*FICAC must issue a STOP DEPARTURE ORDER against Biman Prasad
*The Political Parties Act is clear. By 30 days after polling, every candidate must, under Mandatory Post-Election Financial Return - Form 6, file a complete statement of donations and expenditures. This is the only window in which the public sees what really happened behind the scenes of a campaign. Who funded the candidate? How was the money spent? Were there undisclosed interests, reimbursements, or benefits?
*The law demands this disclosure precisely because the period immediately after an election is politically sensitive. Hidden transactions, repayments, or quiet “thank-you payments” cannot be swept under the rug. The 30-day return is the key safeguard against post-election influence. It is the section that tests a politician’s honesty when the votes are already counted.
*Biman Chand Prasad left the entire section out in his 2023 statutory declaration.
*Was the former Election Supervisor Mohammed Saneem sleeping on the job, with an annual salary of over $560,000 paid by the taxpayers?
*He resigned as Supervisor of Elections on 1 February 2023.
 |  |
The Contrast That Now Warrants A Criminal Investigation
*Sashi Kiran, a first-time NFP candidate with far fewer resources than her party leader, submitted her declaration on 26 January 2023. Despite filing slightly after the cut-off, she completed the legally required 30-day disclosure section in full. She declared what the law asked her to declare. Other NFP candidates presumably did the same.
*Their forms itemised donations, named donors, recorded bank transfers, documented cash receipts, listed small and large expenditures, and accounted for every dollar. The compliance pattern was clear.
*Only one candidate left that entire section out: Biman Chand Prasad.
This is no longer a technical omission. It is now a criminal offence under the PPAct.
*Sashi Kiran, a first-time NFP candidate with far fewer resources than her party leader, submitted her declaration on 26 January 2023. Despite filing slightly after the cut-off, she completed the legally required 30-day disclosure section in full. She declared what the law asked her to declare. Other NFP candidates presumably did the same.
*Their forms itemised donations, named donors, recorded bank transfers, documented cash receipts, listed small and large expenditures, and accounted for every dollar. The compliance pattern was clear.
*Only one candidate left that entire section out: Biman Chand Prasad.
This is no longer a technical omission. It is now a criminal offence under the PPAct.
'I am the learned Professor of Statistics in Fiji and Parliament'   | 
 Jone Usamate and Alvick Maharaj (standing, on right of the chamber) prepate to exit the Parliament – SCREEN GRAB |
Opposition MPs Jone Usamate and Alvick Maharaj were ejected from Parliament for ninety minutes after interrupting NFP backbencher Biman Prasad, who was in full lecture mode explaining inflation, graphs, and the mystical powers of statistics.
While sermonising over the Consumer Council of Fiji report, Prasad, never missing a chance to remind Fiji of his academic credentials, told Usamate to “take home the graph and study it,” because he is a statistician and he understands how CPI is calculated.
Beautiful theatrics. A masterclass in self-confidence.
But there is one thing the good "Professor" still cannot explain: How is it that Sashi Kiran, who is not a professor of statistics, managed to file a complete, compliant, and fully disclosed 2023 post-election statutory declaration while Professor Statistics himself failed spectacularly? She was guided by Bhumika Khatri, an associate lawyer from Richard Naidu's Munro Leys, while Prasad was guided by lawyer Ravikant Singh, partner, Parshotam Lawyers, and a former NFP Youth wing president.
Because when Fijileaks placed Prasad’s 2023 declaration side-by-side with Sashi Kiran’s, the contrast was shocking:
So while Prasad scolds MPs for not understanding graphs, Fiji is left asking a more pressing question: Shouldn’t he now be preparing to explain to FICAC why he shouldn’t be charged for failing to fully disclose his post-election expenses in 2023, instead of lecturing others about inflation charts?
If "Professor Statistics" wants to hand out homework, he might begin with his own assignment: STATUTORY DECLARATION 101
Lesson 1: Disclose everything.
Lesson 2: Don’t blame the calculator.
Lesson 3: When Sashi Kiran can do it properly, the “statistician” has no excuse.
Because it’s one thing to wag a finger in Parliament. It’s another to explain to FICAC, under caution, why the mandatory pages relating to 'Particulars of Monies Received (as at 13 January 2023, 30th day after polling); "Particulars of Donations", and "Particulars of Expenditure", are missing from Biman Chand Prasad's 2023 statutory declaration, signed by him and witnessed by his lawyer.
While sermonising over the Consumer Council of Fiji report, Prasad, never missing a chance to remind Fiji of his academic credentials, told Usamate to “take home the graph and study it,” because he is a statistician and he understands how CPI is calculated.
