 |  |
| Biman Prasad Boasted of FIAS to Win Votes — Then Hid It from the Law  In politics, credibility is currency. And during Fiji’s 2022 general election, Biman Prasad, leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) and now Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, traded heavily on his role as a respected academic and economist. To seal his appeal, he flaunted a title: Director of the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS). That title wasn’t incidental — it was central. It appeared prominently on the NFP’s campaign website and in public speeches. It was used to present Prasad as a man of ideas, independence, and global insight — the thinking voter’s candidate. |  |
But once the votes were counted and the ministerial seat secured, that very title vanished — not from his résumé, but from his legal obligations.
In his 2023 statutory declaration of assets, liabilities and interests (for the year ending 2022), Prasad completely failed to disclose that he was a director of FIAS — the very organisation he invoked to earn public trust. This is not only hypocritical. It is, by any measure, a violation of the Political Parties Act, and potentially a criminal offence.
The Law Is Clear — And He Breached It
Under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, every party leader must declare all directorships or positions in organisations, whether paid or unpaid, in their annual declaration.
Prasad’s declaration for the year ending 2022 should have disclosed his FIAS directorship — the same role he had publicly highlighted during that year’s election campaign. He did not.
This makes his declaration materially false, in direct violation of Section 27(2)(g) of the Act. That provision makes it a criminal offence to:
“make a false declaration or provide false information in any statement or document required under this Act.”
The penalty? A fine of up to $50,000, five years’ imprisonment, or both — and in the case of conviction, automatic disqualification from public office for five years.
Two Faces of Public Life
The deeper problem is not merely legal — it’s moral. Biman Prasad presented one face to the public, and another to the law. To the voters, he was Director of FIAS — an intellectual heavyweight. To the Supervisor of Elections and the Registrar of Political Parties, he was — apparently — nothing of the sort.
That is not a minor oversight. It is a calculated act of omission. He used the FIAS title to enhance his credibility when it served his ambition — and then deliberately withheld it from the legal disclosure process once in power.
This is not just about paper trails. It’s about trust.
Why It Matters
Instead, they were sold a curated image — while the legally required facts were kept in the dark.
What Now?
This is not just a matter for public discussion — it is a matter for investigation.
The law is not a tool for ordinary citizens and a shield for politicians. It must apply to all — especially those who write it.
From Boast to Breach
The man who boasted of FIAS when it suited him, now stands accused of hiding it when it mattered most.
That is not merely ironic — it is emblematic of the deeper rot in political accountability.
Biman Prasad should be held to account — not just for what he told the voters, but for what he failed to tell the law.
This is not a technical oversight — it is a matter of public integrity. A Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister who publicly promoted his directorship to voters, but failed to disclose it in a legally required statutory declaration, has breached the Political Parties Act and may have committed a criminal offence.
Prasad’s 2023 statutory declaration, filed pursuant to Section 24 of the Political Parties Act, makes no reference whatsoever to his directorship or involvement with FIAS.
This is a serious omission. Section 24(1)(f) of the Act requires party officials to declare:
“Any directorships or other positions held in any company or organization, whether or not remunerated.”
False Declaration – Section 27(2)(g)
The failure to disclose a known, public, and self-declared leadership role constitutes a false declaration under Section 27(2)(g) of the Act, which states:
“A person must not make a false declaration or provide false information in any statement or document required under this Act.”
Statutory Offence and Penalties
A breach of Section 27 constitutes an offence under Section 27(5), punishable upon conviction by:
*A fine not exceeding $50,000,
* for up to 5 years, or
*Both.
Furthermore, under Section 27(6):
“A person convicted of an offence under this Act shall not be eligible to hold public office for a period of five years.”
In his 2023 statutory declaration of assets, liabilities and interests (for the year ending 2022), Prasad completely failed to disclose that he was a director of FIAS — the very organisation he invoked to earn public trust. This is not only hypocritical. It is, by any measure, a violation of the Political Parties Act, and potentially a criminal offence.
