important contributions because it challenges the adequacy of headline fiscal indicators and encourages closer scrutiny of the quality and composition of government expenditure.

The World Bank's Perspective: Productivity, Not Just Recovery: Dr Mathenge argued that Fiji is unlikely to achieve its ambition of becoming a high-income economy by 2050 under current growth trajectories. To do so would require average long-term growth of approximately 5.7 per cent per year, well above current forecasts.

Dr Naomi Mathenge of the World Bank advanced a complementary but distinct argument. Her presentation focused on the difference between recovery and transformation. Fiji's tourism-led rebound, she argued, has demonstrated resilience but has not yet translated into the sustained productivity growth required for long-term prosperity.

The World Bank's analysis identified several structural concerns: excessive dependence on tourism; Insufficient job creation; low productivity in key sectors; under-utilisation of female labour; high youth disengagement from employment and education; and repeated economic shocks that undermine fiscal resilience.

Most strikingly, Dr Mathenge argued that Fiji is unlikely to achieve its ambition of becoming a high-income economy by 2050 under current growth trajectories. To do so would require average long-term growth of approximately 5.7 per cent per year, well above current forecasts.

Her proposed solution centred on productivity growth, labour market reform, increased investment, skills development, female workforce participation and stronger climate resilience.

Poonam Singh

Coalition Government's Position: Progress Amid Uncertainty

Coalition Government representatives accepted many of the underlying economic challenges but presented a more optimistic interpretation of Fiji's fiscal trajectory.

Poonam Singh, Acting Head of Strategic Planning, acknowledged weaker growth forecasts, rising inflation and increasing global uncertainty. She confirmed that economic growth projections had been revised downward and inflation was expected to exceed six per cent.

However, she argued that significant progress had nevertheless been made since the pandemic, particularly in reducing budget deficits and lowering debt ratios relative to GDP. Government's position was that fiscal stability has improved, even though considerable pressures remain in relation to infrastructure, wages, social services and debt servicing.

Importantly, Singh emphasised not simply the quantity of public spending but its quality. The challenge, in her view, is ensuring that expenditure generates measurable improvements in productivity, growth and service delivery.

The Dialogue's Broader Significance

The Proceedings Report demonstrates that the Dialogue was far more than a single panel discussion or public spectacle.

It included an IMF keynote address, multiple substantive panel sessions, audience engagement and breakout group deliberations aimed at generating practical policy recommendations. The event explicitly sought to expose participants to competing viewpoints rather than manufacture consensus.

The organisers emphasised that the value of the Dialogue lay not in achieving agreement on every issue but in facilitating informed public debate grounded in evidence rather than slogans.

Viewed as a whole, the State of the Fijian Economy Dialogue 2026 reflects a growing recognition that Fiji's economic future cannot be secured merely through tourism recovery or favourable macroeconomic indicators.

The central message emerging from the proceedings is that Fiji faces a transition point. The country has recovered from the immediate shock of the pandemic, but recovery alone will not deliver long-term prosperity.

Persistent debt pressures, labour shortages, outward migration, infrastructure gaps, productivity constraints and global uncertainty require policy responses extending far beyond short-term political cycles.

Whether one agrees more with the IMF, the World Bank, Dialogue Fiji or Coalition Government officials, the Dialogue succeeded in one important respect: it brought economic realities back to the centre of national discussion and underscored the need for evidence-based policymaking at a moment when Fiji's future economic trajectory remains uncertain.

BIMAN PRASAD'S VISION 2050: PROMISES, PRIORITIES AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Speaking at the recent economic dialogue, National Federation Party leader and former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad outlined what he described as four central priorities for Fiji's economic future: jobs, incomes, resilience, and fiscal stability.

Prasad anchored his presentation around the Coalition Government's National Development Plan and Vision 2050, arguing that Fiji had, for the first time, articulated a clear objective of achieving high-income country status by 2050. He maintained that this ambition would require substantial structural transformation rather than a continuation of existing economic policies and growth patterns.

According to Prasad, tourism will remain the backbone of the Fijian economy because of Fiji's established comparative advantages, including its geographical location, tourism infrastructure, and natural environment. However, he acknowledged that Fiji has historically struggled to diversify its economic base and argued that future growth would depend upon stronger performance in agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, and higher-value exports.

Biman Prasad also highlighted investment priorities in infrastructure, housing, health, education, and climate resilience. Referring to ongoing collaboration with the World Bank, he pointed to plans for a new national hospital and broader health-sector reforms.

Warning of a Global Fuel Shock

A significant portion of Prasad's address focused on what he characterised as an emerging global fuel crisis.