Beautiful theatrics. A masterclass in self-confidence.
But there is one thing the good "Professor" still cannot explain: How is it that Sashi Kiran, who is not a professor of statistics, managed to file a complete, compliant, and fully disclosed 2023 post-election statutory declaration while Professor Statistics himself failed spectacularly? She was guided by Bhumika Khatri, an associate lawyer from Richard Naidu's Munro Leys, while Prasad was guided by lawyer Ravikant Singh, partner, Parshotam Lawyers, and a former NFP Youth wing president.
Because when Fijileaks placed Prasad’s 2023 declaration side-by-side with Sashi Kiran’s, the contrast was shocking:
- Kiran’s declaration: complete, detailed, transparent.
- Prasad’s declaration: gaps big enough to drive a Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd bulldozer through.
So while Prasad scolds MPs for not understanding graphs, Fiji is left asking a more pressing question: Shouldn’t he now be preparing to explain to FICAC why he shouldn’t be charged for failing to fully disclose his post-election expenses in 2023, instead of lecturing others about inflation charts?
If "Professor Statistics" wants to hand out homework, he might begin with his own assignment: STATUTORY DECLARATION 101
Lesson 1: Disclose everything.
Lesson 2: Don’t blame the calculator.
Lesson 3: When Sashi Kiran can do it properly, the “statistician” has no excuse.
Because it’s one thing to wag a finger in Parliament. It’s another to explain to FICAC, under caution, why the mandatory pages relating to 'Particulars of Monies Received (as at 13 January 2023, 30th day after polling); "Particulars of Donations", and "Particulars of Expenditure", are missing from Biman Chand Prasad's 2023 statutory declaration, signed by him and witnessed by his lawyer.
 Ravikant Singh |  |
  |   |
The 30-Day Disclosure Scandal: How Biman Prasad’s Missing Filing Now Exposes a Deeper Crisis in Fiji’s Political Accountability
A quiet administrative detail buried in post-election paperwork has now exploded into a pointed question about political integrity, leadership standards, and the rule of law inside the National Federation Party. The issue is deceptively simple: every candidate is legally required to declare all money received and spent in the 30 days following polling day. This is not optional, not interpretive, and not a matter of political convenience. It is a statutory obligation under the Political Parties Act.
Most 2022 election candidates complied. Biman Chand Prasad did not. And because of that decision, whether careless or calculated, the NFP leader now faces a credibility problem that goes far beyond sloppy paperwork.
What the Law Requires, and Why It Matters
The Act is clear. By 30 days after polling, every candidate must, under Mandatory Post-Election Financial Return - Form 6, file a complete statement of donations and expenditures. This is the only window in which the public sees what really happened behind the scenes of a campaign. Who funded the candidate? How was the money spent? Were there undisclosed interests, reimbursements, or benefits?
The law demands this disclosure precisely because the period immediately after an election is politically sensitive. Hidden transactions, repayments, or quiet “thank-you payments” cannot be swept under the rug. The 30-day return is the key safeguard against post-election influence. It is the section that tests a politician’s honesty when the votes are already counted.
The Contrast That Now Warrants A Criminal Investigation
Sashi Kiran, a first-time NFP candidate with far fewer resources than her party leader, submitted her declaration on 26 January 2023. Despite filing slightly after the cut-off, she completed the legally required 30-day disclosure section in full. She declared what the law asked her to declare.
Other NFP candidates presumably did the same.
Their forms itemised donations, named donors, recorded bank transfers, documented cash receipts, listed small and large expenditures, and accounted for every dollar. The compliance pattern was clear.
Only one candidate left that entire section out: Biman Chand Prasad.
This is no longer a technical omission. It is now a criminal offence under the PPAct.
Why Prasad’s Omission Cannot Be Explained Away
The standard template (Form 6) provided by the Fiji Elections Office contains the mandatory section. It cannot be deleted without intention. It appears in every compliant candidate’s form. Sashi Kiran complied one day after Prasad filed his own.
And this creates a simple, unavoidable question:
If his colleagues and subordinates completed the required section, why did Prasad choose not to?
The law criminalises incomplete declarations when done “knowingly or recklessly”. Prasad’s omission fits cleanly into either category:
Whether through intent or indifference, the result is the same: the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance filed a non-compliant, incomplete statutory return.
In any functioning system, such a breach would trigger immediate scrutiny, and consequences.
The Political Stakes Are Far Higher Than the Paperwork
This controversy does not exist in isolation. It arrives at a moment when Prasad is already facing two counts for his failure to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd in 2015.