The Law Is Clear — And He Breached It
Under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, every party leader must declare all directorships or positions in organisations, whether paid or unpaid, in their annual declaration.
Prasad’s declaration for the year ending 2022 should have disclosed his FIAS directorship — the same role he had publicly highlighted during that year’s election campaign. He did not.
This makes his declaration materially false, in direct violation of Section 27(2)(g) of the Act. That provision makes it a criminal offence to:
“make a false declaration or provide false information in any statement or document required under this Act.”
The penalty? A fine of up to $50,000, five years’ imprisonment, or both — and in the case of conviction, automatic disqualification from public office for five years.
Two Faces of Public Life
The deeper problem is not merely legal — it’s moral. Biman Prasad presented one face to the public, and another to the law. To the voters, he was Director of FIAS — an intellectual heavyweight. To the Supervisor of Elections and the Registrar of Political Parties, he was — apparently — nothing of the sort.
That is not a minor oversight. It is a calculated act of omission. He used the FIAS title to enhance his credibility when it served his ambition — and then deliberately withheld it from the legal disclosure process once in power.
This is not just about paper trails. It’s about trust.
Why It Matters
- Declarations exist for a reason: to give voters and regulators a full picture of any positions, affiliations, or potential conflicts of interest that public office holders may have.
- When a senior minister withholds relevant roles, it undermines the system’s integrity — and sets a dangerous precedent for concealment and evasion.
- Prasad’s directorship may have had policy relevance, influence, or funding implications — and the public had a right to know if he held that role during the election year.
Instead, they were sold a curated image — while the legally required facts were kept in the dark.
What Now?
This is not just a matter for public discussion — it is a matter for investigation.
- The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) must launch a formal inquiry into this false declaration under Section 27.
- The Supervisor of Elections and Registrar of Political Parties must also examine whether Prasad’s non-disclosure affects his standing as a validly declared official.
- And if found guilty, the consequences must follow the law — including disqualification.
The law is not a tool for ordinary citizens and a shield for politicians. It must apply to all — especially those who write it.
From Boast to Breach
The man who boasted of FIAS when it suited him, now stands accused of hiding it when it mattered most.
That is not merely ironic — it is emblematic of the deeper rot in political accountability.
Biman Prasad should be held to account — not just for what he told the voters, but for what he failed to tell the law.
This is not a technical oversight — it is a matter of public integrity. A Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister who publicly promoted his directorship to voters, but failed to disclose it in a legally required statutory declaration, has breached the Political Parties Act and may have committed a criminal offence.
Prasad’s 2023 statutory declaration, filed pursuant to Section 24 of the Political Parties Act, makes no reference whatsoever to his directorship or involvement with FIAS.
This is a serious omission. Section 24(1)(f) of the Act requires party officials to declare:
“Any directorships or other positions held in any company or organization, whether or not remunerated.”
False Declaration – Section 27(2)(g)
The failure to disclose a known, public, and self-declared leadership role constitutes a false declaration under Section 27(2)(g) of the Act, which states:
“A person must not make a false declaration or provide false information in any statement or document required under this Act.”
Statutory Offence and Penalties
A breach of Section 27 constitutes an offence under Section 27(5), punishable upon conviction by:
*A fine not exceeding $50,000,
* for up to 5 years, or
*Both.
Furthermore, under Section 27(6):
“A person convicted of an offence under this Act shall not be eligible to hold public office for a period of five years.”
From Fijileaks Archive, 10 August 2024
From: Ganesh Chand
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022, 11:37 am
Subject: FIAS
To: Nadesa Goundar , Biman Prasad, Ravindra Pillay, Rajni Chand Kaushal, Sunil Kumar, Chandra Dulare, sk.clabss
While CP is getting FIAS registered in Aus[tralia], for Fiji can you think on how we can get it legal again?