Drawing comparisons with the 2008 oil price shock, he noted that crude oil prices reached approximately US$145 per barrel during July 2008. Adjusted for inflation, he suggested that this would be equivalent to roughly US$225 per barrel in today's terms.
Prasad recalled that Fiji experienced substantial inflationary pressures during that period, culminating in severe foreign exchange shortages and the eventual devaluation of the Fiji dollar in 2009.

He argued that the current economic challenge differs fundamentally from the COVID-19 crisis. Whereas the pandemic primarily generated unemployment and income loss, he said the present threat is centred on affordability pressures and the rising cost of living.

Defending the Coalition's Fiscal Record

Turning to public finances, Prasad acknowledged that Fiji's fiscal challenges predated both the Coalition Government and the pandemic.

He noted that economic growth had already slowed significantly before COVID-19 and that the economy subsequently contracted by approximately 17 percent during the pandemic period.

According to Prasad, when the Coalition Government assumed office in December 2022, it inherited a fragile fiscal position characterised by high debt and large deficits. He said the government's strategy has been to balance fiscal consolidation with economic growth and social protection.

Among the outcomes he attributed to Coalition policies were reduction of the budget deficit from approximately 7.2 percent in 2022 to 3.4 percent and subsequently 2.5 percent; reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio from around 91.8 percent in mid-2022 to approximately 79 percent by 2025, and three consecutive years of revenue growth exceeding 3 percent.

Prasad argued that these indicators demonstrate meaningful progress in restoring fiscal stability, although he acknowledged that significant challenges remain.

Vat Controversy

The Deputy Prime Minister also defended the government's controversial VAT reforms.
Responding to critics, he argued that Fiji's previous multi-rate VAT structure — consisting of 0 percent, 9 percent and 15 percent rates — created opportunities for tax leakage and abuse.

According to Prasad, some businesses were charging consumers at higher VAT rates while remitting tax at lower rates, resulting in revenue losses he estimated at between $400 million and $500 million.

He maintained that the government's decision to rationalise the VAT system was intended to improve tax compliance, strengthen revenue collection, and support fiscal sustainability.

Social Protection Measures

Prasad also pointed to several social assistance programmes implemented by the Coalition Government, including, more than $170 million in back-to-school assistance over three years; support reaching more than 200,000 students annually, and the write-off of approximately $650 million in debt affecting around 53,000 families. He argued that these initiatives demonstrate that fiscal discipline and social protection can be pursued simultaneously.

The Missing Discussion

While Prasad's presentation focused heavily on macroeconomic indicators, fiscal consolidation, and long-term planning, critics may argue that several issues received limited attention.

These include persistent concerns about the high cost of living, slow wage growth relative to inflation, housing affordability, increasing emigration of skilled workers, the continuing dependence on tourism, and the practical challenges of achieving meaningful economic diversification.

Equally absent was any detailed discussion of the legal and political controversies currently surrounding the NFP leader, including the criminal charges he faces under the Political Parties Act relating to alleged declaration breaches, allegations he denies.

Biman Prasad's presentation offered a broad defence of the Coalition Government's economic strategy and an optimistic vision for Fiji's future.

Whether Fiji ultimately achieves the ambitious targets set out in Vision 2050 will depend not only on fiscal discipline and economic growth but also on the government's ability to translate long-term plans into measurable improvements in living standards, productivity, investment, and public confidence.

For now, the debate remains open as to whether the Coalition's economic record represents a genuine transformation of Fiji's economy or merely a temporary stabilisation following the extraordinary disruptions of the COVID-19 era.

A public apology is perhaps overdue

I wish to apologise unreservedly for the grave offence of analysing and writing about the State of the Fijian Economy while allegedly ensconced in a tent pitched on Oxford Street, London, surrounded by empty Peroni beer bottles and in what NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad generously describes as a state of advanced intoxication.

In hindsight, I now realise that economic commentary should only be undertaken by individuals seated in ministerial offices, boardrooms, or television studios, preferably while facing corruption investigations, criminal charges, perjury allegations, or unresolved declarations of assets controversies.

Clearly, a tent in Oxford Street, London, is no place from which to examine public accounts, budget deficits, debt levels, inflation figures, procurement decisions, or conflicts of interest.

The fact that economic data, audited reports, company records, court judgments, parliamentary papers, and statutory declarations remain exactly the same whether read from a tent, a palace, a prison cell, or a university library is a technicality that I regret overlooking.

I therefore apologise for the shocking possibility that a slightly dishevelled Indo-Fijian, sitting beneath canvas in London, may have spent more time reading documents than some of the distinguished personalities featured in Fiji's endless economic talkfests.