Against this backdrop, the missing 30-day disclosure looks less like an error and more like a pattern.
A leader who demands transparency from others cannot exempt himself from the basic legal standards that bind every candidate, including first-timers like Sashi Kiran, who followed the law without hesitation.
Political accountability is not a sliding scale.
A Test of Institutions, and Public Patience
The Fiji Elections Office accepted a declaration that should have been rejected. That, too, is now part of the story. The integrity of the 2022 election reporting process hinges on equal enforcement. If the FEO was willing to overlook a missing statutory section for one candidate, especially one with ministerial ambitions, then its credibility is at stake.
For the public, the issue is simpler: When laws meant to ensure honesty are ignored, democracy weakens.
The 30-day disclosure requirement exists to protect the people from exactly this sort of concealment. When a political leader evades it, intentionally or otherwise, he undermines confidence not only in himself but in the entire system.
Conclusion
The contrast between Sashi Kiran’s compliance and Biman Prasad’s omission is now impossible to ignore. A grassroots candidate followed the law. The party leader did not. In political terms, the symbolism is devastating: the foot soldier upheld the standard that the general avoided.
This is no longer about forms and deadlines. It is about trust, integrity, and whether Fiji is prepared to accept one set of rules for the powerful and another for everyone else.
The public deserves answers, and the law deserves respect.
NEXT INSTALMENT: A clear legal answer on whether Biman Prasad has committed criminal offences by omitting the 30-day disclosure, and whether FICAC can lawfully file fresh charges based on this new revelation. YES. The omission constitutes a criminal offence under the Political Parties Act.
Most 2022 election candidates complied. Biman Chand Prasad did not. And because of that decision, whether careless or calculated, the NFP leader now faces a credibility problem that goes far beyond sloppy paperwork.
What the Law Requires, and Why It Matters
The Act is clear. By 30 days after polling, every candidate must, under Mandatory Post-Election Financial Return - Form 6, file a complete statement of donations and expenditures. This is the only window in which the public sees what really happened behind the scenes of a campaign. Who funded the candidate? How was the money spent? Were there undisclosed interests, reimbursements, or benefits?
The law demands this disclosure precisely because the period immediately after an election is politically sensitive. Hidden transactions, repayments, or quiet “thank-you payments” cannot be swept under the rug. The 30-day return is the key safeguard against post-election influence. It is the section that tests a politician’s honesty when the votes are already counted.
The Contrast That Now Warrants A Criminal Investigation
Sashi Kiran, a first-time NFP candidate with far fewer resources than her party leader, submitted her declaration on 26 January 2023. Despite filing slightly after the cut-off, she completed the legally required 30-day disclosure section in full. She declared what the law asked her to declare.
Other NFP candidates presumably did the same.
Their forms itemised donations, named donors, recorded bank transfers, documented cash receipts, listed small and large expenditures, and accounted for every dollar. The compliance pattern was clear.
Only one candidate left that entire section out: Biman Chand Prasad.
This is no longer a technical omission. It is now a criminal offence under the PPAct.
Why Prasad’s Omission Cannot Be Explained Away
The standard template (Form 6) provided by the Fiji Elections Office contains the mandatory section. It cannot be deleted without intention. It appears in every compliant candidate’s form. Sashi Kiran complied one day after Prasad filed his own.
And this creates a simple, unavoidable question:
If his colleagues and subordinates completed the required section, why did Prasad choose not to?
The law criminalises incomplete declarations when done “knowingly or recklessly”. Prasad’s omission fits cleanly into either category:
- He knew the section existed. His own party members completed it.
- He knew the law required it. It is the foundation of post-election transparency.
- He filed the form without it.
Whether through intent or indifference, the result is the same: the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance filed a non-compliant, incomplete statutory return.
In any functioning system, such a breach would trigger immediate scrutiny, and consequences.
The Political Stakes Are Far Higher Than the Paperwork
This controversy does not exist in isolation. It arrives at a moment when Prasad is already facing two counts for his failure to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd in 2015.
Against this backdrop, the missing 30-day disclosure looks less like an error and more like a pattern.
A leader who demands transparency from others cannot exempt himself from the basic legal standards that bind every candidate, including first-timers like Sashi Kiran, who followed the law without hesitation.
Political accountability is not a sliding scale.
A Test of Institutions, and Public Patience
The Fiji Elections Office accepted a declaration that should have been rejected. That, too, is now part of the story. The integrity of the 2022 election reporting process hinges on equal enforcement. If the FEO was willing to overlook a missing statutory section for one candidate, especially one with ministerial ambitions, then its credibility is at stake.