Options:
1. re-register as trust
2. register as non-profit entity
3. create an institute within P[acific] P[olytech] (like you have centres etc at USP)
4. create new entity - a new think tank (for which CP is writing the proposal for funding)
G [Ganesh]
Viti Pulse News Analysis
Controversial Rise of Pacific Polytech: Millions in Public Funds, Political Favouritism, and a Shadow of Conflict.
In just under two years, Pacific Polytech Institute has gone from a little-known private training provider to one of the most heavily funded tertiary institutions in Fiji, Drawing FJD 7 million in the 2025–2026 national budget, up from $5 million last year. The meteoric rise of this newly formed institution has ignited widespread public backlash, raising serious concerns about political favoritism, governance ethics, and the misdirection of taxpayer resources.
At the center of the controversy is Vice-Chancellor Ganesh Chand, a familiar and divisive figure in Fiji’s education landscape, and Finance Minister Biman Prasad, whose personal and familial ties to Pacific Polytech are under increasing scrutiny.
Fiscal Year Allocation (FJD) Notes
2022–2023 $0 No allocation; institute not yet listed
2023–2024 $1 million First direct grant via Higher Education Commission
2024–2025 $5 million Sharp increase, no public tender process
2025–2026 $7 million Current budget allocation
In contrast, institutions such as the University of Fiji and Sangam Institute of Technology, both with decades of service and thousands of students, received only $5 million and $546,000 respectively in the same budget cycle.
The controversy deepened following revelations that Minister Biman Prasad’s wife, Rajni Chand, was formerly a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute (GGI) — the very organization that seeded Pacific Polytech in 2021 with support from Ganesh Chand and international partners.
In 2023, the GGI received between FJD 200,000–500,000 in Girmit celebration funds, despite previously being deregistered by the Registrar of Companies for failing to submit audited financial reports. The organization was re-registered in under 24 hours, just days before receiving its government grant.
Public calls for transparency grew louder after the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) reportedly raided Pacific Polytech and related entities in 2024, searching for documentation on Girmit funding, budget allocations, and internal transfers.
Ganesh Chand’s tenure as founding Vice-Chancellor of the Fiji National University ended in scandal. In 2014, he was charged by FICAC for alleged abuse of office — charges later withdrawn — yet public distrust lingered.
Critics argue his return at the helm of a newly government-funded institution reflects a failure of vetting and a growing culture of political shielding. Internal whistleblowers also allege that resources were transferred from Chand’s other academic ventures, such as the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS), to support the launch of Pacific Polytech — a claim yet to be formally investigated.
Minister Biman Prasad has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Yet the proximity of his wife to the founding trust, his oversight of the national budget, and the extraordinary funding granted to a private institute have led to accusations of conflict of interest and political favouritism.
Former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and other political leaders have called for a full-scale audit and independent inquiry into all public monies disbursed to Pacific Polytech, GGI, and associated bodies.
“This is not just a case of misallocation — it’s the politicisation of public education funding at the expense of national integrity,” Chaudhry said in an earlier statement.
While Pacific Polytech received an additional $2 million boost this year, others continue to struggle:
• University of Fiji: $5 million
• Sangam Institute of Technology: $546,000
• Fiji National University: $36.5 million
• USP: $38.5 million, including repayments of arrears
With enrolment figures at Pacific Polytech reportedly under 2,000 students, critics argue it is unjustified to prioritize it over larger institutions serving broader academic and regional needs.
As investigations continue behind closed doors, questions remain unanswered:
• Was there a formal and competitive process for funding allocation?
• Why were conflict-of-interest protocols not triggered within the Ministry of Finance?
• Have any of the entities involved — including Pacific Polytech and GGI — submitted publicly accessible audited accounts?
The funding of Pacific Polytech Institute is quickly becoming a symbol of what many see as increasing political capture of public institutions. Until independent audits are published and legal reviews conducted, the public trust remains compromised.