I further apologise for any distress caused by the suggestion that facts remain facts regardless of the location, hairstyle, beverage consumption, or sleeping arrangements of the person examining them.

Going forward, I shall endeavour to conduct all future economic analysis from a suitably respectable venue. Until then, readers are kindly requested to focus not on the evidence, documents, and arguments presented, but on the far more important question of whether the author was holding a beer while reading them.

After all, attacking the messenger has always been considerably easier than answering the message.

Click here for Full Proceedings Report

COMING SOON: How Biman Prasad became an Adjunct Professor at Monash University on 1 June 2023, just days before co-authoring and publishing academic articles with Paresh Narayan and Joel Abraham. According to Monash, Prasad's appointment runs until 31 May 2028

DIALOGUE FIJI and the State of the Fijian Economy: The GREAT Fijian Economic TALKFEST - When Those Facing Charges, Convictions, and Investigations Gather to Lecture the Nation on Economic Governance

18/6/2026

Ratu Tevita Mara

Dialoge Fiji CEO Nilesh Lal

The Tui Nayau, Ratu Tevita Mara, may have delivered the most devastatingly accurate assessment of Dialogue Fiji's recent State of the Economy forum when he dismissed it as a mere "talkfest".

Indeed, what unfolded was perhaps one of the most extraordinary spectacles in Fiji's modern political history.

The organiser Nilesh Lal promised a national conversation on the economy.

Instead, Fiji was treated to something resembling a political family reunion where everyone had arrived carrying grievances, legal baggage, and an explanation as to why somebody else had ruined the country.

There sat former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, explaining the state of Fiji's economy while facing multiple criminal charges.

There sat former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Prasad, discussing governance, accountability and economic stewardship while facing criminal proceedings of his own.

There sat former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, whose own conviction over financial declaration and foreign currency offences remains part of Fiji's political history.

And there sat former Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica, facing perjury-related charges.

One almost expected the moderator to begin the proceedings by saying: "Ladies and gentlemen, before discussing fiscal policy, could all panellists please disclose their next court appearance?"

Or perhaps: "Any statements made during this forum should not be construed as admissions against interest."

The irony was impossible to ignore. Dialogue Fiji could have assembled economists. It could have invited former Reserve Bank governors. One was there: Savenaca Narube of Unity Fiji party. It could have brought together successful entrepreneurs, accountants, development specialists, investment analysts, academics, exporters, tourism leaders, or independent policy experts.

Instead, it assembled a collection of political heavyweights who have spent years accusing one another of destroying Fiji. The result was magnificent. Khaiyum explained what was wrong with the current government. Prasad explained what was wrong with the previous government. Chaudhry explained what was wrong with both. Kamikamica explained what was wrong with the political system.

Nobody explained what was wrong with themselves.

That subject never quite made it onto the agenda. The entire forum resembled four former captains of the Titanic holding a conference to determine who was responsible for the iceberg. Every speaker appeared convinced that Fiji's problems began precisely when somebody else assumed power.

Economic stagnation? Someone else's fault. Debt? Someone else's fault. Inflation? Someone else's fault. Governance failures? Someone else's fault. Declining public confidence? Definitely someone else's fault.

If blame were a renewable resource, Fiji would become the richest country in the Pacific overnight. Yet there was an even deeper irony. For decades, many of the individuals on that stage have occupied positions at the very centre of Fiji's political and economic life. They have sat in Cabinet. They have drafted budgets. They have shaped policy. They have exercised executive power. They have influenced legislation. They have directed ministries.

And now they sit on public platforms explaining why Fiji faces the problems it faces. It is rather like inviting a group of former fire chiefs to discuss why the town keeps burning down.

At some point, a member of the audience might reasonably ask: "Gentlemen, before we discuss who started the fire, could you remind us who was in charge of the fire station?"

What made the event particularly fascinating was the discussion of accountability. There is something uniquely Fijian about politicians accusing each other of ethical shortcomings while their respective legal teams prepare submissions elsewhere. There is something equally remarkable about hearing lectures on transparency from individuals who have spent years accusing each other of secrecy, corruption, abuse of office, conflicts of interest, mismanagement and constitutional wrongdoing.

One could almost hear the collective sigh of ordinary citizens struggling with rising food prices, housing costs, migration pressures, deteriorating services and stagnant wages. Many may have wondered whether Fiji has somehow exhausted its supply of economists. Surely among a population approaching one million people there exists at least one economic expert capable of discussing GDP growth without simultaneously discussing legal proceedings.

What was largely absent from the forum was a clear roadmap. How exactly will Fiji diversify its economy? How will it stem the loss of skilled workers? How will it finance infrastructure? How will it improve healthcare? How will it address declining productivity? How will it tackle drugs, HIV infections, organised crime and deteriorating public confidence in institutions?