For the public, the issue is simpler: When laws meant to ensure honesty are ignored, democracy weakens.
The 30-day disclosure requirement exists to protect the people from exactly this sort of concealment. When a political leader evades it, intentionally or otherwise, he undermines confidence not only in himself but in the entire system.
Conclusion
The contrast between Sashi Kiran’s compliance and Biman Prasad’s omission is now impossible to ignore. A grassroots candidate followed the law. The party leader did not. In political terms, the symbolism is devastating: the foot soldier upheld the standard that the general avoided.
This is no longer about forms and deadlines. It is about trust, integrity, and whether Fiji is prepared to accept one set of rules for the powerful and another for everyone else.
The public deserves answers, and the law deserves respect.
NEXT INSTALMENT: A clear legal answer on whether Biman Prasad has committed criminal offences by omitting the 30-day disclosure, and whether FICAC can lawfully file fresh charges based on this new revelation. YES. The omission constitutes a criminal offence under the Political Parties Act.
 The leader of the National Federation Party and Member of Parliament, Professor Biman Prasad, has pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against him by FICAC. Professor Prasad has been charged with two counts of failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements. |  |
He is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, after he allegedly recklessly submitted a declaration that omitted his directorship, rendering the document materially false.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu told the court that there had been some delays on the part of the judge regarding the permanent stay application to be heard in the High Court.
Naidu also requested that the mention be set for the end of January, and the court has approved this.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu told the court that there had been some delays on the part of the judge regarding the permanent stay application to be heard in the High Court.
Naidu also requested that the mention be set for the end of January, and the court has approved this.
Professor Prasad will be travelling overseas on the 20th of this month and is expected to return on the 27th, FICAC did not object to his travel.
The matter has been set for mention on 26 January 2026.
Senior Counsel Joseph Works (left) appeared for FICAC.
It was revealed that on or about 30th December 2015, in Suva, Prasad, as an officeholder of the registered National Federation Party under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, allegedly failed to comply with Section 24(1) (b) (iv) by omitting to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Pte Limited in his annual declaration of assets, liabilities, and income submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties.
Prasad is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, having allegedly recklessly submitted a declaration omitting his directorship, which rendered it materially false.
The matter has been set for mention on 26 January 2026.
Senior Counsel Joseph Works (left) appeared for FICAC.
It was revealed that on or about 30th December 2015, in Suva, Prasad, as an officeholder of the registered National Federation Party under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, allegedly failed to comply with Section 24(1) (b) (iv) by omitting to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Pte Limited in his annual declaration of assets, liabilities, and income submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties.
Prasad is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, having allegedly recklessly submitted a declaration omitting his directorship, which rendered it materially false.
The law requires that every election candidate must, within 30 days after polling day, submit Form 6 – Particulars of Monies, Donations and Expenditure After Polling Day (as prescribed by Schedule 2 of the Act). This is obligatory under:
This is not a partial omission or incomplete return. The entire statutory form is missing.
Legal Consequences
The Act treats non-filing of Form 6 as a strict-liability offence. The penalty under the Act is:
Because Form 6 is the principal mechanism for identifying sources of campaign money, donations, and expenditure, the complete omission amounts to prima facie evidence of a serious breach.
Public-Interest Considerations
This breach is particularly significant because Biman Chand Prasad was:
This undermines the integrity of Fiji’s political finance regime.
- Section 23(4): mandatory declaration of all monies, donations, and expenditure in the prescribed form
- Section 24: offences relating to false or misleading declarations
- Section 27: failure to furnish financial records and returns
This is not a partial omission or incomplete return. The entire statutory form is missing.
Legal Consequences
The Act treats non-filing of Form 6 as a strict-liability offence. The penalty under the Act is:
- Fine up to $50,000,
- Imprisonment up to 10 years,
- Or both,
Because Form 6 is the principal mechanism for identifying sources of campaign money, donations, and expenditure, the complete omission amounts to prima facie evidence of a serious breach.
Public-Interest Considerations
This breach is particularly significant because Biman Chand Prasad was:
- a sitting Deputy Prime Minister in Rabuka's Coalition government
- Minister for Finance,
- and Leader of a political party.
This undermines the integrity of Fiji’s political finance regime.
*Sashi Kiran, a first-time NFP candidate with far fewer resources than her party leader, submitted her declaration on 26 January 2023. Despite filing slightly after the cut-off, she completed the legally required 30-day disclosure section in full. She declared what the law asked her to declare: itemised donations, named donors, recorded bank transfers, documented cash receipts, listed small and large expenditures, and accounted for every dollar. The compliance pattern was clear.