With the 2025–2026 budget now enacted and Pacific Polytech again among the top tertiary recipients, the question must be asked:
Is this truly about strengthening education — or rewarding loyalty?
Controversial Rise of Pacific Polytech: Millions in Public Funds, Political Favouritism, and a Shadow of Conflict.
In just under two years, Pacific Polytech Institute has gone from a little-known private training provider to one of the most heavily funded tertiary institutions in Fiji, Drawing FJD 7 million in the 2025–2026 national budget, up from $5 million last year. The meteoric rise of this newly formed institution has ignited widespread public backlash, raising serious concerns about political favoritism, governance ethics, and the misdirection of taxpayer resources.
At the center of the controversy is Vice-Chancellor Ganesh Chand, a familiar and divisive figure in Fiji’s education landscape, and Finance Minister Biman Prasad, whose personal and familial ties to Pacific Polytech are under increasing scrutiny.
Fiscal Year Allocation (FJD) Notes
2022–2023 $0 No allocation; institute not yet listed
2023–2024 $1 million First direct grant via Higher Education Commission
2024–2025 $5 million Sharp increase, no public tender process
2025–2026 $7 million Current budget allocation
In contrast, institutions such as the University of Fiji and Sangam Institute of Technology, both with decades of service and thousands of students, received only $5 million and $546,000 respectively in the same budget cycle.
The controversy deepened following revelations that Minister Biman Prasad’s wife, Rajni Chand, was formerly a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute (GGI) — the very organization that seeded Pacific Polytech in 2021 with support from Ganesh Chand and international partners.
In 2023, the GGI received between FJD 200,000–500,000 in Girmit celebration funds, despite previously being deregistered by the Registrar of Companies for failing to submit audited financial reports. The organization was re-registered in under 24 hours, just days before receiving its government grant.
Public calls for transparency grew louder after the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) reportedly raided Pacific Polytech and related entities in 2024, searching for documentation on Girmit funding, budget allocations, and internal transfers.
Ganesh Chand’s tenure as founding Vice-Chancellor of the Fiji National University ended in scandal. In 2014, he was charged by FICAC for alleged abuse of office — charges later withdrawn — yet public distrust lingered.
Critics argue his return at the helm of a newly government-funded institution reflects a failure of vetting and a growing culture of political shielding. Internal whistleblowers also allege that resources were transferred from Chand’s other academic ventures, such as the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS), to support the launch of Pacific Polytech — a claim yet to be formally investigated.
Minister Biman Prasad has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Yet the proximity of his wife to the founding trust, his oversight of the national budget, and the extraordinary funding granted to a private institute have led to accusations of conflict of interest and political favouritism.
Former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and other political leaders have called for a full-scale audit and independent inquiry into all public monies disbursed to Pacific Polytech, GGI, and associated bodies.
“This is not just a case of misallocation — it’s the politicisation of public education funding at the expense of national integrity,” Chaudhry said in an earlier statement.
While Pacific Polytech received an additional $2 million boost this year, others continue to struggle:
• University of Fiji: $5 million
• Sangam Institute of Technology: $546,000
• Fiji National University: $36.5 million
• USP: $38.5 million, including repayments of arrears
With enrolment figures at Pacific Polytech reportedly under 2,000 students, critics argue it is unjustified to prioritize it over larger institutions serving broader academic and regional needs.
As investigations continue behind closed doors, questions remain unanswered:
• Was there a formal and competitive process for funding allocation?
• Why were conflict-of-interest protocols not triggered within the Ministry of Finance?
• Have any of the entities involved — including Pacific Polytech and GGI — submitted publicly accessible audited accounts?
The funding of Pacific Polytech Institute is quickly becoming a symbol of what many see as increasing political capture of public institutions. Until independent audits are published and legal reviews conducted, the public trust remains compromised.
With the 2025–2026 budget now enacted and Pacific Polytech again among the top tertiary recipients, the question must be asked:
Is this truly about strengthening education — or rewarding loyalty?