These questions remain. What Fiji received instead was another round of political score-settling disguised as economic analysis. This is why the Tui Nayau's criticism resonated so strongly. His criticism was not merely directed at one speaker or another.
It was directed at a political culture that has become addicted to discussion while avoiding resolution.

Fiji does not suffer from a shortage of speeches. It does not suffer from a shortage of forums. It does not suffer from a shortage of dialogues, consultations, symposiums, conferences, stakeholder engagements, strategic conversations, policy roundtables or national discussions.

It suffers from a shortage of implementation. The country has become exceptionally good at talking about problems. Solving them is another matter entirely. By the end of the Dialogue Fiji event, the debt remained. The cost-of-living crisis remained. The migration crisis remained. The healthcare challenges remained. The infrastructure problems remained. The governance concerns remained. The only thing that increased was the quantity of political rhetoric.

Perhaps that is why so many people left with the impression that they had attended not an economic forum but a theatrical production.

Every actor knew his lines. Every actor knew the villain. The difficulty was that every actor believed the villain was somebody else.

And perhaps that is why Ratu Tevita Mara's description of the event as a "talkfest" struck such a nerve.

Because if speeches alone could rescue economies, Fiji would already be an economic superpower.

Instead, the nation remains trapped in an endless cycle where the same political figures who helped shape the country's past gather periodically to explain why someone else is responsible for its present.

The curtain falls.

The audience applauds.

The speeches end.

And the problems remain exactly where they were before the show began.

MY MEET-AND-GREET WITH THE COI: Why Justice Ashton-Lewis and the Senior Counsel Janet Mason Directed My Evidence Against NFP leader Biman Prasad, wife Rajni Chand, and Lotus (Fiji) to FICAC and Fiji Police

17/6/2026

Credit: Oxford Street Artist (OSA) London

On 22 November 2024, I participated in what the Commission of Inquiry (COI) described as a professional "meet-and-greet" session with the Commissioner, Justice David Ashton-Lewis, and Janet Mason, who was then acting as Senior Counsel Assisting the Commission.

The engagement was conducted via audio-visual link (AVL). It commenced at 10.00am Fiji time and lasted almost four hours. Because I was participating from Oxford, England, home to the world-renowned University of Oxford, the session began late on Thursday evening and concluded in the early hours of Friday morning.

This was not a public hearing. It was not sworn testimony. It was not an adversarial proceeding. Rather, it was a structured preliminary engagement designed to assess the nature of the evidence I wished to present, its relevance to the Commission's terms of reference, and whether it was appropriate for formal consideration by the COI.

The Procedural Background

The significance of that meeting cannot be understood without reference to the exchanges that preceded it.

On 16 November 2024, I received the following communication directly from Commissioner Ashton-Lewis: "Please understand that if the Commission of Inquiry is to allow your evidence to be given by video link then you will need to provide an affidavit to the Commission. I will ask Mrs Mason to correspond with you shortly."

Soon afterwards, Janet Mason wrote to me explaining the procedural safeguards that would apply if my evidence were to be received: "As a matter of natural justice your affidavit will be made available to the Hon. Biman Prasad and Ms. Malimali, and they will be permitted to submit reply evidence."

She added: "We assume that there will be matters of contention between your evidence, and that of the Hon. Biman Prasad and Ms. Malimali."

Those communications demonstrate that both the Commissioner and Senior Counsel approached the matter with procedural fairness, transparency and a clear commitment to natural justice. The rights of all affected parties were expressly recognised from the outset.

The Four-Hour Engagement

During the 22 November session, I outlined in detail the documentary material and contextual evidence in my possession relating to Biman Prasad, the NFP leader, former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, and Adjunct Professor Monash University and Adjunct Professor James Cook, Australia.

I explained the chronology of events, the provenance of documents, the sources of information, and the reasons why I believed certain matters warranted further scrutiny.

Both the Commissioner and Senior Counsel asked detailed questions. The discussion was probing but measured. Careful rather than combative.

At no stage was the engagement hostile, dismissive or predetermined. Instead, it reflected a Commission conscious of the limits of its mandate and the distinction between an inquiry and a criminal or regulatory investigation.

The Commissioner's Assessment

At the conclusion of the session, Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason reached a clear procedural view. While the material I outlined raised serious issues, they considered that it was not best tested through a Commission of Inquiry hearing.

Instead, they concluded that the substance of the evidence was more appropriately a matter for investigation by FICAC, and where relevant, the Fiji Police Force.

Accordingly, I was advised that the appropriate investigative pathway was through those agencies rather than through my appearance as a witness before the Commission.

Importantly, this was not a rejection of the material. Nor was it a finding on credibility.
It was a judgment about forum, jurisdiction and investigative responsibility.

That distinction is critical.

The Wider Context

During the course of the engagement, I was informed that the next individual scheduled to meet the Commission later that day was Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

I mention this merely to illustrate the systematic nature of the Commission's work. The COI was conducting an organised process involving individuals at the highest levels of public life and public administration.

What Happened Afterwards

By the time the Commission completed its work, it had already reached draft conclusions concerning the handling of Biman Prasad's file at FICAC. Among those conclusions was the view that, given the sensitivities involved, independent legal scrutiny of the file was necessary.

Those conclusions later found their way into the Commission's final report.

However, a separate development occurred before that report became public. In April 2025, Barbara Malimali, acting in her official capacity as FICAC Commissioner, closed the investigation file relating to Biman Prasad.

That decision was made after the Commission had substantially completed its work but before the report was released. Consequently, the COI report neither addressed nor evaluated the April 2025 closure decision. I draw no conclusion regarding the motive. I make no allegation of impropriety.

The point is one of chronology.

The Commission had already concluded that independent scrutiny of the file was required. Yet the final administrative decision to close that file occurred outside the report's scope and without reference to its conclusions. That sequence forms part of the public record.

Where Matters Stand Today

As matters presently stand, Adjunct Professor Biman Chand Prasad faces one formal criminal charge; additional complaints remain before the relevant authorities; and investigative processes continue. Those matters have not been finally determined.
They have not been judicially resolved.

Nothing in this article asserts guilt or predicts outcome.

The point is simply that the issues raised have not disappeared and continue to be subject to independent legal and investigative processes.

Why This Matters

The events of 22 November 2024 explain why the Commission directed my evidence towards FICAC and the Police rather than receiving it in a public hearing.

The Commissioner recognised that allegations involving a serving Cabinet Minister required proper investigative handling through the institutions established for that purpose.

That approach was entirely consistent with the manner in which Justice Ashton-Lewis and Janet Mason dealt with me throughout the process. They insisted upon affidavits.
They required disclosure. They protected the rights of reply. They observed the principles of natural justice.

Measured against that record, some of the allegations subsequently directed against the Commissioner and Senior Counsel sit uneasily with the conduct I personally witnessed during my engagement with them.

Conclusion

I did not ultimately appear before the Commission of Inquiry because, after careful consideration, Justice Ashton-Lewis, advised by Senior Counsel Janet Mason, concluded that my evidence belonged elsewhere.

That decision was reasoned.

It was procedurally fair.

What occurred afterwards, including decisions taken beyond the scope of the Commission's report, now forms part of the continuing public record.

That record should be stated accurately, carefully and without embellishment.

For my part, the events of 22 November 2024 remain a matter of fact, not speculation: a four-hour engagement in which the Commission determined that the appropriate forum for the evidence I possessed was not the COI hearing room, but the investigative agencies of the State.

Fiji High Court rejects stay proceedings - read here

TWO VILLAS: Why Did Biman Prasad Sign Agreements for Two LOTUS (Fiji) Ltd Units Worth $300,000 in 2014, and How Did Dr Rajni Chand Later End Up With Two Villas in 2017? Its time for Couple to provide ANSWERS

16/6/2026

0 Comments

These questions go beyond politics. They concern transparency, disclosure and the documentary history of significant property transactions involving a senior political leader and his wife:
Did Biman Chand Prasad pay the deposits required under the March 2014 agreements to buy two villas from his cousin?
Were subsequent payments made?
Were the contracts completed?
Were the contractual rights assigned to another person?
How did Rajni Chand acquire her interest in the villas?
Were the villas connected in any way to the later Burerua transaction?
Were all relevant interests disclosed in the statutory declarations filed over the years?

Why Did Biman Prasad Sign Agreements for Two Lotus Units Worth $300,000, and How Did Rajni Chand Later End Up With Two Villas?

When National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad recently complained that "this guy writes to my wife seeking information", he neglected to tell the public what those questions were actually about, and neither did Fiji Times' Anish Chand ask him.

The questions were not personal. They were not about his marriage. They arose from documents that place both Prasad and his wife, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand, at the centre of a property trail stretching back more than a decade to the formation of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
At the heart of the story are two villa units.

On 12 March 2014, Biman Prasad signed agreements to purchase two off-plan villas, each priced at $150,000, giving a total contractual value of $300,000.

The timing is remarkable.

The agreements were signed only three days before Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd was incorporated on 15 March 2014.

That same day Prasad became a shareholder and director of Lotus alongside his cousin and business associate Sunil Chand. He did not disclose his directorship in Lotus (Fiji) in his 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 statutory declarations.

The existence of the sale and purchase agreements is not disputed. The unanswered question is what happened next.

The Missing Documentary Trail

The agreements required deposits and staged payments. Ordinarily, a transaction involving two villas worth $300,000 would leave an extensive paper trail deposit receipts; trust account records; bank transfers; mortgage documents; settlement statements; and title or sublease records.

Yet no public evidence has emerged showing how the two March 2014 purchases were completed. That absence does not prove that no payments were made. However, it raises an obvious question: Where are the records showing how the two villas were acquired?

Enter Rajni Kaushal Chand in 2017

Years later, documents emerged linking Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand to two villas in the Lotus (Fiji) development. Sunil Chand subsequently identified Rajni Chand as being associated with two villa units. If accepted, that statement establishes that villas were ultimately allocated to or acquired by Rajni Chand.

What it does not explain is how that occurred.

Did Rajni Chand purchase the villas independently?

Did she acquire them through an assignment of rights?

Did the villas originate from the two agreements signed by her husband in March 2014?

Or was there another arrangement altogether?

The available documents do not presently answer those questions.

The Burerua Street Property Connection

The villa story becomes even more intriguing when viewed alongside the sale of the Burerua Street property to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

Documents indicate that Biman Prasad and Rajni Chand sold the property to Lotus for a stated consideration of $550,000.

The transaction reportedly involved the discharge of mortgage liabilities and the payment of Capital Gains Tax.

The figures naturally attract attention.

The two villas signed for by Biman Prasad in March 2014 had a combined value of $300,000.

The two villas later associated with Rajni Chand were likewise valued at approximately $300,000.

Whether there is any connection between those transactions remains one of the central unanswered questions in the Lotus story.

Questions That Remain Outstanding

More than a decade after the original agreements were signed, several questions remain unresolved:

Did Biman Prasad pay the deposits required under the March 2014 agreements?
Were subsequent payments made?
Were the contracts completed?
Were the contractual rights assigned to another person?
How did Rajni Chand acquire her interest in the villas?
Were the villas connected in any way to the later Burerua transaction?
Were all relevant interests disclosed in the statutory declarations filed over the years?

These questions go beyond politics. They concern transparency, disclosure and the documentary history of significant property transactions involving a senior political leader and his family.

The Central Question

For years, Fijileaks has investigated Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, the company's ownership structure, the relationship between Biman Prasad and Sunil Chand, the Burerua property transaction, and the statutory declarations filed with the Fiji Elections Office.

Those investigations have established three facts.

First, Biman Prasad signed agreements on 12 March 2014 to purchase two off-plan villa units worth a combined $300,000.

Second, he later became a shareholder and director of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

Third, Rajni Chand subsequently emerged in documents associated with two villas in the same development.

What remains missing is the documentary bridge connecting those facts.

The documents reveal where the story began. They do not yet reveal how it ended.

More than a decade after Biman Prasad signed agreements to purchase two off-plan villas worth $300,000, and years after Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand emerged in documents associated with two villas in the same Lotus development, crucial questions remain unanswered.

We therefore call upon NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad and Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand to complete the missing chapter of this story.

Did Biman Prasad complete the purchases under the March 2014 agreements?

Were the contractual rights transferred or assigned?

How did Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand acquire her interest in the two villas?

Were the villas connected in any way to the later Burerua Street transaction?

These questions can be answered by the production of the relevant sale and purchase agreements, trust account records, settlement statements, title documents, sublease records and other transaction documents.

Until then, the Lotus villa story remains unfinished.

The public has seen the opening chapter.

It is now time for Biman Chand Prasad and Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand to provide the ending.

0 Comments

BIMAN PRASAD-RAJNI KAUSHAL CHAND: "This Guy Writes To My Wife Seeking For Information." Indeed. We wrote to ask why her husband did not declare the two villa units bought by her in 2017 from Lotus (Fiji) Ltd

14/6/2026

WHICH LOTUS VILLAS DID RAJNI CHAND BUY?
Sale Agreement Lists Units 7 and 9, Yet Sunil Chand Later Claimed She Purchased Units 9 and 11.
TIME FOR NEW CHARGES? Undeclared Lotus Directorship, Conflicting Villa Records and the Non-Disclosure of Rajni Chand's Two Units Demand Fresh FICAC, Fiji Police and DPP Action

The documentary record in our possession raises serious questions that cannot simply be ignored.

For four consecutive years - 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017- Biman Chand Prasad did NOT declare his directorship in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, despite later evidence from his cousin and co-director Sunil Chand identifying them as the company's two directors.

The documents also raise questions regarding the ownership and disclosure of the two villa units acquired by Rajni Kaushal Chand.

Compounding the matter is a significant inconsistency in the documentary trail. The Sale and Purchase Agreement identifies Rajni Chand as purchaser of Units 7 and 9, while Sunil Chand later stated that she purchased Units 9 and 11. That discrepancy demands a full explanation.

The time has come for FICAC, the Fiji Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to reopen and expand their inquiries into the Lotus affair.

Investigators should examine whether offences may have been committed in relation to the alleged non-disclosure of Prasad's Lotus directorship, the omission of assets and interests from statutory declarations, and the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and ownership of the villa units.

Authorities should also determine whether Rajni Kaushal Chand was an innocent recipient of the units or whether she knowingly participated in any alleged concealment.

That question can only be answered through a thorough investigation of the documentary evidence, financial records, property transactions and witness testimony.

If the evidence establishes that false declarations were knowingly made, or that material interests were deliberately concealed, then the public interest requires more than political explanations. It requires prosecution.

No public official, minister, spouse or business associate should be beyond scrutiny where credible documentary evidence raises questions about compliance with the law.

It also requires Biman Prasad's resignation from Parliament and as NFP LEADER.

Sunil Chand's Admission and Confusion regarding Rajni Chand's Units

"THE MISSING VILLAS: Did Biman Prasad Fail to Tell His Lawyer About Rajni Chand's Two Villa Purchases Before Filing His 2018 Declaration?"

LOTUS, TWO VILLAS, AND A MISSING DISCLOSURE: Biman Prasad Was a 50% Shareholder When Lotus (Fiji) Transferred Two Villas to His Wife. So Why Are They Absent from His 2018 Statutory Declaration?

Biman Prasad's 'Beer-Guzzling' Drunkard' of "Oxford Street" Meets the Former President of Fiji in London - Bearing a Signed Copy of Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention

The Lens@177: Before Biman Prasad Insults Me on Camera in interview with ANISH CHAND , I Wrote Privately to His Wife Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand The Untold Story Behind Prasad's Attack on the Fijileaks Editor-in-Chief

12/6/2026

Ad Hominem Instead of Answers: Why Biman Prasad Chose to Attack Me Rather Than Address My 2022 Letter to His Wife Rajni Kaushal Chand

*While Biman Prasad accused me of getting drunk on a few bottles of beer and then writing 'crazy stories', claimed that I hated everyone who speaks on Fiji, dismissed me as an irrelevant blogger living somewhere on London's Oxford Street, manufacturing fake stories, and insisted that his wealth was not 'Victor Lal's father's money', he never once addressed the contents of the private letter I sent to his wife in 2022.

"He writes to my WIFE seeking information" - Prasad to Anish Chand

"While I sought answers from his wife in a professional capacity, he was allegedly exchanging amorous text messages with the wife of one of his own NFP prospective election candidates."

WHAT HE DIDN'T TELL THE PUBLIC: I WROTE TO HIS WIFE IN PRIVATE ON 8 NOVEMBER 2022

On 8 November 2022, I wrote privately to Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand and attached a Fijileaks article concerning allegations involving her husband.

I did so out of respect, decency and concern, so that she would not first learn of the matter through headlines, social media, or political gossip.

I apologised in advance for any embarrassment, distress or discomfort the publication might cause her and her family.

Watching National Federation Party leader Biman Prasad's interview with The Fiji Times and Anish Chand, I was struck not by the insults themselves but by what was left unsaid.

In the closing moments of the interview, Biman Prasad laughed that after a few more beers I would "go crazy" and produce more stories about him. He portrayed me as a man sitting somewhere in London inventing allegations and manufacturing controversy.

The casual mockery may have entertained some viewers.

What it did not explain is why, years earlier, I had gone out of my way to write privately to his wife, Dr Rajni Kaushal Chand.

"I don't want to even mention his name [meaning Victor Lal], ah, you know, guy sits there, somewhere in London, Oxford Street, I'm told, ah you know, like a fugitive...doctors, manufactures stories."
Biman Prasad to Anish Chand, The Lens@177

I did not write to embarrass her. I did not write to attack her. I wrote because I believed she deserved advance notice that allegations concerning her husband and another woman were about to enter the public domain.

That letter was sent on 8 November 2022. Attached to it was a Fijileaks article concerning allegations that Biman Prasad had exchanged inappropriate and allegedly amorous text messages with the wife of one of his prospective political candidates.

The purpose of the letter was simple. As someone who has spent decades exposing public figures, I believed it was only fair that Dr Chand should not learn about the matter from headlines, social media gossip or political opponents. I believed she deserved the courtesy of being informed beforehand.

The irony today is extraordinary. The same man who now portrays me as a reckless drunk making things up knows perfectly well that I dealt with the matter privately before it ever became public. I contacted his wife directly. I extended my sympathies to her. I apologised in advance for any embarrassment she might suffer. I treated her with dignity.

Years later, she remains silent. Biman Prasad, however, has chosen a different course. Instead of answering questions about the allegations, he attacks the messenger. Instead of addressing the contents of the reporting, he mocks the reporter.
Instead of confronting documentary evidence that Fijileaks has published over many years regarding declarations, companies, properties and financial interests, he invites viewers to believe that everything originates from beer-fuelled imagination.

That is easier than addressing documents. It is easier than addressing records. It is easier than addressing evidence. Most tellingly, during the interview Anish Chand never confronted him with the documents that have formed the basis of multiple public controversies.

There was no examination of declarations. There was no examination of company records. There was no examination of property transactions. There was no examination of the allegations concerning text messages. There was no examination of why I felt compelled to write to his wife in the first place.

Instead, viewers were treated to jokes about Oxford Street, beer bottles and Victor Lal supposedly going crazy. The personal attack misses the central point.

My letter to Rajni Kaushal Chand exists because I recognised that political scandals have human consequences. Spouses and families often become collateral damage. I understood that reality then. I understand it now.

The question that remains unanswered is not why Victor Lal wrote to Rajni Kaushal Chand.

The question is why Biman Prasad, years later, prefers to mock the warning rather than address the reasons it was sent.

For all the laughter in the interview, that question still hangs in the air.

And no amount of jokes about beer can answer it.

Biman Prasad Says I Vowed to Bring Him Down.
He Is Right

We will systematically dismantle other outrageous claims he made about me in his interview with Anish Chand. We will also take the unusual and rare step of revealing how he became one of many sources who supplied information to Fijileaks*, supported by documentary evidence in our possession, against his political opponents since 2012.

He is right about one thing: I vowed to bring him down. But that vow was not born of personal animosity. It arose after I stumbled upon huge troves of documents relating to his statutory declarations and began scrutinising them. The deeper I investigated, the more I became convinced that he had betrayed the trust of the Indo-Fijian community and, more importantly, the trust of the people of Fiji who expect honesty, transparency, and accountability from those who seek public office. My commitment thereafter was simple - to follow the evidence and place the facts before the public.

COMING SOON: Biman Prasad's Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd business partner and cousin Sunil Chand's Lotus Construction Pty Ltd in Australia Collapses owing A$1.24m. A$650,000 in Potential Director Loans identified by Liquidators in ASIC investigations. Biman Prasad did not disclose in his statutory declarations that he was co-director of Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

From 'Fugitive' to 'Blogger': Biman Prasad's Broadside Against Victor Lal in Full with Fiji Times' ANISH CHAND

I Am Not a Blogger, and Fijileaks Is Not "Just a Blog"

During his interview with Anish Chand, Biman Prasad was invited to respond to allegations and documents that have been published over many years. Instead of confronting the substance of those documents, he chose to attack me personally.

In introducing me to viewers, Anish Chand repeatedly referred to me as a "blogger", while Biman Prasad dismissed my work as the product of someone who supposedly "hates everybody".

Let me correct the record.

I am not a blogger, and Fijileaks, it is not "just a blog".

Since its establishment in 2012, Fijileaks has published thousands of documents, exposed major scandals, broken stories later confirmed by official investigations, and provided a platform for whistleblowers who had nowhere else to turn. Many of the stories first published by Fijileaks have subsequently been reported by mainstream media, examined by commissions of inquiry, investigated by regulatory authorities, or debated in Parliament.

A blog is an opinion diary. Fijileaks is an investigative publication built around documentary evidence.

The distinction matters.

When politicians cannot challenge the authenticity of documents, they often resort to attacking the person who publishes them. That tactic is neither new nor original.

I was subjected to similar attacks during the Bainimarama era. In 2012, Frank Bainimarama dismissed both me and the late Russell Hunter as lacking credibility.

Fourteen years later, I find it remarkable that some of the very people who once complained about attacks on media freedom now employ similar language when they themselves come under scrutiny.

The issue has never been Victor Lal.

The issue is whether the documents published are genuine, whether the facts are correct, and whether public officials can adequately explain them.

That is the test of journalism.

If the documents are false, prove they are false.

If the facts are wrong, correct them.

But merely calling someone a blogger, a hater, or an irrelevant commentator is not a rebuttal. It is an admission that the argument has shifted from the evidence to the messenger.

The public deserves better than that.

<<Previous

Forward>>